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.

The notion of GW "legality" is arbitrary. So "60%" of the model must be GW. Is there any way for a GW employee to recognize 59% from 60%?-Is it 60% by part count?- By volume? -By mass? -Does the base count? How about if I have non-GW minis as corpses on my base? -All or none of the above?

At the end of the day GW could tell you not to use a 1% non-GW mini. There is no legality, just the unilateral dictatorial authority they are entitled to.

As far as proxy, alternate models, and "count as" goes... Sounds like someone is trying to make more categorical distinctions where there really aren't any so many. They are rather synonymous actions. To "proxy" is where I use something to represent something else. To "Count as" I explicitly made a model to represent something else. An "Alternate Model" is where a company has made a model to represent something else. If there is a distinction it is just a case of who the actor and the nature of the effort behind the model.

The three definitions are a bit arbitrary on my part and not entirely concrete, but I think they represent roughly the term's usage by gamers over the years and the connotations the terms have acquired. "Alternate model" is something that really only exists when you're dealing with a company that has created a fantasy world and their own models of it, and another company tries to make similar products but terms like Proxy and Counts-as go way back. I think GW even tried to apply specific definitions to the terms in an article or rules some time ago, though I'm straggling to recall where.

pax_imperialis wrote:
play the models you think look coolest, as long as it's clear what they're meant to be. I actually have way more problems with people using very similar models, especially tyranids. Halfway through the game i realise that the trygon is actually a mawloc or something like that.

on the same topic, I like the rules for the giant spawn but dislike the fw model for it. Would a fantasy mutalith be a good enough substitute? and would that be a counts as or a proxy?

I agree that clarity is key. The most important thing is that your opponent be able to easily tell what is in your army. That's why a representative, WYSIWYG Alternate model is usually preferable to a count's-as or proxy. It's also why when proxying or counts-as-ing a certain unit or piece of war gear for another, the considerate gamer will apply that change to their entire army. "All plasmas are melts" or "all Guardians are dire avengers" is much easier to keep track of than "the bolters on this unit are actualy combo-weapons and this terminators power fist is a heavy flamer, etc, etc". Long story short, my general opinion is that if your proxying or counting-as for advantage is causing your opponents confusion then it's time to cut it out.

Regarding Mutalith vs Spawn, I guess I'll continue playing arbitrator of Proxies today….
Since you're just substituting one nasty tentacled beast for another, if the sizes are roughly equivalent then I'd see it more as an "alternate model". I don't know the comparative sizes of the two, so if they're drastically different in size, then a different term might apply.

 aka_mythos wrote:
I'm waiting for the day GW acknowledges all the non-GW stuff in the rulebook. No one aside from GW employees care, but if GW introduced a rule in the book people suddenly would. Trying to ban them in the rulebook people would shrug, but I bet if GW insidiously had rules that armies containing a single non-GW model were treated as unbound, then people would care.

I'd love to seem 'em try.

I would too. There is a distinct segment of the gaming population that becomes anal retentive about the smallest rules and that group would insist that any negative consequence they can force on an opponent will be forced on them just because it's in the rules.

Well it's good to know a vast majority of the playerbase doesn't seem to mind! I did a round of Q&A with my local store, and not one said no, as long as I made it clear who did what if I did so. If i didn't buy those Mantic models, I doubt they would have moved at all. XD Entire store is mostly GW when it coems to wargaming, while Magic takes the card demographic.

Seems a good deal, 30 models that I can convert into Kommandos or Tankbustas, and the Raptor that comes with it I'm going to try to turn into the Relic Bike

 aka_mythos wrote:
I would too. There is a distinct segment of the gaming population that becomes anal retentive about the smallest rules and that group would insist that any negative consequence they can force on an opponent will be forced on them just because it's in the rules.

Just don't play with them.

Mmmm... I would say the legality of models depends on the model and the army.

I saw someone get kicked out of a GW store trying to field a Samurai-style Space Marine army. The torsos were stock, but they all had custom heads and swords. The Rhinos were heavily converted, they had stock tracks but the front and the interior parts were swapped out with parts from WWII era Japanese tanks. His techmarines were all custom and had bits from the hardware store all over them. It was a very cool, imaginative army. The manager told him to leave, his army looked cool but it was not 40k.

OTOH, I have seen more people using non-GW GUOs in Chaos armies than the standard models. Same for other Chaos Daemons, and I have seen a lot of other models replacing all their troops choices with no issues. For CSMs, it's about the same. Anything Chaos seems to be overlooked when it comes to rules about the legality of models.

I've noticed people seem to not notice (or care) about third party ork stuff in games... probably because a good deal of it could be lied about and said they built it.

Everybody should be using old, kitbashed, or third party models these days. Current GW models are overpriced and poorly designed.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Mmmm... I would say the legality of models depends on the model and the army.

I saw someone get kicked out of a GW store trying to field a Samurai-style Space Marine army. The torsos were stock, but they all had custom heads and swords. The Rhinos were heavily converted, they had stock tracks but the front and the interior parts were swapped out with parts from WWII era Japanese tanks. His techmarines were all custom and had bits from the hardware store all over them. It was a very cool, imaginative army. The manager told him to leave, his army looked cool but it was not 40k.

That's a darn shame, but I'm not surprised at all that a GW store manager would send away anything that looks notably different than standard 40k. I can't think of any local FLGS's or tournaments that would ban such an army. One more reason not to mourn the closing, shrinking and or minimizing of gaming tables of GW stores.

 Harriticus wrote:
Everybody should be using old, kitbashed, or third party models these days. Current GW models are overpriced and poorly designed.

I'm waiting for tournaments to give a "least 40k" and/or "oldest 40k" army prize.

We play rule of cool. If it looks good and is about the same size then you can use it at our store.

I'd rather see a cool army than all GW army.

I SO WANT TO FIGHT THIS ARMY. I wonder if some wouldn't allow this in a tournament I would.

http://i.imgur.com/2A7Vido.jpg

Hell, GW used to have non-GW terrain in their codices.

For several years (2nd -3rd ed) guard players woud ask my local GW where they could find the awesome fortress bastion piece in their codex. (It was made AND sold by Ziterdes, NOT GW). They got told to say that they didn't know.

One of the main reasons I play 40K is for the modelling opportunities. Therefore I am happy to play with completely non-GW armies providing they are cool and "fair" in the sense of it being clear what things are.

It is a real shame that GW should discourage conversions. I can understand they want to sell their own kits, and therefore not allow non-GW figures, but these days it is all about selling the new official kits, not the hobby.

I have a trio of Ukrainian Obliterators. They are far better sculpts that the GW Failcast models, with a lot of detail. Basically, they look like heavily mutated Nurgle Terminators with a bunch of easily recogniseable weapons in each hand (Assault Cannon, Plasma Guns, Meltaguns, etc.). Even the resin they are made of is much more sturdy.

I've also bought some Kromlech bits to make my Noise Marines look better.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
One of the main reasons I play 40K is for the modelling opportunities. Therefore I am happy to play with completely non-GW armies providing they are cool and "fair" in the sense of it being clear what things are.

It is a real shame that GW should discourage conversions. I can understand they want to sell their own kits, and therefore not allow non-GW figures, but these days it is all about selling the new official kits, not the hobby.

One they think they are providing you with bits to do the conversions you want. Second to them the hobby is games workshop. Just like Lego does not want you to use other brands blocks.

Since GW has now completely retired from the tournament scene, including gaming events such as Games Day. I would dare say, there are no longer such things "illegal models".