PDA

View Full Version : 'Counts as' rules and opinions



Eurytus
08-07-2011, 11:41
'This model counts as something else' .

How far do most peple (eg, you) think this can be taken. As the art work in most if not all army books differs greatly on the same model (eg lizardmen saurus more like the artwork on the front of the old army book? or more like the various different drawings of them inside?)

And given there is no specification of base size in the rulebooks, only a brief overview and description, could a player essential field any model within reason?

Could a say a single model say a skeleton warrior be classed as a Ushabti for example?

Urgat
08-07-2011, 11:50
If it makes sense to me, I'm ok with it (and the criteria is my own opinion. If you're not happy about that, well, you're not playing me anyway- never have refused to play anybody yet based on models though, I'm pretty open-minded). Exemple: a guy got a HE army, and he bought both the HE and DE armybooks, but won't buy a DE army. I'll play his proxies a few times if he wants to try the DE book first w/o buying, but if he has no intention of ever getting an actual DE army, no. On teh other hand, a guy buys a DE armybook, but wants to make a traitor army based on HE models he likes, with conversions, appropriate paint jobs and whatnot, and just doesn't drop HE models painted as HE models on the table, I'll never mind that.
But it does have to respect base sizes, so no, a skeleton warrior as an Ushabti, I won't accept.

Eurytus
08-07-2011, 13:36
Why should the base size matter? Ive seen conversions of heros on larger bases than 25mm, so why not opt for a smaller base, the pros of being able to hit more are out balanced by the aspect of being hit less and vice versa.

mdauben
08-07-2011, 13:53
How far do most peple (eg, you) think this can be taken. As the art work in most if not all army books differs greatly on the same model (eg lizardmen saurus more like the artwork on the front of the old army book? or more like the various different drawings of them inside?)
When I hear "counts as" I don't normally think, different lizardmen model for a Saurus Warrior. I think something totally different, often a whole army's worth. "Counts as" is different than "proxy". "Counts as" is usually used when you want to use the rules from an army but field a totally different set of miniatures. Say, using the rules from the Empire but a collection of Japanese/Samurai miniatures.


And given there is no specification of base size in the rulebooks, only a brief overview and description, could a player essential field any model within reason?
IMO, no. If a player wants to use an alternate model for... say a Kroxigor, it should be on a 40x40 monster base, not a normal 20x20 infantry base. Base size influences combat too much to just ignore.


Could a say a single model say a skeleton warrior be classed as a Ushabti for example?
Again, IMO, not if you have 50 other Skeleton Warriors in your army. Whatever you use should be easy to identify and differentiate from the other models you are using. Unless you are planning on some significant modifications to your Skeleton Warrior/Ushabti, it would not meet those requirements. Your opponent should not have to ask every turn "Which of these Skeleton Warrior is supposed to be teh Ushabti again?"

IcedCrow
08-07-2011, 13:56
Aesthetics are an important thing to me. It is far too easy to confuse someone or be confused yourself when you forget that that skeleton warrior is really an ogre-sized creature.

There is a big difference in a skeleton on a 20mm base and an ushabti on appropriate base.

The bigger the base, the more people can hit you. Yet you are not limited to how many attacks you can dish on a small base.

So an ushabti on a small base can deal his attacks but only get attacked by up to 3 models instead of 5 back. (that's just front rank)

I have allowed proxies before, and still do, but they have to at least be made at a passing attmept to represent the creature that they "counts as"

OldMaster
08-07-2011, 13:57
Why should the base size matter? Ive seen conversions of heros on larger bases than 25mm, so why not opt for a smaller base, the pros of being able to hit more are out balanced by the aspect of being hit less and vice versa.

? what do you mean?
A smaller base means you're harder to kill, be it in close combat or with templates (for a single model) And you fit through certain gaps easier etc etc.
That's all, there are no advantages to a bigger base. except in a unit, less models will be hit by templates.

Base sizes should be preserved. Other than that, you can proxy all you want.
I, for example, often field my Tzeentch Sorc on foot on a 50x50 base and most people allow me to count the model as it was having a disc.

Eurytus
08-07-2011, 14:09
? what do you mean?
A smaller base means you're harder to kill, be it in close combat or with templates (for a single model) And you fit through certain gaps easier etc etc.
That's all, there are no advantages to a bigger base. except in a unit, less models will be hit by templates.

Base sizes should be preserved. Other than that, you can proxy all you want.
I, for example, often field my Tzeentch Sorc on foot on a 50x50 base and most people allow me to count the model as it was having a disc.

Where in the army books does it mention base size?

The problem is that we are suckered by citadel to use thier models and thier base sizes.

Scammel
08-07-2011, 14:15
The problem is that we are suckered by citadel to use their models and their base sizes.

No, you're suckered by everyone else who wants to have a fair game without base sizes flying all over the place and giving players advantages/disadvantages.

Wargamejunkie
08-07-2011, 14:36
When you use the wrong base size it doesn't just affect aesthetics it can mess up game balance.

If you are going to use "count as" you need the proper base at a minimum. I don't mind playing against proxies/count as and have used both on occasion.

Eurytus
08-07-2011, 14:37
No, you're suckered by everyone else who wants to have a fair game without base sizes flying all over the place and giving players advantages/disadvantages.

Where does it say in the rulebook or the armybooks?

How much bigger is a kroxigor than a saurus warrior? If its not stated, its not unfair.

Like the post says, I want opinions, and Im glad youve posted, but if there arnt any rules on it, why not use other models?

IcedCrow
08-07-2011, 14:39
It is over powered. If you don't feel so, that's fine. However you will be met by a lot of opposition. It's not because we are sheep doing what citadel tells us. It's because there's a reason most infantry is on 20mm bases and most monsters are on monster bases.

3 Ushabti on your 20mm base means that they get 9 attacks and in return only 5 infantry models can fight back. Assuming back rank fights to that's 10 attacks back.

Compared to how it should be where 8 or so can fight back giving 16 attacks back, you can see there is quite a difference between getting 10 attacks back on you and 16.

It is a decided difference. If bases didn't matter, then everyone would be wise to put everything on a 20mm base so that the enemy didn't have as many attacks coming back. Less attacks on you means less of a chance of losing your model.

Good luck.

Scammel
08-07-2011, 14:44
The game works best with bases provided with GW models. If you don't want to use them, fine, but good luck getting a game with anyone outside your close circle.

nightgant98c
08-07-2011, 14:46
I'm not sure if it was ever a rule, and it may have been just in 40k, but I always heard that using a bigger base than originally came with the model was ok, but not a smaller base. Smaller bases can be an advantage in certain situations, but a bigger one only has disadvantages.

Urgat
08-07-2011, 14:46
Why should the base size matter? Ive seen conversions of heros on larger bases than 25mm, so why not opt for a smaller base, the pros of being able to hit more are out balanced by the aspect of being hit less and vice versa.

There are countless pros and cons besides that, like the footprint of the base for template weapons, ease of charge from a flank, how to avoid a fanatic, up to weird rules like giant's "pick up and...". As an example, a dragon gets only one con from standing on a 20mm base, its terror zone is smaller. Every other consideration is a pro I believe. Then you combine that to all the other models, all the other rules, and think about the same pros and cons, and you get huge balance shifts. So no, the aspect of being able to hit/being hit back isn't sufficient to balance things out, and yes, I'll enforce base sizes. The only exceptions I'm glad to make are for centerpieces such as large dragons and so on, if someone wants to put them on bigger bases for modeling reasons, because doing so is clearly not to give oneself an advantage, so it is commendable.

Eurytus
08-07-2011, 14:46
It is over powered. If you don't feel so, that's fine. However you will be met by a lot of opposition. It's not because we are sheep doing what citadel tells us. It's because there's a reason most infantry is on 20mm bases and most monsters are on monster bases.

3 Ushabti on your 20mm base means that they get 9 attacks and in return only 5 infantry models can fight back. Assuming back rank fights to that's 10 attacks back.

Compared to how it should be where 8 or so can fight back giving 16 attacks back, you can see there is quite a difference between getting 10 attacks back on you and 16.

It is a decided difference. If bases didn't matter, then everyone would be wise to put everything on a 20mm base so that the enemy didn't have as many attacks coming back. Less attacks on you means less of a chance of losing your model.

Good luck.

True, what would you say was a fair handicap (if any)?

The reason for posting this is when using a small army youve just started, you often have little models. And given the price of GW models, making a box of 16 models into a 500point force is far more attractive at what 15 on the net, than paying for 3 monster figures as well.

Scammel
08-07-2011, 14:51
That's a different context. If you said to me 'Hi, I've just started playing, d'you if I use a few empty bases to represent Ushabti? I'll be buying some next week/I want to try them out', my response is likely to be 'sure', as with many others here. Come along to a pick-up or tourney with a fully-fledged army with skeletons on larger bases being used to represent everything under the sun, I'm going to have an issue.

Eurytus
08-07-2011, 14:56
That's a different context. If you said to me 'Hi, I've just started playing, d'you if I use a few empty bases to represent Ushabti? I'll be buying some next week/I want to try them out', my response is likely to be 'sure', as with many others here. Come along to a pick-up or tourney with a fully-fledged army with skeletons on larger bases being used to represent everything under the sun, I'm going to have an issue.

What if ive just started an army, and want to use a infantry model as say a ushabti.

pililuk
08-07-2011, 15:04
i would say yes if it was on an appropriate base sizeor was clearly on a movement tray that represented the right base size

IcedCrow
08-07-2011, 15:06
I would say that the quick and cheap which I have done before is to get a monster template and then get a cheap piece of plywood or balsa wood and produce a bunch of them, and then put the skeleton on top of the balsa wood base.

That way they are at least on the correct base size.

artisturn
08-07-2011, 15:19
I am fine with count as models under these two certain conditions

Right base size for the model used.

If the model is you're BSB it must have a Standard of some kind.

russellmoo
08-07-2011, 15:22
I'm pretty sure the only problem most people would have with a "counts as" model is if it is not based properly- In fact I've seen proxy, or playtesting armies where players field mostly appropriate size bases with few if any models on them-

While it doesn't say there are certain base sizes in the rulebook your argument for any base size being legal is seriously flawed-

The rulebook also omits any discussion on proper model height, weight, proportions. So according to your argument I could field a model the size of the table (obviously I could not deploy this model, as it wouldn't fit in the deployment zone, it would just move on as a reserve)- or maybe I will field a lord model on a 18mm by 18mm base that way he could only ever be hit by one model in base contact, or conversely I could use a round base to serve the same purpose-

GW intended players to use their miniatures with their game (this is why they keep introducing new and updated versions of the game and models at roughly the same time-) Using GW miniatures means using the corresponding base sizes as these are considered part of the miniature-

GW didn't want to have to make a unit entry for base size on each model, or unit etc. as if they changed the models base they would then have to go back and errata the new base size- and given how seldom GW does this we all can assume they hate issuing revisions and erratas-

Plus, I don't think the rules and armybook writers talk much to the sculptors and artists- they don't ever seem to know exactly what the other side is up to- so maybe base sizes weren't included because Mat Ward knew there were going to be a bunch of new models put out by the company but had no idea what size bases they would be on

A lack of a rule doesn't mean you can- there is no rule in warhammer about smashing your opponents miniatures when you lose, but that doesn't mean it's legal and within the rules-

Lord Inquisitor
08-07-2011, 15:32
Firstly, just so we're on the same page:

"Proxying" ... using a model as a stand-in for another. If you're using tomb kings chariots as cold one chariots because you haven't finished your dark elves yet... that's a proxy.

"Counts as" ... converting or specially selecting a unit that fits with your army theme that is different from the standard model but representative of the unit in question.

The sad thing is that WFB (and 40K) doesn't actually have a "counts as" rule. This would be an obvious thing to include. Epic: Armageddon does. Summarised:

1) Tell your opponent before the game of any uses of the "counts as" rule.
2) You may not use any model to "counts as" another if it exists separately in the army list.
3) All models of a given type should represent a given unit type. So if a squiggoth = battlewagon, all squiggoths in your army should be battlewagons.

I'm going to add:

4) All "counts as" models should mount the same weapons (or weapons themselves need to be consistently represented by something else) and be roughly the same general size as the model it is representing.

Essentially, the cardinal rule of "counts as" is it must not cause confusion.

So no, it's not kosher to use a skeleton as an ushtabi under these guidelines:
- skeletons exist in the army list
- if you did, then you can't have skeletons as skeletons and skeletons as ushtabi
- it's the wrong size.

On the other hand, converting up golems or vargulfs or living statues would be appropriate as they wouldn't cause confusion.

Urgat
08-07-2011, 15:36
The rulebook also omits any discussion on proper model height, weight, proportions. So according to your argument I could field a model the size of the table (obviously I could not deploy this model, as it wouldn't fit in the deployment zone, it would just move on as a reserve)- or maybe I will field a lord model on a 18mm by 18mm base that way he could only ever be hit by one model in base contact, or conversely I could use a round base to serve the same purpose-

You forget the infamous dragon with a foot long neck so he can breath fire at you from so far away :p
I'm also always tempted to mention fanatics on 60mm bases whenever someone tells me base sizes aren't important, but I feel kinda trollish when I do that :p

mdauben
08-07-2011, 15:48
Where does it say in the rulebook or the armybooks?
It doesn't say a lot of things in the rulebook that the game designers took for granted. I don't know if WFB has been specifically addressed on this issue, but I know that the Studio has made specific rulings that you are supposed to use the same size base that miniatures come with in 40K, and base size is even more of an issue in WFB that it is there.


How much bigger is a kroxigor than a saurus warrior? If its not stated, its not unfair.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here? All it takes is a basic understanding of the games mechanics to see that changing base sizes has an effect on gameplay (the exact nature of which people have already pointed out). The game is precariously balanced enough as it is, without throwing in random, game impacting changes.


Like the post says, I want opinions, and Im glad youve posted, but if there arnt any rules on it, why not use other models?
No one is saying its wrong to use another model, we are saying its not acceptable to use another base size. As far as why not do it? Becuase, judging from the response you are getting here, a lot of people (me included) would not play a game with you if you made random changes to base sizes in your army.


What if ive just started an army, and want to use a infantry model as say a ushabti.
Blue tack them onto monster size bases. That is what I would consider "proxying" though, not "counts as" (just semantics, perhaps?). In this last case, of course, I would also expect to be estimating cover and LOS based on the estimated size of the correct model, not the much smaller skelly.:p

Griefbringer
08-07-2011, 16:16
Where does it say in the rulebook or the armybooks?


Back in the 3rd edition, the rulebook and army lists actually specified the size of the base to be used for various models.

I am still wondering why they ended up dropping that, since it took so little space and made things rather clear.

TMATK
08-07-2011, 17:01
...

The sad thing is that WFB (and 40K) doesn't actually have a "counts as" rule. This would be an obvious thing to include. Epic: Armageddon does. Summarised:

...

I do agree it's sad, but not surprising. They don't want to leave the door open for players to use models from the armies they already own in their 2nd army. If you want to use a unit, they want you to go buy it.


On topic: I like my army painted and wysiwyg, but my army is the only one I worry about. As long as I can tell things apart across the table I don't care.

GenerationTerrorist
08-07-2011, 17:04
I use the old 5th Edition Skinks with Bows, and have never had any issue about it so long as I make clear to my opponent that they are all carrying Blowpipes. I would expect grief if I tried to make some have Blowpipes and some have Javelins, however.

People who take the whole WISYWG aspect to far (in Fantasy, compared to where it is more the done/accepted thing in 40K) are generally not the sort of people I would enjoy a game against, to be fair.

Eurytus
08-07-2011, 17:15
Back in the 3rd edition, the rulebook and army lists actually specified the size of the base to be used for various models.

I am still wondering why they ended up dropping that, since it took so little space and made things rather clear.

That seems sensible.

Eurytus
08-07-2011, 17:21
Thank you for your posts, while I understand the effects base sizes have on the gameplay, I personally wouldnt mind. id enjoy the challenge!

What would you see as a fair handicap.

Eurytus
08-07-2011, 17:23
A lack of a rule doesn't mean you can- there is no rule in warhammer about smashing your opponents miniatures when you lose, but that doesn't mean it's legal and within the rules-

Wait is that frowned on.......

Valkyrie Sky
08-07-2011, 17:48
I cant tell if you are trolling or just refusing to take in other's advices Eurytus.
If you cant afford to buy and field the new units, there is a very easy way to go about this.
Measure the appropriate dimension of the bases, and cut them out on paper, and write the unit's name on it.

No confusion possible.

Eurytus
08-07-2011, 17:52
I cant tell if you are trolling or just refusing to take in other's advices Eurytus.
If you cant afford to field the said units in your new units, there is a very easy way to go about this. Cut out pieces of paper ( of appropriate size compared to the actual base size )and write the unit's name on it.

No confusion possible.

Yea im trolling.
(sigh)

FluXpac
08-07-2011, 18:34
Here's a question - my skaven army has an abomination and a plague furnace. I made the abomb when the 7th ed book was released, and its on a chariot base, instead of the massive one the official model comes with. The furnace is on the correct base size (60 x 100?), and is mounted on the back of a stegadon, cos everything is cooler when it's riding a dinosaur. If I took the furnace off, would people have a problem with me using it as a steggie for SoM games as it's too big, and would anyone refuse to play my abomb cause the base is undersized? To date, noones ever complained about the abomb before, in tournaments or club games.
On a similar theme, as the abomb is smaller than the official one, I was thinking about adding wings and using it as a counts-as manticore/chimera/lammasu etc. Would anyone complain about this?
Just interested in what people think really.
Cheers

Lord Inquisitor
08-07-2011, 18:59
No problem with facing a scratchbuilt abomb on a reasonable base size. No problem with facing a furnace on the back of a stegadon. No problem with you using the stegadon as a stegadon if you take the furnace off (the larger base is a disadvantage in most cases).

Some models historically have come on a variety of bases - the giant, for example, and I don't think anyone is suggesting there should be a set base size for the giant (and that is probably why it is not stipulated in the army book) because that would mean rebasing for those of us with older metal giants - just don't get funny and put it on a 20mm infantry base.

The golden rule for bases is "be reasonable". A chariot base is reasonable for an abomb, particularly a scratch-built one. A cavalry base would not be.

IcedCrow
08-07-2011, 19:06
I agree with the above.

Griefbringer
08-07-2011, 19:07
I made the abomb when the 7th ed book was released, and its on a chariot base, instead of the massive one the official model comes with ... would anyone refuse to play my abomb cause the base is undersized?

So your abomination is on a 50x100 mm base instead of the 60x100 mm base that comes with the actual GW version?

Given the background, I would say that the size of the base that you used was relatively reasonable back in the day.

That said, since it has an effect on how many opponents can fight it in close combat, you might want to agree with your opponent to treat it as a bit wider when actually calculating how many opponents can attack it. Or perhaps having with you an actual 60x100 mm cardboard rectangle, and placing your abombinator on top of that in the beginning of the game if your opponent insists.

Lord Inquisitor
08-07-2011, 19:08
I do agree it's sad, but not surprising. They don't want to leave the door open for players to use models from the armies they already own in their 2nd army. If you want to use a unit, they want you to go buy it.
Meh, the rule exists in Epic and it seems to work without issue there, I've not seen armies rampant with proxies at tournaments. As long as you make the distinction between "proxying" and "counts as" within the rule, it shouldn't matter.

Or not make it a rule at all, but a series of conventions and qualify that as "with your opponent's permission". There's nothing wrong with proxying after all, but that should be with opponent's permission.

Certainly something that could at least go in the FAQ. It comes up a lot.

Desert Rain
08-07-2011, 19:12
If it could reasonably be the model it is supposed to be representing I don't mind. The base size has to be correct though.
Maiden Guards as LSG are OK for example, but saurus as kroxigors are not, even if they are on a 40mm base.

popisdead
08-07-2011, 20:16
I think it is a needed rule and great for people who are into the hobby more than the cult of GW pureness.

I would rather see someone play with models they can afford, enjoy, or theme than stricly following along with what GW has done.

If you want to have pink goblins, red Orks, fully converted this or that go for it.

I think it is lame someone would put down someone elses creativity or means to play a what is just a toy soldier game.

As for rules-wise if you just casually and politely remind your opponent "these are unit X equipped with such and such" in thier turn no issues should arise.

theshoveller
08-07-2011, 22:14
I would say that the quick and cheap which I have done before is to get a monster template and then get a cheap piece of plywood or balsa wood and produce a bunch of them, and then put the skeleton on top of the balsa wood base.

That way they are at least on the correct base size.
Or as I think of it, "the Rick Priestley method".

:D

Brother Alexos
09-07-2011, 00:25
I take "Counts as" very seriously. I planned out an army that would be led by Throgg, the troll king, and use Beastmen as counts as Marauders. I want to make an army of mutants using Mutants as the militia in an all-militia Empire army. I wanted to make an army of Cultists using the Brettonian armybook. There's so much you can do, if you friends let you. And as long as it isn't really, really cheesy. Don't make an army just because it'll win, people will hate you.

enygma7
09-07-2011, 00:49
I think it is a needed rule and great for people who are into the hobby more than the cult of GW pureness.

I would rather see someone play with models they can afford, enjoy, or theme than stricly following along with what GW has done.


To be fair, I think GW are more than happy for people to make cool conversions and army themes and use 'counts as'. Rather than a underhand marketing tactic or effort to force you to buy official models I think GW just doesn't see a need for them to give explicit permission for this kind of thing. Many of GWs rulebooks have paragraphs to the effect of "its your game" and "feel free to modify things as you want".

Certainly, I've never seen any restrictions on conversions and reasonable counts as in GW events (unlike in warmachine where this stuff is controlled). They aren't hot on you using other companies models at GW events and stores, but that's understandable...

Misfratz
09-07-2011, 06:56
Many of GWs rulebooks have paragraphs to the effect of "its your game" and "feel free to modify things as you want".Unfortunately the least noticed words ever printed by GW.

My take on this is that the game is more fun with proper models, rather than having to keep track of what is proxying what. The OP wants to play as big a game as possible with minimum expense.

I think that (s)he and his/her opponent will have more fun living within the constraints of his model collection. How about playing a skirmish version of Warhammer? Let dead skeletons be recycled and re-enter the battle, to represent an unending horde. See the constraints as a source of inspiration to do something different, rather than something to ignore.

Eurytus
13-07-2011, 15:57
See the constraints as a source of inspiration to do something different, rather than something to ignore.

Wise words, and I do. thanks to all that That have posted.