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.

Since GW constantly admits/says it is a figure company, and not a game company, why do not more Indy tournaments and Stores allow other than GW for "counts as" models in "Games?"

Why is there not a giant Interwebs group standing up and demanding this?

Look how much those non-profits raised for Africa (and then pocketed it all) by just using the Interwebs.

Get that INATFaQ going!!!

EDIT: Never mind. Totally and utterly misread your post!

It depends on who runs it. If the company that produces their own game is running a tournament for their game with prizes from their game, then they expect people to use stuff from their game as a form of advertisement. If a local club or something runs it then it could probably be allowed completely. With most things it comes down to the TO and should be asked prior to the event.

I suspect the not allowing counts as stems from three things (for unofficial tournments)

1. A hold over from when GW did run/fund/put up prizes for tournaments

2. To make it easier for folk, especially newer players. Being able to tell what something is at a glance, and what they are armed with is much easier than trying to remember what you were told at the start of a game

3. It makes the armies look better being filled with models all with similar aesthetic styles....

It's hard to allow counts as without value judgements unless all you consider is figure/base size,

but a high elf warhammer army being portrayed by mantic marines would be daft and have a high risk of trashing the games atmosphere

where do you draw the line ? any fantasy figures ? fantasy elves ? fantasy high elves ?

No a tournament orgasniser CAN get round these problems by vetting armies pre-entry

but it adds a raft of extra stuff to do, and will lead to some players not coming as they haven't got their counts as army done in time for check or because they dissaprove of counts as in general

(and others coming where they might not normally have bothered as they have a cool army they can show)

The only reason an event should require official minis is when the company who produces the game or minis is directly funding the event as promotion of their product.

When GW provided trophies, prize support and ran the event, I had no issue with GW wanting GW models in their events. GW doesn't do that anymore which is why the Indy tourneys don't require it as there is zero support from GW so zero reason to promote GW as part of the event.

PP events funded and promoted by PP require PP models, and as long as PP is promoting and supporting the events to exist, I support them wanting people to buy and use their models.

nkelsch wrote:

When GW provided trophies, prize support and ran the event, I had no issue with GW wanting GW models in their events. GW doesn't do that anymore which is why the Indy tourneys don't require it as there is zero support from GW so zero reason to promote GW as part of the event.

GW may not run tournaments anymore, but they will provide prize support to stores that carry their product. I have no idea what there policy is concerning prize support to gaming clubs and such, but I'm thinking doubtful...

Great ideas all... and thanks for the imput

6e 40K has been out for a bit, and all I see is arguements from site to site, what I do not see is UNITY on the players front, why not?

and @ nkelsch

"GW defines COUNTS AS: The 'Counts As' rule allows you to apply the rules for existing units to older or scratch built models that do not have rules of their own. This is to allow you to make full use of your collection or the army choices within our rule books; it's not an excuse to change your army as a way of fine tuning your force. "

YES, where does it say ONLY GW in 6e?

If GW gives; Stores, Tourneys, Blog Websites, Podcasts, and etc "free" products, then the well is tainted, yes?

On the topic of only GW "games" and other model companies models;

1) If Indy, why not allow "counts as?"
I have seen an all Lego Empire army, based on proper sized bases, (when GW published base sizes for Fantasy in 7e) and it looked awesome, the guy had scratch built a Griffon with Hammer weilding Karl Franz, Halberdiers, Handgunners, Pistoliers, and etc...

From what I've been seeing, these days most events do allow non-GW minis, so long as they are appropriate for what they are being used for.

Perhaps speak to the tournament organisers in advance, especially for those tourneys that you know will be run every year, etc

rexscarlet wrote:


and @ nkelsch

"GW defines COUNTS AS: The 'Counts As' rule allows you to apply the rules for existing units to older or scratch built models that do not have rules of their own. This is to allow you to make full use of your collection or the army choices within our rule books; it's not an excuse to change your army as a way of fine tuning your force. "

YES, where does it say ONLY GW in 6e?

it never has... WYSIWYG and COUNTS AS and X% GW models are all social conventions and rules applied at GW sponsored events. Take the kings coin, do the kings bidding. A TO is free to redefine WYSIWYG, Counts As and model requirement however they wish. When GW was actively running and supporting events including tourneys, that is the standard they used.

Counts as was used as a way to allow your 2nd edition ork models armed with imperial weapons a way to be used with 5th edition codexes by 'counting as' your plasma guns as KMBs and your bolters as shootas.

It was not used as a way for someone who had a 3rd edition LAS/PLAS army to say all his lascannons are now Meltaguns this game. A lot of people play 'counts as' that way but historically that is not how the 'rule' was used or applied to GW events.

Hence 'ask your TO' when you have questions about WYSIWYG, COUNTS AS and 3rd party models. I think it is fine for TOs to set their own standards but I also understand when an event is directly funded by a company (including non GW companies) to expect players to use that companies minis.

1) If Indy, why not allow "counts as?"
I have seen an all Lego Empire army, based on proper sized bases, (when GW published base sizes for Fantasy in 7e) and it looked awesome, the guy had scratch built a Griffon with Hammer weilding Karl Franz, Halberdiers, Handgunners, Pistoliers, and etc...

Disagree. May be cool, may be expensive, may be effort, but I think it is unfair to expect everyone at the tourney to think it is fair to play against an army of 'toys'. Hence why minimum standards exist. I think it makes a great art project for a hobby competition in the 'open' category, but I think it is way outside the range of gameplay for people and I think it would be valid for people to be upset to be paired against that player. often extreme 'counts as' armies or total conversion armies gain a real negative buzz around a tourney as the army which 'looks cool but I hope I don't have to play against it' as it impacts gameplay and players feel cheated out of a competitive event by being paired up with one of the extreme armies which impact gameplay. Can't say I don't disagree with them, I simply am never good enough for me having a crap game against a total conversion army to impact me or my ranking.

nkelsch wrote:

Disagree. May be cool, may be expensive, may be effort, but I think it is unfair to expect everyone at the tourney to think it is fair to play against an army of 'toys'.

I disagree entirely. If it was a pile of random army men inexpertly stuck on bases then you may have a point but if it is a project that someone has clearly put a lot of effort into then an army of legomen is perfectly acceptable. I would find it unreasonable for anyone to claim that an army that has had a lot of work put into it is somehow 'unsuitable' when it is 100% codex legal. One of the most memorable armies (in a good way) that I have seen was a Nurgle deamon army made up almost entirely out of modelling putty 'slugs'.

Given that we are talking about tournaments here the aim of the game is to win, the aesthetics of the armies don't matter providing that individual models are easily identifiable. I fail to see how someone using non standard miniatures will have any real effect on gameplay, in fact they will have none at all if LOS issues are corrected.

Palindrome wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Disagree. May be cool, may be expensive, may be effort, but I think it is unfair to expect everyone at the tourney to think it is fair to play against an army of 'toys'.

I disagree entirely. If it was a pile of random army men inexpertly stuck on bases then you may have a point but if it is a project that someone has clearly put a lot of effort into then an army of legomen is perfectly acceptable. I would find it unreasonable for anyone to claim that an army that has had a lot of work put into it is somehow 'unsuitable' when it is 100% codex legal. One of the most memorable armies (in a good way) that I have seen was a Nurgle deamon army made up almost entirely out of modelling putty 'slugs'.

Given that we are talking about tournaments here the aim of the game is to win, the aesthetics of the armies don't matter providing that individual models are easily identifiable. I fail to see how someone using non standard miniatures will have any real effect on gameplay, in fact they will have none at all if LOS issues are corrected.

Timed games and tactics rely on visual cues for players to make decisions. Confusing conversions, proxies, counts as and such can be burdensome for opponents. It does have real effects on gameplay when you have to check a cheat sheet to verify gear, or always ask what those weapon less slugs are. It is unfair to burden opponents in a competitive environment. There are lots of counts as and total conversion armies which are burdens on the opponent and I would see why people would be annoyed being forced to play them in a tourney.

The issue is one persons easily identifiable is another persons unreasonable proxy.

And I disagree with Legos or mega blocks being allowed at any wargaming event. They are toys and buying toys is not the same as converting an army. They are fun toys, the mega blocks orcs are neat. It is fun to see toys of custom built Legos on the net. They have no place in a tourney any more than a papercraft proxy army does. Many people want to play with nicely modeled and painted miniatures and Legos are not modeled, painted or miniatures.

I thought the big tourneys like Adepticon and FoB did allow a degree of 3rd party bits. From what the guys were telling me at my store, last year they actively ENCOURAGED 3rd party bitz and models as a way to distinguish your force, and even gave extra points for it.

However, it has to be reasonable. For example, if I'm using mantic games corporation troopers as guardsmen, that makes sense, as they're both puny looking humans armed with a rifle and basic armor. Trying to use those mantic corporation as space marines however would be frowned on, as they look nothing alike.

Palindrome wrote:
I disagree entirely. If it was a pile of random army men inexpertly stuck on bases then you may have a point but if it is a project that someone has clearly put a lot of effort into then an army of legomen is perfectly acceptable. I would find it unreasonable for anyone to claim that an army that has had a lot of work put into it is somehow 'unsuitable' when it is 100% codex legal. One of the most memorable armies (in a good way) that I have seen was a Nurgle deamon army made up almost entirely out of modelling putty 'slugs'.

Two problems with this:

1) Most of the time that kind of proxy army isn't exactly impressive. For every masterpiece lego army there's a giant pile of armies with cheap toys glued onto bases and bare plastic everywhere because it's the cheapest and easiest way of creating an "army". If you allow the former then what grounds do you have for excluding the latter? I can understand making an exception for a cool idea with amazing execution, but as a general rule that kind of stuff shouldn't be allowed.

2) It's not terrible to play against a complete counts-as army as a rare event, especially if it's an awesome army, but it's really not something I'd want to do frequently. It's a lot of extra work to keep track of what is what, and the more frequently you see non-fluff armies the less it feels like 40k. So even if you ignore the "cheap garbage" problem it's still not something that should be a common part of the hobby.

nkelsch wrote:

Timed games and tactics rely on visual cues for players to make decisions. Confusing conversions, proxies, counts as and such can be burdensome for opponents.

There is no reason why proxies have to be difficult for an opponent to identify. If they are a reasonable analogue and equipment options etc are easily identifiable then there is no legitimate issue. At the end of the day one of the key components to the physical side of wargaming is creativity, placing arbitrary restrictions on this is folly.

There is a lot of snobbishness in this thread.

nkelsch wrote:

rexscarlet wrote:

1) If Indy, why not allow "counts as?"
I have seen an all Lego Empire army, based on proper sized bases, (when GW published base sizes for Fantasy in 7e) and it looked awesome, the guy had scratch built a Griffon with Hammer weilding Karl Franz, Halberdiers, Handgunners, Pistoliers, and etc...

Disagree. May be cool, may be expensive, may be effort, but I think it is unfair to expect everyone at the tourney to think it is fair to play against an army of 'toys'. Hence why minimum standards exist. I think it makes a great art project for a hobby competition in the 'open' category, but I think it is way outside the range of gameplay for people and I think it would be valid for people to be upset to be paired against that player. often extreme 'counts as' armies or total conversion armies gain a real negative buzz around a tourney as the army which 'looks cool but I hope I don't have to play against it' as it impacts gameplay and players feel cheated out of a competitive event by being paired up with one of the extreme armies which impact gameplay. Can't say I don't disagree with them, I simply am never good enough for me having a crap game against a total conversion army to impact me or my ranking.

I'd love to play against a Lego army. A Lego army would also cost as much or more than a typical GW army on top of everything else, and have the added benefit of being pretty damn unique. Rule of Cool and all that. As for others - Old GW Squats using the IG or even Ork rules - sure. Forgefathers using the SM rules - why not? As long as I can tell what's what. 28mm Heer as Imperial Guard - would look awesome! Star Wars TPM Druid Tank as some kind of Tau hovertank? Sounds cool!
but...

Space Orks as Chaos Marines?
Um.. no.

Lots of great ideas and points, thanks to all.

GW is a Hobby and Figure company, the "game" part is seperate by their own admission..

Hobby; some people just like the painting, scratch-building, etc. and there are seperate contests for all aspects of the "Hobby" part.

Figures; some people just like collecting "cold war" armies and all sorts of figures, sometimes even for other game systems, like the dreaded RPG (my friend loves Cthulhu and has several garden of moor kits). And GW does not make all the figures the game supports, and all the equipment options do not always come in the box, etc.

Game; can be played with pennies, toothpicks and post-it notes on the hood of a car; any way, any place, and any where the reader chooses, etc.

So, what I am asking for is a gamer front, standing together to allow third party "counts as," maybe in the form of a master list on the INATFaQ?

Example; IG models can be represented with the following companies models; list here...

Maybe Lego was an extreme example, sorry, but I do not see anything wrong with a Star Wars/Avatar toy if it is the right size, and is painted.

I do not mean bare plastic or confusing scratch-builds.

It's almost mankes for a change to see that some people complain about allowing proxies to be used at events, because it will open the door to people using any old rubbish toys on the field, on the basis that this makes it hard to discern what each thing is and generally looks a very poor sight.

Usually threads about events are about people defending their fielding of unpainted armies, which to my eye also make the models hard to discern and are a very poor sight.

I assume all those opposed to using proxies field fully painted armies, there would be a condratiction there otherwise.

As far as I'm concerned you should play games with good looking miniatures, it doesn't matter where they come from as long as theres consistency across the army and they look good. There are plenty of 28mm ranges about there compatible with GW, which is really what we are talking about with proxies, so the claims that people will field armies of toy army men is a bit of hyperbole.

 scipio.au wrote:


I'd love to play against a Lego army. A Lego army would also cost as much or more than a typical GW army on top of everything else, and have the added benefit of being pretty damn unique. Rule of Cool and all that. As for others - Old GW Squats using the IG or even Ork rules - sure. Forgefathers using the SM rules - why not? As long as I can tell what's what. 28mm Heer as Imperial Guard - would look awesome! Star Wars TPM Druid Tank as some kind of Tau hovertank? Sounds cool!
but...

Space Orks as Chaos Marines?
Um.. no.

Completely agree with this. And TBH, outside of official tournaments (where you have the argument for using official minis) I would say probably 90% or tournament organisers and clubs would agree with it also.

Actually, I would rather more people use alternative and stand-in minis for games (with the caveat that some thought, imagination and modelling ability has gone into it). Makes things more interesting, especially if you play the same game a lot!

Palindrome wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Timed games and tactics rely on visual cues for players to make decisions. Confusing conversions, proxies, counts as and such can be burdensome for opponents.

There is no reason why proxies have to be difficult for an opponent to identify. If they are a reasonable analogue and equipment options etc are easily identifiable then there is no legitimate issue. At the end of the day one of the key components to the physical side of wargaming is creativity, placing arbitrary restrictions on this is folly.

There is a lot of snobbishness in this thread.

The definition of proxies is that they are hard to identify as what you see is not what you get. Any effort expended to 'keep track' of what things are supposed to be is a burden which is unfair to force upon an opponent in a tourney. Fine for casual play.

If they are reasonably the same, then that is a 'good counts as' and probably passes rule of cool.

The issue is when people swear their stuff is clear and cool and it isn't and they get super defensive about their gamer rights because thier admech movie with humans with imperial weapons are supposed to 'clearly' be demons.

My worst experience ever at a tourney is when I played against a total conversion army which was squats as 3rd edition speed freeks fromt he Armageddon codex. The vehicles were massive pirate ships, none of the weapons matched anything (a giant horn was a burna, Axes were Powerfists) and even the owner had trouble remembering what things were. It was a STUNNING army to look at, terrible to play against. Basically whoever was paired with him was stuck with a 2 hour argument and generally bad time due to the inconsistencies of the army.

Everyone is ok with 'good counts as' using 3rd party parts. The issue is usually people who make good 'counts as' ask for TO permission and input when building their models. People who make bad counts as have agendas like making one set of models which can be necron, space wolves and demons interchangeably and everything is an extreme proxy and don't take any feedback on why their models are confusing and then take extreme attitudes where they say 'proxies are not confusing, suck it up, deal with it.'

Good call calling anyone who doesn't basically accept everything a snob. The problem with rule of cool is some things are legitimatly not cool and don't have a place at these events.

OK, so, according to the 6e; counts as and scratch-built rules;

"counts as" made from a GW model is fine?
(but where does it say only GW?)

thus;

GW; Space Marine armed with a Shuriken Catapult (metal, oop, half size of current line) "counts as" a SM w/special weapon (melta, flamer, plasma gun), is fine.

GW; SM armed with NO weapons, just two fists wraped in chains, looking all hella cool, "counts as" SM Sgt with power weapon, is fine.

According to some opinions here, "counts as."

Non-GW; Mantic Dwarf from spaaaaace armed with a different weapon than the rest of the unit, "counts as" SM with special weapon, is the devil?






Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would add;

A entirely naked model armed with a hand weapon from ANY other than GW company could be ANY non-armored, armed with a hand weapon model using GW rules.

example; maybe NSFW? http://wargamesfoundry.com/fantasy_ranges/single_packs/elves/any/nightmoss_nymphs_rev207/

Additionally;

A model armed with a rifle, and some sort webgear, pouches, flack or heavy jacket from any era IRL could easily be ANY GW model wearing flak, armed with a Lasgun, Shoota, etc.

Example; http://wargamesfoundry.com/historical_ranges/single_packs/colonial/the_north_west_frontier/indian_guide_infantry_nw021/?sector_id=

rexscarlet wrote:
OK, so, according to the 6e; counts as and scratch-built rules;

There are no rules and never have been. It has always been a 'social convention' which is the agreement of the two players, the standards of 'the house' or the rules of the tourney organizer.

thus;

GW; Space Marine armed with a Shuriken Catapult (metal, oop, half size of current line) "counts as" a SM w/special weapon (melta, flamer, plasma gun), is fine.

GW; SM armed with NO weapons, just two fists wraped in chains, looking all hella cool, "counts as" SM Sgt with power weapon, is fine.

According to some opinions here, "counts as."

Non-GW; Mantic Dwarf from spaaaaace armed with a different weapon than the rest of the unit, "counts as" SM with special weapon, is the devil?

in a tourney run by GW, I would say example 1 is fine, Example 2 is Iffy and Example 3 is not allowed. Of course you practically would need to have a time maachine to go back in time to when GW ran official events. Don't plan to show up at ToT with mantic dwarves and be allowed to play.

In casual play, ask your opponent. At Indy tourneys, ask the TO, which would probably allow the mantic dwarves as they are a good fit for space marine rules.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would add;

A entirely naked model armed with a hand weapon from ANY other than GW company could be ANY non-armored, armed with a hand weapon model using GW rules.

example; maybe NSFW? http://wargamesfoundry.com/fantasy_ranges/single_packs/elves/any/nightmoss_nymphs_rev207/

Additionally;

A model armed with a rifle, and some sort webgear, pouches, flack or heavy jacket from any era IRL could easily be ANY GW model wearing flak, armed with a Lasgun, Shoota, etc.

Example; http://wargamesfoundry.com/historical_ranges/single_packs/colonial/the_north_west_frontier/indian_guide_infantry_nw021/?sector_id=

In your examples, those females would be hard to be anything but cultists or daemonetts, and those humans would be hard to be anything but simple Iguard or cultists. If you told me they were orks with shootas, that would be basically using proxies.

This is the problem with these threads... people either try to point out extreme or unrealistic examples to justify a position why all standards are wrong. Or they want 'the internet' to give them permission when the only valid anser always is: Ask your opponent or TO.

@nkelsch
Example 1) EXACTLY, cultists or demonettes, yep easy.

Example 2) So, for you, if the player was running an Ork army, with 30 Orks in Flak armed with just Shootas, humans with guns would be to much of a stretch... really? But I bet Fantasy Beastmen with guns as Kroot or Orks would be alright with you???

hmmmmm...

Maybe it is time for Tourneys to have more than one type of Game?

Ard Boyz; no painting required, wysiwyg, ONLY GW, (as wysiwyg would be only GW), AND Forge World.

Grand Tourney Style; painting, wysiwyg, only GW (maybe FW?).

Indy Tourney Style (cool, like GangNam Style); Counts as, (insert allowed companies figures list here) painted/unpainted, etc. to be determined and listed on the INATFaQ?

maybe?

20 Possessed; I spy with my little eye, something that begins with "C."

hint; "counts as"

WHY?

because, there are parts from Khorne Beserkers, CSM, SM, and Possessed kits...

rexscarlet wrote:
@nkelsch
Example 1) EXACTLY, cultists or demonettes, yep easy.

Example 2) So, for you, if the player was running an Ork army, with 30 Orks in Flak armed with just Shootas, humans with guns would be to much of a stretch... really? But I bet Fantasy Beastmen with guns as Kroot or Orks would be alright with you???

Yes. Humans with light armor and guns have rules. To shoehorn them into another codex is proxying. Beastmen, kroot and orks either lack rules or are reasonably easy to covert to meet work rules and can represent the increase toughness and strength that a stock human model would lack. This is where 'rule of cool' kicks in. I don't consider stock models, even alternative models that are perfect for Iguard rules being used as demons or orks simply because someone wants to play a different army this week. Takes effort, effort is subjective hence why you need to:

Ask your TO

hmmmmm...

Maybe it is time for Tourneys to have more than one type of Game?

Ard Boyz; no painting required, wysiwyg, ONLY GW, (as wysiwyg would be only GW), AND Forge World.

Grand Tourney Style; painting, wysiwyg, only GW (maybe FW?).

Indy Tourney Style (cool, like GangNam Style); Counts as, (insert allowed companies figures list here) painted/unpainted, etc. to be determined and listed on the INATFaQ?

maybe?

Dumb idea. the indy circuit already regulates itself with this simple rule which works amazingly well:

Ask your TO.

There is no valid reason to build an arbitrary list to force every event to supposedly accept model X as unit Y and you will never get a consensus amongst TOs or a community. Rule of cool works amazingly well and the only people who usually left out in the cold are people who are bitter about their abusive modeling being rejected.

nkelsch wrote:

Good call calling anyone who doesn't basically accept everything a snob. .

That isn't what I said but as that is the standard deflect I suspose it is to be expected.

nkelsch wrote:
Rule of cool works amazingly well and the only people who usually left out in the cold are people who are bitter about their abusive modeling being rejected.

I do find the concept of 'abusive modelling' to be faintly ridiculous. Your posts seem to suggest that the only reason why people use 'counts as' is as a way to attempt to cheat or in some way be dishonest.

Yes. Humans with light armor and guns have rules. To shoehorn them into another codex is proxying. Beastmen, kroot and orks either lack rules or are reasonably easy to covert to meet work rules and can represent the increase toughness and strength that a stock human model would lack. This is where 'rule of cool' kicks in. I don't consider stock models, even alternative models that are perfect for Iguard rules being used as demons or orks simply because someone wants to play a different army this week. Takes effort, effort is subjective hence why you need to:

Stock human as an Ork verses a Kroot or Beastman as an Ork? lol...

So, because of "fluff" it is not ok for a "stock" human to represent an Ork, but a fake future fluff Kroot or Fantasy Beastman would be ok, exactly what I said you would say, and a fluff excuse/reason to boot. Fluff; which has nothing to do with a game that can be played with post-it notes and pennies...

See my Possessed figures; SM (from a different codex, with different rules), CSM, Khorne Beserkers, and Possessed (from same codex, ALL with different rules), so not really ok by your definition...

As for; ask the TO default, why have the TO not gotten together and made a stand for or against, or what is ok and what is not ok? the Interwebs is a great place to archive...






Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Palindrome there are no rules in 6e on modeling for advantage.

Abusive "legal" modeling is another topic entirely;

Example; all kneeling SM assault squads

Models used; assault squad and kneeling SM legs (from Dev Squad?) just guled from sprue, no modifying needed.

Is it modeling for advantage, yes, is it illegal, nope.

Example; telescoping pointer (antennae) barrels as part of a vehicles weapons, stretch them out to gain range,

Is it modeling for advantage, yes, is it illegal, only IF you were going for "GW only," then yes... but 6e says nowhere GW only...



Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, my goal here might be get "counts as" accepted mainstream non-GW, meaning by a majority?

Casual players rely on the tournies to "make the call" on what is fair, and many a small group will have a house rule; we use the INATFaQ, or we go by Adepticon for points played, etc.

All it would take is a list posted on the Interwebs as to what models could be "counts as" for what...

I just find it odd and sad that we not see more of the Indy figure companies models out there?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I assume all those opposed to using proxies field fully painted armies, there would be a condratiction there otherwise.

I do, actually. IMO bare plastic = not allowed to play in the event.

As far as I'm concerned you should play games with good looking miniatures, it doesn't matter where they come from as long as theres consistency across the army and they look good. There are plenty of 28mm ranges about there compatible with GW, which is really what we are talking about with proxies, so the claims that people will field armies of toy army men is a bit of hyperbole.

I don't think it's hyperbole at all. For example, there's a dedicated Apocalypse group around here, and they're horrible about using toys as proxies. Their armies are full of random toys from walmart with a token 40k weapon glued on the side, minimally "painted" models, old GW models that look nothing like the modern ones, etc. And they've openly posted things like "hey look at this new toy I found, it's so much cheaper than the expensive FW model I'm going to count it as".

So, I have no doubt that there are people with that kind of attitude in normal 40k who would love to be able to replace their unpainted netlist-of-the-month armies with the cheapest bag of army men they can find.

40k is not good enough of a game for 'the game' to be the exclusionary primary focus of any event. If it was, then we would be playing with nameless tokens.

When you boil it down, showing up with appropriate models is like having a 'dress code'. People who have basic social skills and good ettiquite know what is expected of them and show up with their best effort and make a solid attempt to be within the code.

What we have here is someone trying to convince us why flip flops and shorts should be allowed at a buisness casual event. Yes, we can accept your jeans without holes, you probably should have a collared shirt, but your really nice shorts however how nice are simply not appropriate.

@rexscarlet: you really need to get over this obession with GW only. No one is even talking about that. 3rd party models are allowed pretty much EVERYWHERE except GW events and GW stores. The issue is when people try to use models (regardless of being GW or not) which do not even remotley match the rules they are trying to be. Often when someone attempts to make an army which can be multiple codexes all at once so they don't have to buy multiple models or armies. The issue is while some counts as are well done and easy to play against, many are not. They harm the game, are confusing and while are acceptable in casual play when opponents agree, often they are not acceptable at tourneys.

This is no different if you are trying to play a GW lizardman as a grey knight or a 3d party ork as a space wolf. If the counts as is extreme, and the weapons don't match and opponents clearly can't identify what they are playing against, then TOs should not allow them in the event.

Which is why in this age of internet communities, if you have ideas for conversions which might be confusing, ask for feedback from the community and actually listen to their feedback with an open mind. And before you go to an event, send the TO some pictures.

I still feel stock legos have no place at a wargaming event outside of a 'fan art' display. I would have a problem playing against that at an event.

rexscarlet wrote:
@nkelsch
Example 1) EXACTLY, cultists or demonettes, yep easy.

Example 2) So, for you, if the player was running an Ork army, with 30 Orks in Flak armed with just Shootas, humans with guns would be to much of a stretch... really? But I bet Fantasy Beastmen with guns as Kroot or Orks would be alright with you???

See, I'd go with nkelsch's responses on these. it's about "Rule of Cool" plus "Is this reasonable?" - and yes, I'm well aware that "reasonable" is essentially a personal opinion, but humans as humans would seem to be pretty reasonable for most people. Beastmen could work as Orks, Kroot or as Humans. Humans as Orks? Well, I don't much see the point, unless the models were suitably barbaric and large looking. Maybe a mix of Goliaths and Catachans armed with GorkaMorka-style weapons could pass, as it would look reasonable. But those Indian Army figures you linked would fit right in alongside a mix of Praetorians, Mordians and Victoria Lamb's stuff as a "colonial"-themed Imperial Guard regiment commanded by officers from Britannia IV. ie. Not a huge visual or imaginative stretch.

But yeah, I'd still happily play against the Lego army.