Post by mcbeath on May 8, 2011 12:45:23 GMT -5
Ok, so I just read a little about the proxy wolves army at the last event and just thought I'd share my 2 cents about Proxy and Counts As.
Proxy-> Using models that usually aren't WYSIWYG in a confusing manner, usually to stand a better chance to win games.
Counts As-> Using models that aren't always WYSIWYG to represent something else, usually for fluff reasons.
Now, it's really hard to nail down the difference sometimes. As most of you know I have a Counts As army in the form of my Emperor's Children. Most of my models are clear, though when I modelled my Techmarines I did them as marines in MKIII Iron Armour(tech marines didn't really exist in the crusade for all legions). They aren't immediately recognisable as Tech Marines, though I felt that this is much more in line with the fluff... and I make sure that if I use them my oponents know what they are!
I think though that we've reached a point where something needs to be done to address the issue of people using confusing models. The Tau = Grey Knights is a good example. I didn't see the wolves so it's hard for me to comment on that, though it seemed to be a sore spot for a few people.
One thing I think is a must is that you have to take a few minutes to explain to your oponent what your army is. I always do this when I play somebody who isn't familiar with my list... it's actually a good idea at the start of every game to go over your list quickly regardless of WYSIWYG. Nothing bothers me more than when my oponent hides his army under the table like it's some kind of tactic and makes me bend over to look at it prior to deployment, though that's something else all together.
One interesting thing though that somebody mentioned to me. They felt that while everybody should try to conform to WYSIWYG as much as possible GW does indeed encourage "counts as" armies, though within reason. Also, they pointed out that while Marine players often get singled out for this kind of thing any Ork or Chaos player can just glue "some crap together" and call it "orky", or mumble something about the fickle gifts of the chaos gods and that it's ok because that's just how those armies are. Many of my most annoying instances of "oh, so that's what that really is" has been against chaos players!
Finally, some people are really adverse to using one codex to represent another army. I for one am not, how does it matter what codex is used as long as everything is clearly modelled? If somebody thinks Codex Blood Angels makes for a better Raven Guard army(and it does with all that assault marine goodness), so be it. Same goes for Codex Space Wolves being used for World Eaters(which is awesome to see juggernauts) or even Istvann Iron Hands Veterans in terminator armour(actually, codex wolves termies are the closest to crusade era you'll find). Any marine player can take the "Ultramarines" and paint them a new colour and give them a new name, so why not for other books as long as it's reasonable.
I believe that Nate Stevens is working on guidelines for the Warmasters that will cover this very thing, so perhaps he has some insight into the matter.
How do we, as a group of players, address this issue and maintain a fun and competitve tournament enviroment while still allowing creative freedom and cool army ideas like the Ork Space Wolves that Mike has been working hard on?
Cheers. James.
Proxy-> Using models that usually aren't WYSIWYG in a confusing manner, usually to stand a better chance to win games.
Counts As-> Using models that aren't always WYSIWYG to represent something else, usually for fluff reasons.
Now, it's really hard to nail down the difference sometimes. As most of you know I have a Counts As army in the form of my Emperor's Children. Most of my models are clear, though when I modelled my Techmarines I did them as marines in MKIII Iron Armour(tech marines didn't really exist in the crusade for all legions). They aren't immediately recognisable as Tech Marines, though I felt that this is much more in line with the fluff... and I make sure that if I use them my oponents know what they are!
I think though that we've reached a point where something needs to be done to address the issue of people using confusing models. The Tau = Grey Knights is a good example. I didn't see the wolves so it's hard for me to comment on that, though it seemed to be a sore spot for a few people.
One thing I think is a must is that you have to take a few minutes to explain to your oponent what your army is. I always do this when I play somebody who isn't familiar with my list... it's actually a good idea at the start of every game to go over your list quickly regardless of WYSIWYG. Nothing bothers me more than when my oponent hides his army under the table like it's some kind of tactic and makes me bend over to look at it prior to deployment, though that's something else all together.
One interesting thing though that somebody mentioned to me. They felt that while everybody should try to conform to WYSIWYG as much as possible GW does indeed encourage "counts as" armies, though within reason. Also, they pointed out that while Marine players often get singled out for this kind of thing any Ork or Chaos player can just glue "some crap together" and call it "orky", or mumble something about the fickle gifts of the chaos gods and that it's ok because that's just how those armies are. Many of my most annoying instances of "oh, so that's what that really is" has been against chaos players!
Finally, some people are really adverse to using one codex to represent another army. I for one am not, how does it matter what codex is used as long as everything is clearly modelled? If somebody thinks Codex Blood Angels makes for a better Raven Guard army(and it does with all that assault marine goodness), so be it. Same goes for Codex Space Wolves being used for World Eaters(which is awesome to see juggernauts) or even Istvann Iron Hands Veterans in terminator armour(actually, codex wolves termies are the closest to crusade era you'll find). Any marine player can take the "Ultramarines" and paint them a new colour and give them a new name, so why not for other books as long as it's reasonable.
I believe that Nate Stevens is working on guidelines for the Warmasters that will cover this very thing, so perhaps he has some insight into the matter.
How do we, as a group of players, address this issue and maintain a fun and competitve tournament enviroment while still allowing creative freedom and cool army ideas like the Ork Space Wolves that Mike has been working hard on?
Cheers. James.