If you like to put an axe on his back, fine by me. I also wouldn't really care about the absense of his shield. Thror even wields a shield that is NOT included in his profile and nobody makes a problem of that, because it's clearly GW's fault
| The One Ring http://test.one-ring.co.uk/ |
|
| A twist on the ongoing debate about proxies http://test.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=26240 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Dr Grant [ Fri Jul 26, 2013 3:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | A twist on the ongoing debate about proxies |
I debated where this should go for a while between this thread and the house-rule thread but plumped for this one! I've been having a chat today with Suicidal Marsbar about the always contentious issue of proxies and it reminded me of something I wanted to gauge opinion on. I have recently painted up the uber-rare model of Lurtz firing his bow and I obviously want to use him in my games. This sculpt does not have a shield or a sword but Lurtz's profile comes with both of these automatically so they're not upgrades. If I'm using him would people expect me to have put a shield on his back if I want to make use of the shield (to shield in combat, he doesn't get the defence bonus)? If so, fair enough I suppose, I can blu-tack a shield on his back. What about the sword though? According to the latest FAQ you can (quite rightly) only special strike with a hand weapon the model is carrying, if you can't see a hand weapon the model is unable to special strike. This means my fancy Lurtz model can't feint. Now, I also have the (IMO) far less visually appealing model of Lurtz with sword and shield and bow on his back. Should I bring this model along and explain to my opponent beforehand that this is how he's actually equipped? Am I allowed to swap one model of Lurtz for another model of Lurtz mid-game to make use of the equipment he should have? I know all these questions are very nit-picky but they could well come up and I'm curious what fellow One Ringers think. I would also stress that I am only talking about competitive tournament games here, if we're playing a casual game and you won't let my shiny Lurtz feint or shield then you are not my friend and I'm going to the pub. What say you? WHAT SAY YOU? |
|
| Author: | Pindergorn [ Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A twist on the ongoing debate about proxies |
I'd say its a matter of sportsmanship. The sword is clearly included in Lurtz's profile, and the miniature was released a long time before the issue of WYSIWYG affecting weapon strikes even rose. That FAQ rule seems to be intended to prevent abuse of the weapon strike rules e.g. pretending that all your Warriors of Minas Tirith are equipped with axes or even worse, a mixture of weapons, despite not being modelled to reflect it. Which would be an unfair abuse of the rules. But I doubt it was GW's intention to invalidate lots of older models due to them not being originally sculpted to reflect their wargear. Judge it on a case by case basis. Anyone who refused to let you use a special strike with Lurtz on the grounds that the decade old model wasn't originally sculpted with a sword is, IMO, an over competitive, unsportsman-like jerk. But the shield should be represented, using a blu tacced shield as you say. |
|
| Author: | Denizen [ Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A twist on the ongoing debate about proxies |
If you like to put an axe on his back, fine by me. I also wouldn't really care about the absense of his shield. Thror even wields a shield that is NOT included in his profile and nobody makes a problem of that, because it's clearly GW's fault
|
|
| Author: | Erurainon the Trombonist [ Fri Jul 26, 2013 8:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A twist on the ongoing debate about proxies |
If it says 'sword' in the profile, I would take that as him having a sword, even if not visible. If it says 'hand weapon', then I would say you would need to use the visible hand weapon on the model (if it has one visible). |
|
| Author: | Fishlegs [ Fri Jul 26, 2013 9:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A twist on the ongoing debate about proxies |
I think the most important question is why are you taking Lurtz in a tournament?  Seriously, anyone who has a problem with this isn't worth playing with. |
|
| Author: | Dr Grant [ Fri Jul 26, 2013 9:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A twist on the ongoing debate about proxies |
Good points all, glad to see the common sense argument seems to be the most err, common! I agree, people who pick about this stuff arent worth playing with and I'd never choose to but you don't get to pick your opponents in tourneys! Fishlegs wrote: I think the most important question is why are you taking Lurtz in a tournament? I've actually re-evaluated Lurtz this year and actually find he's a good choice. He costs the right amount (Uruk captain +5 for Might +5 for bow) and gets the shield bonus for free (granted he can only use it to shield) so he's not paying for a shield he can't use. I find having a hero with a bow is a very useful trait as you can occasionally use a Might point to cause an important wound on a hero - in a recent tournament Lurtz's bow actually killed Thranduil in a scenario that you gained VPs for killing heroes and so won me the game! The named Uruks are obviously better than the standard captians due to their 3 Might or 3 attacks in Mauhur's case. Vrasku's the best of the 4 by miles but after that my order now goes Lurtz, Ugluk, Mauhur (Might trumps attacks IMO). Army comp also tips me towards Lurtz over Ugluk as if you have Saruman in your army you're unlikely to need Ugluk's head-taker. Plus the model (firing the bow) is just super sexy 
|
|
| Author: | Hodush [ Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A twist on the ongoing debate about proxies |
You can't be expected to model a shield and sword on. That would be ridiculous. Everyone knows the exact wargear he has - we have all seen the movie. He throws his shield. It is all already listed in his profile & there is no way to escape that he has it. It isn't a proxy if you are using the correct model anyway and there is only 1 profile. If it were Eowyn or Eomer, MAYBE you could be expected to put it on, but that is still unsportsmanlike in my opinion. Grats on getting that model too - i lost out on getting one the other week. 
|
|
| Author: | ResurrectedBones [ Mon Jul 29, 2013 4:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A twist on the ongoing debate about proxies |
Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is a proxy? Is it a model that has simply been modified? |
|
| Author: | whafrog [ Mon Jul 29, 2013 5:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A twist on the ongoing debate about proxies |
A proxy is a stand-in...in this case one model stands in for another. Say you want to field a big Orc army but don't have enough, but you do have a bunch of goblins. You could use the goblins and pretend they're Orcs, so long as your opponent agrees. |
|
| Author: | ResurrectedBones [ Mon Jul 29, 2013 5:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A twist on the ongoing debate about proxies |
Gotcha, and is this usually only for friendly games or is this occasionally acceptable at tournaments as well? Sorry if I derailed the topic... |
|
| Author: | SouthernDunedain [ Mon Jul 29, 2013 6:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A twist on the ongoing debate about proxies |
At official tournaments: no no no! At indie tournaments: usually the discression of the TO. Friendly games: ask your opponent before your game. And that's all ill say for fear of causing an argument. |
|
| Author: | johnny189 [ Sun Aug 04, 2013 3:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A twist on the ongoing debate about proxies |
IIRC Lurtz has a single profile with no options at all, so there is no doubt at all over what he has. At an official tornament it may be a problem but at a friendly game anyone who says no is not worth playing with. |
|
| Author: | Farmer Maggot [ Mon Aug 05, 2013 7:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A twist on the ongoing debate about proxies |
I’d say the shield certainly shouldn’t be a problem, Lurtz has a shield as part of his profile and it is an official GW Lurtz model. I’d probably make sure I reminded an opponent before the game that he does have a shield. I don’t remember at the moment if the profile specifies that Lurtz has a sword. If it does then again it should be no problem. If he doesn’t specifically have a sword, I wouldn’t have a problem (in either a friendly or competitive game) but I could understand someone having an issue in a competitive game (although I certainly wouldn’t give them a sporting opponent vote). |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|