Proxies - extracting the urine

[Ferny]

I stumbled across this blog post and thought - last time Ulthuan discussed this it was a riot...bring on PROXIES mk.2!

http://stumpyheaven.blogspot.co.uk/2014 ... model.html

That blog post links to Furion's Hall of Shame:
http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic ... 3&t=125041

And my all-time favourite - an army even I would consider not fighting without nametags!
http://s269.photobucket.com/user/BlackD ... .jpeg.html

Let it rip!

(I've intentionally set it up a bit confrontationally because I know it's contentious - and personally I think its insoluble - but please keep it civil.)

[Prince of Spires]

The last one, while great, is not something I would consider a WH army. I'd play it for kicks. But not in any serious setting.

For the rest I would go with, as long as it is recognizable what it is then it's no problem. To go through Furions list, fine for me are:

- the trolls. They are pretty obviously trolls. They fit nicely in the make it yourself category.
- The horse k'dai destroyer. Apparently the thing has no model, so you have to make one yourself. Who is to tell you what it looks like. It also was the only model anything close to the size in the army. So no issue
- The stank is acceptable, though pushing it. Apparently the guy had a completely themed army, it was the only chariot based model in it etc. But I can see the issues people have with it.
- The mangles are absolutely fine. Scratchbuilding something should be encouraged. Not everyone has the same skill. Nothing wrong there.

There rest is over the edge for me. You can't tell clearly what it is. The moment you need labels, you've gone to far. In a tournament at least.

As a side note, I disagree quite a bit with Furions solution he refers to in his hall of shame (http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic ... 8&t=118676). An army should use assembled models. And they should be painted. But whether a model just uses basic colours or is nicely drybrushed / highlighted is irrelevant. Or if a movement tray has modeled edges...

but please keep it civil.

As a moderator I agree with this. I'll be keeping an eye on this topic.

Rod

[Domine Nox]

I like 'counts as' a lot myself. I believe that if you go with a theme, you should have free reign to bring that theme to life, and nobody should be able to dictate how your models should be. The bottle army and the movement trays are what I would consider unacceptable. Beyond that I'd be okay with it as along as it fits the theme. Like if the Plague Drone stand ins had been actually modeled on the proper bases and his Daemon army matched the style, then I would say that it's no problem. The people that claim that it's bad form for keeping track, is it really that hard to keep track of a couple units? If you can remember where you parked your car, remembering the Rancor is a Steam Tank should not be difficult. So the line should not be recognition, it should be cohesiveness. That's my thoughts.

[Asurion Whitestar]

While I'd play against almost anyone with any army, I find it hard to believe the vial/bottle army.. What the hell is it anyway, are they ogres? Dwarves?

The trolls are painted so effort has gone into them, the manglers which are painted are okay too, but the play dough one with toothpick teeth is a little unfinished for my tastes.
The Doom/Resident Evil Mutant/tyrant Steamtank is IMO wrong, if the rest of his empire army was in the same theme yes, definately. But from the pics it isn't.

The counts as rule of thumb should be uniformity. It shouldn't matter where the models come from, just that a coherent theme is produced.
I once picked up some oop models from a longtime gamer whom had two of the three walls in his living room dedicated to displaying his armies, all beautifully painted with beautiful conversions and themed, I'm pretty certain he had every army at least once.
His wife was starting an Ogre army (I think) and she was using all manner of kids toys to represent them, chibi warriors, pokemon yhettis, my little pet shop units, all with fantastic bases and spot painting for details, it was very rag tag but the bases really brought them together.

Edit: Domine Nox beat me to it.
But I agree completely with him.

[Curu Olannon]

The STank example belongs to a Norwegian. Quite a character, I might add. His entire army was themed and he defended his position heavily in Furion`s topic. Now one could discuss whether such a concept is over the top in the first place, but having the context is vital to addressing a single model.

As for the rest, I think some are fine, some are not. I can see people taking offense for most of the examples though, even if I would not myself.

[Swordmaster of Hoeth]

While I agree it is nice to play against well painted and modeled armies and some "count as" models may not be that great ideas, I find it intriguing that it is Furion who started the topic about ETC appearances when not so long time ago he included quite poor models for Frosthearts in his own army:

http://www.ulthuan.net/forum/viewtopic. ... 58#p820058

[hewhorocks]

I rather quite like Furion's old frosties actually. Also I cant imagine anyone familiar with High elves mistaking them for anything but what they are. They are also well painted and well based. The fact that the bases are modular to be used as sometimes eagles is probably a bit off and if one is being used as an eagle and the other not I'd be concerns. Still overall I think they are fitting in both style and appearance.

While I play with most folks I'd certainly be disappointed in playing in a tournament against those trolls. The Drones somewhat less so but I'd not be pleased. The themed steam tank might be on the edge as well simply because coming up to the table if someone told you the army was "themed empire" you wouldnt look at it and say "of course steam tank!"

[Asurion Whitestar]

What was the theme of the Norwegian Empire general?

[RogueSun]

I like themed armies quite a bit but most of the reason is to see the conversions and creativity people come up with. I like seeing their imagination and passion for the army come alive by cool basing, painting, conversions, etc. What I see here is an excuse to spend less money on models. The trolls are a joke unit, and OK, it's mildly (VERY mildly) amusing, but it's somewhat insulting to place those down across from someone who has meticulously assembled, converted and painted their official models. In my mind I'd go off of the proxy rules from Warmachine: if your opponent can't figure out what it's supposed to be without you telling them, then you'd better have the real model available. For things like K'daii's obviously you can't do this, but at least have a friggin base built for the damn thing!

[Furion]

While I agree it is nice to play against well painted and modeled armies and some "count as" models may not be that great ideas, I find it intriguing that it is Furion who started the topic about ETC appearances when not so long time ago he included quite poor models for Frosthearts in his own army:

http://www.ulthuan.net/forum/viewtopic. ... 58#p820058

It's all subjective to one's opinion.

My frosties easily outclassed trolls, manglers and K'Daai presented here. They had good bodfy proportions, were in fantasy theme and were painted accordingly.

That one might had objections - is understandable and I am not going to convince you otherwise

It's all about where you draw the line.

cheers
Furion

[Prince of Spires]

What I see here is an excuse to spend less money on models. The trolls are a joke unit, and OK, it's mildly (VERY mildly) amusing, but it's somewhat insulting to place those down across from someone who has meticulously assembled, converted and painted their official models.

There is a saying in Dutch which translates to something like "you can't look into someone else's wallet".

What is fine time- and moneywise for one person to spend on WH and models may very well be a small fortune for someone else. For me personally for instance (good job, no kids) I know that I have money and time enough to buy pretty much any model I want and paint it to a good standard if I apply myself a bit.

However, the guy with the troll army may actually have spend more money and time on his army relatively speaking then I have on mine. If you're a fulltime student, working a parttime job to finance your studies and barely get by, even spending 20-30 euro's on a box of miniatures can be a small fortune. And chances are you have no time to paint them, when both studying and working.

Or what if you have 3 young kids running around at home, which also has a big mortgage on it? And the tournament is the only free time you have had in the past 2 years?

Just because you have time and money to buy, meticulously assemble and paint all your models doesn't mean that everyone does.

Rod

[Swordmaster of Hoeth]

My frosties easily outclassed trolls, manglers and K'Daai presented here.

[Asurion Whitestar]

What I see here is an excuse to spend less money on models. The trolls are a joke unit, and OK, it's mildly (VERY mildly) amusing, but it's somewhat insulting to place those down across from someone who has meticulously assembled, converted and painted their official models.

There is a saying in Dutch which translates to something like "you can't look into someone else's wallet".

What is fine time- and moneywise for one person to spend on WH and models may very well be a small fortune for someone else. For me personally for instance (good job, no kids) I know that I have money and time enough to buy pretty much any model I want and paint it to a good standard if I apply myself a bit.

However, the guy with the troll army may actually have spend more money and time on his army relatively speaking then I have on mine. If you're a fulltime student, working a parttime job to finance your studies and barely get by, even spending 20-30 euro's on a box of miniatures can be a small fortune. And chances are you have no time to paint them, when both studying and working.

Or what if you have 3 young kids running around at home, which also has a big mortgage on it? And the tournament is the only free time you have had in the past 2 years?

Just because you have time and money to buy, meticulously assemble and paint all your models doesn't mean that everyone does.

Rod

Very good points, Warhammer shouldn't be a game for kings and queens and millionaires. It should be a game of fun, fantasy styled armies for everyone.

It should be accessible by anyone, no matter how small their budget.
GW seem pretty damn hell bent on making it a game for millionaires, but that shouldn't mean that people get ostracised for buying cheaper minis as counts as models, Mantic and Wargames Factory are the two that come to mind for value for money with entire units available.
Of course the models should be vaguely represented with what the "real" models are supposed to have, like hand weapons and shields, bows or missile weapons in general etc.

Toys are a pretty fine line in my opinion as they can't really stand a chance versus actual models of figures.
The MLP Bret army was good but alot more work could have gone into making the bases better.

[endontoddy]

I'd go off of the proxy rules from Warmachine: if your opponent can't figure out what it's supposed to be without you telling them, then you'd better have the real model available.

This. Certainly in a tournament setting. If it isn't obvious what something is, not only can it detract from the enjoyment of the game, but also makes life more difficult for the opponent of the proxy-er. While a themed army can look great, it is easy to forget that the huge spiky troll thing is in fact a steam-tank and not a griffin (or whatever). Mistakes can easily be made.

For units that do not have an official model available then there can be a little more leeway, but these exceptions are now rare.

[SpellArcher]

I agree it's all about where you draw the line. The problem with the Trolls is that they damage the idea that you are playing a 'real' battle. But as it was at the ETC this is secondary anyway.

[Ferny]

But the same could be said of Furion's frost budgies. They were nicely painted and properly based, but they were clearly based off toys rather than models, and to my eye didn't look like Pheonixes, as in for a fantasy aesthetic, though on the proper bases I don't think they'd be confused for anything else. I completely agree with where he was coming from that the official model is butt ugly and doing something yourself (especially well painted, based etc) is a good idea.

But if the line is drawn at immersion, they will spoil it for some gamers, for sure - see Swordmaster's comments in the original thread. Of course, you can't account for all tastes (there are too many), but you can be sure that there will be purists who don't like 'toys' being used as 'models'. Personally I love the idea of proxies in almost any form and I'd have no objections to playing Furion's birds, and they're clearly carefully done and well executed. For me, I put them on the 'safe' side of the line. But if the trolls were on the other side of the line, despite being based, clearly depicting what they're meant to, and even being in a goofy army to begin with - coz lets face it, GW orcs aren't exactly the least comical of races - I don't know what is being considered different?

[Curu Olannon]

What was the theme of the Norwegian Empire general?

I believe it was lots of crazed Norsemen and monsters, but I haven`t seen the army myself nor pictures of it all. As I said, the guy`s quite a character

[SpellArcher]

The Trolls are clearly toys, not depictions of 'real' creatures. If both players are happy with that, end of, I just feel a lot of players would not enjoy a game with them in.

[Ferny]

The Trolls are clearly toys, not depictions of 'real' creatures. If both players are happy with that, end of, I just feel a lot of players would not enjoy a game with them in.

Good point. But they are still toys depicting trolls, albeit a different variety to say a river troll. Furion's frosty's were depictions of real creatures, but the real creatures they were (originally) depicting were birds not frost pheonixes. He's done an excellent job on the painting and I gather some conversion too, but at their base they're still toy birds - it's only the paint which makes them depictions of a pheonix.

I agree that if both players are happy, end of. But the problem arises if there is a player who is not happy (presumably the opponent). As I'm happy to play these kinds of armies (I'll even do it myself) I'm not in that camp, but there clearly are plenty of players who are. And this is why I think its insoluble - everyone's line will be different. For me it's the JD bottles. For Furion it's the trolls. For others it could well be Furion's birds. How on earth do you deal with that?

And the Norwegian example is a good case of where the owning player defends to the teeth his decision. I need to update the topic with new pictures of it (base) painted, the wizard conversion and my fluff, but like him I would defend my conversion as a pheonix, even though it is based on a different model from the same range (I wouldn't field it in the same army as a skycutter, but I accept there is scope for confusion - still, while it got a good reception here it got a poor reception at the tournament):
http://www.ulthuan.net/forum/viewtopic. ... hilit=punk

Would I take it to a tournament again? Only with explicit TO approval - then the rap falls on them if people don't dig it .

[John Rainbow]

There was a really good thread (and we discussed it here somewhat) on the 'My Little Pony' Bret army at Crossroads. The article on Dakka was particularly interesting as the TO weighed in with his thoughts/decision making process also.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/po ... 85243.page

TO's talk is the last post by Murdock. We've talked about this one here before but I thought it relevant as it is interesting to talk about such an army. As a reminder he also won Best General and would have won best overall if he didn't get zero for paint score.

[Prince of Spires]

The Trolls are clearly toys, not depictions of 'real' creatures. If both players are happy with that, end of, I just feel a lot of players would not enjoy a game with them in.

I understand what you mean, and I can see the point of it. The problem is of course that we are playing a game where everything is clearly a toy that depicts an non-existant creature. Which then means that it's a case of my toy is more real then yours.

Intuitively I know what you mean. And I recognize cases where the model is not real enough and where I know what you are talking about when you say it. However, and that is were the problem lies of course, it is very hard to create a hard rule about this which sais A is allowed and B isn't. Or I would play against A but never against B.

I think Furions lovely frost phoenixes are a great example. If you say, the model needs to be recognizable at a glance by someone who knows the army book and who walks past the table, then they probably fail to meet that requirement. At a quick glance, many people would take them for Great Eagles. If you say, the model must resemble whatever it is depicting, then they still would fail that test. After all, they clearly are birds, not phoenixes. The O&G trolls on the other hand pass both of those.

It is a very hard line to draw. And it will rest in a different place for everyone.

Rod

[SpellArcher]

Absolutely.

So there's the 'what is it?' issue and the 'how 'real' is it?' issue.

[Domine Nox]

How real? In a game whose genre is Fantasy?

[SpellArcher]

Not real, 'real'!



For many players, 'believing' in the fantasy is critical. For example, if you look and see Ian McKellen it's not working. If you see Gandalf, it is.

[Domine Nox]

But it still IS Ian McKellen, so isn't that just a matter of perspective? I mean if we go down the road of 'believing' and 'real' then does that mean we should tell bad painters to get lost? Because that's not immersive either.

[Curu Olannon]

But it still IS Ian McKellen, so isn't that just a matter of perspective? I mean if we go down the road of 'believing' and 'real' then does that mean we should tell bad painters to get lost? Because that's not immersive either.

That is why many tournaments employ a painting score...

[SpellArcher]

I've played guys who can't paint for toffee but they put loads of effort into a character model or (inexpertly) converting a centrepiece. They love their army. It shows and those are invariably great games.

[RogueSun]

What I see here is an excuse to spend less money on models. The trolls are a joke unit, and OK, it's mildly (VERY mildly) amusing, but it's somewhat insulting to place those down across from someone who has meticulously assembled, converted and painted their official models.

There is a saying in Dutch which translates to something like "you can't look into someone else's wallet".

What is fine time- and moneywise for one person to spend on WH and models may very well be a small fortune for someone else. For me personally for instance (good job, no kids) I know that I have money and time enough to buy pretty much any model I want and paint it to a good standard if I apply myself a bit.

However, the guy with the troll army may actually have spend more money and time on his army relatively speaking then I have on mine. If you're a fulltime student, working a parttime job to finance your studies and barely get by, even spending 20-30 euro's on a box of miniatures can be a small fortune. And chances are you have no time to paint them, when both studying and working.

Or what if you have 3 young kids running around at home, which also has a big mortgage on it? And the tournament is the only free time you have had in the past 2 years?

Just because you have time and money to buy, meticulously assemble and paint all your models doesn't mean that everyone does.

Rod

Let me clarify. I don't mind people using toys. I really don't. BUT. Time and effort to paint, base and incorporate those toys into the army to give them a cohesive look should be done. I myself use Mcfarlane dragons. They are cheaper and IMO better looking than the GW one. The trolls presented here would be acceptable to me. I can tell what they're supposed to be, they are painted and based. It's not my idea of the genre and feel of Warhammer, but I can play the game and be OK with it. The bug 'Chaos' army is not OK. Basing is minimal and unpainted. The bugs themselves look shockingly similar and it looks as though very little painting was done to the bugs themselves. Rather the army looks like the guy spent 10 dollars at a hobby store for some cheap rubber bugs, stuck them on bases and called it a day. I don't give a rats ass how much or how little it cost you to build an army. What I care about is that you put effort and time into it to make it look as good as you possibly can. This does not seem to be the case here.

[Ferny]

Let me clarify. I don't mind people using toys. I really don't. BUT. Time and effort to paint, base and incorporate those toys into the army to give them a cohesive look should be done. I myself use Mcfarlane dragons. They are cheaper and IMO better looking than the GW one. The trolls presented here would be acceptable to me. I can tell what they're supposed to be, they are painted and based. It's not my idea of the genre and feel of Warhammer, but I can play the game and be OK with it. The bug 'Chaos' army is not OK. Basing is minimal and unpainted. The bugs themselves look shockingly similar and it looks as though very little painting was done to the bugs themselves. Rather the army looks like the guy spent 10 dollars at a hobby store for some cheap rubber bugs, stuck them on bases and called it a day. I don't give a rats ass how much or how little it cost you to build an army. What I care about is that you put effort and time into it to make it look as good as you possibly can. This does not seem to be the case here.

What if I have money but no time/care for hobbying, so I pay someone to put time and effort in for me - is that legit? What if I don't have money, but also don't have time/care for hobbying, so I'm stuck with my poor assed effort - is that legit?

What if, as is the case with me, I put a lot of damn effort into my minis but it doesn't show through because the skill level just isn't there, so I end up with an agonisingly slow painting journey which results in crappy models which are worth more stripped/primed, and I can't afford to pay someone to do it for me to a nice standard.

I get that some people (like me) are pretty relaxed about these things. I get that some people don't want battlefield confusion (in fact, I put myself in that camp). And I get that some people want immersion, whether that's through nice minis/painting or through not doing 'unrealistic' gamey moves (oops, wrong thread ). But how can perceived effort be the target bar? It doesn't address either confusion or immersion, is totally subjective, and can be worked around with cash. Surely there would need to be some sort of objective criteria to judge against, even if it's the much maligned min 3 colours? We'll never crack immersion for everyone but at least something like that creates a level playing field?

[RogueSun]

Let me clarify. I don't mind people using toys. I really don't. BUT. Time and effort to paint, base and incorporate those toys into the army to give them a cohesive look should be done. I myself use Mcfarlane dragons. They are cheaper and IMO better looking than the GW one. The trolls presented here would be acceptable to me. I can tell what they're supposed to be, they are painted and based. It's not my idea of the genre and feel of Warhammer, but I can play the game and be OK with it. The bug 'Chaos' army is not OK. Basing is minimal and unpainted. The bugs themselves look shockingly similar and it looks as though very little painting was done to the bugs themselves. Rather the army looks like the guy spent 10 dollars at a hobby store for some cheap rubber bugs, stuck them on bases and called it a day. I don't give a rats ass how much or how little it cost you to build an army. What I care about is that you put effort and time into it to make it look as good as you possibly can. This does not seem to be the case here.

What if I have money but no time/care for hobbying, so I pay someone to put time and effort in for me - is that legit? What if I don't have money, but also don't have time/care for hobbying, so I'm stuck with my poor assed effort - is that legit?

What if, as is the case with me, I put a lot of damn effort into my minis but it doesn't show through because the skill level just isn't there, so I end up with an agonisingly slow painting journey which results in crappy models which are worth more stripped/primed, and I can't afford to pay someone to do it for me to a nice standard.

I get that some people (like me) are pretty relaxed about these things. I get that some people don't want battlefield confusion (in fact, I put myself in that camp). And I get that some people want immersion, whether that's through nice minis/painting or through not doing 'unrealistic' gamey moves (oops, wrong thread ). But how can perceived effort be the target bar? It doesn't address either confusion or immersion, is totally subjective, and can be worked around with cash. Surely there would need to be some sort of objective criteria to judge against, even if it's the much maligned min 3 colours? We'll never crack immersion for everyone but at least something like that creates a level playing field?

No. I don't accept this. Common sense is the two words that spring to mind. It is easy to tell when someone has put in effort, even if their talent isn't immense, as you claim, it is still obvious that some love was given to models. I have seen children in the single digits with models that look better than some of these. This is laziness, pure and simple. Common sense tells us, this is a player who wanted to put something on the table, who doesn't care what his army looks like and who doesn't care that their opponents will be confused, disappointed and likely insulted. Frankly, he would have been better simply printing pictures of the models and taping them to the bases.