Switch Theme:

Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy".  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Black Templar Dreadnought





Canada

Vulcan wrote: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.
I figure time or money is interchangeable.
You spend the time or the money to make it look good, a lazy substitution with little work has no "rule of cool" backing it.
As a "proxy" or "counts as" I agree that as long as it cannot be confused for another unit in that army.
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.
To address the "company making money", it is called offering stuff the original manufacturer has not.
Look at automotive add-on parts or kit-cars or other car companies that make their car shape the same as the expensive alternative,.
At their base unit, they are very much "Not Necrons" but if a theme can be made in the army to tie-them in, it would be doable.
What seems to suck ("looking down one's nose"?!?) is when it is a substitution that appears for the sake of it... "I had these models kicking around extra and decided to use them." no real thought in tying them in.
It was mentioned earlier, it is much better than the unpainted, armless bare plastic models or my favorite: the printed card proxies.
Spoiler:
DCannon4Life wrote: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.
I like this guideline, it seems reasonable.
I "think" your rule 3 means to include some element of WYSIWYG where there are some visual cues to the models loadout.
I find this is key to making your opponent "happy" because they do not have to keep remembering what these non-standard strange models are and do.
It would defeat the purpose if you have to issue a "legend" to define what each unit and corresponding weapon is in 40k terms.
A transport, flyer, fast attack, melta, flamer: they all should give a visual cue of their role. <edit> or bare minimum be VERY consistent of their look.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/20 15:45:54


A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Eddtheman wrote:
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.

Spoiler:





Ignoring the fact that all of these models are made from 100% GW parts...

   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




morgoth wrote:

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


Aren't you adorable.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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


It's hardly 'superbad' given that there would be no ambiguity as there is nothing else like them on the table and they would only be used for a single troop type. The close combat arm thing could just as easily be the close combat weapon that every infantry model in the game is armed with. I did consider terminators but it all depends on how big the actual models are, I haven't seen them in the flesh. The project has been shelved for the moment though as the army was heavily based on cultists and I didn't like my first batch of conversions and cultists seem amazingly bad on the table top so I am currently renovating my Death Guard instead.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





What really gets my goat is looking at hordes of unpainted grey plastic all looking alike. I can't STAND that, not least of which because it becomes difficult to tell space marine squad a from squad b from squad c. Not so bad if they're all the same, but it gets really bad if one is a tac squad, one is an assault squad, and one is a HW squad.

CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done. 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






Honestly i dont think it can ever cross over from conversion to proxy as they are two different things.

if you are converting then you are generally going to keep the size comparable and similar enough load out to make sense.

and its not like you need to glue every single marine with a bolt pistol and close combat weapon or something.

Proxies on the other hand is for when some one doesn't have enough models to fill out a list they are trying or what not and are generally temporary. it can be any model but in general just something comparable in size and form you grab off the shelf to get a game in.


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in gb
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body





Devon, UK

Eh, technically a proxy is also any other model you use that isn't the official one, even if that's a permanent choice.

I use a Mierce Krull as a Bloodthirster, Tigers Of Dirz as Fiends etc etc, I've no intention of ever using the official models because either I don't like them or prefer my alternative.

One can call them "counts as" but that's really just a euphemism for proxy.

We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark

The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox

Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




Building a blood in water scent

Quite a bit of gatekeeping in this thread.

If it's clear what the model is supposed to represent, and the owner has put a reasonable amount of effort into making it look decent, then the actual model shouldn't matter.

If one's opponent's models fulfill the above two criteria, and they are still vexing, then one is likely a bit of a control freak and should probably seek help before it degrades one's other, more important interpersonal relationships.

We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” 
   
Made in au
Been Around the Block




I've made big rants about this on other forums in years past, so I've copy/pasted my thoughts below (modified a tad since 8th added some interesting new opportunities). Arguments for and against this have been done to death with heavy casualties on all sides. For me this breaks down into several different components. This is all terminology I personally use, or has been used in my (fairly small) gaming circles, so it might not match how you picture it yourselves.

1) Substitution (aka Subbing). In my old gaming circle we used the term "subbing" to refer to temporarily using one model or object as another model, either for play testing new lists, units or equipment, or because we haven't completed the actual model. Generally I'm ok with this as long as the person doing the subbing has the intention of fielding the appropriate unit (or appropriate "Counts-as"), or if it's only short term. About 7 years back when I started getting back into 40k after a long break I had friends who were TERRIBLE with subbing. An Ork player would use his actual Ork Boyz as his elites choices and a hodgepodge of my old broken Tyranids and Chaos Space Marines as Ork Boyz, and a variety of old Chaos vehicles as basically whatever Ork vehicle he felt like fielding that day. Another player used stock standard Space Marines (also my models!) as Grey Knights and an egg carton as a landraider (the infamous egg-raider). This was all well and good when we started up, heck even I used cardboard cutouts to playtest Kroot Mercenaries and Dark Eldar Raiders at the time, but after a few months it became clear that neither of them had any intent on fielding proper armies which was a massive de-motivator for me having put in the money, time and effort to actually buy, assemble and (mostly) paint my army. To this day subbing leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I refuse to do it myself.

2) Counts-as units Not to be confused with subbing - this is using non-standard models to represent a normal unit on a permanent basis. For example using imperial guardsmen with pulse rifles as Fire Warriors in a Tau army, or in my case a unit of Dark Angels Veterans as Chosen Marines in my Chaos army before Fallen were a thing. This also extends to using non-GW models, such as Mantic's Forgefathers as Space Marines units, or how Pseudomonas is using Puppetswar robot thingies as Rubric Marines. In these cases I have absolutely no problem with Counts-as if the unit they're representing is easily identifiable as what they're supposed to be. Lets use my Dark Angels/Chosen as an example - I modelled them with the appropriate equipment for their unit's rules and gave them a few Chaosy bits to differentiate them from normal Dark Angels. I used the Cypher model as their unit champion equipped with bolt pistol, plasma pistol and power sword - a fairly silly combo but one matching the model. This was all pre-dataslates in 5th edition, and nobody questioned it. I think the key is to be reasonable and to not be confusing, and in Pseudomonas's case with the Robo-Rubric all it really takes is a quick "hey just FYI, these Dark Mechanicus robot things are using the Rubric Marine datasheet". As long as there's nothing else that is pretending to be Rubrics on the field, or they don't switch to being Plague Marines mid-game then I see no problem with that.

3) Counts-as armies When someone uses a different codex/army book to what their army actually is. The only instances of this I've actually come across is someone who was using the Blood Angels rules for their Chaos Space Marines army, and someone using Grey Knights as Chaos Space Marines, but I have heard of other. This was a big grey area for me, but not so much anymore. Generally I'm against it and here's why - motivation. Why are you using rules X for army Y? In 6th and most of 7th edition Chaos didn't have Legion rules, and I saw a lot of CSM players using rules from other codices to better represent their force, which was fine at the time. Now we have our Legions, and we have extremely flexible army building structure due to the variety of detachments. The main reason I see people codex-hopping in recent years is because a new book came out that is stronger than theirs and they want to use a better ruleset without investing in the army.
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Azreal13 wrote:
Eh, technically a proxy is also any other model you use that isn't the official one, even if that's a permanent choice.

I use a Mierce Krull as a Bloodthirster, Tigers Of Dirz as Fiends etc etc, I've no intention of ever using the official models because either I don't like them or prefer my alternative.

One can call them "counts as" but that's really just a euphemism for proxy.


That might be technically true by the dictionary definition, but I think it's a lot more than just a euphemism. A "counts as" model isn't the official model, and might not be 100% WYSIWYG, but it's a legitimate model that makes sense in the army. A proxy model is just a roughly model-shaped object to occupy space on the table, there's no attempt to make it a real or appropriate model. And from a game experience point of view those are two very different things. The "counts as" model is fun to play against, the blatant proxy takes away from the experience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fhanados wrote:
The main reason I see people codex-hopping in recent years is because a new book came out that is stronger than theirs and they want to use a better ruleset without investing in the army.


Why is this a problem? List construction is part of the strategy of 40k, and of course people are going to try to improve the strength of their lists. And this complaint seems especially silly in the context of space marine armies, where the only difference between them is the color they're painted and there are no rules forcing you to comply with any particular paint scheme.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/21 07:44:48


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





My favorite thing about the Inquisimunda/AoS28 community is the sheer amount of custom miniatures. Very few "stock" miniatures see the table and I don't think I've ever seen anyone talk about "proxy" or "counts as" or whatever. Everyone seems to get that you have the models and you use the rules needed to make it work in a game.

The larger warhammer community seems to be crippled by some really rigid thinking in comparison. I guess that's natural given how much people expect to play against strangers who are going to do things they don't like.

   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

WYSIWYG and conversions are completely different matters. You can have a scratch built model that is also 100% WYSIWYG like an ork trukk made of plasticard and bitz. I love conversions and I actually collected, over almost 20 years, only armies that can be converted and customized a lot.

Scratch built vehicles, converted standard miniatures into characters, home-made combi weapons, etc are amazing IMHO and I absolutely love this part of the hobby.

But they must be WYSIWYG, which means they must have similar size and the same loadout of the original models.

I also accept models that are not converted at all but belong to other companies if they really can replace the original models, for example Kromlech orks are acceptable to me, and I don't consider them proxies.

What I cannot accept is a pure proxy: a SM with a melta gun can't be considered as he had a plasma gun for example. A rhino is a rhino, not a razorback. A razorback with twin lascannon can't be played as it was equipped with twin assault cannon. These examples are proxies, and I tipycally not allow them unless I face inexperienced players that have only a few miniatures in their collection and they're learning how to play.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/21 09:08:05


 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Blackie wrote:
A razorback with twin lascannon can't be played as it was equipped with twin assault cannon. These examples are proxies, and I tipycally not allow them unless I face inexperienced players that have only a few miniatures in their collection and they're learning how to play.


That's just way too much WYSIWYG for my taste.

Making weapons swappable is a huge waste of time and it doesn't help anyone really.

Good thing most people are dropping that WYSIWYG requirement.
   
Made in nl
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






The difference between proxy and conversion?
A proxy is something that does not resemble the model it is supposed to represent on the tabletop. As mentioned above, a Space Marine with a different weapon than that he is supposed to have is a proxy, or a vehicle counting as another vehicle. Third party miniatures are usually also proxies (unless they resemble very closely the official miniatures).
A conversion is something that uses the original model (or one that closely resembles it) and then modifies it to give it an unique appearance while preserving the characteristics of the model it represents. Using 3rd party heads on your guardsmen, adding details with greenstuff, altering the pose of a character etc. are all examples of conversions.

Where do I draw the line? The proxy has to be roughly the same size as the model it represents, needs to be armed with the same weapons (which need to be clearly identifiable and not confusing) and it needs to fit into the aesthetic of your army and of 40k. The robot as rubric marine thing mentioned in this thread I would not find acceptable in a normal CSM or Thousand Sons army. But in an army made of proxies that is supposed to represent the Dark Mechanicus? That would be totally thematic and acceptable (again, as long as different units and weapon types are clearly identifiable). But things like trying to use a razorback that is very clearly equipped with twin lascannons as one that has assault cannons is a big no no. Assault cannons do not resemble lascannons and it would be really silly and confusing if your list had any other lascannons in it. Only way I'd want to play against that is if all of your lascannons are assault cannons (and assault cannons are lascannons). Making weapons swappable is only a little effort, so there is no real excuse to not do it, apart from laziness.

Basically, WYSIWYG is important. Both for the 'feel' of the game and for clarity (especially in larger games). Proxies are okay if they are WYSIWYG and fit the theme of your army/40k.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/09/21 11:04:35


Error 404: Interesting signature not found

 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




morgoth wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
A razorback with twin lascannon can't be played as it was equipped with twin assault cannon. These examples are proxies, and I tipycally not allow them unless I face inexperienced players that have only a few miniatures in their collection and they're learning how to play.


That's just way too much WYSIWYG for my taste.

Making weapons swappable is a huge waste of time and it doesn't help anyone really.

Good thing most people are dropping that WYSIWYG requirement.


*citation needed.
   
Made in gr
Longtime Dakkanaut




Halandri

I'd rather play against basic marine models with a first company paint job and the correct weapon being used as sterngard than the official models with the wrong weapons.

I'm sure there are many people who are the opposite.

Clearly a large part of WYSIWYG is personal taste / perspective.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/21 13:31:47


 
   
Made in kr
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

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.


I dunno.
I like them, dunno why they couldn't be Rubric marines, but the guns don't look much like bolters my only trouble...
I mean, they are cool and whatever, sure, but if it were me then I would use those for something else, like obliterators maybe that was a good suggestion.
The models seem like Necrons, but I can totally see them in a chaos army, and painted to match would have zero trouble and in fact be all complimentary about their use.
Creative, nifty, I like them...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nareik wrote:
I'd rather play against basic marine models with a first company paint job and the correct weapon being used as sterngard than the official models with the wrong weapons.

I'm sure there are many people who are the opposite.

Clearly a large part of WYSIWYG is personal taste / perspective.


Yeah, the model should have the right kit, that is pretty important when surveying the field for threats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
Spoiler:
The difference between proxy and conversion?
A proxy is something that does not resemble the model it is supposed to represent on the tabletop. As mentioned above, a Space Marine with a different weapon than that he is supposed to have is a proxy, or a vehicle counting as another vehicle. Third party miniatures are usually also proxies (unless they resemble very closely the official miniatures).
A conversion is something that uses the original model (or one that closely resembles it) and then modifies it to give it an unique appearance while preserving the characteristics of the model it represents. Using 3rd party heads on your guardsmen, adding details with greenstuff, altering the pose of a character etc. are all examples of conversions.

Where do I draw the line? The proxy has to be roughly the same size as the model it represents, needs to be armed with the same weapons (which need to be clearly identifiable and not confusing) and it needs to fit into the aesthetic of your army and of 40k. The robot as rubric marine thing mentioned in this thread I would not find acceptable in a normal CSM or Thousand Sons army. But in an army made of proxies that is supposed to represent the Dark Mechanicus? That would be totally thematic and acceptable (again, as long as different units and weapon types are clearly identifiable). But things like trying to use a razorback that is very clearly equipped with twin lascannons as one that has assault cannons is a big no no. Assault cannons do not resemble lascannons and it would be really silly and confusing if your list had any other lascannons in it. Only way I'd want to play against that is if all of your lascannons are assault cannons (and assault cannons are lascannons). Making weapons swappable is only a little effort, so there is no real excuse to not do it, apart from laziness.


Basically, WYSIWYG is important. Both for the 'feel' of the game and for clarity (especially in larger games). Proxies are okay if they are WYSIWYG and fit the theme of your army/40k.

This^^

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/21 17:59:46


   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




nareik wrote:
I'd rather play against basic marine models with a first company paint job and the correct weapon being used as sterngard than the official models with the wrong weapons.


I can't even begin to see how anyone could object to normal marines painted in first company (or equivalent) colours as Sternguard.

 jeff white wrote:

I like them, dunno why they couldn't be Rubric marines, but the guns don't look much like bolters my only trouble...


They were going to get an arm swap to something more bolterlike.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/21 20:01:00


 
   
Made in us
Hellish Haemonculus






Boskydell, IL

nareik wrote:
I'd rather play against basic marine models with a first company paint job and the correct weapon being used as sterngard than the official models with the wrong weapons.

I'm sure there are many people who are the opposite.

Clearly a large part of WYSIWYG is personal taste / perspective.


I would strenuously argue that a generic tac marine with the correct weapon bits being fielded as a sternguard is WYSIWYG. It has all the correct wargear (boltgun or upgrade weapon, power armor). Play on, player.

Welcome to the Freakshow!

(Leadership-shenanigans for Eldar of all types.) 
   
Made in au
Unstoppable Bloodthirster of Khorne





Melbourne .au

 cuda1179 wrote:
Through my years of playing 40k I have seen all levels of quality when it comes to conversions. Everything from near Golden Daemon standard to Army men used as Ogryn. Where is your personal line in the sand?[

Some examples I can think of include using loyalist marines as Chaos Marines. Many have done this with starter boxes to make cheap armies. While technically proxies, I have never heard anyone complain about it, not even in a GW tournament. The same is true if IG players that modeled their guardsmen with autoguns. Also a proxy, Fantasy wytches as Dark Eldar wyches, although I'm still fine with it.


Those are all "close enough" and for a long time the Dark Eldar range was a bit rubbish (sorry, Gary!) so there were LOTS of Dark Elf models and parts seen for those armies.



For some reason guys I've talked to draw the line at cult troops. It's "not 1000 sons" if it's just a marine with a bolter painted metallic blue.


For those, I'm going to say that it depends on how obvious it is compared to the rest of the army. Depending on the source, the Thousand Sons numbered between 10k and 85k marines during the heresy. No one is going to convince me that they all had fancy helmets at that time, and considering what they are "now" in the 41st millennium, I think making their armour more fancy might not be the top priority for those changed by the rubric. So it comes down to how (or how well) they're painted and/or modelled and how well that makes them stand out from the rest fo the (presumably) CSM army.


Or for those of us with older collections, some people have trouble accepting large combat knives as chainswords.
Where is your personal line?


Don't play with people like that is a pretty good place to start the line if they're unwilling to deal with older models.


 Chamberlain wrote:

Oh, and alternative miniatures should always be painted. If you're going to give your opponent non-standard general appearances they may as well be painted so they can be more easily identified.


Or to put it another way - all of your miniatures should ideally be painted. The identifying thing is just as relevant vs the different units contained in the "grey horde" armies that don't feature proxies or conversions


 ZergSmasher wrote:
I use Khorne Bloodreavers from Age of Sigmar as my Khorne Berzerkers and no one in my play group has complained. I feel that as long as a model is roughly the same size and shape and is an actual model (so no Dixie cups as drop pods) and has roughly equivalent wargear, it should be fine. All that matters is that the opponent can tell what something is, or rather that he can tell each type of unit apart from the others. Since my Berzerkers don't look like anything else I run, they work well.


Bloodreavers also look far, far better than the so very old and not ageing well Khorne Berserker models. Fingers crossed for a refresh on those inside the next year or so, hopefully after Slaanesh gets the proper treatment for the first time ever.


Pseudomonas wrote:
 cuda1179 wrote:

Or for those of us with older collections, some people have trouble accepting large combat knives as chainswords.


Well, they aren't.


With rules changes through the editions, they might well have to be.



My armies, including such things as Necromunda gangs, are always100% WYSIWYG while at the same time usually using some kind of proxy or miniatures from an other manufacturer. As long as it is obvious what a particular miniature is meant to represent there isn't an issue.


My Necro gangs followed (almost) the exact same procedure with the exception of Autogun/Lasgun or "Autopistol/Laspistol/Stub Pistol". Shotguns etc remaining distinct models. Until the model was complete in terms of painting. At that point, I've never been willing to chop up the model further or swap its bits around. I'd replace the model entirely in some circumstances (like a ganger changing loadout style entirely from "autogun" to "sword and pistol" or the like, but once the model was complete, it was, well, complete.

40k models follow pretty much the same outline, except I'm not chopping up my old Rogue Trader models or swapping out their weapons to stay in line with the latest edition's latest changes to their allowed armament. Which will change again later this edition or next edition. Hence that "chainsword" from up the page.


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I have some basic rules for the Marine army I'm planning to build, as I can only use my friend's models for so long.

1. Consistency is key. I plan to use Volkite Culvirens as my Grav Cannons, but I'm not gonna have one be a Multi-Melta and another as a Heavy Bolter.
2. Does it make sense to an extent? My Intercessors are gonna be Mk3 Marines holding Boarding Shields, with Combi-Bolters being my Grenade Launcher, as there's no equivalent for 40k. So hopefully that's fine. Maybe someone won't like it, so I just won't use that unit entry if my opponent is that much a whiner.


Agreed on consistency.

The MK3 Breacher marines would be better used as Company Veterans with Storm Shields & Combi-weapons/Storm Bolters as appropriate. Essentially, those models are perfectly codex-legal in 8th. They'd be odd as Intercessors with those huge boarding shields as Intercessors have the same armour save as regular marines.


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If I look at models and they're obviously not-Necrons, 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.


Rule of cool, baby. Painted in the appropriate way in a thematic "counts-as" army, they're fine. They're not Rubric marines. They're DM automatons that happen to be using the same rules as Rubric marines. At that point the rules are sort-of proxies as well as the models being proxies (as are pretty much all "unofficial" models, but as long as it's "book-legal" and everything looks cool, I'm happy to do it. I have entire KoW units (and one day, whole armies!) based around this concept and they look fething awesome.


 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


As we say in this country. fething Oath.

Aside from pointing out how that in fact is awful sportsmanship.


DCannon4Life wrote:
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.


But speaking of the whole "official models" thing, it gets real interesting when dealing with the many, many Generic Fantasy and Directly-Ripped-From-Historicals units in WHF/AoS. Is using a Mantic Zombie in place of a Games Workshop Zombie a Proxy? A Reaper Skeleton with spear in place of a Games Workshop Skeleton with spear? Is using a Kev Adams-sculpted Heartbreaker Fantasy Orc in a Warhammer Fantasy unit made up of Kev Adams-sculpted Games Workshop Fantasy Orcs a proxy? Perry-brothers sculpted Landsknechts from Foundry as Empire State Troops? Using Polish Winged Hussars from Warlord or Foundry as Kislev Winged Lancers?


Ruin wrote:

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


I honestly can't tell if he truly believes the gak he spouts or if he's just a troll. Throw him on ignore and let him live in his fantasy world where GW invented Winged Lancers and Landsknechts and the Chaos Star and Rambo and The Terminator. Works for me.


 Eddtheman wrote:
To me, a conversion has to be mostly built from GW parts.


Well, you're using the word wrong right off the bat. A conversion is a converted model. That's it. I've got converted models that contain no GW parts that I use for non-GW games. It doesn't make them not conversions. A conversion may also be a proxy, and may contain 0-100% GW (or Reaper, Mantic, Warlord, etc, etc) parts.


 Peregrine wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
Eh, technically a proxy is also any other model you use that isn't the official one, even if that's a permanent choice.
I use a Mierce Krull as a Bloodthirster, Tigers Of Dirz as Fiends etc etc, I've no intention of ever using the official models because either I don't like them or prefer my alternative.
One can call them "counts as" but that's really just a euphemism for proxy.


That might be technically true by the dictionary definition, but I think it's a lot more than just a euphemism. A "counts as" model isn't the official model, and might not be 100% WYSIWYG, but it's a legitimate model that makes sense in the army. A proxy model is just a roughly model-shaped object to occupy space on the table, there's no attempt to make it a real or appropriate model. And from a game experience point of view those are two very different things. The "counts as" model is fun to play against, the blatant proxy takes away from the experience.


Without meaning to be snarky, what you're forgetting is that many of us here don't spend all of our time on the internet or play out games with your local group using your local group's parlance and shorthand. Local groups will have their own shorthand terms for different things, and while we all come together on the internets, there are subtle nuances in local terms, even within something as niche as gaming jargon. Both uses of proxy make logical sense - "This fully painted Krull is my Proxy Bloodthirster" and "I'm proxying this sponsonless Predator for a Razorback today". Neither is wrong or an incorrect usage of the word even though the nuance of the term can be different to different groups of people, and it can come down to a very local usage of the term, right down to you and your three mates that you play with. No pretensions of "in my city we all..." as I keep seeing from some people on this forum (but thankfully, not this thread)...


Fhanados wrote:
The main reason I see people codex-hopping in recent years is because a new book came out that is stronger than theirs and they want to use a better ruleset without investing in the army.


Why is this a problem? List construction is part of the strategy of 40k, and of course people are going to try to improve the strength of their lists. And this complaint seems especially silly in the context of space marine armies, where the only difference between them is the color they're painted and there are no rules forcing you to comply with any particular paint scheme.

I'd say it's really only a problem if you paint your marines dark green with white winged sword icons and then tell me that they're Blood Angels today. If they're clearly from a named chapter that has its own specific rules, then don't do it. If you want to list-jump your space marine army then come up with an original scheme and/or chapter badge and then call them successors to whoever you like as much as you like. Just don't tell me that your fully-painted-blue with "U" icon Ultramarines are actually Space Wolves. (I mean, try it out for a game or two to see if you like the rules, but don't do it permanently!)


 Blackie wrote:

What I cannot accept is a pure proxy: a SM with a melta gun can't be considered as he had a plasma gun for example. A rhino is a rhino, not a razorback. A razorback with twin lascannon can't be played as it was equipped with twin assault cannon. These examples are proxies, and I tipycally not allow them unless I face inexperienced players that have only a few miniatures in their collection and they're learning how to play.


Depends on context. You don't get to "allow" or "disallow" anything unless you're a TO. You can choose to play or not play with a given individual, but that's a different matter.

Spoiler:

This guy was built during 3rd or 3.5 or somewhere around there. I'm pretty sure he was legal when he was built, anyway. I took most of a decade off 40k and now in 8th edition he most definitely can't have a thunder hammer, and the weapon look way too pissweak to be a power maul. My group's solution is that he can have the Thunder Hammer grandfathered in the the correct points and future models are, you know, built to the current rules as much as possible. (Hello Techmarines with Conversion Beamers!)

Spoiler:

Pretty much the same deal with this guy, who has a power sword.

Then there's the "Original (often Rogue Trader-era) model has a thing that's no longer a thing in the current rules" thing. Along with Index vs Codex in 8th. Original RT-era PA SM and/or the SM Scout with Shuriken catapult? Both of them are going to have something that's not a shuriken catapult, and if I were playing you I'd politely ask you to pack up your stuff and move on if you told me that you were "disallowing" my model(s). That also applies to my RT-era Predator that has been converted to a Razorback with Las/Plas.


 Iron_Captain wrote:
The robot as rubric marine thing mentioned in this thread I would not find acceptable in a normal CSM or Thousand Sons army. But in an army made of proxies that is supposed to represent the Dark Mechanicus? That would be totally thematic and acceptable (again, as long as different units and weapon types are clearly identifiable).
...
Basically, WYSIWYG is important. Both for the 'feel' of the game and for clarity (especially in larger games). Proxies are okay if they are WYSIWYG and fit the theme of your army/40k.


I believe that the guy who was talking about using the robots as rubrics was planning a Khorne-themed SM+Dark Mechanicus army using the CSM rules. In that context I think they work perfectly as Rubrics, as we all know Khorne hates psykers, so (to me) it makes more sense than having 10 Khorne Berserkers and 10 Thousand Sons in the same army that probably only has about 40 guys in powered armour in total. Nothing wrong with having cool models that fit the army theme you want to use then finding the post appropriate rules to use for them, as long as it's not abusive or confusing to your opponent. Rule of Cool again. So that WHFB Empire army being used as counts-as Dark Eldar doesn't fit the RoC.


Well, that was fun! I should go paint some models now!

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





I am generally ok with conversions so long as I know what it is I am facing, I dont like proxy up to a point, If I am playing 40k, I want to play against 40k models,. I am not interested in what ifs or crossovers. I have played WoK against a proxy goritsi force that was all confrontation wolfen, I was ok with it because they are very similar. the models above (the notnecrons) as rubrics, I would not.
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran



Canada

I will proxy in pick-up games when I am trying something out. So I might say: "Hey, this Landspeeder is a proxy for a Landspeeder Vengeance - I want to try it out before I go hunting on eBay. You cool with that?" My model being the proxy will not have any duplicates being something else to avoid confusion. So all the Landspeeder models would have to be Vengeance models if I wanted to proxy. I have a Plan B if my opponent objects. I never proxy in a tournament. I suppose I don't really do conversions, but its hard to see how somebody would object to a conversion unless it was modeling for advantage?

Cheers!



All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in au
Unstoppable Bloodthirster of Khorne





Melbourne .au

 thekingofkings wrote:
I am generally ok with conversions so long as I know what it is I am facing, I dont like proxy up to a point, If I am playing 40k, I want to play against 40k models,. I am not interested in what ifs or crossovers. I have played WoK against a proxy goritsi force that was all confrontation wolfen, I was ok with it because they are very similar. the models above (the notnecrons) as rubrics, I would not.


Interesting. Would you play against a guard force made of Victoria Miniatures or Anvil Industry "regiments" miniatures?



Blood Warriors as Khorne Berserkers?
Spoiler:



Dreamforge Eisenkern as Scions?
Spoiler:


...or a "15mm" Dreamforge Leviathan as a Dreadknight?


...because while many of them draw from the same generic historical concepts (Hi Morgoth!) that GW draw their own inspiration from, none of those are Officially "40k" miniatures.


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Azazelx wrote:
 thekingofkings wrote:
I am generally ok with conversions so long as I know what it is I am facing, I dont like proxy up to a point, If I am playing 40k, I want to play against 40k models,. I am not interested in what ifs or crossovers. I have played WoK against a proxy goritsi force that was all confrontation wolfen, I was ok with it because they are very similar. the models above (the notnecrons) as rubrics, I would not.


Interesting. Would you play against a guard force made of Victoria Miniatures or Anvil Industry "regiments" miniatures?



Blood Warriors as Khorne Berserkers?
Spoiler:



Dreamforge Eisenkern as Scions?
Spoiler:


...or a "15mm" Dreamforge Leviathan as a Dreadknight?


...because while many of them draw from the same generic historical concepts (Hi Morgoth!) that GW draw their own inspiration from, none of those are Officially "40k" miniatures.



Honestly the top ones I wouldn't really know the difference without getting too close to the model than is polite, the middle, depending on the rest of the army, and the third, no. yeah they are cool models, but no. If we were playing mutant chronicles or Void 1.1 probably.
   
Made in us
Wicked Canoptek Wraith





It's more a matter of the fielding player's intent than a strict measurement.

If an object is standing in for something it clearly isn't because you don't currently have access to something better, it's a proxy.

If the player fielding it thinks it's an entirely suitable representation of the thing it isn't, then it's a counts-as.

If they cut up or glued bits and bobs to the counts-as model to make it more like the thing it isn't, then it's a counts-as conversion.

If it is the thing it is, but they still cut it up or glued things to it to make it look cool or hold the right guns, then it's just a conversion.

If something is made up of exactly 50% of the thing it is and stuff it isn't, then it becomes a shrodinger's proxy counts-as conversion and it both is and is not okay to play games with them until someone opens the box and observes them.
   
Made in us
Charing Cold One Knight





Sticksville, Texas

 thekingofkings wrote:
 Azazelx wrote:
 thekingofkings wrote:
I am generally ok with conversions so long as I know what it is I am facing, I dont like proxy up to a point, If I am playing 40k, I want to play against 40k models,. I am not interested in what ifs or crossovers. I have played WoK against a proxy goritsi force that was all confrontation wolfen, I was ok with it because they are very similar. the models above (the notnecrons) as rubrics, I would not.


Interesting. Would you play against a guard force made of Victoria Miniatures or Anvil Industry "regiments" miniatures?



Blood Warriors as Khorne Berserkers?
Spoiler:



Dreamforge Eisenkern as Scions?
Spoiler:


...or a "15mm" Dreamforge Leviathan as a Dreadknight?


...because while many of them draw from the same generic historical concepts (Hi Morgoth!) that GW draw their own inspiration from, none of those are Officially "40k" miniatures.



Honestly the top ones I wouldn't really know the difference without getting too close to the model than is polite, the middle, depending on the rest of the army, and the third, no. yeah they are cool models, but no. If we were playing mutant chronicles or Void 1.1 probably.


I would play against any of those with no problem. I personally hate the Dreadknight model and find that a suitable replacement. I don't mind those Dreamforge Eisenkern, I would personally swap the arms out for something that looks a bit more 40k, same with the heads, they are a bit derpy.

The Blood Warriors I wouldn't mind as long as there was a pistol on the model somewhere at least.

Shoot, in my Death Guard army I had a few years ago, I used the Fantasy Nurgle Sorcerer/Lord on horseback as my Chaos Lord on Palanquin of Nurgle. I never got any complaints about it since people thought it was cool.

Shoot, I don't mind if people use alternate models, I just want to play games.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 NH Gunsmith wrote:
 thekingofkings wrote:
 Azazelx wrote:
 thekingofkings wrote:
I am generally ok with conversions so long as I know what it is I am facing, I dont like proxy up to a point, If I am playing 40k, I want to play against 40k models,. I am not interested in what ifs or crossovers. I have played WoK against a proxy goritsi force that was all confrontation wolfen, I was ok with it because they are very similar. the models above (the notnecrons) as rubrics, I would not.


Interesting. Would you play against a guard force made of Victoria Miniatures or Anvil Industry "regiments" miniatures?



Blood Warriors as Khorne Berserkers?
Spoiler:



Dreamforge Eisenkern as Scions?
Spoiler:


...or a "15mm" Dreamforge Leviathan as a Dreadknight?


...because while many of them draw from the same generic historical concepts (Hi Morgoth!) that GW draw their own inspiration from, none of those are Officially "40k" miniatures.



Honestly the top ones I wouldn't really know the difference without getting too close to the model than is polite, the middle, depending on the rest of the army, and the third, no. yeah they are cool models, but no. If we were playing mutant chronicles or Void 1.1 probably.


I would play against any of those with no problem. I personally hate the Dreadknight model and find that a suitable replacement. I don't mind those Dreamforge Eisenkern, I would personally swap the arms out for something that looks a bit more 40k, same with the heads, they are a bit derpy.

The Blood Warriors I wouldn't mind as long as there was a pistol on the model somewhere at least.

Shoot, in my Death Guard army I had a few years ago, I used the Fantasy Nurgle Sorcerer/Lord on horseback as my Chaos Lord on Palanquin of Nurgle. I never got any complaints about it since people thought it was cool.

Shoot, I don't mind if people use alternate models, I just want to play games.


I can completely respect your sentiment in the last sentence, and can somewhat agree with it, but again, if I want to play specific games, then I would like to have the overall feel of it. Bringing in that kind of proxy while in no way is "game breaking" it does take something out of it for me. If those blood warriors were surrounded by an army of CSM then I would likely not have any issue at all, but if the whole army was bloodbound I probably would. I dont much like having to keep reminding myself or asking my opponent what model x or y is supposed to be. 40k and AoS are a little more nebulous than the games I am used to playing *(they dont have room much for proxies)
That being said, if thats all the other person had and it came down to me being a _______________ about it, I would probably suck it up and play but I would seek to play with that person again. I would look for a player more in line with my own desires for a game. I am also one of those guys who wont play on a table with that neoprene flat terrain. I love the "pageantry" of the 3d experience of minis and just something about that flat featureless field irritates me, sure it has great art and looks "nice" but it takes away from the experience for me.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







 feeder wrote:
Quite a bit of gatekeeping in this thread.


Quite a bit of English composition, typing, and grammar in this thread, too.

It's a thread asking about people's standards, and people are replying with their sometimes strict standards. Why are you trying to pick an argument by disparaging those other opinions?
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





People always interpret other people having standards as some sort of personal attack because they don't meet them.

Like how when someone only wants to play with painted miniatures on the table. People who don't like that lose their gak and call the person elitist/gatekeeper/etc.,.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




Building a blood in water scent

solkan wrote:
It's a thread asking about people's standards, and people are replying with their sometimes strict standards. Why are you trying to pick an argument by disparaging those other opinions?



feeder wrote:If it's clear what the model is supposed to represent, and the owner has put a reasonable amount of effort into making it look decent, then the actual model shouldn't matter.

If one's opponent's models fulfill the above two criteria, and they are still vexing, then one is likely a bit of a control freak and should probably seek help before it degrades one's other, more important interpersonal relationships.


If one's "strict standards" consist of "that representation of a fantasy space army is different than my representation of a fantasy space army and therefore I won't play against it" then one should seek help for their control freak issues. I'm serious.


We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Lord of Change





Albany, NY

Peregrine wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
One can call them "counts as" but that's really just a euphemism for proxy.

That might be technically true by the dictionary definition, but I think it's a lot more than just a euphemism. A "counts as" model isn't the official model, and might not be 100% WYSIWYG, but it's a legitimate model that makes sense in the army. A proxy model is just a roughly model-shaped object to occupy space on the table, there's no attempt to make it a real or appropriate model. And from a game experience point of view those are two very different things. The "counts as" model is fun to play against, the blatant proxy takes away from the experience.

Desubot wrote:Proxies on the other hand is for when some one doesn't have enough models to fill out a list they are trying or what not and are generally temporary. it can be any model but in general just something comparable in size and form you grab off the shelf to get a game in.
Stepping in to throw out some QFTs re: 'Counts As' being a very real thing and entirely separate from 'proxy', and proxy being inherently / ideally temporary.

Succinctly, Counts As is driven by artistic intent backed up by in-game consistency. Proxies on the other hand allow access to in-game abilities, if in a purely 'gamey' way (i.e. entirely separate from the hobby aspect of the game). See: solo cup drop pod.

If it matters in any way, I'm a die hard Counts As modeller with a strong dislike for proxies, including all those lame marine armies masquerading as different chapters / legions depending on the flavor of the month.* I avoid running proxies if I can at all help it, and these days will prefer to use something else or simply not play until the new unit / model is built / painted.

Also funny that we have this argument like every 18 months or so Guessing it might crop up in connection to new editions or price hikes or dangerous influxes of new players or converts from other games?

- Salvage

*I have however seen some really awesome chapters/legions that were intentionally converted to count s other chapters/legions, particularly when it comes to the whole falling to chaos thing, or loyalist marines on the whole standardized but with units of models converted intentionally to count as the odd amazeballs unit in this chapter or that other one. You can do this swap in an aesthetically impressive (and abundantly clear in-game) way through the magic of Counts As ... or not. Different strokes for different folks, since we're all in this hobby for different reasons.

This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 2017/09/22 17:47:52


KOW BATREPS: BLOODFIRE
INSTAGRAM: @boss_salvage 
   
 
Forum Index » Dakka Discussions
Go to: