Where do we Draw the Line?

[Leez]

Only if those stones were sold to you in a bag marked "Citadel" or "Games Workshop." They still like to enforce the "gotta buy it from us, or make it from one of ours" rule in some situations.

John M.

Indeed they do sell such things in their "Citadel Warhammer Basing Kit" product. A person could run one heck of a pet rock theme army.

[Bean]

How about "You win. Can we play for fun now?"

Just point 'em up the way they look and play them that way.

The suggestion that people who proxy are playing to win rather than to have fun seems horribly misguided, to me. My regular army is the one I win with. I try not to spend money on units that aren't going to be effective in a game.

When I proxy, I'm almost always playing an army that I think will be fun or interesting or entertaining. Sometimes even silly. I really never do it to make a more powerful army than the one I have, and I'd be willing to bet that this is a common trend.

It is not reasonable to assume that everyone who is proxying an army is doing so in order to create the most powerful army he or she can imagine.

It is not reasonable to presume that a game without proxies will be more fun than a game with proxies, or that playing with proxies is necessarily not the same as playing for fun.


Imagine a player who has an older army built for an edition which has passed and left the models he owns comprising only armies which are terrible or which he doesn't enjoy playing. Are you really saying that he should be forced to either play an army he doesn't enjoy or purchase a bunch of new stuff to fix it? Should he not be allowed to have fun until he buys a bunch more stuff?

That's patently and obviously absurd. It really is shocking that so many people have taken that stance.

Obviously no one can or should be able to force you to play against proxies. Similarly, you shouldn't feel that you can force others to play with non-proxied models. Both stances, when adopted hard-line, are unreasonable and, frankly, stupid.

In the end, though, it is far more reasonable to play with models and armies you like and let your opponent play with models and armies he likes--whether those models are proxies or not. You might not enjoy it quite as much as playing against a properly modeled and fully painted army, but if you really fail to enjoy it more than not playing at all, you're pretty clearly Doing Something Wrong.

[the jeske]

Only if those stones were sold to you in a bag marked "Citadel" or "Games Workshop." They still like to enforce the "gotta buy it from us, or make it from one of ours" rule in some situations.

John M.

nope that is not what the rules say . own conversion or self sculpts with GW parts or GW only models . I could do a crystal xeno race doing a counts as sm or eldar list and it would not only be fluffy , but also totaly legal.

How about "You win. Can we play for fun now?"

I dont get this part , how is playing to win not fun and how is playing to lose[the other option if your not playing to win] fun. Because somehow am missing your point here.

[Bean]

Hah! It's the Jeske!

Far and away the most entertaining poster on the B&C.

[Aldramelech]

nope that is not what the rules say . own conversion or self sculpts with GW parts or GW only models . I could do a crystal xeno race doing a counts as sm or eldar list and it would not only be fluffy , but also totaly legal.



I dont get this part , how is playing to win not fun and how is playing to lose[the other option if your not playing to win] fun. Because somehow am missing your point here.

Don't be obtuse. You know perfectly well he is describing someone who is playing to win at any cost to the detriment of fun.

Not entertained so far, perhaps B&C is too highbrow for the likes of me?

[Bean]

No, Aldramech, the poster to whom he was responding was actually describing someone who chooses to play with proxies--a decision which doesn't necessarily have much to do with either fun or winning.

Beyond that, both the phrase "win at all costs" and the phrase "to the detriment of fun" are really misused often in this sort of context, and you have definitely misused both in your post.

First off, you have never met nor heard of a player who plays to win at all costs. That is, you've never met or heard of a player who has, just as an example, held his opponent's family hostage in order to convince his opponent to make poor moves and thereby secure a win. The things people like you generally dislike don't even approach playing to win at all costs, which makes that a particularly silly phrase to use when describing them.

Similarly, practically no-one does things to the detriment of fun--at least, not to the detriment of his or her own fun--when playing a game. Winning is fun. Players who play to win generally do so because they find that it is fun to win, and fun to play to win.

Further, it can be perfectly fun to play against someone who is playing to win--even if you, yourself, are not playing to win. If you are failing to have fun against a player who is playing to win, and that is the only reason you are not finding the game fun, that is your fault--not your opponent's.

Usually, what people are really talking about (when they say or write things like you have above) is players who are rude or obnoxious to the detriment of fun, and that is a legitimate concern. It is not, however, tied to playing to win, and it is heavily obfuscated by the phrases you have chosen to use.

Expressing concern over players who "play to win at all costs" or who ruin your fun by trying to win is just silly. There isn't anything wrong with trying to win the game. There is nothing anyone can do within the context of the game which qualifies as 'trying too hard to win,' or 'focusing on winning to the detriment of fun.'

The only time someone can actually be trying so hard to win that it's legitimately detrimental to the fun of the game is when he or she is doing something outside the context of the game--like taking your family hostage, cheating, or being obnoxious--however all such issues are inherently distinct from and deeper than trying too hard to win. When you tie them to the focus on winning, you simultaneously do undeserved harm to people who like to win and foolishly ignore the actual causes of this sort of un-fun behavior--be they poor social skills, a lack of integrity, or an overriding sociopathy.

In short, Jeske's question is actually quite legitimate. How is playing to win not fun?

[Aldramelech]

What he is clearly saying is that the person has deliberately used proxies to make cheating easier, and therefore is willing to win at any cost. So if he says "Fine you win, can we play for fun now?" he is in fact being sarcastic.

The term "Win at any cost" is a common phrase in the English language to describe someone who is willing to cheat to achieve victory. This doesn't mean that when someone says "Micheal Schumacher is willing to win at any cost" they are saying everybody's favorite German is going to Kidnap Mark Webber's family (although I'm sure the thought has crossed his mind).

Don't be bandying words with me you over educated ponse, I ain't intimidated. Could you be any more condescending?

I await your overly long winded reply in an attempt to dig yourself out of the Stupid hole.

[the jeske]

What he is clearly saying is that the person has deliberately used proxies to make cheating easier, and therefore is willing to win at any cost.

but counts as is not cheating . It is a rule that was put to front in 5th ed by GW and fully supported .

The term "Win at any cost" is a common phrase in the English language to describe someone who is willing to cheat to achieve victory.

ok . how is using counts as or unpainted models cheating ??? because the rules for playing only with painted models is only in effect for tournament and even there not for all of them [like HB for example].how does being upainted help "win at all costs" , unless I dont know the whole table is made out of ruins the color of GW plastic.

[Grabnutz]

Guys, guys, guys we are wandering off into the realms of tautology, semi-deliberate misunderstandling and nonsense. Shall we get back to the point?

It seems that some posters here draw the line at anything that isn't, a) GW original, b) painted to an indentifiable standard and c) exactly the figure it is supposed to be - the holy of holies, WYSIWYG.

Others are more relaxed and take a more 'live and let live' approach, like myself and I believe Aldramech.

I am also of the opinion that I am not in a feudal relationship with GW, and am not behoven to them. I am their customer and what I choose to do, or not do with their figures and rules is my decision not theirs - or that of their more 'loyal' fans.

Thus when someone turns up at my table with figures that re not WYSIWYG and are prepared to clearly describe and where necessary remind me of what is proxying for what I am happy to play, because to me having a good game is the thing.

[Aldramelech]

but counts as is not cheating . It is a rule that was put to front in 5th ed by GW and fully supported .


ok . how is using counts as or unpainted models cheating ??? because the rules for playing only with painted models is only in effect for tournament and even there not for all of them [like HB for example].how does being upainted help "win at all costs" , unless I dont know the whole table is made out of ruins the color of GW plastic.

IM not saying it is cheating to use proxies. The oringinal poster is not saying it is cheating using proxies. What the oringinal poster is saying is that it is easier to cheat if your using proxies.
I have neither agreed or disagreed with that statement.

Did IQs drop sharply round here in the last month?