model proxies in touraments

[Ratatatata]

As a player, I really don't like conversions Just don't like them. I think it's about comparability. It's easier to judge the level of painting if it is a model I can compare with other models. 

I don't even like when people use non- GW stuff. Really do not have a good explanation for it, bar the one given above that might be stretched to not liking non-GW stuff. Either way, I don't like it. I don't want to play against non-GW stuff. I do, as I'm at least trying to be a nice guy. But it ticks no boxes of mine.

I've never understood why conversions and 'alternative' models get good painting scores etc. I cringe when I see them. Hate it.

I fint it easier to accept proxies (outside of tournament play, that is). Not every time but if someone wants to try out a unit a few times before buying it I'm ok with it. As long as I know there is a will and a way for that player to get on with painting the proper models.

As a TO, I would never argue the above. Then the simple rule is that it has to be more or less obvious for opponents what it is they are playing against, on a unit- to- unit basis. The problem with conversions and non-GW stuff can be (certainly doesn't have to be) to figure out what it "represents". Most of the time that isn't a problem and I've only had to step in once as a TO and that's years and years ago. 

Proxies in a tournament is a no-no. If I'm running the tournament, it is banned, no questions asked. If I play at a tournament and face proxies (only happened a few times) I'm not very pleased, but it aint my tournament so that's that. Kind of depends on who the player is too; once I played a top-top- gamer with horrible proxies and I more or less told him off. A few other times, it's been brand new players on the tournament scene that haven't had a chance to straighten out their collection etc. I'm more ok with that. 

[CentralKarma]

For the most part I don't use proxies, but will when there is no other option. I proxy Garagrim Ironfist as Ungrim Ironfist, my logic being like father like son, and nobody has given me grief about it.  I'd love to use the proper model Ungrim model, but I can't get my hands on one.  

It's OOP, and not available online. With that said, anyone has one to part with, PM me!

I do kinda understand why some people would be bugged if you've spent a lot of $$ on your army, but its also a little petty, TBH  We have a guy that made a necron army out of spruces!  People let him play.  The guy cannot afford to play the game otherwise.  I can afford proper GW models so I do, but that doesn't make me better then the next person that can't.  

[Captain Marius]

Following the definitions earlier in the thread, i dont proxy stuff in matched play but i do a fair bit of counts as, most recent being using fenrisian wolves as frostsabres (frostwolves!) In my new beastclaws.

Im not too bothered if my opponent wants to proxy stuff, so long as they are consistent and clear. For myself though I prefer to use a fully painted army with suitable models so this is the standard i aspire to.

In narrative play however ill proxy whatevers needed for the scenari), which has been necessary with all the special characters that feature in the End Times (were still on khaine, got 9 dead phoenix kings to representin the final battle...!)

[roberto]

4 hours ago, Ratatatata said:

As a player, I really don't like conversions Just don't like them. I think it's about comparability. It's easier to judge the level of painting if it is a model I can compare with other models. 

 

As a player, why are you required to judge another player's level of painting?

[Arkiham]

20 minutes ago, roberto said:

As a player, why are you required to judge another player's level of painting?

player votes on best looking army, a ranking system if you will, 

 

voting the best to worse on a scale of 1-* enter number *

ive observed a tournament where people voted on the best looking army most points won.  

20 entries, 1st=20, 2nd =19 points 3rd= 18.....>20th = 1 point. 

[roberto]

58 minutes ago, Arkiham said:

player votes on best looking army, a ranking system if you will, 

 

 

Thanks for the clarification.   In this regard, then the player is acting in capacity of "judge".  It is understandable, then, a player having difficulty assessing the quality of a conversion against an established criteria.  Except, of course, if the army to be judged is brand new, or composed of very old models.  In this case, maybe the judging player can refer to the GW website or other online sources for established executions.

[Davariel]

Interesting discussion so far - always great to hear widely differing views in a respectful environment.

As someone who's very much "hobby and narrative first" my feeling has always been the more creativity, conversions, and counts as models used in an army the better! I find I appreciate playing against an army that's unique and has a strong identity of its own much more than say, a stock starter box of Stormcasts in blue and gold (not that I have a problem with the latter at all).

I think the key thing when proxying or converting is that it's easy to understand for the opponent. So long as it's clear what everything is supposed to be I don't think there's a problem - TBH I'd rather see the very nice Fenrisian wolves used as dire wolves than their ugly official models! So long as it doesn't make a difference to an opponent's ability to look at the board and know what's going on I'd say the sky's the limit, especially considering how the AoS background has really gone out of its way to make room for any army you can imagine to exist.

The financial angle is interesting too - given how much this hobby costs (especially if you live in Australia like me...) I'm not about to reprimand anyone for using a suitable model to represent something else. I don't know their circumstances, or what they can and can't afford, and I'm not going to judge them. And when it comes to conversions this angle just breaks down completely - hard core converters are the sort who'll by an $90 box just for a specific head or body. My Sisters of Avelorn/the Watch are built using Phoenix Guard legs and cloaks instead - meaning they'd cost twice as much as the official models to build!

To those who dislike conversions and counts as - if you were fighting say, an Ironjawz army with three megabosses (no idea how likely this example actually is ), would you rather they were all absolutely identical, or would you prefer some were converted/replaced with other models? Not trying to pick on anyone, just curious as to what other people think - personally I'd find three stock models more confusing/immersion breaking in this case

[Fr0]

Ah, proxies.. good ol' paper armies! That brings back good memories.

We've used everything from paper, to kid's shoes, to a woman's pink "back massager" (Slaaneshi Hell Cannon, don't ask or do it's kinda funny)  to real models during Basementhammer. In a competitive environment, I'd use and expect real models though especially ones that have had work put into the conversion if you've made them from something else. Sure an elephant isn't a mammoth and it's from another system, but I don't particularly mind.

Just as long as it's not "the halfling with a bow is in fact, an ogor with a club" kinda thing. 

[DarkBlack]

My issue is when models that have rules in the game are used as something else (with the exception of "try before you buy"). Conversions are cool if done well and alternate models are fine by me. Assuming that the model looks like it's capable of it's rules (which is the most important thing IMO).

I certainly don't have a problem with players trying to get more bang for their buck, as I am more concerned with people playing than who gets paid.

For example: I know a guy who uses chaos warhounds as fleshhounds. Does not bother me in 40k, but it annoys me when he does it in AoS.

[Gaz Taylor]

15 hours ago, Arkiham said:

is your mod hat that fluffy thing in your profile pic?

no that is my hair  

[deynon]

9 hours ago, Arkiham said:

player votes on best looking army, a ranking system if you will, 

 

voting the best to worse on a scale of 1-* enter number *

ive observed a tournament where people voted on the best looking army most points won.  

20 entries, 1st=20, 2nd =19 points 3rd= 18.....>20th = 1 point. 

I like the idea of give prizes to the painters, but at the same time I have always had some repulsion about some part of it:

1) I think that the painting has never to be in the middle of the points for the victory of tournament. I'm preferctly agree if the painting has the same importance as prizes, but not on the order of the players.

2) I'm always been prevented agaist armies painted by others. In my opinion those armies should never receive prizes (and I paint armies on commission too). I think that you can't give prizes to the ones that "spent money on". They army are looking better, good, it's a pleasure to see and to match them against, but I prefer to give prizes to someone has made their own efforts on modifying and painting their armies and not on the one who paid to have it.

[CoffeeGrunt]

If tournaments should be solely about the game and therefore the miniatures and painting are secondary to ensuring your opponent can read your army easily, then why do most enforce a minimum painting standard? Why do most of those have extra points for good painting?

Personally I live and play in an area that's a bit of an Unemployment Capital here in the UK, and it's only getting worse. It is also right out in the boonies, on the edge of Norfolk, miles away from anything that isn't a village with a quintessentially-British name like Toft Monks or Little Piddlebottom.

Of the five stores in the 26 mile catchment area here - basically to the nearest city - two have gone under since the start of 2017, and one went under late last year. Of those remaining, one is pretty much a dedicated card store 26 miles from here in the city, and the other is my local.

People not being able to afford the game is a fact of life we have to accommodate here. If we enforced the stringent demands that everyone pay for the actual model rather than allowing kitbashing, our already-small playerbase would be obliterated, and without that playerbase, the local store would close, and those of us left would either have the option of playing in a garage or travelling 26 miles cross-country whenever we want a game.

I just thought it might help to give context to why the utterly elitist view that only those who can afford the most expensive models deserve to play, and proxiers are just cheats trying to cheap out riles me up so much.

Plenty of the people here were working, had this hobby as a nice aside, and then their workplace folded in the 2015 Oil Crash. Times are kinda hard, most of them are selling what they don't play and holding onto just one, small force while they can until new work pops up.

Luckily I'm still in work which is why I can do silly things like make a custom Settra that costs about £60 due to combining a Mortis Engine and Mierce's Aglaeca Dreaguth, allowing me to run it in my European-styled Death army without a random Egyptian model ruining the theme. I know people who've spent ridiculous amounts on themed armies that required exactly the right parts and were a real labour of love. 

Most of us are old hands from when the GW company line was convert what you don't have, kitbash and have fun with the models. When Predator Tanks were deodorant bottles with greeble on them, and the only way to field half your Codex was through kitbashing, because there was no Farseer on Jetbike model.

So I'm sorry, but I couldn't agree less with the view that conversions are an inferior army style to dull vanilla.

[Galas]

This game (Warhammer in general in all his incarnations) was born for the narrative and imaginative players. Thats the reality, you had the White Dwarfs in the 90s where they talk about the "Hard-asses", basically the most competitive players, as being totally contrary to the spirit of this games. 

Maybe I'm being an "Oldguard" that doesn't fit in the new era of "Use and play with only the things we sell you" but I remember the GW of the late 80's and 90's where as Coffegrunt says, all was about creativity and make All of Nothing.

But this was to be expected. When one thing grow in popularity to attract the competitive playerbase and grow a competitive scene, its a matter of time that this will devour the rest.

Its like a videogame: Try to use in a Multiplayer game the heroe/weapon/X that its considered for the comunity/meta as "bad". You will be, sometimes, literally insulted for that.

As I said earlier, I can totally understand the clarity arguments. I can totally understand the WYSIWYG, but I had seen trought the years how the bar is little by little being pushed with always the same reasons behind it, and we are reaching a point where I think the "hobby" aspect of the game, where you actually were encouraged to be imaginative and creative is literally being killed by the players, animated by GW.

Just look at Warmachine. Its the most boring-dull Wargame I have ever seen (From a visually/narrative/creative point of view) because the Ultracompetitive player taking over all the other groups. Did you want Warmachine-style wargames? Because thats how you get Warmachine-style wargames.

[VBS]

16 minutes ago, Galas said:

This game (Warhammer in general in all his incarnations) was born for the narrative and imaginative players. Thats the reality, you had the White Dwarfs in the 90s where they talk about the "Hard-asses", basically the most competitive players, as being totally contrary to the spirit of this games. 

Maybe I'm being an "Oldguard" that doesn't fit in the new era of "Use and play with only the things we sell you" but I remember the GW of the late 80's and 90's where as Coffegrunt says, all was about creativity and make All of Nothing.

I remember when AoS came out it was some sort of "back to the roots" attitude by GW. All about the narrative and imagination in the endless Mortal Realms to be explored. That's why there weren't even points, I remember an article by Jervis Johnson explaining this and it's link to the "Old Warhammer" attitude. And that was precisely one of the reasons all the ultra-competitive players left the WH boat, too much "beer & pretzel" for them. Looks like it's creeping back in.

Btw, I'm all for points/competitve if it helps to have enjoyable balanced games but when people moan about colour schemes and conversions, it's too much.  

[roberto]

3 hours ago, Galas said:

But this was to be expected. When one thing grow in popularity to attract the competitive playerbase and grow a competitive scene, its a matter of time that this will devour the rest.

The early tournament scene was dominated by those who came to WH from RpG backgrounds.  GW itself was essentially a RPG company.  "Winning" games was only a part of the scoring rubric.  The scene changed when the CCG crowd found Warhammer.   The birth of the netlist.

2 hours ago, VBS said:

I remember when AoS came out it was some sort of "back to the roots" attitude by GW. All about the narrative and imagination in the endless Mortal Realms to be explored. That's why there weren't even points, I remember an article by Jervis Johnson explaining this and it's link to the "Old Warhammer" attitude. And that was precisely one of the reasons all the ultra-competitive players left the WH boat, too much "beer & pretzel" for them. Looks like it's creeping back in.

Btw, I'm all for points/competitve if it helps to have enjoyable balanced games but when people moan about colour schemes and conversions, it's too much.  

This was foreseeable (and foresaw}.  Quite a few people play AoS  competitively as if they have something to "prove",  as if toy soldiers actually mean something other than  a pleasant diversion.

[Kaleb Daark]

31 minutes ago, roberto said:

The early tournament scene was dominated by those who came to WH from RpG backgrounds.  GW itself was essentially a RPG company.  "Winning" games was only a part of the scoring rubric.  The scene changed when the CCG crowd found Warhammer.   The birth of the netlist.

This was foreseeable (and foresaw}.  Quite a few people play AoS  competitively as if they have something to "prove",  as if toy soldiers actually mean something other than  a pleasant diversion.

 

This. Simply This.

[BURF1]

You should define terms before you get too in-depth into the discussion because it does change things. In general in situations like these you're looking at 'proxies', 'counts-as', or 'conversions'

Proxies are most often just stand-ins for the actual models. For example, playing a test game with a lamp in place of a Glottkin

Counts-as are usually models that are fairly similar to the actual model, usually conforming to wysiwyg in terms of equipment but being clearly different. Usually not a whole lot of extra work goes into these, for example using Raging heroes 'Knights of the Chalice' as Stormcasts or Grey Knights with some weapon swaps, or painting dragon princes red and using them as blood knights.

Conversions are usually things built/scultped to represent the model in a way that is unique to the player, these are very prevelant.

 

In general tournaments go Conversions>Counts-as>>>>>>>>>>proxies.

[HeadHunter]

On 3/7/2017 at 1:46 PM, Galas said:

Maybe I'm being an "Oldguard" that doesn't fit in the new era of "Use and play with only the things we sell you" but I remember the GW of the late 80's and 90's where as Coffegrunt says, all was about creativity and make All of Nothing.

In the Rogue Trader book, there is a tutorial for making a hovertank out of a deodorant container, a medicine spoon, and a couple of parts from a Zoid.

This is basically a rule in an official book!  So it's pretty clear that from the very start, the intent was about "fun over form", that is to say, we have it in writing.

Yes, I like to use the proper models when I can, and personally I don't proxy (I'd rather wait until I can get the right kit) but if someone's made an impressive conversion, scratchbuilt, or improvised, I'm Ok with that.  Don't put your sneaker on the table and tell me it's a Falcon tank, But I seem to remember using a DS9 Runabout model as a substitute for a Thunderhawk, back in the day.  The 40K Gestapo didn't show up and drag us off any more than the Mattress Police would for tearing the tags off the pillows and furniture.

[Ollie Grimwood]

Hmmm an article printed in a 30 year old publication (White Dwarf, definitely, Rogue Trader, maybe I can be bothered getting it out of the loft) for a different game is hardly precedent for AoS.

 

The fact remains different events will have different rules. Check the pack and contact the TO if you need clarification.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[karch]

On 6/3/2017 at 0:58 PM, deynon said:

It's useless to say: I spend more money so I'm right. I can clearly say you that I can both modify and create new models spending more than you and at the same time realize new models with scraping ones and anyway gain quite a lot of complimets cause the nice view of my models. 

Spending more money is not something to be proud or to condemn and it's not a justification of their own reasons.

I don't find use cheaper models to be something to condemn. You can lament, it's your right, but at the same timeyou can't take it at heart.

And not only that. There's a guy around here I occasionally meet on tournaments.

He has an absolutely gorgeus dwarf army that's 90% scibor models (IIRC only the warmachines and the odd character are GW). I can't see how anyone would look him wrong for not using GW minis when his army looks better than 99% of GW-sourced armies out there.

There's now plenty of MOM dwarves around, and those look great as well and while, say, Mantic skeletons may not look as cool as VC last skeletons I can't fault anyone for bulking up his big skeleton blobs for a quarter of the cost of GW's as long as they're reasonably dressed (painted, based, etc.)

 

[mrstimpson38]

I've been using Chaos Warhounds as "counts as" Flesh Hounds for a few weeks now. They are less money, better looking, plastic kits, and besides not having the "fins" they're very much in line with what I picture when reading the lore. I've never had someone take offence or state that they'd prefer me to use the original models.

Sent from my Z958 using Tapatalk

[deynon]

2 hours ago, mrstimpson38 said:

I've been using Chaos Warhounds as "counts as" Flesh Hounds for a few weeks now. They are less money, better looking, plastic kits, and besides not having the "fins" they're very much in line with what I picture when reading the lore. I've never had someone take offence or state that they'd prefer me to use the original models.

Sent from my Z958 using Tapatalk
 

In this case I'd ask you to play their right base anyway, cause that one is quite different. The flesh hounds are a bit bigger than the Chaos warhounds so there is a bit of difference about the sight's line. But if you use the 40mm bases it's not so much t complain about it.