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.

Let me elaborate. I do not mean proxying an entire army.

As i understand it, most players don't have an issue with the little things like 'this plasma cannon is a multimelta' or 'these terminators are allied Grey knights'.

What I'm not so sure about is if the general consensus is if a large model such as a super heavy could be proxyed from another similarly sized model.

This thought came to me when i was considering what to buy next: a knight or the great necromancer himself.

Both are models i will buy eventually, just because they are awesome models, but i was wondering which first, and if i could make do for the time being with only one.

What would you say if someone tried to proxy Nagash as a knight?

I would allow it, not like it.
To me 40k is all about the feeling and aesthetics.
Now, small proxying like meltagun/plasma gun can be ignored easily because it can hardly be seen.
Bigger ones that you are able to spot, like Terminators as GK Termies are not bad, because even if they can be seen easily, they are not that important and can also be ignored from an aesthetic point of view.

But the problem with bigger ones is that they are the models that really catch your eye. They are easily the centerpieces of the whole battle and if they don't represent the feeling of real 40k battle, it's difficult to get that feeling out of the rest of the battle.

That's just my opinion. Once again, I would allow it and live with it without whining.
I just wouldn't enjoy it being part of the game that much.

IMO it depends on the reason for the proxy. Is it a model that's in the theme of your army and roughly the same size/shape as the real model? I'd probably allow it. Is it obviously just a case of putting a cheap toy on the table because you want a powerful unit but don't want to spend the money required to get the real one? Not allowed.

In friendly games I see no issue, this isn't the cheapest hobby, but as Peregrine said, just plopping down a toy at a tournament seem half @$$ed at best. If its another GW (or similar) mini of similar size just proxying until said model is acquired, seems reasonable.

I would say if your doing it just to try it out before buying, no problem go ahead.
If your doing it as a permenant model that you dont plan on replacing, do some conversion work to make it look nice.

You will get a variety of answers from different people but at the end of the day, the people you REALLY need to ask and discuss it with are those you play against and your local TO.
Careful though, there are some players who will veto you out of hand because they can afford to buy all the big nasties and want to use their deep pockets against you to get an advantage. Not everyone is like that, but I have seen a few and they are always tough to deal with.

All that's needed to be said.

the game has gotten a little more WAAC than the good old days when we played for fun and no one batted an eye at those conversions (or other conversions for that matter).

 EVIL INC wrote:
the game has gotten a little more WAAC than the good old days when we played for fun and no one batted an eye at those conversions (or other conversions for that matter).

How does Win at all cost have anything to do with this...?

It might be before your time. 40k used to be a game more based on just having fun. It was more o a hobby than a tournament must win sort of game. They (GW) openly encouraged conversions and custimizations like the deoderent can tank above. Heck, I remember them having an article where they demonstrated RTB01 marine top halves on top of dale bottoms and with them laying on their bellies using missile launchers made from cut up sprue.
As they started getting away from that atmosphere and towards the "official model' tournament atmosphere, WAAC started to get worse and wose as the type of player started to change.
This is not an "each and every player" situation but an overall feel and atmosphere situation. For example, in the old days, if we had a rules question, we rolled off for it and then sat and discussed a solution amongst ourselves after the game. Today, the game comes to a halt and faqs are looked up and huge arguments ensue.

There's a difference between proxies and conversions/counts-as (like the deodorant tank). You're confusing them and trying to blame it on tournaments.

Using conversions and counts-as is often A-OK. Using proxies (models that have no visual / narrative resemblance to the model you are representing) is what people are not okay with.

 soomemafia wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
the game has gotten a little more WAAC than the good old days when we played for fun and no one batted an eye at those conversions (or other conversions for that matter).

How does Win at all cost have anything to do with this...?

Because what other reason is there to deny a player using an alternate model other than you feel it may give them an advantage that reduces your chances of winning?

Exactly. some try to differentiate proxies and conversions at all the time to justify them. There is a difference but there are similarities as well. Both are something that are not "official" In that, they are the same and in this thread, that is what we are discussing. Another reason is to deny them a unit that you are ill prepared to face or lower thepoints of their army so that if it is a converted land raider you would have a 250 point advantage from the start. it is not always about taking an advantage from hem but often about giving you an advantage.
The differences are that conversions are an attempt to look like what the unit is or to show your interpretation of it while a proxy is just something to show it being there without any attempt to make it "look right".

Except you're the one that brought up conversions rather than proxies and tried to drag the thread into your own personal crusade against WAAC.

Umm you really should not make that sort of accusation of someone when it is not true. It is VERY impolite. WAAC has a place. I play for fun and in those games WAAC simply does not have a place there. I also play in tournaments and there WAAC does have a place. I differentiate between the two environments and acknowledge that there are also middle ground games where you look stuff up and so forth without it being WAAC but rather learning experiences.
So no, I feel that in today's game, WAAC does have a place.A nostalgia for the old days efore it is not a crusade against it. Do try to stay on topic.

In this cases we are discussing proxy and a conversion are the same thing as it is something representing a unit that is not the official model. This could be a brick to represent a tank or ctual model of a tankmade by another company oreven a model ofthe actual tankthat has been change so that it no longer looks anything like it does on the box. The end result is the same. As i said, Im fine with the brick to test the rules before buying. If your going to use the brick as the actual model without buying on a permenant basis, I would suggest at least painting it up or better yet, at LEAST go as far as getting a brick of the green er stem foam and a look a little like the model and paint it up.

If you're doing it just to try him out, go for it. If you want a powerful unit but don't want to shell out the $, that's kinda chumpy. Also, as said before, if you have a similar sized model, do it, but if its just a $5 Transformer you're proxying, that seems kinda lame.

No, using a brick (a proxy) is not the same as using an alternate tank from another company (counts-as).

This is a semantics argument, functionally there's no difference.

Proxying is definitely not counts-as.

Put effort into your models or go play a boardgame - that sounds mean, but it's just blunt.

Tokens/counters/paper-cut-outs are the realm of boardgames, and there are plenty that are just as fun as 40k.

I like to pit my army against awesomely painted miniatures on awesomely painted terrain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
This is a semantics argument, functionally there's no difference.

Yes there is. One looks cooler than the other.

I'm not sure you could make a great argument that what something LOOKS like has anything to do with how it FUNCTIONS.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I'm not sure you could make a great argument that what something LOOKS like has anything to do with how it FUNCTIONS.

Except that one of the functions of playing a wargame (as opposed to a boardgame) is to play with cool-looking miniatures.

 Azreal13 wrote:
This is a semantics argument, functionally there's no difference.

Absolutely. But it is all about aesthetics. Putting a coke can down as a drop pod is a world of difference from putting down a converted mole drill thing.

 EVIL INC wrote:
It might be before your time. 40k used to be a game more based on just having fun. It was more o a hobby than a tournament must win sort of game. They (GW) openly encouraged conversions and custimizations like the deoderent can tank above. Heck, I remember them having an article where they demonstrated RTB01 marine top halves on top of dale bottoms and with them laying on their bellies using missile launchers made from cut up sprue.
As they started getting away from that atmosphere and towards the "official model' tournament atmosphere, WAAC started to get worse and wose as the type of player started to change.
This is not an "each and every player" situation but an overall feel and atmosphere situation. For example, in the old days, if we had a rules question, we rolled off for it and then sat and discussed a solution amongst ourselves after the game. Today, the game comes to a halt and faqs are looked up and huge arguments ensue.

Times have changed, I get it. I still don't see how does an impolite "f*** you"-attitude fit in the discussion about models.
And gee, I'm all about conversions! But "my self-made counts-as Gorkanaut" is far from "this soda bottle is actually a Monolith". I know I'm exaggerating, but the point is same. There is a difference between counts-as (conversions) and proxying.
Not allowing the latter is a personal choice and doing so isn't necessary being a huge d***.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 soomemafia wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
the game has gotten a little more WAAC than the good old days when we played for fun and no one batted an eye at those conversions (or other conversions for that matter).

How does Win at all cost have anything to do with this...?

Because what other reason is there to deny a player using an alternate model other than you feel it may give them an advantage that reduces your chances of winning?

How about the one I mentioned? Not enjoying the aesthetic part of seeing the proxied model on the field?
I'm not trying to get personal here, but to me it sounds like you're making me the bad guy if I don't allow every piece of plastic to work as your Wraithknight.

One can be polite and fair by allowing those proxies. Nothing wrong with that, I myself would allow them in 9 times out of 10 if not more.
I just don't understand how the alternative is immediately WAAC/TFG?

 pretre wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
This is a semantics argument, functionally there's no difference.

Absolutely. But it is all about aesthetics. Putting a coke can down as a drop pod is a world of difference from putting down a converted mole drill thing.

But that's not the topic....

At least, it isn't what the OP is asking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 soomemafia wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 soomemafia wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
the game has gotten a little more WAAC than the good old days when we played for fun and no one batted an eye at those conversions (or other conversions for that matter).

How does Win at all cost have anything to do with this...?

Because what other reason is there to deny a player using an alternate model other than you feel it may give them an advantage that reduces your chances of winning?

How about the one I mentioned? Not enjoying the aesthetic part of seeing the proxied model on the field?
I'm not trying to get personal here, but to me it sounds like you're making me the bad guy if I don't allow every piece of plastic to work as your Wraithknight.

One can be polite and fair by allowing those proxies. Nothing wrong with that, I myself would allow them in 9 times out of 10 if not more.
I just don't understand how the alternative is immediately WAAC/TFG?

Rejecting something from the game based in how it looks is a slippery slope. If you're a gak painter, do I now get to exclude your models from the game because they're hideous messes of poorly applied glue and look like they've been finished with masonry paint?

It largely is what we're talking about.

What would you say if someone tried to proxy Nagash as a knight?

Nagash is nothing like a Knight. Not in size, shape, etc.

So let's change my soda can to 'Like putting down a dreadnought for a drop pod'. That's proxying.

IT has not a single thing to do with what we are talking about. To prove the point let me give you an example...
You have two players.
Player 1 is a WAACplayer with an unpainted army It is marines but he did not want to shell out the cash for a dreadnought so he just proxies it using his eldar avatar (also unpainted. He doesnt paint his stuff because he just cant be bothered with it
Player 2 has the same marine army but doesnt care if he wins or loses. EVER. His stuff is unpainted because he has no self confidence in his painting skills. he just doesnt like the looks of the clumpy dread model so he went and bought an eldar avatar to convert/counts as a dread.
Looking at the two armies, they look the same. One is using a proxy while the other is using a counts as/conversion.
So you see, that is a totally different discussion to the one we are having here. We are discussing PURE functionality (not even the aesthetics of it being painted or not).

 EVIL INC wrote:
IT has not a single thing to do with what we are talking about. To prove the point let me give you an example...
You have two players.
Player 1 is a WAACplayer with an unpainted army It is marines but he did not want to shell out the cash for a dreadnought so he just proxies it using his eldar avatar (also unpainted. He doesnt paint his stuff because he just cant be bothered with it
Player 2 has the same marine army but doesnt care if he wins or loses. EVER. His stuff is unpainted because he has no self confidence in his painting skills. he just doesnt like the looks of the clumpy dread model so he went and bought an eldar avatar to convert/counts as a dread.
Looking at the two armies, they look the same. One is using a proxy while the other is using a counts as/conversion.
So you see, that is a totally different discussion to the one we are having here. We are discussing PURE functionality (not even the aesthetics of it being painted or not).

I'd tell the second player that I wouldn't play his avatar. "No hard feelings, but just like how you disliked the Dreadnought, I dislike the look of the Avatar, and will consider it a proxy." Then, I would direct him to other models that can be used as a counts-as dreadnought that are much better, such as the Contemptor.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
This is a semantics argument, functionally there's no difference.

Absolutely. But it is all about aesthetics. Putting a coke can down as a drop pod is a world of difference from putting down a converted mole drill thing.

But that's not the topic....

At least, it isn't what the OP is asking.

What would you say if someone tried to proxy Nagash as a knight?

Ummm... yes it is. It's precisely what he's asking. He's asking is it okay and if our answer is that for some people it isn't because of proxying itself, then it most definitely is on topic.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 soomemafia wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 soomemafia wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
the game has gotten a little more WAAC than the good old days when we played for fun and no one batted an eye at those conversions (or other conversions for that matter).

How does Win at all cost have anything to do with this...?

Because what other reason is there to deny a player using an alternate model other than you feel it may give them an advantage that reduces your chances of winning?

How about the one I mentioned? Not enjoying the aesthetic part of seeing the proxied model on the field?
I'm not trying to get personal here, but to me it sounds like you're making me the bad guy if I don't allow every piece of plastic to work as your Wraithknight.

One can be polite and fair by allowing those proxies. Nothing wrong with that, I myself would allow them in 9 times out of 10 if not more.
I just don't understand how the alternative is immediately WAAC/TFG?

Rejecting something from the game based in how it looks is a slippery slope. If you're a gak painter, do I now get to exclude your models from the game because they're hideous messes of poorly applied glue and look like they've been finished with masonry paint?

You have that option. It's not very nice, but you can do it.

However, this is completely irrelevant comparison because those two situations are far from each other.
If I am a bad painter (which I happen to be), it's because even tough I try my best I'm just not able to achieve the level you are for some reason asking.
It wasn't my choice to make my army look bad. But if a guy walks into a store and places an army of Necrons on the table and starts telling you how "these Immortals are Firewarriors, but this squad is actually Kroots", it is completely different.
It was his choice to proxy, even tough he clearly had an option to either a) spend the money to the army he actually wants to play or b) play Necrons. So why does he choose the option c) to purposefully take the aesthetic feeling of the game from your opponent just so that you can have the newest and best stuff there is?

If you deny a game because of bad painting, that is simply rude. But I don't see how you can blame someone who doesn't enjoy playing against an army of empty bases and spray cans.

You would have that right as a player. You have the right to tell smeone using a hello kitty marine army you refuse to play them because you dont like them as well. thats a purely personal decision. If your local TO allows it and your in a tourney, you wont have a choice.

We are indeed discussin opinions and that it yours. Others have different ones and no one is trying to force theirs on you. Well, at least I'M not.

Again, people are arguing semantics with no functional distinction.

If I refuse to play your army because it looks like gak, then the reasons why it looks gak are moot, whether it be because of poorly chosen proxies/counts as/conversions or because of atrocious paint jobs.

Refusing to play someone on the grounds that YOU think THEIR army looks like gak, despite the fact that they may have poured their heart and soul into it, is, I fervently hope we can all agree, a pretty douchey move.

 EVIL INC wrote:
IT has not a single thing to do with what we are talking about. To prove the point let me give you an example...
You have two players.
Player 1 is a WAACplayer with an unpainted army It is marines but he did not want to shell out the cash for a dreadnought so he just proxies it using his eldar avatar (also unpainted. He doesnt paint his stuff because he just cant be bothered with it
Player 2 has the same marine army but doesnt care if he wins or loses. EVER. His stuff is unpainted because he has no self confidence in his painting skills. he just doesnt like the looks of the clumpy dread model so he went and bought an eldar avatar to convert/counts as a dread.
Looking at the two armies, they look the same. One is using a proxy while the other is using a counts as/conversion.
So you see, that is a totally different discussion to the one we are having here. We are discussing PURE functionality (not even the aesthetics of it being painted or not).

If you really think that Avatar can be used as a counts-as Dreadnought, I'm not sure if you understand the term.
Seriously, not trying to insult or anything. But if he just buys an Eldar Avatar and uses the model unmodified to represent a Dreadnought it's hard to concider that being a counts-as.
And there is a slight difference even there. Player 1 uses Avatar because he doesn't bother buying the real model and he has an Avatar. The second one has apparently (for some reason) bought the Avatar separately to represent the Dreadnought. So the second player has actually put some trouble in his DNought.

And once again, read the OP. Did he ask if Nagash can be used as an IK as for it's size? No. He asked if people allow it. And if some people don't it is their choice.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Refusing to play someone on the grounds that YOU think THEIR army looks like gak, despite the fact that they may have poured their heart and soul into it, is, I fervently hope we can all agree, a pretty douchey move.

Agreed. Now, show me one guy who has poured his heart and soul into an army with Nagash working as an Imperial Knight.
The OP specified that it would only be a temporary solution, so it's hard to imagine him thinking like that.


Yes, these are all opinions and whether you will play against Hello Kitty/badly painted army or not is your decision and I'm cool with it.
But I'm not cool with me somehow being TFG if my decision is not to play against them.