Proxy models in Matched Play

[Orsino]

I love the creativity and variety provided by interesting conversions and counts as. As long as you've put some effort in and give me some clues on the model as to what they're meant to be I'd have zero problem with skaven chainrasps. Insisting that every unit be represented only by the "official" model makes the game poorer by robbing us of cool themed armies.

This might be a bit of a hobbyist/gamer dividing line and some people may take issue with your army but hopefully they'll be willing to be adults about it and negotiate, and if not you can always find another player who will.

[Verengard]

"This Grot counts as a Gargant"...

As long as the proxies/count as match original models in look & size both base & miniature its fine.

[EccentricCircle]

I agree with what others have said. If you are planning to add chains and paint them up as ghosts then that is a conversion, not a proxy. It sounds like a really cool hobby project, and you should definitely post up the results to show off your work and inspire others!

That said, I've never had a problem with proxies so long as it is clear what they are supposed to be, or both players can easily agree on it. For example; if someone has an entire army of warriors of Rohan from Lord of the Rings, then it would be ridiculous to force them to buy an entire freeguild army in order to try out that set of rules. Just assign the units on a "best match" basis. The riders are knights, the footmen are Freeguild archers or guards, King Theoden is the general on horseback, and Gandalf is a Battlemage. I have vague plans to do something similar with my crusades era army, to use as a more middle eastern themed freeguild force.

Some GW forces are harder to do this for than others, as the unit types get very specific, but Nighthaunt have plenty of units which are logical to represent by different sorts of ghosts. (I'm not going to be leaving my old metal wraiths in the box when my Nighthaunt go to war for example. They can be Grimghast Reapers!)

That said, I'm definitely on the "fluffier" end of the hobby. I have genuinely played Warhammer using Lego Knights in the past. I play a lot of games like D&D and Frostgrave where there is no stipulation that you have to have the correct models, or even models from the same manufacturer, so I kind of find GW's more draconian policies to be a bit silly. Thus my opinions are likely to not be representative of the competitive crowd.

[syph0n]

4 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Since the topic is about Matched Play, I'll answer first with a simple hard "no." 

At a tournament (assuming you mean that when you reference Matched Play - if not, never mind), there should be no room for an unwarranted advantage, intended or not, and using the proxies gives you an advantage.

 

In basement games (Matched or otherwise) I have a very simple, straightforward rule:

Put your army on the table. Say nothing. Put no lables next to the units. If I can identify not only which army it is, but also what each and every model in the army is supposed to be, then it's fine. If not, you've let form override function, and that's not cool.

Proxying can give an advantage, but counts-as, when modelled correctly? Not sure personally.

And regarding the bottom bit, I couldn't identify half of what I see beyond my own collections because I just don't see many armies that often that I could tell you the difference between Clan Eshin or Skyre models, or which Dispossessed unit is which. 😂 

However, form over function I agree with you if you expect an opponent to know that your crossbows are spears and your halberds are swords! 

11 hours ago, amysrevenge said:

I think, other than my already mentioned base-sized bits of paper, I'm also not happy with the same model standing in for two different things.  Like, say, someone using Liberators as stand ins for both Sequitors and Evocators (and maybe even a unit of actual Liberators!).  One at a time, buddy.

Yeah that's pushing your luck and does become very confusing. I've converted some Corsairs to have actual Crossbows to use as Darkshards, just because it suits my army more. They even have shields. I wouldn't dream of then also using Corsairs as actual Corsairs because it's confusing for my opponent. 

I think the theme of the thread boils down to personal preference or, in tournament setting, the TO decision / ruling. Most people I know in the hobby are pretty easy going, but most people I know like to convert, change things up etc. Everyone still gets bases right, tries to get weapons right and so on and wouldn't take advantage by expecting someone to know one of the Retributors has a Starsoul Mace when none have one etc. 

[Kerelian]

Thank you all again for your input. It's been great to have some more insight on how doing this might be perceived.

This is what I've gathered so far:

• Proxy is the wrong word for my intentions. I'm angling more for conversions that count as something.
• Most people are fine with emergency proxy use, and not as a recurring theme. It should not happen in tournaments (although I don't intend to play in them).
• It should be done with effort to make it a compelling part of an army and not an out-of-place standin, especially with respect to the opponent and the army they worked hard to complete.
• It should ideally be converted to truly show off its symbolic nature and not just painted in a particular scheme. It needs to be a cool addition and conversation piece, not a confusing source for debate.
• Jesus christ, 10 Chainrasps are 40 USD.

 

I've ordered some teensy hobby chains and 25mm bases to swap from the old squares. I will eventually try my hand at green stuff modelling and see if I can't make some manacles, too. Should I create a prototype chainrat, paint it, and gather your thoughts?

Thanks again.

 

Addendum: When it comes to the difference in model sizes, I figure the way to approach it is to place an original model in the stead of the standin to determine things like line of sight. I don't imagine this will make for a common issue, though.

 

 

[TheMuphinMan]

If you converted/kitbashed skaven to look like night haunt, I don't think many people would have a problem as long as the models are clear in what they represent, have the same base size, are about the same height, and don't ruin neither the immersion nor the flow of the game.

Personally I'd go with plaguemonks over clanrats. They are easier to pose, the plaguemonks have robes which fit better with the night haunt aesthetic (with some tweaking like maybe add some more rips, removing the feet, etc), and sprue has the plague censors and bale chimes giving you some chains to work with.

 

[amysrevenge]

The direction this discussion usually goes:

(Person with the worst abuses of proxies/counts-as in mind): Proxies?  No thanks.

(Person with the mildest/best cases in mind): Proxies?  No problem.

(Reality): Case by case - usually fine/unnoticed, sometimes the experience is improved, sometimes the experience is worsened.

[Greyshadow]

@Kerelian, from someone who has never, (until the model I am working on right now), done a test model - yes, you absolutely should do a test model! Not only will it allow you to check your colour scheme (make sure you write your steps down as you go) but you can tinker with taking shortcuts to get the model done quicker. If you can learn spot a few shortcuts you can save heaps of time when applying what you have learnt across your army. 

There are quite a few really great youtube videos and blog posts (eg Tyler Mengel's) for painting ghostly models. Worth watching a green stuff for beginners tutorial too as there are a few tips and tricks to make doing this a lot easier. Given you have ordered model chains, making the manacles alone would be very achievable. Best of luck!

[adreal]

In regards to converting up some older skaven models to use as chainrasps.

Get some tissue, sit it over the model, drop some superglue on the tissue, w you it for it to dry. Hey ho, easy robes

[Sleboda]

12 hours ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

I’ve used my Marauders with two handed weapons as Bloodreavers with meatriper axes without complaint at a number of tournaments (including at a WHW one).

If they complain, they run the risk of being looked at as unfun and therefore losing points. A _lot_ of people hold in their gripes to avoid confrontation.

[Sleboda]

3 hours ago, TheMuphinMan said:

 Personally I'd go with plaguemonks over clanrats. They are easier to pose, the plaguemonks have robes which fit better with the night haunt aesthetic (with some tweaking like maybe add some more rips, removing the feet, etc), and sprue has the plague censors and bale chimes giving you some chains to work with.

Yes! Now we're talkin'!

I was going to suggest a head swap on the chainrasps to keep the overall form intact while also making them Skaven, but this works just as well. Good idea.

Also, why are people fused over a box of 10 models costing $40?  They are actually cheaper than the other 10-man boxes in the range. Heck, since they are easy to build, I'd pay more for them just because they reduce time spent on a super annoying part of the hobby.

[Kerelian]

Plague monks are a fantastic idea, but I don't have any at home - I might look around for some to mix in with the chainrats, errr, clanrats. Swapping heads on chainrasps and skaven seems like a difficult task, but I might actually try it for a laugh.

I'm not fussed over the price as much as it surprises me. When I was last involved with the hobby, ten space marines went for under 30 euro and traditional horde armies had twenty models for the same price. These new models are certainly fantastic quality, though.

[Ollie Grimwood]

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

If they complain, they run the risk of being looked at as unfun and therefore losing points. A _lot_ of people hold in their gripes to avoid confrontation.

Nope they didn’t care 

[Sleboda]

I hear ya, but my point is, you wouldn't find out if they did. This came up in another thread a few months back, so I'll give the short version of what I said there (without going into the whole discussion of social awkwardness and difficulty in being assertive for many in this hobby).

 

This is and has been a passion-topic of mine for the 30+ years I've been playing Warhammer. I've spoken to literally hundreds of people about it in many different settings. I've had to press (nicely) to let them feel safe in being honest, but in a surprising number of cases, people have eventually said that yeah, their opponents do things they would like to tell them to not do, but don't speak up because they don't want to look like the bad guy.

It's way more common than even I thought it would be.

 

We can all appreciate the skill and creativity involved in customizing and painting a model, but when that effort interferes, to whatever degree, with a player's ability to make the connection between on-field representation and the rules, it's actually pretty selfish of us to take the liberty. Cool awesome amazing display model? Hellz yeah! Difficult to recognize gaming piece? Nope.

[Kirjava13]

2 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Also, why are people fussed over a box of 10 models costing $40?  They are actually cheaper than the other 10-man boxes in the range. Heck, since they are easy to build, I'd pay more for them just because they reduce time spent on a super annoying part of the hobby.

Well good for you, but for that price I would prefer to be paying for poseable models so as to avoid a sea of the same ten poses repeated over and over.

[Sleboda]

Different strokes. I actually miss the days of single pose, single part models. I like it when every model in a unit is identical. I like the look and it really speeds up painting.

[Wraith01]

4 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Also, why are people fused over a box of 10 models costing $40?  They are actually cheaper than the other 10-man boxes in the range. Heck, since they are easy to build, I'd pay more for them just because they reduce time spent on a super annoying part of the hobby.

Because you need at least 20 and $80 is too much for a monopose unit. If they were 20 models in different posses from the ones in the Starter set, I would have bought them, but having 4 sets of the same mini's isn't something I'm willing to spend $ on.

Thats where I think GW did it better with the original AoS starter set; they gave us 2 sets of 10 monopose bloorreavers in the starter and sold a set of 20 posable mini's with multiple head and weapon options.

I know I was ready to buy a set of Chainrasp Hordes until I saw they were selling the same ones I already had, with no options and expected me to buy 2 sets of it. Nope!

[Wraith01]

I don't mind proxies as long as they have the proper look (like if they are supposed to have a sword and shield, don't have a bow and arrow) but I'd rather play against someone with the proper stuff. 

[Sleboda]

34 minutes ago, Wraith01 said:

Because you need at least 20 and $80 is too much for a monopose unit.

It's not really a monopose unit, though (much to my dismay). You get a good variety of poses in the box.

But assuming you're saying what you really want is the ability to assemble each model in a large unit to have a different pose, is the lack of that what makes the cost hard to swallow? Because the other units in the army don't let you do that either, and they cost more.

Not being argumentative, just really trying to see why having the models be very easy to assemble and yet still have a good variety is a problem.

[adreal]

37 minutes ago, Wraith01 said:

Because you need at least 20 and $80 is too much for a monopose unit. If they were 20 models in different posses from the ones in the Starter set, I would have bought them, but having 4 sets of the same mini's isn't something I'm willing to spend $ on.

Thats where I think GW did it better with the original AoS starter set; they gave us 2 sets of 10 monopose bloorreavers in the starter and sold a set of 20 posable mini's with multiple head and weapon options.

I know I was ready to buy a set of Chainrasp Hordes until I saw they were selling the same ones I already had, with no options and expected me to buy 2 sets of it. Nope!

Try living in australia, 10 chainrasps are $70, or you could get soul strike (I think that's the one) with 10 in there for $100, plus other models.

 

I would have bought more rasps for $50 aus, putting them at $70 prices me out of having more then 40

[Wraith01]

3 hours ago, Sleboda said:

It's not really a monopose unit, though (much to my dismay). You get a good variety of poses in the box.

But assuming you're saying what you really want is the ability to assemble each model in a large unit to have a different pose, is the lack of that what makes the cost hard to swallow? Because the other units in the army don't let you do that either, and they cost more.

Not being argumentative, just really trying to see why having the models be very easy to assemble and yet still have a good variety is a problem.

I simply don't want to have models that look the same. I find that boring. I personally hate repeat poses in my armies. I already have the 20 Chainrasp hoard from the starter set, thats 9 models repeated because there's one that has an optional build, for a total of 11 distinct looking minis. I have no interest in buying more of the same. Even if it's to my forces detriment. My enjoyment comes from variety, even if it doesn't win me any games.  

When we move on to price point; they are asking for $40 for One Sprue of 10 easy to build mini's. They ask the same price ($40) for 2 sprues of the Necromunda gang sets and those come with multiple options. Double the plastic for the same price. Okay, they make the same count of 10 mini's but you can get plenty of variety with weapon, pose and head swaps. Two Sprues for the same $40. For $58, thats $18 more, you can get a Bloodreavers kit, with Four Sprues. That kit makes 20 miniatures with plenty of options to make a huge variety of poses. And on top of that, all the other the easy to build kits (Nighthaunt and otherwise) are cheaper than the standard kits. In isolation $40 for 10 GW minis isn't a big deal, but once you add it all together it comes of as a ripoff. Specially when in the Nighthaunt Battletome the Warscroll Battalions require 2 units of ChainRasp Hordes with 20 models or more in each unit. 

True, no one has an issue with paying $45 for 10 Grimghast Reapers or 10 Bladegheist Revenants, etc even though they don't have many options either. But you're getting 2 sprues in those kits and you don't really need more then that as a minimum. Fact is, I am really happy with the Revenants kit because I can run them as 2 units of 5 distinct models! Fulfilling the requirements for a Battalion! 

You might be asking why I point out the amount of sprues when the whole Nighthaunt range is very sparse on plastic, none of the models are chunky and they have great designs. Fact is GW sometimes asks for $45 for one small monopose miniature! And old kits required more sprues to get 10 mini's... I'm not pointing out the amount of plastic so much as the pattern; it would have followed GW's recent pattern to include 2 sprues in the Chainrasp kit. It's what the majority of us were expecting (I was also expecting different sculpts, to stay in line with other previous releases). I would have gladly paid $40, even $45, for a box of easy to build Chainrasp's, but would have been 2 sprues for a total of 20 models (and they were different sculpts to the ones I already have [but that might just be me]). It's what GW has conditioned me to expect. 

 

[Sleboda]

Ok. Thanks for the reply.

The number of sprues is beyond meaningless. The cost of plastic is effectively negligible. One sprue, two sprues, or six sprues, the material cost is just about the lowest element in the pricing model. It may have perception value, but that's pure illusion.

I've not seen the Necromunda kits (somehow I've managed to resist the game ... so far) but if they are anything like blood bowl, it's two identical sprues. Even if not, it's really not a big deal.

Let me put it this way. If they were to have arranged the chainrasps onto two sprues, but with all the exact same parts, it would not change anything. At all. But it sounds like that would make it ok for you. Yeah?

I just really don't get it. They cost less than other 10-man kits. They have very good variety per ten models. They are super quick to assemble. I just don't see how there is any kind of complaint.

Yes, you need multiple sets for certain list builds. How is that any different from numerous other options in other armies?

It's different that they'll end up costing less than those other options, I suppose. And you'll have them on the table faster. 

:Shrug:

 

Now, what I hate about lots of the Nighthaunt range is the decorative bases. Ugh! So much work to cover up the detail so they blend in with the basing treatment in the rest of the army!

[adreal]

It's a $7 dollar difference here in australia, which might not seem like alot, but there is a small little chainrasp for $70 for ten, a much bigger (twice the size) grimghast for $77 for ten and a box set that gives you 10 rasps, 4 reapers, 4 stalkers and lord executioner and stormcast stuff for $100, you start to raise an eyebrow at the pricing.

Not trying to pick a fight, but a ten rasp easy to build unit at $50 would be okay (not great, but okay) with the bigger models clocking in at $77, you dont suddenly feel as ripped off.

That all being said, the easy to build kits have come a long way from the 3 man push fist marine squads of yore

[Sleboda]

But that, again, is perception of value. So the other guys are a little bigger. Ok. They're not actually more expensive to make, so there's no actual higher value on the bigger guys.

I dunno, I just feel like we're allowing marketing type of stuff to get in the way of the reality of it. A box of witch elves, greatswords, chainrasps, or reapers all have pretty much the same COGS.  Any variance in price is completely based on what the seller, GW, puts into the perceived value element. Ooo, they're bigger.  Ooo they're on more sprues. Ooo, you can angle an arm up or down. Ooo, the sprue had a lot of parts on it. 

None of these things really have an impact on the actual value of the kit. It's just playing with our heads.

To be fair, even the Ooo, they go together quicker (the thing I like) is just a value I'm adding to it.

Frankly, it surprises me that the chainrasps are less than the other kits in the range. They really shouldn't be.

[Kirjava13]

The decorative bases are indeed a pain.

Regarding sprues, options and plastic, I remember when the first multi-option Space Marine kit was released. All my guys looked subtly different. They looked like a squad of dudes rather than posed models. I don't mind characters being monopose- there's only one of them, typically, after all. But when I see the same guy over... and over... and over... I don't enjoy that. I mean, Clanrats have extremely limited poseability, but you can still position the angle they're holding their spears at, and mix and match bodies, weapons and shields. It doesn't have to be much. 

Basically for me the building aspect is a large part of the hobby. Easy-To-Build is fine for beginner models and starter sets, and I can appreciate how for some people the value is in not having to worry about the building process so much. But I want something a little more than that, and while almost all of GW's new models are absolutely beautiful, I feel like the aspect of customisability is being lost.