This is for the benefit of everyone who was online around 23:00 Wednesday 13th talking in the chat box, and for anyone else who has an opinion on the use of Proxies in well thought out Themed forces.
________________________________________________________________________________

I'm working on an Arnor force, set during the fall of Arthedain/Arnor, featuring Heroes such as King Arvedui and Malbeth.

To lead my Ranger warbands, I want a Ranger-type hero such as Aranarth (son and Heir to Arvedui and first Chieftan of the Dunedain), who would make thematic sense in an Arthedain army contain Arvedui and Malbeth. Unfortunately, NO SUCH CHARACTER OR MODEL EXISTS in the GW range.

Clearly, from a thematic point of view, Halbarad, Arathorn and Aragorn would not be suitable characters because they were not from the same period of history as Arvedui/Malbeth. My army is NOT a Late Third Age Grey Company force. It is a Mid Third Age Arnor (Arthedain) force.

Dunedain and Ranger of the North are also unsuitable, because as independent Heroes they cannot lead Warbands.


My solution, was to use this model:



Duinhir, the Captain of the Blackroot Vale archers in the Gondor Fiefdoms list (an army which I do not play, and so would have no use for Duinhir otherwise).

This model is perfect for my requirements. Not only is it a great model, but a Profile in the Arnor list, Halbarad Dunedan, has a spear as an option. I decided I would use the Duinhir model to represent the character "Aranarth", (painted in my Arnor colours of purple tunic and Khaki/off white cloak); and I could use Halbarad's profile (equipped with a spear).

I believed that it would be fairly simple to make this clear to any future opponents I might play against. After all, how hard can it be to say "I am using this model to represent a Unique and unreleased character (i.e. simply renaming it), using an official profile" (of a different existing Hero). For my opponent's reference, if its so hard for him to remember which profile I was using, I could easily write the profile down on paper for him.

________________________________________________________________________________

In the chatbox, we were discussing the Throne of Skulls official tournament. I asked if it would be possible for me to use my Duinhir model with the Halbard profile (Note: PROFILE, not CHARACTER. The model is to represent "Aranarth" using Halbarads rules, not Halbarad himself).

Obviously, I got a simple answer. NO. Thats fine, I can accept that and I understand it. At GW tournaments, the Rules are the Rules and cannot be bent, even for reasons of Theme and Creativity.

________________________________________________________________________________

But people soon went even further, saying that Proxies should never be allowed under any circumstances. They said that if it was OK to use a Duinhir model and Halbarad's Profile/rules to represent an unreleased character (Aranarth, 1st Dunedain Chieftan), then it must surely be OK to, say...

Use a Frodo model to represent Sauron.
Use 4 Gimli's in one game as 4 seperate Heroes (King, Kings Champion, Shieldbearers etc).
Use Boromir as Aragorn and vice versa.

I.e. a slippery slope fallacy. Clearly my suggestion is quite far from the worst case scenarios they suggested, yet according to them there is no middle ground.

Some even said that they regarded all forms of Proxying as cheating and would refuse to play against an opponent using one, even in friendly games.

They said that my opponent would be confused, and wouldn't know what the model is - are SBG players really that stupid?.

Before the game I would inform my opponent what the model is supposed to be, and the rules I am using. Throughout the game, whenever necessary I would frequently remind him. I would also have the profile written down on paper for quick reference (as I do anyway for stats purposes, wounds M/W/F etc).

One person told me I should quit the game altogether if I disagreed with him. Another said he regards all proxying as "evil" (I forget the exact wording, and he was using hyperbole but his point was clear - he dislikes any and all proxying).

________________________________________________________________________________

To give similar examples of Proxy use in Themed forces...

Feanor, a user on TLA wrote a Battle Report about the Battle of Azanulbizar, in the War of Dwarves and Orcs. He used a Murin model to represent Thorin Oakenshield (this was about 6 months - a year ago before the Hobbit range came out). I forget which profile he used but it was probably Murin or a Captain.


Another (hypothetical) is King Thengel of Rohan. No model or profile exists for him. Would a person therefore be justified in using say a Theoden model, and an Eomer profile? (or whatever combination of model & profile he thought best represented the character). Or should they be forced to wait until GW releases an official model and profile for King Thengel?

________________________________________________________________________________

To be clear, this is NOT about the fact that the use of Proxies (no matter how reasonable on Theme grounds) in Official GW Tournaments is not allowed. I've long since moved on from that.

This is about what I perceive to be a predominant and vehemently negative attitude towards the use of proxies in general, no matter how justified in terms of Theme and narrative context.

I've made this thread because I feel I was shouted down and misrepresented; and my intelligence insulted by people wailing that if its OK to play a Duinhir model using the Halbarad profile, then its OK to use a Frodo model to represent Sauron. And because this was the second time that I was shouted down in the Chat Box by an almost unanimously negative group of people.

So there, this is my position in detail.

Am I the only person not restricted by the straight jacket of conformity to GW's official rules?

_________________
My (more regularly updated) painting blog:
https://www.facebook.com/Pindergorn/

I personally say that the model has to be similar to the thing that it is representing AND is easily told apart from your other models. So using Lurtz as Shagrat, Warleader of Cirith Ungol, I'm fine with. Using 1 Gimli model as Gimli and another Gimli model as a King? No. However, in this case, you should just use Halbarad's mini as Aranath, unless you don't have it, in which case whatever.

_________________
"Leave Sauron to me."
If you're in the Raleigh, NC area, let me know.

Well, thats the main issue. My Duinhir model is NOT representing Halbarad. Its representing "Aranarth", the first Chieftan of the Dunedain. I'm only using Halbarad's profile because no such profile exists for Aranarth, nor is there a generic Ranger Captain available.

Another problem is The Shire. Hobbit players only haved Named Heroes available to them, no unnamed generic Heroes. Should they be forced to always have Pippin, Merry, Sam or Frodo etc leading their army because no other suitable Hero is available to them? What if they want to use a Pippin model to represent a Hobbit solider in service to the Kingdom of Arthedain?

(I have a Gondor armoured Pippin which I want to use as an Arthedain era Hobbit leader for my Hobbit archer warband - using Pippin's profile too this time. The character is NOT Pippin however).



I agree. But I'm only using the one Duinhir model - theres little danger of it being confused with another model on the board.



Well, no I don't have it. And I specifically want to avoid using a Halbarad miniature because the character is not Halbarad. I'm simply using his profile in Lieu of a better alternative (an actual Aranarth character, or a suitable generic unnamed ranger captain profile).


This is something which used to be seen in White Dwarf and GW in general. They used to encourage creativity and out of the box thinking. In the ORB, IIRC in the Hobby section theres an example of a conversion of an Aragorn ranger model into a generic/unnamed Gondor Ranger Captain (a hood and mask sculpted on and a bow added). To use this model, you might wish to Proxy it using the Faramir profile. Doing so means you don't have to houserule/invent your own profile.

Nowadays, you're expected to buy GW's official Madril, Faramir, Duinhir models and use it ONLY as Madril, Faramir, Duinhir. Heaven forbid you should like a model as is, and want to use it for something other than its original, Official purpose as dictated by GW and their De Facto Enforcers.

_________________
My (more regularly updated) painting blog:
https://www.facebook.com/Pindergorn/

I beleive proxies exist for exactly the reason/situation you describe and not only wouldn't have a problem with it but would be happy to play with anyone who cares enough to put that much thought into their army.

Unfortunatley in my experience the largest part of proxies seems to be unpainted/ half put together totally outrageous (Frodo for Sauron) type changes.

I don't beleieve it to be a black and white issue and applaud your creativity.

Thankyou. Sadly, the majority of people in the Chatbox at the time DID see it as black and white - no middle ground. A slippery slope fallacy. Only 2 people out of about 8 actually comprehended my point. The rest just applied straw man logic.

_________________
My (more regularly updated) painting blog:
https://www.facebook.com/Pindergorn/

I know some people jump to the far end of the spectrum with this. Obviously having multiple Gimli models on the table and saying they are different profiles is confusing and a bad decision. Just as having a bunch of WoMT on the table and trying to say "this group are actually Fountain Guard...and these three over here are Clansmen" is wrong and confusing.

But if your list you are using (the Warband) allows for Halbarad to be leading the troops you are taking, and on paper you are using the Halbarad profile without any creative modifications or point changes, but thematically you want to use a different (unique) model and give him a different name, there should be nothing wrong with that.

Recently, for example, I'm spending more time on my Harad force. Suladan is the best individual named Hero in the Warbands but I like to think of my force as from a different Haradrim king. So I'm using the Suladan profile (and a converted version of the model) but thematically I will give him a different name. My Goblin force is from the Mountains of Mirkwood and is lead by a tough hombre named Murdurz. I use the Durburz profile and a custom model for now until I can track down a Durburz or similar to modify, but he won't look like classic Durburz when done. Similarly, I hate the Druzhag model but think the profile is useful. I made a custom "spider / warg themed shaman" model and play him with the Druzhag profile. I would consider each of these as 'proxies' to some degree.

There are also some times that players may be wanting to try new list options before investing significant time and money in something. In such cases the use of clear and obvious proxies should not be an issue (as long as they didn't drag it on for more than a couple games).

Tournaments not withstanding (they can hold to whatever specific rules they wish) if someone was so hard lined about the use of reasonable and obvious proxies, especially when they are used for thematic purposes, they're probably not someone I would enjoy gaming much with.

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com

Alrighty. First off, it depends on the opponent. If they say it's fine, do it. When playing with my brother we've had urk-hai swordsmen count as corsair reavers. Obviously I would not do this in a tournament, or even against an opponent that I was not very familiar with, and who was fine with it. We've also played a lone easterling swordsman as amdur. It's easy to remember that the easterling is amdur, if there's no other easterlings in play.

I think what you're wanting to do is fine. For all army building intents and purposes he's halbarad, but using the duinhir figure. I would find it easier if you just said that 'the Duinhir figure counts as halbarad'. If you then want to explain the themeing of your army and how it's not actually halbarad that's fine. Just a personal opinion, but the whole 'unreleased character with one guy's stats and a different guy's model thing' is kinda confusing, which is why I'd just go with the duinhir counts as halbarad explanation. And then, if they ask why you don't just use a halbarad model, then you explain the themeing.

*edit* Beowulf, well said. I agree with everything you said.

I definitely agree with the use of Proxies in the fashion you use them; as one-offs or replacements for nonexistant models. However, in the interest of playing Devil's Advocate, with the loosened rules for Alliances allowing any model of the same alignment to fight together I CAN see how it would be confusing.

GW's policy for such things has always been "If a model has an existing Statline, you MUST use it". However, the converse is not necessarily true. They're quite open to allowing conversions and counts-as in my experience. Only so long as the existing model is WYSIWYG.

The simplest answer for the question of Araphant(good show on Arnor, by the way. My favorite faction, in-universe), as Beowulf said, is to convert a model for him. Then you can use Halbarad Dunadan's profile without any trouble. For example, even replacing Duinhir's head with, say Aragorn or Boromir's, and adding a GS hood or something would make it an entirely new model, and therefore you may use whatever statline you like!

Best of luck, fellow Dunedain!

_________________
If words spoken of old be true, not by the hand of man shall he fall. And hidden from the Wise is the doom that awaits him

I think Several people such as Beowulf have already covered everything that needs to be said so I'll just say that I support the use of proxies as long as the model being used is unique and easily identified. Like stated before, if you have two different models of the same person on the board that can lead to confusion when trying to keep track of which is which. However, how your doing it would be perfectly fine if I was to play against you.

I don't care as long as they're painted beautifully and help you realise your vision for characters/units of Middle Earth that existed in the source material but weren't in Peter Jackson's movies or Alan and Michael Perry's heads. I'm OK with using Duinhir as Aranath. It has a well thought through background and is justified in the choice of model and stats.

The Frodo/Sauron thing is just stupid. Base sizes alone make it impossible.

This is a hobby of creativity, nothing is stopping you from using Theoden as Thengel with Eomer's stats (for example), but be patient with your opponent. They will probably have been raised on the leather belt of What You-See-Is-What-You-Get tournament mentality and will need reminding every now and then when the Theoden model suddenly has throwing spears or something similar.

You have my support to continue thinking outside the box when expanding your army using the vast wealth of material found in the Appendices. Kudos for your originality. I'd like to see your army when it's finished.

I support the view that proxies are only an issue where they may cause confusion or are an attempt to deliberately deceive. Creating a straw man based on the use of a Frodo figure for Sauron is just ridiculous and outside the scope of the situation described by the Ondoher.

If there is no GW marketed figure to meet one's requirements, then another solution is required if one is to field listed characters. I agree with the comments above on the use of minor conversions to reduce the chance for a genuine misunderstanding and also avoid 'barrack room lawyers'.

Hopefully common sense will prevail - although in my experience, good sense not as common as one might wish

Regards,

_________________
http://jannersjaunt.blogspot.dk

I swear people have to field a mounted Elladan/Elrohir as armored Glorfindel, even though there is an unarmored version of him on horseback. To me that seems a little more 'unacceptable' than using Duinhir as Halbarad with spear essentially.

It is disappointing that the chatbox discussion deteriorated into the levels you described. It's not how we expect people to behave here - helpfulness and respect are the kinds of traits we encourage.

Proxies are occasionally necessary to play themed characters that don't have official profiles or models. But the rigid rules for the playing of tournaments disallow non-official profiles of course. But playing for fun, amongst your friends, is what this hobby is about and we shouldn't lose sight of that. Fun, people, fun - never forget that.

_________________
Dagster

I'm not entirely against proxying. I think its ok as long as the model looks roughly like the model it's supposed to represent. so Frodo = Sauron - No no. But I'd be fine with something like Eomer = Eomer KoTP or something similar.

I think it also depends on where you're playing... IMO:
At home: fine, whatever, as long as your opponent is happy with it and knows what he is facing.
At a GW: depends on your GW but I would generally say same as below.
At a tourement: No, not unless its a skilled conversion that looks more like the model it's representing than the model that it used to be. And make sure your opponent is OK with it as always.

Just my opinion

_________________
'Though my memory's fading, I remember two things very clearly: I am a great sinner and Christ is a great Savior'
-John Newton

I think people should be more open minded with proxies of course I don't mean official tournaments since GW has a strict policy about proxies but friendly games.
Back in the days I used to play with my friends some games we used to proxy characters (eg name mouth of Sauron a Witch King) and playtested with them. If they where good enough then we "judged" that it should be right to buy them.

I don't see any bad thing in playing with proxies with the cause I described but what you said about characters described in the books and not existing in GW range I think this is entirely a GW's fault since they had bought the rights for lotr they should have thoroughly read the trilogy and providing all the characters described in the books and I mean ALL not coming up with fictional character like vrasku or murin and drar.
I'm not saying that they shouldn't ever sculpted them but they should have done so after exploiting all the book material

Well this has expanded rapidly

I would like to put it on record that myself and the others referred to in the OP were never insulting and did not shout down King Ondoher. I challenge anyone who has access to the chat box archive to find something insulting directed at him. It was unfortunate that he asked the question at that time as there were a few people who share my views in the chat box and quickly joined in the conversation. I did think that after we were all told to drop it, this would be the end but no...I wake up to this.

In fact, it was Ondo who was insulting, calling any opponent (who couldnt guess that his Duinhir who was using Halbarad's rules as Aranath) an Idiot. Last time I checked, I couldnt read minds. If someone turns up to a game and has a Duinhir model, I am going to presume that he is Duinhir.

In my eyes, every model on the board should be as written on the army list. If you want Halbarad/ his profile, then use Halbarad and convert him to look like the model in question.
I applaud the effort but if you use Duinhir as he is with no effort to change him bar a paint scheme, then that is just being lazy. Otherwise he is a purple Duinhir.

Another example I have seen posted is to use Theoden's model with Eomers Stats as Thengel...I'm sorry but that is just Doesn't get more confusing for your opponent than that.
Or using Lurtz as Shagrat, War Leader...why? there is a purpose sculpt model for that profile which is much nicer than the lurtz sculpt. Not to mention lurtz has a bow when Shagrat does not.


As for the statement about quitting the hobby. What the person meant was if you dont want to play by GW rules, dont go to their tournaments.

However, this isnt a GW tournament so do as you wish. You asked a question, you got an answer, you kicked off. I will say no more on this matter and neither will the other parties involved (you know who you are).

SD

_________________
12th GBHL 2013.
13th GBHL 2014
9th GBHL 2015


Mid Sussex Wargamers

I'm watching

_________________
Commission Availability : BOOKED SOLID (again lol)

More of my work at

www.ShadowandFlame.co.uk

Apart from in official tournaments and environments etc, I'm guessing this is completely subjective and thus there is no "right answer" it's just down to your opponent?

My first opponent last week was very kind in actually lending me proxy models to fill the gaps in my army, since I haven't been involved for long and my remaining 3 rangers of the north had yet to arrive from ebay.

An example of proxying having it's place for the greater benefit of the game in that instance?

Although I could see how my opponent could become weary of this if this became the norm, rather than the exception, taking into account the vast effort some put into legitimitely collecting an army, spending money and time on it, only to be faced across the table by an army of "this isn't really this, it's that."

I'm also presuming that ultimately, those who favour one side of this debate will tend to be drawn to each other and likewise on the other side. So rarely will these worlds collide?!

_________________
Subscribe to the GBHL YouTube for daily SBG content http://Www.youtube.com/gbhlpodcast
*5th in 2014 GBHL

I can't believe this is an argument.

What it comes down to is: it's not about you, it's about your opponent. If he or she is okay with it, use carved bits of carrot with names stencilled into the base if you want. If not, then make do with what you have, or find a different, carrot-loving, opponent.

Reading through this I can think of 3 levels of proxying that I have an opinion about:

1) Telling your opponent something is something else just because you can't be bothered to buy/paint the model.

I mentioned this in another thread but at the TOS my mate played someone who was using a standard Uruk crossbowman as Vrasku, in a warband of uruk crossbowmen. He had simply marked on his base with pencil to differentiate him. As far as I'm concerned this is a big no-no, particularly in a tournament. It is confusing, lazy and undermines the effort that other player spot into their armies. My friend had to borrow a template off me to stand under his base to remind himself of which one he was. Incidentally, this was at a GW tournament and the player suffered no problems/penalties so maybe they're not as harsh on it as their rules pack imply? Alternatively I suppose he might just have not faced an opponent who cared enough to complain. The Eomer example that Sid gave above is interesting as at the Doubles last year I received a ruling that I COULD use standard Eomer as KOTP Eomer as he looked the same (heavy armour, on a horse etc.) once I'd added a shield. I suppose it's not massively different to using the WHite Council Saruman as an Isengard Saruman. Also, there's no KOTP Eomer on foot so you'd have to use the other version of him for that, in the 3 games I played none of my opponents so much as blinked at him, they all simply asked "which one's that?" before the game started.

2) Playing games with people you know and asking/agreeing beforehand to use proxies to test out/trial new army lists, troop types before you buy them.

This doesn't particularly trouble me, I mainly play with a group of friends and we often use one thing to represent another to try new things out. I used all my beserkers in one game to represent ferals before I bought the models for example. I think the key thing here is making it clear to your opponent, I would not be happy with someone saying, these 6 beserkers are ferals but these 6 beserkers are beserkers for example. This totally depends on your opponent though but I generally find that if everything's clear to everyone then most people I play with don't have a problem with it. I've even used this with relative strangers at clubs, a quick PM in advance saying 'I haven't got any uruk scouts with shields, would you mind if I use warriors' is normally met with approval.

3) Finally the creative stuff, making up new characters for which there're no models, swapping profiles etc.

This is a greyer area but I think I'm generally in favour of anything that rewards creativeness. Everyone knows that Theoden's overpriced/underpowered so I've played a couple of games with Eorl the Young's profile without throwing spears and -5 points but used the Theoden model and called him Theoden. No-one's ever had a problem with this but it's very much only something I'd do in friendly games against people I knew. I'd have no problem with what the OP was suggesting as long as I was clear what everything was at the start of the game, that said, I'd be even more agreeable if he converted the model to represent his new character as it's a character I'd never fought before and it'd be cool to see a model I'd never seen before.

I think ultimately all of this stuff comes down to your opponent's consent, ask them if they're happy for you to do it (which most people will be in my experience) but make sure you've got a back up plan/model/profile if they're not.

_________________
Finished 2nd in the 2014 GBHL. My Wife's so proud

Free SBG fanzine: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29569