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.

To take the plasma HH example, an appropriate conversion IMO would have been a pair of Railrifles on the turret. Not a pair of Railguns.

 Grey Templar wrote:
To take the plasma HH example, an appropriate conversion IMO would have been a pair of Railrifles on the turret. Not a pair of Railguns.

As I said, 2 Ion Cannons would be much closer to what they do if you were going for a conversion. Ion Cannons have 3 shots at strength 7 AP3. TL Plasma Guns have 4 TL shots at strength 7 AP3, so they are nearly identical. The problem is that Ion Cannons do not look as nice.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Not allowing Forge World proxies would solve everything. Twin linked railguns fails the rule of cool (IMO).

I agree. It's hard enough to take in all the additional forgeworld models (which I agree, are a good thing for the hobby) without adding in not using the actual models. We all know the difference between someone who is using a "counts as" army as a plus and the opposite, those who are use proxies because they haven't put in the effort to convert or acquire the FW models.

I think it is pretty easy to model your own FW model without proxying.

I guess that comes down to the difference between scratchbuilding and proxying. Proxying is annoying, but scratchbuilding/conversion/counts-as meant to look like the original is fine with me.

 jy2 wrote:
So while it is the responsibility of the party with the conversions to disclose, I'd say it's just as important for the other party to not assume and just ask if a model looks weird or out of the ordinary.

All this does is push the burden then to someone that already has more of a burden in the game by having to keep track of their opponents counts as models. This in and of itself creates a competitive advantage for the player using the counts as models. Tournament organizers need to impress upon their attendees that while counts as may be acceptable, the responsibility is on the player using the counts as model(s). An opponent can ask, but it is not their responsibility.

As someone who likes to run some pretty heavily converted armies I have to agree with IM. I always strive to make it so the burden of my army impacts my opponent the least up to and including tiny labels if people feel like they need them.

Counts-AS armies need to be clearly modeled, and players need to be clear about explaining how they are modeled. There's really no way to put that burden on their opponents.

That said, while TO's need to make sure their rules put the onus on the counts-as, this doesn't change the fact that as a gamer, you can prevent suffering from even bad rulings by going through your opponent's army list / army, and confirming what's what.

A TO shouldn't be telling opponents 'on you to make sure you get it,' but they still SHOULD as players be trying to get it ... no matter what rule a TO has, if you don't proactively confirm everything, you are sill just as likely to get into a he-said she-said if your opponent is seedy to begin with. Someone willing to shuffle the boundaries and not mea-culpa on a poor conversion issue (or intentional one) is just as unwilling to mea culpa to a judge (and there are plenty who will argue they showed you their list and told you what was what, even if they didn't).

I think in the net that while a TO needs to put the onus on the converter/counts-as to be responsible, ALL players should proactively do things to protect themselves from getting into a game and having it in some way diminished or ruined by a confusion or deception, EVEN if there's a subsequent appropriate recourse for resolution w/in the tournament packet (aformentioned clear onus on the counts-as-owner).

 Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
So while it is the responsibility of the party with the conversions to disclose, I'd say it's just as important for the other party to not assume and just ask if a model looks weird or out of the ordinary.

All this does is push the burden then to someone that already has more of a burden in the game by having to keep track of their opponents counts as models. This in and of itself creates a competitive advantage for the player using the counts as models. Tournament organizers need to impress upon their attendees that while counts as may be acceptable, the responsibility is on the player using the counts as model(s). An opponent can ask, but it is not their responsibility.

Having seen the pictures I would not have questioned at all that it was going to be firing a rail gun of some sort at me.

 Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
So while it is the responsibility of the party with the conversions to disclose, I'd say it's just as important for the other party to not assume and just ask if a model looks weird or out of the ordinary.

All this does is push the burden then to someone that already has more of a burden in the game by having to keep track of their opponents counts as models. This in and of itself creates a competitive advantage for the player using the counts as models. Tournament organizers need to impress upon their attendees that while counts as may be acceptable, the responsibility is on the player using the counts as model(s). An opponent can ask, but it is not their responsibility.

I agree that the person with the converted model needs to tell his opponent. In a perfect world, he probably would. However, in a tournament environment where you've already played 5-6 games, people get tired and then people forget. Also, sometimes people are just so used to their models that they may just subconsciously think that other people will know what it is by looking at it. Even I've been guilty of this (forgot to tell my opponent about the grey knight brotherhood banner in 1 game that we played and he charged his Swarmlord into my unit). I doubt that the player was trying to deliberately mislead his opponent, not when you put so much care and hard work into making your army so pretty. He most likely just made a mistake and forgot to tell his opponent.

In any case, this type of problem can be avoided (or at least minimized) if both parties can put a little effort into it. If not, then you get into the situation that those 2 players got themselves into. One person runs the risk of getting screwed and the other person runs the risk of getting docked on Sportsmanship or maybe even disqualified for something that was most likely an honest mistake on his part.

 Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
So while it is the responsibility of the party with the conversions to disclose, I'd say it's just as important for the other party to not assume and just ask if a model looks weird or out of the ordinary.

All this does is push the burden then to someone that already has more of a burden in the game by having to keep track of their opponents counts as models. This in and of itself creates a competitive advantage for the player using the counts as models. Tournament organizers need to impress upon their attendees that while counts as may be acceptable, the responsibility is on the player using the counts as model(s). An opponent can ask, but it is not their responsibility.

AGREE. And just because you have explained it once doesn't mean I won't need to ask again especially if the 'counts as' is confusing or a flat out proxy in the example here where a railgun which has valid rules and can be mounted on that tank is being used as 'something else'. Thousands of decisions are made upon appearance in players heads every minute... I can *SAY* it is another weapon all day long but he still may confuse it if it is not clear. A player shouldn't be expecting to have to juggle unclear conversions as part of the tourney, especially when his opponent doesn't need to do the same.

I guarantee if I take a Battlewagon with a Supahkannon or Liftdroppa, and it is not FW official models, you won't be confusing it with a stock battlewagon with a kannon/zzap or killkannon. If I used a regular killkannon or Zzap gun to represent a supahkannon or Liftdroppa, then I have failed at 'counts as' and have burdened my opponent which is unfair in a competitive game.

BTW, the Tau army in question is here. The player won Best Appearance for his beautiful army.





And the vehicles in question in the 1st photogragh are the 2 "hammerheads" with what is converted to look like twin-linked railguns (I don't know the name of the Forge World vehicle). Now it isn't WYSIWYG, but it doesn't exactly look like a codex hammerhead either.


And for the record, I do agree it is the responsibility of the person with the conversions to explain clearly. Just posting the picture so you guys can decide for yourselves.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, the Tau army in question is here. The player won Best Appearance for his beautiful army.

And the vehicles in question in the 1st photogragh are the 2 "hammerheads" with what is converted to look like twin-linked railguns (I don't know the name of the Forge World vehicle). Now it isn't WYSIWYG, but it doesn't exactly look like a codex hammerhead either.

And for the record, I do agree it is the responsibility of the person with the conversions to explain clearly. Just posting the picture so you guys can decide for yourselves.

So, it is pretty weird that this comes up after the event. Some random guy's half-painted army has an incorrect conversion for his FW? People probably don't notice. How many event staff and players looked at this army and nobody noticed that he had a non-existent setup for his turret. I think that is the real barrier to FW at events... I know pretty much what to expect from every codex army and can tell when something is obviously counts-as, not so much with FW. No one said that it looked like a codex Hammerhead, I believe Blackmoor said he just assumed it was some sort of TL-Railgun from FW thathe wasn't aware of.

It is beautiful, don't get me wrong. I think the guy did an amazing job. But with all the work he put into that army, was getting two FW turret sets or converting, scratchbuilding something that actually looks like them too much to ask? I actually hold him to a higher standard because he isn't half-thrown together, half-unpainted 'I need FW to compete' guy.

 jy2 wrote:


And the vehicles in question in the 1st photogragh are the 2 "hammerheads" with what is converted to look like twin-linked railguns (I don't know the name of the Forge World vehicle). Now it isn't WYSIWYG, but it doesn't exactly look like a codex hammerhead either.

But a railgun still looks exactly like a railgun. And when you put two of them, you expect them to become wither a dual shot, or Twin-linked RAILGUN... not combining two weapons which you are aware of into a different kind of weapon.

This is what it was supposed to be I assume:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Tau/TAU-VEHICLES/TAU-HAMMERHEAD-TWIN-LINKED-PLASMA-CANNON-TURRET.html
Sorry... Plasma cannons are weapons in the Tau armory... I do not think it is reasonable to use a railgun as a plasmacannon when you could just use a plasma cannon to represent a plasma cannon.

Some of the best armies I have ever seen fall under the category of abusive 'counts as' and become a nightmare to be paired against at a tourney. Worst game I have ever had at a GT was against a Squat Speed Freek army which was amazing to look at but didn't match the ork armageddon speedfreeks codex at all.

Especially when we have the internet and build threads... It is easy to get feedback on 'is this going to confuse people?' when building your models.

I would have never thought to ask if the railguns were a conversion. Having played against the actual model there is a huge difference. The player should have either made a much better conversion or have used the actual Forge World (IMO).

Its odd, I know the guy personally, He has quite a bit of forgeworld in his army, expensive ones too. I dont get why he doesnt have the actual turret.

Could be one of those situations where the local guys like him so much, and his army is so pretty, that no one wants to criticize.

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2013/03/13/bay-area-open-2013-in-retrospect/

Metrics of the event and analysis, pictures and such.

Enjoy!

Wow, not a good pic of me, I should have kept the coat closed.

Nah, don't sweat it, dude! Your costume is way cool, I thought you guys had a great team!

Thanks, would you believe that that is the uncompleted version? it is still getting made. lol.

#1. I wonder what % of armies even brought forge world (I only played 1).

#2. It seemed like most of the forge world was concentrated on the top tables.

I want to break down the armies in the top 15 to the amount of armies represented in the field. This gives an interesting look as to what armies did well, and which ones struggled.

It is also interesting that 4 out of the top 6 armies had IG in them, and that Space Marines, Grey Knights and Necrons went 0-36 for the top 15.

Also, a big shout-out to the Crystal Brush winner, Caleb Wissenbeck! Enjoy that free plane ticket to Adepticon!

Reecius wrote:http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2013/03/13/bay-area-open-2013-in-retrospect/

Metrics of the event and analysis, pictures and such.

Enjoy!

Great Article!

Hey, who are those men in tuxedos? the one on the left is quite a piece of work.

Mannahnin wrote:Could be one of those situations where the local guys like him so much, and his army is so pretty, that no one wants to criticize.

^^^ yeaahhh that[s pretty much it. I play him regularly and am a pretty good friend of his. Yeah it was used mainly because of personal opinion of it looking cooler (though I suggested dual ion cannons). The local guys like the conversion and once we saw that he listed something other than a railgun, he explained what it was, and that was that.

 Blackmoor wrote:
#1. I wonder what % of armies even brought forge world (I only played 1).

#2. It seemed like most of the forge world was concentrated on the top tables.

I want to break down the armies in the top 15 to the amount of armies represented in the field. This gives an interesting look as to what armies did well, and which ones struggled.

It is also interesting that 4 out of the top 6 armies had IG in them, and that Space Marines, Grey Knights and Necrons went 0-36 for the top 15.

Lyzz was without forge world.

Not sure about Alan or Paul, my guess is yes for IG

Cody was without forge world

I brought 3 sabers and a unit of 3 HB tarantulas

Not sure about Jason, my guess is yes for IG

Not sure about Alan Matt Jim or Jay. My guess is no for the 2 csm and nid, maybe for the pure space wolf

With or without forge world expect a lot of IG in the top brackets of a GT. IG is the chicken of 40k, we go with everything. Battle brothers with every imperial but gk, and allies of convenience with gk, csm, chaos deamons, and all xenos except necrons, DE, and nids.

My guess is that very few armies took forge world. Unfortunately there is no way to know what % of armies took it., but look at the Bat Reps, JYS2 did not play anyone with it, and I only had 1 out of 7 use it.

Then when you look at the results, 2 out of the top 3 armies had forge world, and 4 out of the top 6. The BAO should have been won by an army with forge world if it were not for some hot dice rolls. It seems to me like they might have disproportionally placed at the top.