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.

How do you feel about people proxying their models?

Only to try out something new. If you convert them up to be something else fine, but straight up proxying is confusing for any opponent and should be done on a VERY limited frequency.

Also I'm talking about proxuing say lizards as warriors of chaos. If you want to use a different companies models just be sure they're appropriate sized and themed, like if you want to use a circle orboros warpwolf as a vargulf that's fine by me.

But if you're using straight up GW models, try to do some converting or else just limit it to a few trial games while you build up funds to buy the actual models.

It depends on the context. If you mean using bottle caps as Orcs, I don't like it. I might live with it for the sake of my opponent testing a unit they are thinking of buying though.

In the context of using models that aren't the GW approved models, I don't really mind as long as they're somewhat representative. They don't have to look the same, but heavy armoured models should LOOK more heavily armoured than the lightly armoured models, if armed with spears they should be given spear like weapons, if you're representing skinks and saurus I don't care if they don't look like skinks and saurus but ideally the saurus should be bulkier models, if they're equipped with shields they should be shown on the model, etc.

I don't really care if you use Orcs for Saurus (you might like the Orcy aesthetic but prefer the Saurus rules) as long as they are appropriately equipped and easily identifiable.

It's funny how proxying can be sneered at in Warhammer, but in KoW it's "Oh just use X as Y (usually Orcs!) - it'll be fine".

 monders wrote:
It's funny how proxying can be sneered at in Warhammer, but in KoW it's "Oh just use X as Y (usually Orcs!) - it'll be fine".

KoW is a new game that needs to GROW. Right now their primary goal is to get more players. To this end they have said "Oh yeah proxy whatever, use GW models, our rules are free, just PLEASE try our game?" So it's not funny at all, it's a business strategy. When/if mantic ever upstages GW & becomes the predominant fantasy battle game THEN they will likely change their tune. They need to acquire players right now, they can't afford to alienate/restrict anyone, once they have a firm player base THEN they can start to enforce restrictions.

The proxy should also be the same size as the model it's representing. We have a younger dwarf player who is collecting models slowly due to funds and wanted to proxy during a game, which was fine. But when he put single dwarf models in the backfield (one each for cannon, grudge thrower, and Master Engineer), the game became extremely confusing and we told him he needed to at least field the crew members (he has enough infantry dwarfs) and a piece of cardboard or something that was the right size for the War Machines.

I've always held the personal opinion that a lot of the GW snootiness in models used comes from a masterstroke by GW in making it a rule you could only use their models.

Since GW has declined to support their own game, I generally don't care how much I support them in return. In todays market, I expect things like tournament support, timely errata and faq publications, developer feedback and customer integration into the way things are done.

(See: Malifaux, Infinity, Warmahordes, Dropship, etc.)

So in general, my only preference is to use a model that represents your vision of your army. I'll play anyone, but only expect a fully modeled, painted, and based army in a tournament or GT.

Everything else is just Warhams, tha streets.

 Thunderfrog wrote:
I've always held the personal opinion that a lot of the GW snootiness in models used comes from a masterstroke by GW in making it a rule you could only use their models.

I wouldn't really describe it as a masterstroke, just common practice to only allow your own products in your own stores. No other miniature manufacturer has a wide network of stores so it's not really relevant.

Unless you also consider it a masterstroke that basically every restaurant doesn't allow outside food to be eaten at their tables.

The internet needs a sarcasm button that puts double finger quotes around things.

It IS a little different though.

Wizards doesn't demand you only use WotC minis at their D&D events.

Magic doesn't demand you use MTG: Brand life tokens.

GW was able to successfully convince their brand of hobbyist that not using their product was "Doin' it wrong."

I don't think they did really convince too many people of that. There might be a few people who feel that way, but all nerd activities have their purists. Outside of GW stores I don't think it's really all that prevalent of a feeling, forum polls seem to lean heavily toward allowing 3rd party models.

I can't really comment on your MtG or D&D examples because I haven't really played them (little to no interest in CCG's or RPG's). It seems to me that miniatures in D&D and life tokens in MtG aren't really comparable to miniatures in WHFB. They seem more comparable to, I dunno, dice or rulers or carrying cases in WHFB.

 Thunderfrog wrote:

Wizards doesn't demand you only use WotC minis at their D&D events.

Yeah, but you don't have to use minis at all in D&D

 Thunderfrog wrote:
The internet needs a sarcasm button that puts double finger quotes around things.

It IS a little different though.

Wizards doesn't demand you only use WotC minis at their D&D events.

Magic doesn't demand you use MTG: Brand life tokens.

GW was able to successfully convince their brand of hobbyist that not using their product was "Doin' it wrong."

The MtG example isn't really an analogous comparison. They very specifically prevent you from proxying or using third party manufactured cards (i.e. "fakes") in a sanctioned event.

You're talking about accessories to the game. A better analogy would be saying "GW wouldn't let you use your models if they were painted with 3rd party paints", or forcing you to use GW dice to roll during your warhammer games, which is certainly not the case.

There's a lot of things to say about Wizards of the Coast being a better company for their customers. MtG does provide better customer/tournament support, has a great online presence, actively preserves and manages eternal formats (which makes sure that no cards are ever technically "obsolete"), and preserves collector trust by printing cards in such a way as to not destabilize secondary markets (although this can be a criticism sometimes).

But they still insist you use their officially produced cards to play their game.

It IS a little different though.
Not really, at least given your examples.

Wizards doesn't demand you only use WotC minis at their D&D events
No but they do demand you not show up with "proxy" books such as pathfinder or pdf printouts of their material.

Magic doesn't demand you use MTG: Brand life tokens.
GW doesn't demand you use GW:Brand Dice. Also Magic does demand you use their cards. Try showing up with a proxy card where you just printed it out & glued it to a basic land. gak won't fly.

GW was able to successfully convince their brand of hobbyist that not using their product was "Doin' it wrong."
Not at all. GW just has the best product in terms of models. I play WM/H and Malifaux, of all the companies GW models look the best so I like using them. PP detail isn't as good due to their plastic. As for Malifaux I absolutely hate the direction the art style has gone and I refuse to field any of the new minis. I stick with my Gen 1 metals.

Eh.

It's good that some people have such strong opinions, but mine remains unchanged.

I don't consider using a non-gw model that is a fair resemblance of the theme being expressed a proxy. That's simply using an alternative model.

Using an empty dice cube for a Tzeentch Lord on a disc is what I consider proxying, and even that doesn't bother me in a non tournament setting.

 Thunderfrog wrote:
Eh.

It's good that some people have such strong opinions, but mine remains unchanged.

Well I'm not well versed in MTG or D&D, but it seems to me that, using my food analogy, using life tokens and miniatures respectively in those games would be like bringing your own fork to a restaurant to eat the meal you bought from them... where as bringing 3rd party models to a WHFB game is like bringing a 3 course meal in to restaurant

I don't consider using a non-gw model that is a fair resemblance of the theme being expressed a proxy. That's simply using an alternative model.

Using an empty dice cube for a Tzeentch Lord on a disc is what I consider proxying, and even that doesn't bother me in a non tournament setting.

Definitely I think it's important to actually define what you mean when you say proxy (hence why the first line of the first post I made in the thread was "It depends on the context.")

A proxy can be anything from an empty base to a coke can to a Mantic model masquerading as a GW model to an Orc masquerading as a Saurus.

Proxying is only acceptable if you are trying out something to see if you want to buy it. Or if your model got damaged and its getting glued at the moment.

Outside of that, you need to be using an actual acceptable model.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Proxying is only acceptable if you are trying out something to see if you want to buy it. Or if your model got damaged and its getting glued at the moment.

Outside of that, you need to be using an actual acceptable model.

What do you consider an acceptable model?

MUST they use THE GW Vindicare Assassin or Wyrd Coryphee? Or is any model that suitably depicts an assassin or dancer acceptable?

As long as it suitably represents the model its supposed to be according to the situation.

 Thunderfrog wrote:

I don't consider using a non-gw model that is a fair resemblance of the theme being expressed a proxy. That's simply using an alternative model.

Using an empty dice cube for a Tzeentch Lord on a disc is what I consider proxying, and even that doesn't bother me in a non tournament setting.

I completely agree. By proxying I thought it meant "These temple guard are actually Chosen today and my Slann is a korne lord on juggernaut" I'm fine with alternate models. Hell I use Blighted Nyss Legionaires for my executioners because I dislike how static the GW ones are. I think they work great as black guard but are a bit boring as executioners. Plus I hate the skull helm.

Shas'O Dorian wrote:

 monders wrote:
It's funny how proxying can be sneered at in Warhammer, but in KoW it's "Oh just use X as Y (usually Orcs!) - it'll be fine".

KoW is a new game that needs to GROW. Right now their primary goal is to get more players. To this end they have said "Oh yeah proxy whatever, use GW models, our rules are free, just PLEASE try our game?" So it's not funny at all, it's a business strategy. When/if mantic ever upstages GW & becomes the predominant fantasy battle game THEN they will likely change their tune. They need to acquire players right now, they can't afford to alienate/restrict anyone, once they have a firm player base THEN they can start to enforce restrictions.

Being a cynic, I'll agree with the bolded comment in particular, but the rest of your post in general.

Shas'O Dorian wrote:
I completely agree. By proxying I thought it meant "These temple guard are actually Chosen today and my Slann is a korne lord on juggernaut" I'm fine with alternate models. Hell I use Blighted Nyss Legionaires for my executioners because I dislike how static the GW ones are. I think they work great as black guard but are a bit boring as executioners. Plus I hate the skull helm.

With you using the LM as WoC example again, I get the impression that it is directed at my post in the tactics forum. If that's easy pickings then well, good for you, but there's no way I was dropping near £200 to try out an army/tactics that could be obsolete in a few weeks time.

If the bases are the right size (they are) and the models representative (I'd argue they are, in friendly settings) then I really can't see a problem. I'd probably concede using Saurus as Marauders instead of Warriors due to lack of armour, but TG as Halberd Warriors... how can that get confusing? A dinosaur with a massive laser on its back... what else could it possibly be?! A big angry dinosaur riding a bigger, angrier dinosaur could easily be used a Juggernaut (with a larger base) or a DP (dem claws).

I play for fun in a relaxed environment so maybe your experiences differ to mine.

It's WarHams - you need to suspend disbelief for every single thing you do in the game.

Edit - one line came across as being snide. My apologies.

My answer is a bit more contextual than the poll choices allow.

I'm fine allowing proxies for someone trying out a new army, or a new build, or even just a new unit here or there. Getting 5 or 6 test games in with something you're not sure about before investing the time/money/effort is totally understandable. Stops you from ending up like my friend with a gorgeously painted Troglodon that sits on his shelf.

However there comes a point in time where you need to gak or get off the pot. If 6 months later you're still proxying, that's straining my nerves. Same thing if your "cauldron" is just a whack of infantry models. Or if this is a tournament game we're talking about, and not a friendly practice game at the club. Sooner or letter those proxies need to be the real deal.

Monders, it's not directed AT you. Honestly there was a guy in my LGS who wanted to do the same thing, I was referencing him.

It's just an easy example of what I feel is "proxying" which is fine for a couple games to tesy some stuff. Versus alternate models, like using Mantic, PP or another company.

Again not trying to pick on you, it's just a clear example of where I draw the line of "alternate model" versus full blown proxy.

I greatly enjoy playing against fully painted armies where everything is a good representation of what it's aiming to represent. With that, I mean an elf with a two handed sword or axe representing an elf with a two handed weapon. I don't care about the manufacturer in the slightest.

That said, I don't really have anything against proxying. Specially when people are trying new things or doing experiments. Hell, in the past I've played with and against "paperhammer" and "cardboardhammer" more than once, and I've never had a real issue with it. While I do appreciate seeing well painted models, in the end gaming-wise they're not much more than glorified wound counters.

I'm fine with proxies as long as it's a rough approximation if its going to be a long term thing (for instance, i love wildwood rangers: i sometimes use them as Sword Masters of Hoeth counts as models in my HotEK lists. It's an elf with a 2 handed sword... its a reasonable stand in. I have dozens of Sword Masters, but i like to collect and paint elves, and i like to play those elves). Comparable minis from other ranges, no problem, as long as its reasonably identifiable.

That said, if its NOT a rough approximation, i'm okay with proxy testing things on a limited basis, but some of the game is aesthetic to me, so just plinking down a movement tray with a piece of paper that says "40 Grave Guard" isn't going to fly for long.


I will say this, i am 100% fine with the method of "front rank is what the models are / are armed with" method for players still building their armies. I have lots of units with varying armament that i have say 30-40 models, 7 of which are armed in the alternate armament just in case i ever want to run with those.

 Haight wrote:

I will say this, i am 100% fine with the method of "front rank is what the models are / are armed with" method for players still building their armies. I have lots of units with varying armament that i have say 30-40 models, 7 of which are armed in the alternate armament just in case i ever want to run with those.

Absolutely agree. Honestly beyond the front rank (maybe 2nd) I can't easily tell what they have on normal infantry.

 Haight wrote:
I will say this, i am 100% fine with the method of "front rank is what the models are / are armed with" method for players still building their armies. I have lots of units with varying armament that i have say 30-40 models, 7 of which are armed in the alternate armament just in case i ever want to run with those.

I usually try and run at least the front 2 or 3 ranks because the front rank (if 5 wide) is often made up of Champ + Muso + Standard + hero, so there's only 1 dude in the front rank who's actually a fully equipped regular soldier, lol.

I think it's best to have more than half of the models equipped WYSIWYG, and that half being the front half. I have 60 Saurus, 20 of which are equipped with spears, 20 with hand weapons and 20 magnetised so I can swap. That lets me run full regiments of any combination I want and still have more than 50% equipped WYSIWYG.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

 Haight wrote:

I will say this, i am 100% fine with the method of "front rank is what the models are / are armed with" method for players still building their armies. I have lots of units with varying armament that i have say 30-40 models, 7 of which are armed in the alternate armament just in case i ever want to run with those.

Absolutely agree. Honestly beyond the front rank (maybe 2nd) I can't easily tell what they have on normal infantry.

I guess it does depend on the models. Spears tend to stand out from hand weapons, as do shields depending on how they're painted. Two handed weapons vs two hand weapons just tends to blend together.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
Monders, it's not directed AT you. Honestly there was a guy in my LGS who wanted to do the same thing, I was referencing him.

It's just an easy example of what I feel is "proxying" which is fine for a couple games to tesy some stuff. Versus alternate models, like using Mantic, PP or another company.

Again not trying to pick on you, it's just a clear example of where I draw the line of "alternate model" versus full blown proxy.

Ah OK

I made the mistake of taking something personally on a forum. You'd think I'd only been online for a couple of weeks

I can see your point, sure. Outside of my own house/a mates/FLGS with mates I wouldn't dream of using a whole army as another, except for trying one out for a game or two.

Then again I know two lads with WoC armies so I could just er, borrow one of theirs!

I have 175 goblins from the hobbit game that I run as Skavenslaves. Some will say that's a HUGE amount of proxy, others will say it's completely WYSIWYG. (it is a weakling with a random handweapon after all. Fits perfectly.)

It is, as was mentioned before in the thread, "alternate models."

But to some that's still a sort of proxy.