PDA

View Full Version : What do you think of "counts as"



antin3
13-12-2011, 03:40
I mean "counts as" if it is done right. Everything clear and easy to identify.
The reason I ask is that I am wanting to get back into 40k and I miss the old Inquisition, with all of the wacky and weird character of the army. My idea is to use the vanilla marine codex and count my commander (librarian) as an Inquisitor and his retinue will be based on the old Inq. models (ie apothocary will be the female hospitaler mini from the SoB).
My troops will consist of mainly marine scouts as an elite fighting force used by my inq. Same rules and models with just a bit of conversion work.
So would anyone have a problem with this?

Gearhead
13-12-2011, 03:45
Nope, so long as you let your opponent know exactly what everything is. Flamers aren't meltaguns, for example, Unless all of the flamers are meltaguns. So long as there's no confusion, I have no problem whatsoever. I mean, sometimes people have to do this because there's no kit; I had to do it with Wracks and Grotesques, and I know there's people out there with converted Tervigons and Necron Planes.

Kevlar
13-12-2011, 03:48
When I think of "counts as" I think of "My codex sucks so I am going to use my Chaos Space Marines as Space Wolves instead"

Gearhead
13-12-2011, 04:06
When I think of "counts as" I think of "My codex sucks so I am going to use my Chaos Space Marines as Space Wolves instead"

That's commonly knows as "Bad Counts As", which is far inferior to "Good Counts As", example below.

Good Counts As.

http://secondsphere.org/index.php/topic,129803.0.html

That's what I think of when I think "counts as". But I live in Oklahoma, where if you don't like your codex you suck it up and kick that Grey Knights player in the teeth with your old codex, because that codex jumping turncoat had it coming.

antin3
13-12-2011, 04:13
Wow that is a really nice conversion. Amazing green stuff skills.
Kevlar- i am not using another codex because mine sucks though. It just doesn't exist anymore and I thought vanilla marines would work.

wyvirn
13-12-2011, 04:44
That looks really nice. That counts as might mess me up though, the old hive tyrant model look very similar. But that's just me. The custom termigants would help alot, though. Go for the theme

Chem-Dog
13-12-2011, 06:37
I mean "counts as" if it is done right. Everything clear and easy to identify.


Nope, so long as you let your opponent know exactly what everything is.


The op and the first response covered all the bases I'd wanna cover....

Ambience 327
13-12-2011, 14:13
If it is done well, it can be great. If it is done poorly, or for no good reason, it can be a travesty.

I have used IG, SM & WH rules at various times to represent Adeptus Arbites forces. With lots of thought put into what counts as what, and with consistency in how units, weapons, etc are represented, it can make for a very rewarding experience for both the player who creates the army as well as his opponents.

Now, if you are just wanting to use the latest and greatest Space Marine variant codex to make sure you get the shiniest new toys (i.e. using Grey Knights to represent Deathwing or something similar that already has official rules), or if you do a poor job of justifying why your Squats are all Fleet, I5, poisoned-weapon wielding psycopaths who gain special rules as they kill their opponents, then it just isn't pretty. :D

Bunnahabhain
13-12-2011, 14:44
Is it clear and simple? This is vital.

Does it look good? Very desirable.

Are you NOT just doing it to power game? Using the SW codex is fine for your mechanicus force, using long fang and razorback spam as it's 'fluffy for your force' isn't. If you're going to run that force, use space wolves as space wolves.

Konovalev
13-12-2011, 15:56
I think counts as is fine as long as there is something identifiable to be counted as. Telling me that model over there with no arms has a meltagun and this armless model over here has a power weapon is annoying...

Scaryscarymushroom
13-12-2011, 20:35
When I think of "counts as" I think of "My codex sucks so I am going to use my Chaos Space Marines as Space Wolves instead"

Sorry in advance for going so off topic here.


Srsly. They're just rules. If a CSM player were dissatisfied with their codex, I would be more than happy to oblige them with a game using rules that don't match their models. As far as I'm concerned, flavor of the month gaming is precisely what space marines are for. As long as they look halfway decent, and they're armed and armored appropriately, any counts-as will fly with me.

It's one thing to say "This model has a gun. Therefore, I can use him as whatever space marine I want, in an attempt to beat my opponent because that's what I like to do." It's another thing entirely to say "This model looks like a space marine, it has armor like a space marine, it has a lascannon..." At that point, who really cares if it's a devastator, a havoc, or a long fang?

Space marine armies including Captain Lysander don't need to be yellow. Armies including Vulkan He'stan don't need to be bright green. Space Wolves don't need to be covered in wolf pelts and Chaos doesn't need to be covered in skulls. Khornate Grey Knights? Sure. Whatever. As long as I know what's what. Back in the 3.5 chaos codex, khornate chain axes scared me way worse than a force weapon ever could anyhow. In 4th edition, I wouldn't have been upset to fight a chaos army which consisted entirely of grey knight models. Why would I be upset today to fight a grey knight army consisting entirely of chaos models?

Even in the case of tervigons... Sure. I would love to play a game with a tyranid player that made his own, awesome, scratchbuilt tervigon. But a carnifex will do. So long as you don't also include 'fexes in your list. (or, if you do, they are markedly different in their appearance, so I know when I'm being charged by a carnifex and when I'm being charged by a tervigon.)

Telling a CSM player that he can't use a decent set of rules is like punishing someone for their aesthetic preferences. Games Workshop does enough of that. Players don't need to do it too.

The ultimate crime here is when a player decides that he doesn't care about the way his models look. When it's "Oh, I left that squad unpainted because that way I can use them as noise marines, plague marines, berzerkers or thousand sons, as I see fit. And those empty bases over there? Those are nurglings. This time around." Then it's an issue because ugly models and empty bases=less fun for me in a very direct way.


Back on topic.
I encourage you to collect and paint the models that you like. IMO, the old inquisition rules perfectly envelop every aspect of this hobby that I love. Collect cool, unique, interesting models. Customize your own cool, unique, interesting models. Game with them in cool, unique, interesting ways. They have character, they have motive. Players ought to be rewarded for pursuing their artistic & aesthetic interests, and breathing a little bit of life into a game that is all too often dominated by poor quality rules and a stifling "it is what it is" attitude.

Voss
13-12-2011, 21:21
Nope, so long as you let your opponent know exactly what everything is. Flamers aren't meltaguns, for example,
Agreed. I actually prefer counts as when it isn't something in the same range. Worst offender was a guard player who informed me that his sentinels with missile launchers were actually Armoured sentinels with plasma cannons... after I had charged them with a squad with no power fist. Sure I wasn't getting hit with plasma, but I had no way of winning that fight (old codex, no krak either).

Short answer, then is if its a full on conversion of an army that can't be done with current books, its fine. If it creates confusion due to being lazy or cheap, it isn't fine



The ultimate crime here is when a player decides that he doesn't care about the way his models look. When it's "Oh, I left that squad unpainted because that way I can use them as noise marines, plague marines, berzerkers or thousand sons, as I see fit. And those empty bases over there? Those are nurglings. This time around." Then it's an issue because ugly models and empty bases=less fun for me in a very direct way.


... I honestly don't see much difference between this and using chaos models as space wolves. Its a difference of degree, not kind.

TimLeeson
14-12-2011, 01:02
Absolutely, I love Counts-As.

Without Counts-As I wouldnt be able to actually play with or against the kind of armies I actually like in the backround.

Enslavers, Ulumeathi, Hrud, Genestealer Cults, Exodite Eldar, Adeptus Mechanicus, Adeptus Arbites, Squats, Lost and the Damned and all the other minor factions/races then can be played with some clever Counts-as!

for example, Armies like Genestealer Cults, lost and the damned and Admech can be played by using Imperial Guard rules.

I think it's hillarious there are actually some people who hate counts-as because they think it = X marines playing as Y marines. Like, have you honestly never actually looked in the project logs on this very site and seen the admech, latd or squat armies before? :wtf:

Battleworthy Arts
14-12-2011, 03:01
Quality and Consistency become even more important, but when done right, Counts-As armies are refreshing and impressive.

Okuto
14-12-2011, 03:17
Counts as....something that is commonly done wrong and in the short term...but man when done right its a beauty to see.....

For every ten grey marines, orky inquisition, goat marines there that one sexy admech/dark admech, hrud, misc xenos, orginal daemons

For me its all about substance and quality.....

the Goat
14-12-2011, 12:10
I mean "counts as" if it is done right. Everything clear and easy to identify.
The problem is having everything easy to identify is very subjective. It might be clear to you that an Inquisitor model uses the rules for a space marine Liberian. But I think a space marine captain is a better fit to represent an Inquisitor. So for me your "counts as" is not correct. And yes having to remember Inquisitor=Liberian, hospitaler=apothocary, etc. for 50-100 models absolutely ruins the game for me.

Wishing
14-12-2011, 12:48
The ultimate crime here is when a player decides that he doesn't care about the way his models look. When it's "Oh, I left that squad unpainted because that way I can use them as noise marines, plague marines, berzerkers or thousand sons, as I see fit. And those empty bases over there? Those are nurglings. This time around." Then it's an issue because ugly models and empty bases=less fun for me in a very direct way.

I have to agree with the Goat above and say that for me, a model's identity is tied up with the ruleset it is designed for. So taking a chaos space marine and saying that he has the rules of a space wolf is effectively the same as taking an empty base and saying that it has the rules of a space wolf. In both cases, you have to ignore what is actually on the base (a chaos marine and nothing, respectively) and substitute a space wolf for it. Obviously the base with the (wrong) model on it will look better because it has a model on it, but there is a difference between something looking good and something fulfilling a certain game role. If all that mattered is that the substitute looks good, you could do counts-as with anything whatsoever pretty (christmas ornaments?).

In other words, to me, "less fun in a direct way" doesn't just come from ugly models and empty bases, it also comes in a very real way from having to ignore the things I see in an army and instead link it with the rules for something I don't see in the army. Thus, different strokes for different folks.

ehlijen
14-12-2011, 13:56
There's three kinds of count as, though combinations are possible:

Cool conversions:
Always to be encouraged.

Lazyness:
Using models you have as models you want because you can't be bothered to get the ones you want or convert is not very fun. It's ok if you actually make efforts to obtain what you want and want to play games till then, but if not, just learn to use what you have. If you want meltas instead of flamers, try and get meltas. Or learn to use flamers well. But repeatedly saying 'all flamers are meltas' is just going to annoy people.

Powergaming:
Using your older Meq models with the latest meq codex because you want a more powerful army isn't all that fun, but it's not the player's fault. It's GWs fault for making such a ridiculous amount of codices with largely interchangeble models :(

1: yay. 2 and 3: I prefer nay

Vipoid
14-12-2011, 14:18
Generally, I really don't mind count-as/proxy models. So long as it's reasonably clear what's representing what, I'm happy (and I won't deny that I've often used count-as models myself).

Saying that though, I imagine I'd be a little annoyed if a chaos player wanted to keep using chaos, and calling his army 'Chaos', but using all the rules from the GK codex. I might allow this *once*, but after that, if you want to use GK... use GK.

I might be more forgiving of a count-as-army, if it actually involved using the rules from a codex that isn't in the top tier. GK counting as chaos for example.

Tamwulf
14-12-2011, 15:57
For every good Counts As army, I see 10 bad Counts As armies.

Issues I have: Imperial Guardsmen on small bases with Lasguns counting as Chaos Terminators with a Combi-Bolta/Melta and Power Weapon (Because they have been infused with the power of Chaos! :shifty:).

"See this Rhino? I know it looks like these other three Rhinos I have on the table, but if you look closely, I painted the Stormbolter a different color. That's my Land Raider..."

"This Ork Cannon is actually a Zzap Gun, and I don't have the Grots that go with it..."

"I used to play Gorkamorka, so I use one of those trucks as my War Wagon"

"This Space Marine that looks like the other 35 Blue Space Marines on the table? He is actually my Techmarine and this guy with the converted Missile Launcher (two barrels! Rawr!) is my Thunderfury Cannon"

"I don't like the Chaos Codex, so I'm using the Space Wolf Codex instead,"
"So why don't you just play Space Wolves?"
"What! I don't play Imperial Armies. I only play Chaos,"
-This about a week after the Space Wolf Codex came out. Insert the Blood Angels in this conversation about a week after that codex came out... :rolleyes:

Faeslayer
14-12-2011, 16:42
I LOVE a good Counts-As army, particularly to represent a chapter/faction/army/race that doesn't have rules.

I loathe, however, the "my orks count as Grey Knights because I want to be competitive" approach. Those are orks. Paint up some GK or play as Orks.

It also has to be well done. You can't just put your Lizardmen army on the table and insist on using the Blood Angels codex for it. A good counts-as is going to take effort!

massey
14-12-2011, 16:49
The problem is having everything easy to identify is very subjective. It might be clear to you that an Inquisitor model uses the rules for a space marine Liberian. But I think a space marine captain is a better fit to represent an Inquisitor. So for me your "counts as" is not correct. And yes having to remember Inquisitor=Liberian, hospitaler=apothocary, etc. for 50-100 models absolutely ruins the game for me.

Liberians are people from a country on the coast of Africa. As far as I know, they are not represented in 40K.

DEADMARSH
14-12-2011, 18:30
For every good Counts As army, I see 10 bad Counts As armies.

This. /thread

:)

Seriously though- I've played a LOT more games against the latter than I have the former. Come to think of it, I think I've only ever played one game against the former and that was against a guy's Witch Hunters army and to be honest, I didn't know what was counts-as and what wasn't anyway, so it didn't really matter.

Look, let's be honest; you know whether or not your counts-as is good/ acceptable or not. There's a hundred of these threads every month and it always boils down to a couple of things:

1) Can OP use it in a tournament? (answer: not us, try tournament organizers; but keep in mind most folks do elaborate counts-as not because they're representing an ultra-competitive tournament build)

2) Would/ will people mind playing against it? (answer: if you break out your army and people say things like, "Oh wow! Check that out!", you're in good shape. If you break your army out and arms and weapons are all falling off unpainted or primered black models and I need a cheat sheet to remind me the second flamer in the assault squad is actually a plasma pistol, you did it wrong and it sucks)

I know, I know, people like to test drive units by proxying and all that. I think that was a defensible stance at some point, but honestly, if you can't read and evaluate your codex, do a little reading on sites like these, throw a couple of models down on the floor yourself, and do a little mathammer on your own, why do I have to waste my Sunday afternoon doing it for you?

massey
14-12-2011, 19:23
People have it down pretty well by now. If you're playing with your buddies and they don't care, that's fine. I come from a Battletech background where nobody ever had painted minis and we used the same 14 plastic mechs to represent everything under the sun, so I don't get too worked up about it.

Against people who aren't your normal buddies?

If people say "ooh cool" then you're doing it right. If people scowl then you're doing it wrong. Good counts-as requires a bit more effort than a normal army. Put some thought into it. Make sure it's clear to someone who is only halfway paying attention. Berzerkers riding Bloodcrushers as Thunderwolf Cavalry? Cool. A Terminator with no arms and a heavy bolter laying on his base as an Obliterator? Not cool.

Vipoid
14-12-2011, 19:33
If people say "ooh cool" then you're doing it right. If people scowl then you're doing it wrong. Good counts-as requires a bit more effort than a normal army. Put some thought into it.

One of my friends has some sort of olympic-statue-model... thing that he uses to represent an Eldar Avatar.

Not many people know this, but the Wailing Doom is, in fact, a discus. ;)

Lord Inquisitor
14-12-2011, 19:44
There are three things that people talk about and they're separate and it doesn't help when things get muddled together.

1) "Proxying". That means using one pre-existing model as a stand-in for a model in your army. Typically both are from the same army. "I'm using my land speeders as attack bikes". In most cases this is only acceptable as a stop gap - you want to test out how good attack bikes are before you buy or you left your attack bikes at home or whatever. It's generally NOT acceptable to have land speeders as attack bikes as a permanent fixture because you don't want to buy attack bikes, it's confusing and annoying to the opponent.

2) "Counts as". This means a converted or adapted model that looks like one thing being used as the closest possible match from your army list. The converted model typically has a similar loadout and it is generally done to allow a cool conversion, scratchbuild or archaic model into an army and the model itself doesn't have official rules. For example, if you have converted an Adeptus Mechanicus army using Imperial Guard rules and you have imperial Knights as your heavy support, it is reasonable to count Knights as Leman Russ even though they look nothing alike as that's the best match. This is helped if your Knights are kitted out with weapon loadouts that obviously match the pattern of Russ that you're counting it as (e.g. you can tell the thing has a battlecannon, lascannon, 2x defensive heavy bolters). True "counts as" are almost universally done for allowing a cool conversion in the army.

3) "Proxy bandwagoning". This is where you take your existing army and wholesale translate them over to a new Codex. Typically these are Marines as their armies are so redundant in choices. This engenders mixed responses. On the one hand, if you want to play with the new flavour of the month, why not? Is there really a problem if you want to use your blue marines as red marines? Not really but it can get on some people's nerves. The real issues typically happen when unique units (thunderwolves, etc.) are proxied in.

So really, straight proxying is frowned upon, except between friends or as a stopgap. Most of us proxy from time to time but it should really just be a temporary thing. "Counts as" is usually invoked for neat conversions and is usually awesomely cool. It can be frustrating if it's used as an excuse for lazy or cheap modelling, but for the most part it is the opposite. Proxy bandwagoning is generally fine even if you'll find people rolling their eyes at you but if you're going to field army-specific units it's a good idea to find a "counts as" substitute - if you're proxying salamanders with space wolf rules, if your thunderwolves are modeled as salamanders riding carnosaurs, you'll probably get cudos, if they're bikes you're calling thunderwolves, you won't.

massey
14-12-2011, 19:45
One of my friends has some sort of olympic-statue-model... thing that he uses to represent an Eldar Avatar.

Not many people know this, but the Wailing Doom is, in fact, a discus. ;)

That is perfectly fine with me. :)

Edit: My green marines usually pretend to be blue marines. I have done this since the blue marines' book came out. Full disclosure. The green marines parents make them come to school in dorky clothes.

Gearhead
14-12-2011, 20:06
For every good Counts As army, I see 10 bad Counts As armies.

Issues I have: Imperial Guardsmen on small bases with Lasguns counting as Chaos Terminators with a Combi-Bolta/Melta and Power Weapon (Because they have been infused with the power of Chaos! :shifty:).

"See this Rhino? I know it looks like these other three Rhinos I have on the table, but if you look closely, I painted the Stormbolter a different color. That's my Land Raider..."

"This Ork Cannon is actually a Zzap Gun, and I don't have the Grots that go with it..."

"I used to play Gorkamorka, so I use one of those trucks as my War Wagon"

"This Space Marine that looks like the other 35 Blue Space Marines on the table? He is actually my Techmarine and this guy with the converted Missile Launcher (two barrels! Rawr!) is my Thunderfury Cannon"

"I don't like the Chaos Codex, so I'm using the Space Wolf Codex instead,"
"So why don't you just play Space Wolves?"
"What! I don't play Imperial Armies. I only play Chaos,"
-This about a week after the Space Wolf Codex came out. Insert the Blood Angels in this conversation about a week after that codex came out... :rolleyes:

Do you know who does that at my FLGS? The children. Maybe it's because We've worked on so many counts as armies at the store, but I've fought against several of the "Good counts As" armies. Both of Strange's armies from BoLScon, the Iggy Tau army from this year, friend of mine does grotguard, that kind of thing. I might attribute that to being in the middle of nowhere.

You guys seriously have that much trouble with grey marines with shifting alliances? We only had that at tournaments right after a codex was released, since we didn't have time to order anything before the tournament.

massey
14-12-2011, 20:34
Do you know who does that at my FLGS? The children. Maybe it's because We've worked on so many counts as armies at the store, but I've fought against several of the "Good counts As" armies. Both of Strange's armies from BoLScon, the Iggy Tau army from this year, friend of mine does grotguard, that kind of thing. I might attribute that to being in the middle of nowhere.

You guys seriously have that much trouble with grey marines with shifting alliances? We only had that at tournaments right after a codex was released, since we didn't have time to order anything before the tournament.

You're in Oklahoma right? You in Tulsa?

Egaeus
14-12-2011, 23:59
On the one hand, if you want to play with the new flavour of the month, why not? Is there really a problem if you want to use your blue marines as red marines? Not really but it can get on some people's nerves. The real issues typically happen when unique units (thunderwolves, etc.) are proxied in.

And that to me is the oddest part about the whole mess. I painted my marines brass and green to have my own Chapter. So what are they? When I originally created them they were built using the Black Templars rules from Codex Armageddon, but I didn't use any Templar iconography (IIRC there actually wasn't any available at the time, and besides they aren't Black Templars). Whenever I went to a game I just said "this army uses the Black Templars rules" and I never had an issue. There have been a number of occaisions when I have considered "jumping ship" and using a different ruleset (especially during 4th when Traits would let me have a done a great "Templars lite" army) but I never did...although I haven't actually played in quite a while now.

I guess it's the fact that people painting their models as a specfic chapter implies that they identify somehow with that chapter. If you don't want to play Ultramarines don't paint them as Ultramarines. And if you do want them to be Ultramarines why would you use another army's rules?

Sadly the most recent potential brush with proxying I've had was considering running my Tyranids as Space Wolves...since the current 'Nid codex was so bad and the Space Wolves so awesome...but mostly because I thought the Lone Wolf rules would be nice to use to have some proper Lictors...

Wishing
15-12-2011, 08:51
I guess it's the fact that people painting their models as a specfic chapter implies that they identify somehow with that chapter. If you don't want to play Ultramarines don't paint them as Ultramarines. And if you do want them to be Ultramarines why would you use another army's rules?

Indeed, but I'd go so far as to say that the game assumes that whatever style of miniatures you choose for your army, you identify (the army) with what those miniatures represent. In the case of alternate paint schemes (or unpainted models) for marine armies, it is not always clear what they represent, but you're supposed choose that at the time of building the army so the army has a clear identity.

With marine armies, there is also a very clear system in place for determining what codex to use - successor chapters. You can field the brass and green (cool colour combo, btw) marines as Black Templars without counts-as, but only by crafting their identity to be a Black Templar successor chapter. Likewise for the other chapters that have their own codex. If your homemade chapter is not a successor of anyone with a codex, then they default to the base marine codex. It's very simple.

The only reason to use a different codex than the one your army's identity is connected with is that you don't find the correct codex good enough (for whatever it is you want). Which isn't how 40k is meant to be played. An unpainted or unspecified marine army that doesn't have an identity also doesn't have a related codex, but again, 40k isn't meant to be played with armies without an identity.

KarlPedder
15-12-2011, 09:21
Effort and motivation!

Effort: If they have put the effort in great if not why did you bother?

Motivation: If I think you did it as some form of justificational acrobatics so you could use better rules I'm just going to facepalm.

Gearhead
15-12-2011, 10:22
You're in Oklahoma right? You in Tulsa?

Stillwater, Knight Arms Inc. You? Those valks were a pain, sooo much cutting.


Motivation: If I think you did it as some form of justificational acrobatics so you could use better rules I'm just going to facepalm.

See, when guard came out people went nuts over the power, I thought about what a rockin' Command and Conquer army they could make now that they had planes and whole units of psykers. That's Yuri and his clones right there, and you could make tesla tanks with paperclip lightning and those cheapo toy bubbles you get from old vending machines.

Sure, that's an out of cannon example, but if you're creative with the rules you can make nearly anything with the codicies. This is the main reason I miss Lost and the Damned so much, you could make anything with that book. No model support of course, but you didn't need it.

AndrewGPaul
15-12-2011, 10:31
The only reason to use a different codex than the one your army's identity is connected with is that you don't find the correct codex good enough (for whatever it is you want). Which isn't how 40k is meant to be played. An unpainted or unspecified marine army that doesn't have an identity also doesn't have a related codex, but again, 40k isn't meant to be played with armies without an identity.

No it isn't. If I play Orks, say, and I fancy a different style of army, I can buy Eldar. In the same way, if I play Space Marines and fancy a change, I can buy Codex: Space Wolves. The only difference is that in the second instance it only costs me twenty quid and a single trip into GW, not hundreds of pounds and months spent painting.

Wishing
15-12-2011, 15:25
No it isn't. If I play Orks, say, and I fancy a different style of army, I can buy Eldar. In the same way, if I play Space Marines and fancy a change, I can buy Codex: Space Wolves. The only difference is that in the second instance it only costs me twenty quid and a single trip into GW, not hundreds of pounds and months spent painting.

Your argument here seems to be that armies have no identity, they only have (a flexible) appearance. There is no other army that looks like orks, so ork armies can only be used with the ork codex. Marines mostly look the same, so they can be used as any other marines. They are just marines A, B and C and are fully interchangeable.

While I am sure many people feel this way, I personally prefer to see armies being dedicated to the identity that they are intended to have. Thus, you don't just play "Space Marines" - when you build a marine army, you choose what chapter they are and model and paint them accordingly. Your marines aren't just "generic marines A", they are the Knights of St. Tertullian, Black Templar successor chapter (if that is what you happened to choose). They would then be built and based upon the Black Templar codex, and their identity tied to that, just like the identity of the ork army is tied to the ork codex because of theme, not just lack of alternative codex options.

Personally I feel that this approach gives a richer, more roleplaying-like experience for games like these.

Okuto
15-12-2011, 19:45
IMO if you really want to do the bandwagon jump marine-wise with ease you ought to just make a homebrew chapter....

In my case I have a crusade themed marine army so I can just about use any of the current dexes.........

I just really really don't understand stuff like orkz counting as grey knights....I can see orkz deathskull themed army counting as IG...but GK...

"Alright whatcha playing"
"orkz"
"Cool, I'm playing orkz too"
"first turn"
"Hey....why'd the deff dread go so fast"
"Oh cause I'm counting him as a dreadknight"
"what...."

Though counts-as is more of a pet peeve of us narrative players, I really don't imagine comp players caring too much......

zerodemon
15-12-2011, 20:03
WYSIWYG

If you have gone to the lengths of equipping the entire army properly I have no problem. If you have a squad of Chaos Terminators all equipped with halberds, big swords and a psycannon, then go right ahead. They can be used as Grey Knights.

If they're equipped with chainfists, normal power weapons and run of the mill combi-bolters, then they're chaos terminators.

Equally if you have an army of Ultramarines, painted as Ultramarines with Ultramariney stuff, you're using the standard marine codex. Ultramarines are standard marines. If you have a home made chapter and it has equivalently armed troops from the Space Wolf codex, but you're using normal marine models to represent them, that is fine, as long as they're armed correctly, I don't care.

I don't want you, however to use Orks as Humans or Tau or Eldar of any variety. I don't want you even using guard as marines. They're guard. Play them as guard.

I don't mind you using Squats as Guard. That makes sense. There aren't any rules for them and I'd imagine humans are a suitable proxy. I don't even mind people who want to use a Genestealer Magus as a Zoanthrope and Termagants as Genestealer Cultists. Go wild. Just keep it characterful. Don't powergame if you're opting to use counts-as rules. It's cheap and nobody will want to play with you.

If you want to use an Inquisition force, a Space Marine codex may not be the best option, unless you are doing a Deathwatch force. If your army is mostly made up of Stormtroopers, then use the IG codex. The Inquisitor will work fine as part of the Command HQ.

Scaryscarymushroom
15-12-2011, 20:56
While I am sure many people feel this way, I personally prefer to see armies being dedicated to the identity that they are intended to have. Thus, you don't just play "Space Marines" - when you build a marine army, you choose what chapter they are and model and paint them accordingly. Your marines aren't just "generic marines A", they are the Knights of St. Tertullian, Black Templar successor chapter (if that is what you happened to choose). They would then be built and based upon the Black Templar codex, and their identity tied to that, just like the identity of the ork army is tied to the ork codex because of theme, not just lack of alternative codex options.

Personally I feel that this approach gives a richer, more roleplaying-like experience for games like these.

Here's a hypothetical situation for you to consider:

Timmy is a warhammer 40k player. He has Chaos Space Marines.
Timmy loves his chaos space marines. There is nothing cooler in the entire universe.
Timmy has been collecting and playing games of 40k for 2 years now. He has 2,000 points of Chaos Space Marines, but he's getting bored of the Chaos Space Marines Codex.
So, Timmy goes to his local GW, and looks around at all the different codices, thumbing through them briefly until he finds one that he can tolerate: Space Wolves.

But Timmy doesn't actually like Space Wolves, he prefers Chaos Space Marines.

Still, the book looks solid and the rules are interesting, so he takes the codex up to the register and pulls a wad of $1 bills out of his pocket, pays for his new book and goes home.

Then, Timmy grabs a sharpie. :eek: :(

He blacks out the title of the book, and writes "Chaos Space Marines"

Everywhere in the book that it says Mark of the Wulfen, he blacks it out and writes "Mark of Chaos Undivided"
Everywhere in the book that it says Wolf Standard, he blacks it out and writes "Chaos Icon"
He flips to Rune Priest, blacks it out, and writes "Chaos Sorcerer"
He flips to Grey Hunters, blacks it out, and writes "Chaos Space Marines"

Then he writes an army list and gets his awesome spiky chaos space marines off the shelf and ready to play. Here's his list.***



Chaos Sorcerer
Chaos Sorcerer
9 Chaos Marines, meltagun, Chaos icon, mark of Chaos Undivided, rhino
9 Chaos Marines, meltagun, Chaos icon, mark of Chaos Undivided, rhino
10 Chaos Marines, 2 meltaguns, Chaos icon, rhino
10 Chaos Marines, 2 meltaguns, Chaos icon, rhino

That's 1000 exactly. It's got absolutely everything it needs, and while I know it's absolutely cookie cutter I'm fine with that.


For the sake of versatility and completeness, he continues:

Everywhere in the book that it says Wolf Claw, he blacks it out and writes "Warp Claw"
He flips to Long Fangs, blacks it out, and writes "Havocs"
He flips to Wolf Guard, blacks it out, and writes "Chaos Space Marine Terminators"
He flips to Blood Claws, blacks it out, and writes "Khorne Berzerkers"
He flips to Njal Stormcaller, blacks it out, and writes "Ahriman of the Thousand Sons"
He flips to Bjorn the Fell Handed, blacks it out, and writes "0-1 Defiler"
etc.
etc.
etc.
Until his entire codex is covered in black ink, and only he knows where to find all the information he needs.

Then, Timmy (with all his pestilent glory) goes in search of blood for the blood god at an FLGS.

He sees his friend Johnny, and asks Johnny to a game. He warns Johnny that he's using "an unusual codex." When Timmy shows Johnny the codex completely covered in black ink, Johnny is baffled, saddened, and eventually gets over it and agrees to play.

"I've never played Space Wolves." Johnny says.
"They're not Space Wolves! :mad: They're Chaos Space Marines." Timmy replies.
"You'll have to help me out to learn your new rules." Johnny says, making a :eyebrows: face.
"OK, no problem. Everything has the counter attack special rule, and I'll fill you in on the little stuff while we play. It'll be awesome. But watch out! Your Carnifex will hate my new psychic power: Jaws of the Blood God. It makes him take an initiative test. If he fails it, he gets swallowed up by a giant chasm in the earth, and then he's dead and he can't come back!"

Over the course of the game, Johnny and Timmy both refer the models in Timmy's army as Chaos Sorcerers and Chaos Space Marines, in chaos rhinos.

Johnny has a good time. Timmy has a good time. No one committed any crimes, except maybe for the sacrilege of defacing a codex. But hey, it's a game right? For all Timmy and Johnny care, GW wrote a 5th edition Codex: Chaos Space Marines book, but made the mistake of filling it with words and artwork referring to wolves.

***This list was literally cut and paste from a Space Wolf list here on warseer. Terminology was exchanged according to the guidelines preceding the quote. In no way does Timmy represent Welshdragon04.

Scaryscarymushroom
15-12-2011, 21:08
No it isn't. If I play Orks, say, and I fancy a different style of army, I can buy Eldar. In the same way, if I play Space Marines and fancy a change, I can buy Codex: Space Wolves. The only difference is that in the second instance it only costs me twenty quid and a single trip into GW, not hundreds of pounds and months spent painting.

The next day, Timmy's older brother, Tommy, sees what Timmy has done and takes a look at his Orks on the Shelf. He has a lot of weirdboyz. But he never liked the rules for weirdboyz. Too often, He deep strikes into trouble and then his head explodes.

He goes to GW, buys an Eldar Codex, Blacks out anything that says Farseer or Warlock and replaces it with "Weirdboy" and "Weirdboy 'eadbanger." He then begins replacing terminology all over the codex. Wraithguard become Meganobz, etc. etc.

;)


This has saved Tommy the headache of collecting and painting Eldar, when he doesn't really like Eldar. (Although he really likes Orks.) He's successfully switched books without spending hundreds of dollars.

And if you ask Tommy, he never stopped playing Orks. He loves his Orks and always will. There isn't another army he would rather have.

Egaeus
15-12-2011, 22:08
Everywhere in the book that it says Wolf Claw, he blacks it out and writes "lightning claw"


What, not "Chaos claws"? :p One would need to be careful here since Wolf Claws and Lightning Claws do not have the same rules.



He flips to Wolf Guard, blacks it out, and writes "Chaos Space Marine Terminators"

Chosen may be a better choice here, unless he is very committed to only ever fielding them in Terminator Armour.


He flips to Bjorn the Fell Handed, blacks it out, and writes "0-1 Defiler"

Maybe the Defiler would work better as a Vincidator, but even then it's a bit of a stretch.


Johnny has a good time. Timmy has a good time. No one committed any crimes, except maybe for the sacrilege of defacing a codex. But hey, it's a game right? For all Timmy and Johnny care, GW wrote a 5th edition Codex: Chaos Space Marines book, but made the mistake of filling it with words and artwork referring to wolves.

Don't get me wrong I completely see your point and it is just a game. If one does not like the aesthetics of an army why shouldn't one be able to replace things in an appropriate fashion (at least as close as one can get) so that they have both a model collection and a ruleset that they can enjoy?

The issue I have is that, as Wishing points out, to some degree armies do have an inherent identity. One story I like to tell is how back in 3rd I faced a player with a Space Marine army painted red. He told me before we started that they were not Blood Angels and reminded me during the game of this fact. However I still subconciously saw them as Blood Angels simply because they were red, so was more careful about things like maneuvering since I didn't want to let them get the charge on me because he would have had Furious Charge (which he would not since they were just another vanilla Marine army).

I would suspect that this is the objection that many people have to proxying armys with other existing armies...as much as you want to say they are "Space Wolves" people are going to see them as "Chaos Marines" and have expectations about their rules.

Scaryscarymushroom
15-12-2011, 22:56
What, not "Chaos claws"? :p One would need to be careful here since Wolf Claws and Lightning Claws do not have the same rules.


How about Warp Claw? I like Warp Claw better. *edits post.*



Maybe the Defiler would work better as a Vincidator, but even then it's a bit of a stretch.


True that the Defiler is a stretch, but the problem with fielding it as a vindicator is that Chaos has a vindicator model for that, leaving our beloved deffy out of a job.

Also, that's a good story about the blood angels. Subconscious playing patterns weren't something I had considered before. I can imagine Johnny struggling to wrap his mind around these new chaos rules. The trouble is that GW already expects us to do just that. In the fall, (was it October?) my younger brother found the need to adapt to a new Sisters of Battle army; one that included Saint Celestine and a handful of low-strength low-AP flamers on jump infantry that fire twice and re-roll to wound. He had never seen that before. Granted, I smooshed him. But he still had to adapt to the rules. And what about all those Necron players that (all of a sudden) have Necron Warriors that they actually deploy, rather than holding in reserves with the hope they never come on to the table? Or Fairly priced Immortals with an independent character to make them relentless? Or Destroyers with ap3 guns? Certainly, people who play necrons are expected to redefine what they think of then they see a necron model.

I'm looking forward to the day when Timmy finishes building his Chaos Space Marines, complete with Khornate Juggernaut Thunderwolves and Chaos Drop pods. Heaven forbid he ever does the same thing with blood angels and starts making chaos stormravens.

Wishing
16-12-2011, 00:36
Here's a hypothetical situation for you to consider: <snip>

I enjoyed that story, thanks. :)

All it does, though, is demonstrate how different people can enjoy the game in different ways. If Timmy has a chaos army, but gets bored with the rules for it and replaces its rules, it shows that Timmy doesn't see the models and their rules as inseparable parts of the identity of the army he loves so much - all he loves is the models and the word "chaos", what the models can actually do in game is replaceable.

I would never point fingers and say that little Timmy is playing the game wrong, since it is his choice what to do with his hobby. I'd just wish for him that he might also know the hobby satisfaction that some people get from looking at their army general, Lord Varghorl, and remembering the times he fought in battle using the same profile and the same weapons with the same henchmen using the same rules as they've always had as all being part of *who they are*, rather than the name and the model being labels that can go with a new set of rules every day depending on what one might be in the mood for.

Sure, seeing the game this way means playing with the same models always using the same rules, which might bore some people. But when you either have multiple armies to switch between, or simply enjoy playing with the same codex and having a long-term relationship with how it plays, that's not such a big deal really.

massey
16-12-2011, 01:43
Stillwater, Knight Arms Inc. You? Those valks were a pain, sooo much cutting.



New World in OKC.

Skyth
16-12-2011, 02:19
I've painted my Marines in colors I devised just so that the holier-than-thou 'wrong bad fun!' crowd can't complain if I choose to use a different codex/traits with them.

I like variety and change up my army list all the time. Heck, I have 6 40k armies and 5 Fantasy Armies (Even though only 1 of the 40k armies are legal for a current codex...)

Bunnahabhain
16-12-2011, 09:53
I'd like a Chaos army, with Thunder wolf Juggernauts, Lone wolf Spawn, Wolf-guard Chaos terminators and the like. That looks like a interesting Chaos army, with units you wouldn't often see otherwise.

I just don't want to see three squads of Long fang havocs at the back and 5 units of Grey hunters in razorbacks, even if they're chaosified. I can turn round and face that list painted as space wolves on the other table, it isn't interesting.

doubleT
16-12-2011, 12:35
I'm not a big fan of "counts as". That said, my squads of korpsmen with bayonets on their lasguns count as being equipment with laspistols.

ashc
16-12-2011, 15:37
I love counts-as. more fun and less rules clutter, win-win in my opinion.

Gearhead
16-12-2011, 18:32
New World in OKC.

I'll have to stop by, I've only been to Wizard's Asylum. I remember there was a store up there that got caught making people pay for a WOtC pre-release (which is a big no-no), and WOtC pulled all their product. Not sure if that was them or not.


I just don't want to see three squads of Long fang havocs at the back and 5 units of Grey hunters in razorbacks, even if they're chaosified. I can turn round and face that list painted as space wolves on the other table, it isn't interesting.

I think this is what gets most people. "Count As" for flavor is pretty cool; I'd play a Chaos Wolves army with well converted Juggernaught calvary in an instant, much more readily than I would a group of marines riding tiny fantasy dire wolves. "Counts As" for power is a different thing entirely; if the chaos wolf army in question looks exactly like the space wolf army on the other table (which is also off the internet), then I don't see the point. If the counts as army plays exactly like what everyone else using the codex brings to the table, quit fooling yourself and bring that. If it's a twist on the rules (Iron Hands as Space Wolves is a favorite of mine), shoot, do it, that's cool. If everyone's bringing Scorpion to the tournament and you bring Zub-Zero who "counts as" Scorpion, then I'm wondering why you're not just playing scorpion.

althathir
16-12-2011, 20:47
I'd like a Chaos army, with Thunder wolf Juggernauts, Lone wolf Spawn, Wolf-guard Chaos terminators and the like. That looks like a interesting Chaos army, with units you wouldn't often see otherwise.

I just don't want to see three squads of Long fang havocs at the back and 5 units of Grey hunters in razorbacks, even if they're chaosified. I can turn round and face that list painted as space wolves on the other table, it isn't interesting.

The ironic thing is as a space wolf player the 3 long fang, 5 grey hunters in razorback list pisses me off as well in my own codex. I started space wolves to play drunk vikings in space, not a shooty defensive force.

Truthfully the problem most people have with "count as" is that some people use it to either create a new "net list" or tailor. If you create a force, or feel a codex better represents your force than switch too it but if people perceive you as netlisting or just looking for an extra advantage they won't be fans.

Egaeus
16-12-2011, 22:49
I think this is what gets most people. "Count As" for flavor is pretty cool; I'd play a Chaos Wolves army with well converted Juggernaught calvary in an instant, much more readily than I would a group of marines riding tiny fantasy dire wolves. "Counts As" for power is a different thing entirely; if the chaos wolf army in question looks exactly like the space wolf army on the other table (which is also off the internet), then I don't see the point. If the counts as army plays exactly like what everyone else using the codex brings to the table, quit fooling yourself and bring that. If it's a twist on the rules (Iron Hands as Space Wolves is a favorite of mine), shoot, do it, that's cool. If everyone's bringing Scorpion to the tournament and you bring Zub-Zero who "counts as" Scorpion, then I'm wondering why you're not just playing scorpion.

Maybe because you prefer blue to yellow? If I paint my Marines blue instead of Grey and call them the "Ice Hellions", who happen to use the Space Wolf ruleset, then no, they aren't actually "Space Wolves" but is that going to wreak havoc on the game?

I guess I see it as a number of distinct choices.

First, one decides that they like the Chaos models. Or, it may be that they already have the Chaos models and want to use them.

Then, one decides that they don't really care for the rules for Chaos, so start looking around for something that they would rather use. I think this is the part that makes most people uncomfortable, since there are rules for Chaos models. As much as someone wants to protest that another ruleset is "more appropriate" for the army they want to build it still leaves their motives suspect to other players. But at some point, who cares?

Once they've decided which "alternate" army list they are going to use, they design their force. At this point one might decide to use what would be considered a "good" list from that book. So that's how their units are organized.

Of course this isn't the only way to do it, it could also be done in reverse...that is, Space Wolves are the "power army" (for example) but one doesn't really want to do Space Wolves, so they look around to see what you could reasonably use to "count as" Space Wolves and decide they could do a decent job with Chaos models.

Of course another way to do it is to have some models or an army concept that you would like to use in a game but don't have any "standard" fit, so one has to decide how best to represent them with established rules.

One of the other fundamental issues to point out is that because of GW's design cycle there are "better" and "worse" codexes out there. If they actually were all roughly on par then I don't think you would see nearly as much "codex hopping" because there wouldn't really be any reason to. Of course Codex Creep is all part of GW's plan to get you to buy the new shiny stuff.

So for some people it's really just "Codex: Power Armour Guys Variant A, B, C, etc." or "Codex: Shooty Horde Army Variant A, B, C, etc." or "Codex: Close Combat Horde Army Variant A, B, C, etc.". For others that idea takes away from the concept of a unique identity for each army because they do exist in a quasi-established background (I say "quasi" because GW is free to alter or edit things at whim, and even though it is their IP changing things too often diminishes the idea of having an "established" background...at least to me).

Wishing
16-12-2011, 23:36
As a small addendum, I want to add that one way of breaking up boring monotony and deal with restricted and uninspiring army lists, while still retaining a unity of rules and identity for each army type, is to simply make up new homebrew additions to existing codexes, or new codexes entirely. This is when 40k and GW games in general really start to get fun in my view.

I realise that this option isn't very practical for players who mainly play tournaments or pickup games against strangers, but for those in a creative and open-minded gaming group, there really isn't any issue that can't be solved with house rules and homebrewed lists.

In the context of the OP's issue, for example, hardly any work at all would be required - simply gather together the original rules for inquisitors and their henchmen and all the other stuff you want to use and put them in a list together. Make sure your opponents are convinced that there is nothing unfair or unfun about your homebrewed army, and you're off to the races.

Gearhead
16-12-2011, 23:38
Of course this isn't the only way to do it, it could also be done in reverse...that is, Space Wolves are the "power army" (for example) but one doesn't really want to do Space Wolves, so they look around to see what you could reasonably use to "count as" Space Wolves and decide they could do a decent job with Chaos models.



But that never happens, and I think that's why people are so against it. It is a problem with the release schedule; several people advocate Privateer Press' method, but I think GW's really messed up and gotten themselves an unpleasable fanbase, and no matter why they do someone will complain. Nobody ever wants to count their Grey Knights as Dark Angels, their Guard as Tau, or their Death Company army as a Khornate force. It's a very blatant power play, and that's why people get so worked up.


So for some people it's really just "Codex: Power Armour Guys Variant A, B, C, etc." or "Codex: Shooty Horde Army Variant A, B, C, etc." or "Codex: Close Combat Horde Army Variant A, B, C, etc.". For others that idea takes away from the concept of a unique identity for each army because they do exist in a quasi-established background.

To me, that's a problem. There's a wealth of background to use and all these great characters and all some people see is stats and points cost, points efficiency and what the data meshes with at 2000 points. So really, they're paying to use about a third of the book they bought. That's fine, it's their book now, but it seems like a damn waste. It gets to me, like people who take Pokemon or Magic way more seriously then they really should. Hell, strip away the background and 40k really isn't that great a game imo.


(I say "quasi" because GW is free to alter or edit things at whim, and even though it is their IP changing things too often diminishes the idea of having an "established" background...at least to me)

Marvel and DC go back and change things all the time (DC about once every three to five years), I've never heard anyone describe their backgrounds as "somewhat" established. Wolverine's name was Logan, then James Howlett, and now he's a hyper evolved Dog or something. Still Wolverine, and at this point nobody cares about his mysterious past since the answer's still "We don't know". Maybe 40k's gotten to that point where nobody really cares about the background, just make the yellow dudes fight the green dudes.

Commissar von Toussaint
17-12-2011, 05:18
Per the earlier poster, you are fully within your rights to come up with your own unique paint scheme for your marines, and since the fluff is up to you, one could pretty much switch which successor chapter they belong to at will.

And that would be perfectly okay.

Full disclosure: My armies (Chaos, Space Marine, Imperial Guard and Eldar with Orks on the way) are almost entirely non-GW models. The Space Marines are pure GW, the Chaos marines mostly so, the Eldar are VOID figures and the IG are historicals. I am all for people using whatever models are at hand and being as creative as possible. So long as the troop types are clear to the opponent, I don't think anyone should have a problem with it.

coolwhip1
17-12-2011, 09:18
At first I was like:
"Oh God. Oh God. Oh God. Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!"

But then I was like:
"As long as things make sense, and are consistent throughout the army. Go for it!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's say you slap some mechanicum symbols on some 'crons (no other conversion work) and you call them mechanicus robits. Sweet, as long as they're using Necron rules. If you instead used Space Marine rules; then not cool. As now, you have created confusion. (Mommy, why do the defenders of humanity look like evil skeleton robots?)

What you should have done, had you wanted to use Space Marine rules; was to use the necron models to convert a unique looking army. Something that both cannot be confused with necrons (beye beye guass blasters) and represents wysiwyg space marines. ie A player that has never seen the army before should be able to (after a quick run-through) tell the difference between bolter-bot and sergeant-bot."

just my little toss in.

-Totenkopf-
19-12-2011, 03:30
So, I am a long long time fantasy player and I have recently delved into the world of 40k. I like it a lot, however, the number one problem with 40k is the lack of "counts as"..

If I ever played a game at our local shop and my opponent took an exception to my converted Librarian, dreadnaught or the fact that the bolters modelled onto the side of my Baal Predator weren't actually there, I would shake his hand, take my models of the table and let some other sucker waste his time with the guy..

GW is a miniature company that develpoed a table top strategy game... Modelling and painting is what the hobby is all about.. I love table top strategy but there are other, less broken games out there that offer that if that is all you are into..

I take a lot of pride in my models and love having something unique to put down on the table. Anyone who isn't ok with that should really just stick to video games as a passtime.

Conversions and hobbying aside, I see no problem at all with codex swapping. Most of the people I know in the hobby cannot afford to start a completely new army everytime they get a little bored with their current list, curious about another codex or just want to try out some new models or equipment options before sinking the time and money into it.

Who wouldn't want to play against my best friends Ogre Kingdons list made entirely of converted ushabti? It's so damn cool!!

wysiwyg is for those with zero creativity or imagination... IMO (<--- that "counts as" fact because I'm bigger, stronger, smarter and better looking than most people.)

doubleT
19-12-2011, 17:07
At first I was like:
"NO, God. No, God, please, no! No. NO! Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!"


Fixed that for you. ;)

And yeah, that has been my reaction to a lot of count-as related nonsense lately.

brightblade
19-12-2011, 17:16
I'd like a Chaos army, with Thunder wolf Juggernauts, Lone wolf Spawn, Wolf-guard Chaos terminators and the like. That looks like a interesting Chaos army, with units you wouldn't often see otherwise.

I am doing something very similar. Plague Wolves! :rolleyes: Ha ha.

A warband of Space Wolves falling to nurgle, combining FW deathguard and space wolf kits with other bits and bobs. My termies and obliterators have come out very well. My possessed are all werewolf/marine crossovers (using allsorts of wolf bits from fantasy and the sw kits)

The only issue I have is my lord. I have made him and he looks cool but to get all I want and keep the points sweet I may have to run him as a counts as Kharn! I am struggling with this as even though he is modelled all nurgly the rules are for a khorne guy, it just does not sit right.... I may have to redo my list. Which is a shame as I have nearly finished it all.....:D

Nostro
19-12-2011, 18:27
There are three things that people talk about and they're separate and it doesn't help when things get muddled together.

1) "Proxying". That means using one pre-existing model as a stand-in for a model in your army. [...] It's generally NOT acceptable to have land speeders as attack bikes as a permanent fixture because you don't want to buy attack bikes, it's confusing and annoying to the opponent.

2) "Counts as". This means a converted or adapted model that looks like one thing being used as the closest possible match from your army list. [...] True "counts as" are almost universally done for allowing a cool conversion in the army.

3) "Proxy bandwagoning". This is where you take your existing army and wholesale translate them over to a new Codex. [...]Is there really a problem if you want to use your blue marines as red marines? Not really but it can get on some people's nerves.[...]

This.

To emphasize:

1) is Proxy and has no place in this discussion. This is ok as a stop gap or tryout but no permanent "this rhino is a landraider" or "this coke can is the carnifex". It's not "count-as".

Real "count-as" is 2) and I heartily recommend anybody never having been to these hidden sections that are Project Logs to go have a look there. IMHO by far the best sub-forums of Warseer and often a testament to what the spirit of "count-as" really is, and at its best.

If we're debating "count-as", the real moot point is 3, that I'd call "count-as bandwagoning" more than "proxy bandwagoning" though. That's where you'll get mixed reactions, hence a debate. I for one am pretty liberal with it, as long as it's not confusing. I'm ok with Salamander bikes as thunderwolves as long as there are no bikes in the army (and removing the TL Bolters), or that they're modelled different enough: powerful characters on blinged bikes for thunderwolves to account for the better profile compared to BS3 WS3 swiftclaws.

I however understand the frowning against it, or the disagreement over this, due to (as mentionned) your natural reaction when seeing bikes and having to force yourself to remember they're more dangerous as they're thunderwolves, and the motive behind it. If it's flavour of the month I'd be disappointed but heck do how you'd like. If you want carnosaur riders and lone "warsmiths" wielding hammers, I'd much prefer as it's truer to the spirit of 2), but hey.

templarsandorks
19-12-2011, 18:56
I personally have no problem with it as long as everything is explained before the game starts and people dont change it mid game

ihavetoomuchminis
19-12-2011, 19:48
But that never happens, and I think that's why people are so against it. It is a problem with the release schedule; several people advocate Privateer Press' method, but I think GW's really messed up and gotten themselves an unpleasable fanbase, and no matter why they do someone will complain. Nobody ever wants to count their Grey Knights as Dark Angels, their Guard as Tau, or their Death Company army as a Khornate force. It's a very blatant power play, and that's why people get so worked up.

I agree so much with it. Why is it that the 99% of count as armies, count as Space Wolves, BA, IG or GK? Are those codex really that versatile? I doubt it. I have yet to see SW, BA or GK models counting as another thing that isn't SW, BA, or GK. Too many times the line of thinking behind a Count-as army is more like "I play army A. I lose. I search for a winner army, called army B. I play with army B with army A models. I look for a fluff reason that fits my powergaming decision", instead of "I would like to make an army based around this fluff. Look for the rules that fit best the fluff. Look for the proper models and conversions."

RED9335
19-12-2011, 20:05
One of my friends uses beer bottle caps and paper circles to represent his draigo wing, kinda dull and funny at the same time. Im usually ok with counts as to try new things out, but its wearing my patience lol

Egaeus
19-12-2011, 22:08
I agree so much with it. Why is it that the 99% of count as armies, count as Space Wolves, BA, IG or GK? Are those codex really that versatile? I doubt it. I have yet to see SW, BA or GK models counting as another thing that isn't SW, BA, or GK. Too many times the line of thinking behind a Count-as army is more like "I play army A. I lose. I search for a winner army, called army B. I play with army B with army A models. I look for a fluff reason that fits my powergaming decision", instead of "I would like to make an army based around this fluff. Look for the rules that fit best the fluff. Look for the proper models and conversions."

Which is sort of what I was saying in the post Gearhead was responding to...that one wants a "power army" but don't necessarily want to use the "power army" figures. Are you really convinced that everyone who plays Space Wolves is doing so purely for their cool background?

Fundamentally it's GWs fault for creating Codexes that vary in perceived power. If all the Codexes were roughly similar then it shouldn't matter which book you use to represent your army (although to me this goes along with the assumption that you choose appropriate models to represent specific units...one isn't going to field Space Marine models as Guardsmen, unless perhaps it's Scouts as an elite IG force). So you could pick your ruleset based solely on the playstyle you want your army to have rather than what army list is considered better than another.

greytemplar
22-12-2011, 21:37
I think that counts as should be allowed if some measure of work has gone into it. Example: My commander (BT) has a lightningclaw, with the claws removed, replaced by 2 combat knives supplied from a SM box, and with one of the spikes of a WAAGH!!! symbol added for visual effect. Scince powerfists and lightning claws cost the same (25p) I think I can use it as either one. It's my own conversion. It's either a powerfist with wicked looking claws attatched, or a modified lightning claw.

Another example: I had a SM with a meltagun. I wanted a flamer, but didn't want to spend a (for me) large sum of money on marines I won't use/bits I won't use, just for a flamer. The solution: slice some of the "meltabarrel" off, make it slightly curved, repaint.

Or using a powersword as a closecombat weapon.

I don't thing that there's anything wrong with that.

Just make it "plausible".

The powersword? Eh. Forgot batteries for it.

The flamer? Custom made.

The fist/claw? A chapter relic of the Grey Templars.

Excessus
23-12-2011, 02:27
"Counts-as" revolves around the rule of cool!

If someone puts down a ton of time to convert and paint a lovely looking themed army with easy to recognize counts-as models and wants to put them on the board opposite me, who am I to say no to a battle...I would love to face them, feeling embarrassed all the way to the end for my poorly painted army...

Eldartank
23-12-2011, 08:32
I think one of the times I might have a serious problem with "counts as" is if some guy tried something like:

"This guardsman with a lasgun counts as a space marine with a plasma cannon, and this other identical guardsman with a lasgun counts as a space marine with a meltagun, and this space marine with a meltagun counts as a space marine scout, and this space marine scout counts as a space marine apochecary, and this....."

And even worse would be something like:

"This bunch of termagants counts as an imperial guard platoon, and this space marine rhino counts as a leman russ tank, and this brettonian grail knight counts as an imperial guard sentinel....."

ashc
23-12-2011, 12:01
A lot of people do not recognise the difference between counts-as and proxying.

Egaeus
23-12-2011, 17:31
A lot of people do not recognise the difference between counts-as and proxying.

Is there a difference, or is it merely semantics? I think most people when they hear "counts as" understand it simply as "one thing is really another".

To me the idea of counts as is to allow conversions or OOP models or other things that wouldn't have a "normal" place in the game. That is, Chaos Marines don't "count as" Space Wolves because they have their own proper rulebook. Squats could count as Imperial Guard (or really whatever one wanted to try to fit them with apporopriately) since there isn't a "Codex: Squats", so one has to make them fit using the existing framework (i.e. Codex rulebooks).

Saying "This guy with a flamer 'counts as' having a meltagun" is proxying (but see the confusion? ;)), since there is a proper representation for a flamer in the game.

I know a few others have posted simliar distinctions between "true" counts-as and proxying, but I'm not aware of any strict definition that makes this an absolute interpretation of the terminology.

Vaktathi
23-12-2011, 18:10
When it comes to Counts-As, here's how I feel about it.

Fine when done legitimately for thematic/visual effect purposes (e.g. using a 54mm fallen angel is a daemonic herald or whatnot)

Fine for those "I want to try this out/I bought a bunch of random stuff off ebay and can't make everything WYSIWYG instantly" moments.

Bad when it's bandwagon power hopping. While realistically facing a CSM army using SW rules isn't any different than facing an SW army, it does set up an unpleasant atmosphere, even if you can make an almost identical army for fewer points, though it's even worse when done in a way that is anti-thetical to the original army (hey may Thousand Sons are now Space Wolves with tons of missile launchers, a TWC deathstar, and lots of close combat assault troops!)

Blackwolf
23-12-2011, 18:17
Actually when counts as first came into the game GW defined it as useing models that don't have rules elsewhere to represent them in the game ie a AD Mech Army played counts as Witchhunters(I believe that was the actual example), or squats played as Imperial Gaurd. It was also meant to be used to counts as a special character to fit into your custom chapter or regiment, such as useing any of the Dark Angels characters in any of their succesor chapters.

Lord Inquisitor
23-12-2011, 18:19
Epic: Armageddon has an actual "counts as" rule.

Wishing
23-12-2011, 23:29
Is there a difference, or is it merely semantics? I think most people when they hear "counts as" understand it simply as "one thing is really another".

<snip>

I know a few others have posted simliar distinctions between "true" counts-as and proxying, but I'm not aware of any strict definition that makes this an absolute interpretation of the terminology.

I think that the distinction that most people make between counts-as and proxying isn't technical, but is more about intent.

A proxy model is when you use a model as an improvised and temporary replacement for something else. I want to use a meltagun, but I don't have a meltagun model to hand, so I'll use this flamer model instead. Or I want to use a carnifex, but don't have one to hand, so I'll use this coke can instead.

A counts-as model is when you specifically choose a different model as a permanent replacement for a given model for a specific reason. For example, if you want to field a squat army, but there are no rules for these, so you use them as IG instead. Or you want to field a CSM army, but they suck, so you use them as Space Wolves instead.

Both are simply pretending that a thing is something it isn't, but for different types of reasons. Another way of putting is that with proxying, you start with the rules and look for an alternative appropriate model to match, and with counts-as, you start with the model and look for alternative appropriate rules to match.

ashc
24-12-2011, 08:23
I think that the distinction that most people make between counts-as and proxying isn't technical, but is more about intent.

A proxy model is when you use a model as an improvised and temporary replacement for something else. I want to use a meltagun, but I don't have a meltagun model to hand, so I'll use this flamer model instead. Or I want to use a carnifex, but don't have one to hand, so I'll use this coke can instead.

A counts-as model is when you specifically choose a different model as a permanent replacement for a given model for a specific reason. For example, if you want to field a squat army, but there are no rules for these, so you use them as IG instead. Or you want to field a CSM army, but they suck, so you use them as Space Wolves instead.

Both are simply pretending that a thing is something it isn't, but for different types of reasons. Another way of putting is that with proxying, you start with the rules and look for an alternative appropriate model to match, and with counts-as, you start with the model and look for alternative appropriate rules to match.

Thanks for making that response Wishing, as it is exactly my view. :)

Panther Al
24-12-2011, 18:48
Now what of cases where you have say, an list type that doesn't let you build the army the way you want, but a sister list, for the same race/army, allows you to?

For instance, using the IA11 Corsair list not as corsairs, but as a Craftworld Yme-Loc. I personally wouldn't have an issue with it, allowing for the local meta allowing FW lists to be used in the first place, but what of the community as a whole? Counts As, yes. But is it cheesy or just fluffy?

Egaeus
24-12-2011, 19:27
I think that the distinction that most people make between counts-as and proxying isn't technical, but is more about intent.

It also sounds like the intended duration of that replacement is a key distinction...whether it's meant to be a temporary stand-in or a more permament fixture in the army.

I think one of the reasons Counts-as becomes such a hot-button issue is that it is heavily dependent on perceived intent. Since the human race isn't telepathic (that we are aware of ;)) we can only guess at the motives and reasoning other people are using for decisions they make. And then it becomes even more muddled because we have all the perceptions and motives of the people doing the judging of the orginal decisions that can colour that judgement.

That is, if my personal belief were "the only reason I would play Space Wolf rules with non-Space Wolf models was if I was trying to gain some kind of game advantage" then it influences what I think if I enounter a player who has an army that uses those rules but not the models regardless of the player's actual reasons for doing so.

I think this is why I lot of people use the qualifier of a "well done" army...that is, if it is perceivable to them that the player was making their army based on a certain stylistic approach that just happenes to use the Space Wolf ruleset as the "most appropriate fit" (for an oft-used example) then they are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that their intent is to have an army with a specific motif rather than just "one to win games"...whether or not this is actually the case.

tsuruki
24-12-2011, 21:20
http://z6.invisionfree.com/adeptusmechanicus/ar/t80.htm

That is what every count-as master should aspire to. This kind of count as is completely acceptable in my book.

But trading C:SM for the Space wolf codex is a whole other thing, though as long as all the models make perfect sense then i dont mind (Melta=melta, Blood claws look like undiciplined c-marines and Thunderwolf cavalry is appropriately hardcore mounted on some chaos warbeast.)

Then i also approve of players playtesting new stuff they dont own by using count-as, though only for limited periods, i will not agree to play count-as forever just because someone is cheap.

Theodred
24-12-2011, 22:32
Here's a hypothetical situation for you to consider:

Timmy is a warhammer 40k player. He has Chaos Space Marines.
Timmy loves his chaos space marines. There is nothing cooler in the entire universe.
Timmy has been collecting and playing games of 40k for 2 years now. He has 2,000 points of Chaos Space Marines, but he's getting bored of the Chaos Space Marines Codex.

Then Timmy should suck it up, and stop being such a whiney little girl.

Ravenous
24-12-2011, 22:41
Well considering no one ever uses count as for a worse army it tells you exactly the motivation. So all the chaos players using the space wolves dex because it "represents their fluff better" can take a flying leap, they just want to win without buying more models.

So get bent cheap-os.

Battleworthy Arts
24-12-2011, 22:55
I do not think you should be able to "counts as" armies that there is a codex for.

Wishing
25-12-2011, 00:02
I think one of the reasons Counts-as becomes such a hot-button issue is that it is heavily dependent on perceived intent. Since the human race isn't telepathic (that we are aware of ;)) we can only guess at the motives and reasoning other people are using for decisions they make. And then it becomes even more muddled because we have all the perceptions and motives of the people doing the judging of the orginal decisions that can colour that judgement.

That is, if my personal belief were "the only reason I would play Space Wolf rules with non-Space Wolf models was if I was trying to gain some kind of game advantage" then it influences what I think if I enounter a player who has an army that uses those rules but not the models regardless of the player's actual reasons for doing so.

I think this is why I lot of people use the qualifier of a "well done" army...that is, if it is perceivable to them that the player was making their army based on a certain stylistic approach that just happenes to use the Space Wolf ruleset as the "most appropriate fit" (for an oft-used example) then they are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that their intent is to have an army with a specific motif rather than just "one to win games"...whether or not this is actually the case.

Definitely agree. And one of the core aspects of GW's gaming social culture is that motivation always has to be based on fluff or aesthetics (ie. the hobby, rather than simply the game). Wanting to win is not seen as legitimate motivation. If someone asks you why you play Grey Knights, and you say it's because you like winning and they seem like the most powerful army, you will shock the whole room... one in ten will probably applaud you for being honest, and the remaining nine will frown and disapprove. The reason behind the disapproval will probably be a mix of "you're detracting from the hobby aspect by ignoring it", and "you're saying what most players think, but violating the social rule that you're not supposed to admit to it".

The above isn't to do with counts-as per se, but it is to do with the dislike many people have of counts-as armies, I think.

Bjorn Hellhammer
25-12-2011, 02:51
Well considering no one ever uses count as for a worse army it tells you exactly the motivation. So all the chaos players using the space wolves dex because it "represents their fluff better" can take a flying leap, they just want to win without buying more models.

So get bent cheap-os.

I have Exorcist versions of Vulcan/Pedro/BAngles type lists, does that make me cheap? I just can't be bothered to paint eleventy-twelve marine chapters worth of minis to enjoy a variety of marine play.

Counter point to this I have full FW based Tau suit/Eldar Corsair lists that have cost me a small fortune to build, so I know I'm not cheap.

Counts as is a good thing mostly. True there are always going to be those who will push it too far, bottle tops I'm looking at you, but they are probably a minority.

Skyth
25-12-2011, 03:11
While realistically facing a CSM army using SW rules isn't any different than facing an SW army, it does set up an unpleasant atmosphere, even if you can make an almost identical army for fewer points

Bolded the important part. Right there is the problem. And the cause of the problem is not the person that is doing counts-as.

It's basically a knee-jerk 'you're playing WRONG!!!' reaction that causes a lot of strife in the community.

Anyone using counts-as is doing it because they believe they will have more fun doing it. If that diminishes you fun, you might just want to look in the mirror for the cause of that.

Skyth
25-12-2011, 03:13
Well considering no one ever uses count as for a worse army.


I guess I'm no one then. Back in 4th, I on occasion used my everychapter Marines as Dark Angels (Back when they had fixed squad sizes, less access to heavy weapons, and cost more).

Theodred
25-12-2011, 03:33
Anyone using counts-as is doing it because they believe they will have more fun doing it. If that diminishes you fun, you might just want to look in the mirror for the cause of that.

Oh well thats just stupid. I should let people do whatever they want, so long as they think its fun, and if I have a problem with it its my fault?

Ridiculous.

Deciding on an army should be ONE choice; which army you are drawn to. Not two choices; which models you like and which codex you're going to use with them.

If you've got a 'custom' chapter, I have no problem with you swapping codexes on a game-by-game basis. But whatever motivated you to choose an army should NOT be over-ridden by that armies percieved power level. And if you chose an army based solely on it's rules, well then at least have the gumption to build the relevant models.

Wishing
25-12-2011, 09:22
Anyone using counts-as is doing it because they believe they will have more fun doing it. If that diminishes you fun, you might just want to look in the mirror for the cause of that.

Like it or not, games like these are very heavily based on hobby context, ie. a mix of aesthetics, fluff and rules. Prefering to play in a context where armies follow the looks and fluff of the rules they are used with does not make a player into some kind of monster.

There is obviously a deeper fundamental social context too, which can override anything, ie. two people might decide to play with bottlecaps instead of models just for a laugh and because they enjoy each other's company. But that doesn't mean that playing with bottlecaps is categorically just as fun as playing with models - if the game only had bottlecaps, nobody would be playing it. What we are discussing here is approaches to the hobby context of the game.

Ravenous
25-12-2011, 16:33
I have Exorcist versions of Vulcan/Pedro/BAngles type lists, does that make me cheap? I just can't be bothered to paint eleventy-twelve marine chapters worth of minis to enjoy a variety of marine play.

Ah laziness is a totally valid excuse for count as.


I guess I'm no one then. Back in 4th, I on occasion used my everychapter Marines as Dark Angels (Back when they had fixed squad sizes, less access to heavy weapons, and cost more).

So like twice? Dont think that counts :p

ehlijen
26-12-2011, 05:56
Anyone using counts-as is doing it because they believe they will have more fun doing it. If that diminishes you fun, you might just want to look in the mirror for the cause of that.

So it's the fault of the people who'd like this game that is built on cool models and backrgound for those models (seeing as most people agree that the core rules suck, that must be 40k's appeal) is played with those models according to their background?

The key is, as always, to find someone who's definition of fun you agree with. If you don't, simply blaming others isn't productive towards changing that.

Vipoid
26-12-2011, 10:54
Well considering no one ever uses count as for a worse army it tells you exactly the motivation. So all the chaos players using the space wolves dex because it "represents their fluff better" can take a flying leap, they just want to win without buying more models.

So get bent cheap-os.

This is basically why I don't like count-as armies in general.

There are occasional exceptions, but they really are in the minority. Either that, or its complete coincidence that when someone says "the fluff of codex X fits my army a lot better", codex X is virtually gaurenteed to be in the top tier. :eyebrows:

ashc
26-12-2011, 11:01
Why should people buy a whole new army because there current book is terribad, when something else can be used to make it a bit more interesting to fill the gap until the other book gets redone?

To be fair this argument highlights the problem of multiple marine armies more than anything else, and why chaos marines shouldnt have had all the life and variety sucked out of their book, just another marine in bands and spikes. .

You know, just to play devil's advocate here. :angel:

Vipoid
26-12-2011, 11:17
Why should people buy a whole new army because there current book is terribad, when something else can be used to make it a bit more interesting to fill the gap until the other book gets redone?

A) They could just suck it up and play the codex they've got.

B) If anyone else wanted to play the army in question, they'd have to buy all the models and such, so why should some be different?

Furthermore, I might be less hareful of count-as if it wasn't essentially exclusive to marines. If you play Necrons, Eldar, IG, Tau or Nids and you have a bad codex (and the latter two do), then you have no choice but to suck it up and either play a bad codex, or buy a new army. What makes marine players so special that they be allowed to just switch to whatever the best marine codex is?

massey
26-12-2011, 16:55
I built a Dark Angels army before the current codex. New codex came out and I played it for awhile. But the truth is, I've had Dark Angels for a long time before the current book. Then C: Space Marines came out and I said "these guys are better in every single way". So now I play with basic Space Marines rules. The current Dark Angels book doesn't "better represent my army". It's just not very good.

I think all the guys who say "suck it up, play your crappy old codex" can go jump in a lake. If you think I'm playing it wrong, don't play me.

Skyth
26-12-2011, 17:31
Oh well thats just stupid. I should let people do whatever they want, so long as they think its fun, and if I have a problem with it its my fault?

Yep. You are the one responsible for your own fun. Expecting other people to provide your fun for you is rather selfish.




Deciding on an army should be ONE choice; which army you are drawn to. Not two choices; which models you like and which codex you're going to use with them.

According to you. You have no right to dictate how other people have fun when it doesn't actually affect you one bit. If you would be happy to play against a given list when it's painted red, you should be just as happy to play against it when it's painted blue.




And if you chose an army based solely on it's rules, well then at least have the gumption to build the relevant models.

And with counts-as (At least for Marines) they already have.



So it's the fault of the people who'd like this game that is built on cool models and backrgound for those models (seeing as most people agree that the core rules suck, that must be 40k's appeal) is played with those models according to their background?

Yep. If they are so offended by it that they feel the need to berate other players and make it a hostile environment for them, then yes it is their fault. Different people have fun in a different manner. Like it or not, the people complaining about counts-as are intentionally trying to hamper other players' fun when that other player isn't trying to hamper anyone else's fun.



The key is, as always, to find someone who's definition of fun you agree with. If you don't, simply blaming others isn't productive towards changing that.

And that I can agree with.


B) If anyone else wanted to play the army in question, they'd have to buy all the models and such, so why should some be different?

And the counts-as player has already done that. Your argument basically is the same as saying that if you want to change your list and swap out a Devestator Squad for a Land Raider, you need to go and buy and paint all the models for the entire list again.


Furthermore, I might be less hareful of count-as if it wasn't essentially exclusive to marines. If you play Necrons, Eldar, IG, Tau or Nids and you have a bad codex (and the latter two do), then you have no choice but to suck it up and either play a bad codex, or buy a new army.

Jealousy is not a healthy emotion and not a good reason to deny someone something.


What makes marine players so special that they be allowed to just switch to whatever the best marine codex is?


Because the models are interchangable.

Vipoid
26-12-2011, 17:43
Jealousy is not a healthy emotion and not a good reason to deny someone something.

Indeed, just as Envy is not a good reason for them to have it.

Egaeus
26-12-2011, 17:58
Furthermore, I might be less hareful of count-as if it wasn't essentially exclusive to marines. If you play Necrons, Eldar, IG, Tau or Nids and you have a bad codex (and the latter two do), then you have no choice but to suck it up and either play a bad codex, or buy a new army. What makes marine players so special that they be allowed to just switch to whatever the best marine codex is?

Again that's one of those things that makes this issue contentious because it isn't really true. A Marine army using Ultramarines models and iconography and painted in Ultramarines colours is expected to use the Ultramarines rules, not the Space Wolves or Blood Angels or anything else. The one saving grace here is that Marine models don't have to be painted in a specific "established" colour scheme and so the potential to "codex hop" is present.

I've said it before an I'll continue to say it: the fault lies with Games Workshop. If their design philosophy was to keep Codexes at a relative power level throughout an edition then there shouldn't be any "bad" Codexes. But they've decided to play a game of one-upsmanship with each new Codex (with notable exceptions like the Tyranids, but my belief is that this book was a rush job so didn't get the time it needed or deserved) not only are they perceived as better than previous books they reach the point where they simply eclipse books from previous editions. And the fact that their development cycle is painfully slow in this day and age only highlights the difference in the relative Codex power.

And while it's true that I'm not resonsible for my opponent's fun, nor he for mine, the fact that it is a shared experience means that we must have some level of compatability to have any hope of creating an enjoyable game. And this is where social etiquette steps in, and I think for many players this is what makes it difficult to refuse a game one doesn't think they are going to enjoy. They don't want to be rude to a fellow gamer, assuming that person isn't being obnoxious in some way to begin with.

Vipoid
26-12-2011, 18:50
I've said it before an I'll continue to say it: the fault lies with Games Workshop. If their design philosophy was to keep Codexes at a relative power level throughout an edition then there shouldn't be any "bad" Codexes. But they've decided to play a game of one-upsmanship with each new Codex (with notable exceptions like the Tyranids, but my belief is that this book was a rush job so didn't get the time it needed or deserved) not only are they perceived as better than previous books they reach the point where they simply eclipse books from previous editions. And the fact that their development cycle is painfully slow in this day and age only highlights the difference in the relative Codex power.

I agree; I'm sure they could sell codices just as well without making the newer ones markedly more powerful than the older ones. Similarly, even when a codex has become almost unplayable as a result of a new edition, they still wait years before releasing a new one.

I don't mind a little variation in power level, but (as you say) there really shouldn't be any markedly bad codices.

Skyth
26-12-2011, 19:21
Indeed, just as Envy is not a good reason for them to have it.

Envy is indeed a justifiable reason to do counts-as. If it would lead to more fun for the person doing it, then it is justified for them. There is, however, a lot higher level of justification needed to control someone else's army/fun. And this is even assuming that it's only done for a rules basis.

I bet the people against counts-as would be just as against someone else insisting that they play with a different army that fits the style of play preferred by their opponent more. They are effectively doing the same thing. There is no thought at all for the other person's level of enjoyment in the anti-counts-as crowd.

Of course, we have two arguments talking past each other here...The 'We have to control and counter the evil power gamers' argument where the base contention is that counts-as is only done to win games and then you have the 'I want to have fun with my army in a variety of different ways' argument, where the change is based on wanting a variety of styles to play with and enjoy.

Each army has a different play style even setting aside power level difference. Salamanders have been close range firepower, Blood Angels have been organized quick assault oriented. Space Wolves have been disorganized foot assault based. Dark Angels have historically been shooty/counter-assault oriented (At least in 3rd with the stubborn rule). Each army has something that it can do that other army's can't. Thus the variety factor that increases fun. Same as it's not fun to play against the same army with the same setup every game.

That was the joy of the trait system, where you could play a different army with a different focus every week. You get a lot more value out of your models that way.

Even if it was done with a power basis...So what. If you wouldn't have a problem playing against the army if it was painted 'correctly' then I can't see a legitimate argument against playing against a counts-as one.

Getz
26-12-2011, 19:48
Lets be honest here folks. The problem is the difference in power level between the different codices. This was never a problem back in third and fourth edition when the marine variant codices weren't much different from each other in power level. You rarely saw anyone deciding that a different codex "represented their fluff better" and if they did then nobody really cared because all the codices were much of a muchness.

Now you could definitely make a case that the current CSM codex doesn't represent some of the established legions at all well and that some of the other books do (the BA codex does Night Lords much better than the CSM codex, for example) but to be honest that's the exception, not the rule. In most cases the "fluff justification" just seems to be an excuse to trade up to a more powerful codex and I'll believe otherwise when actually I see people trading down to weaker codices because it "fits my fluff."

Skyth
26-12-2011, 19:51
You're assuming that 'fluff' is the only reason people use an army. Playstyle is a better indicator. And you are completely ignoring the variety reason.

Eldartank
26-12-2011, 21:29
A lot of people do not recognise the difference between counts-as and proxying.

I should have been thinking of that when I posted my examples of unacceptable "counts as." I was actually talking about proxying when I mentioned things like someone using termagants for a space marine squad.... ;)

Wishing
26-12-2011, 22:56
As was pointed out previously, in addition to the distinction between counts-as and proxying, there is also the distinction between counts-as for models that don't have contemporary rules, and counts-as for models that do have contemporary rules. The former would be playing squats or stealer cult as IG, the latter would be world eaters as space wolves. Unfortunately I can't think of any good terms to distinguish between the two, but I suppose that since the former is exceedingly rare, it doesn't matter that much.

Theodred
27-12-2011, 00:10
Yep. You are the one responsible for your own fun. Expecting other people to provide your fun for you is rather selfish.

No, what you're saying is that it is selfish of me to be unhappy with someone elses behaviour.

Theres no qualifiers in your position. I should be happy if they want to stab me and take the contents of my wallet, I should be happy if they want to crush my army in a vice, I should be happy if they want to cheat, if they want to tailor their list to beat me, or if they want to use proxied miniatures.

I am not required to accept another persons behaviour, just because they like it.

If people want to play a certain rules-set, for whatever reason, then they should use the relevant models. And no, Marines do not equal all other Marines. Space Wolves are very different from Blood Angels and both are different from White Scars.

Wishing
27-12-2011, 00:27
No, what you're saying is that it is selfish of me to be unhappy with someone elses behaviour.

Theres no qualifiers in your position. I should be happy if they want to stab me and take the contents of my wallet, I should be happy if they want to crush my army in a vice, I should be happy if they want to cheat, if they want to tailor their list to beat me, or if they want to use proxied miniatures.

I am not required to accept another persons behaviour, just because they like it.

Thanks for posting that, I was trying to formulate my own reply but struggling, and you've captured the point I wanted to make well.

Saying that you have to be happy about absolutely anything another person does while in a social situation with you, as long as it makes them happy, is absurd. When two players get together to play a game, each player doesn't just do their own thing in isolation - the players create the game context and game setting together as a pair. The overall theme of the game, including terrain as well as armies and rules and of course the social atmosphere, all influence how much the players enjoy themselves. Players having different feelings about what is appropriate regarding army identities and counts-as can therefore certainly affect how enjoyable a game is for either player.

Skyth
27-12-2011, 02:45
I guess you missed part of my statement where I said 'when it doesn't actually affect you one bit'. Counts as doesn't actualy affect you one bit. It doesn't control what army you take, it doesn't ensure a win. I haven't seen a valid argument against using counts-as. A holier-than-thou need to control the army that the other person is using doesn't qualify as a valid reason.

And yes, one Marine model is the same regardless of which codex it is used in. They are interchangable. The 'relevant models' are the same.

How is making someone buy new models and paint them if they want to use a different codex with their Marines any different than making someone buy and paint the models for their entire list when they want to change out a Land Raider for a Devestator squad? It isn't. It's all based on a perceived need to punish players that aren't playing by your dictates.

StratManKudzu
27-12-2011, 03:37
I guess you missed part of my statement where I said 'when it doesn't actually affect you one bit'. Counts as doesn't actualy affect you one bit. It doesn't control what army you take, it doesn't ensure a win. I haven't seen a valid argument against using counts-as. A holier-than-thou need to control the army that the other person is using doesn't qualify as a valid reason.

And yes, one Marine model is the same regardless of which codex it is used in. They are interchangable. The 'relevant models' are the same.

How is making someone buy new models and paint them if they want to use a different codex with their Marines any different than making someone buy and paint the models for their entire list when they want to change out a Land Raider for a Devestator squad? It isn't. It's all based on a perceived need to punish players that aren't playing by your dictates.

would you play an ork count as eldar army?

Ravenous
27-12-2011, 04:00
How is making someone buy new models and paint them if they want to use a different codex with their Marines any different than making someone buy and paint the models for their entire list when they want to change out a Land Raider for a Devestator squad? It isn't. It's all based on a perceived need to punish players that aren't playing by your dictates.

Its not punishing anyone, if anything you (being count as players) are walking into a situation and forcing/expecting the other person to accept your ways, and that doesnt fly. There is enough rough points for people to smooth over with each other before the game starts, it doesnt need the addition of you force feeding your excuses.

Its like breaking your leg at work and demanding they build you your own personal elevator and then getting pissed when you get flak about it, you bring it upon yourself when you step outside the established norm and tell people they have to like it.

ForgottenLore
27-12-2011, 04:05
would you play an ork count as eldar army?
If it was someone I hung out with regularly, the army looked good, and he was a good sport about explaining what was what mid game and point out tactical issues that might be stemming from mis-perceived models then sure. Hell, I'd be OK with someone who had slips of paper or counters instead of models as long as he is a cool guy.

I would, in that circumstance, regularly expound on how much more enjoyable and rewarding miniature wargaming can be when you have proper miniatures.

I once made a portable Blood Bowl game that used a piece of paper with a field printed on it glued to some cork board as a pitch and a bunch of push pins with numbers on the end as players. (Marking the ball's location was a bit of an issue though :()

Wishing
27-12-2011, 07:45
If it was someone I hung out with regularly, the army looked good, and he was a good sport about explaining what was what mid game and point out tactical issues that might be stemming from mis-perceived models then sure. Hell, I'd be OK with someone who had slips of paper or counters instead of models as long as he is a cool guy.

Don't you feel that it hurts your argument though that you have to state that it's only OK if he is a cool guy? The pro-counts-as argument is that you are never allowed to have any opinion about what models/tokens your opponent is using for their army ever, because it doesn't affect you. Per that logic, in any game whatsoever, you should be completely unaffected whether your opponent plays with models or pieces of marshmallow with the word "marine" written on them. Since it doesn't affect your army choices, you should be totally indifferent about what terrain and environment you play in too.

Nobody likes being criticised for their choices about the hobby, so it is understandable that people get defensive when they like counts-as and others say they don't like counts-as. But both sides are entitled to their opinions and neither side is right or wrong.

Counts-as breaks the connection between a model's appearance and its rules that is otherwise assumed in the game. Some people have no problem with that because of the freedom it provides. Others feel that breaking this connection detracts from the integrity and appeal of the game. That's all there is to it really. I don't think either side of the debate here seriously thinks they are going to change anybody's mind...

Theodred
27-12-2011, 09:06
Counts as doesn't actualy affect you one bit

Yes, it does. If someone is playing a game with me, then anything they do with their army affects me.


And yes, one Marine model is the same regardless of which codex it is used in. They are interchangable. The 'relevant models' are the same.

:rolleyes:

They are humans in power armour. That DOES NOT make all marines analogous. Any more than you should play Romans as Vikings, despite both being humans in armour, or Marines as Sisters of Battle, despite both being humans in power armour.

ForgottenLore
27-12-2011, 09:09
Don't you feel that it hurts your argument though that you have to state that it's only OK if he is a cool guy? Except that I am not really making any argument. I have, for the most part, not participated in this discussion (or in the other recent threads on this topic), but StratManKudzu asked a direct question, and however Skyth chooses to answer it, I thought it worth adding to the conversation that, yes there are people who don't mind playing vs such an extreme example.



Counts-as breaks the connection between a model's appearance and its rules that is otherwise assumed in the game. Some people have no problem with that because of the freedom it provides. Others feel that breaking this connection detracts from the integrity and appeal of the game. That's all there is to it really. I don't think either side of the debate here seriously thinks they are going to change anybody's mind...I did think this was very well said.


And as long as I am commenting now,


I should be happy if they want to stab me and take the contents of my wallet, I should be happy if they want to crush my army in a vice, I should be happy if they want to cheat, if they want to tailor their list to beat me, or if they want to use proxied miniaturesthat is a fairly Buddhist outlook, and there is some psychological research to back it up. Just sayin':angel:

ihavetoomuchminis
27-12-2011, 09:10
Skyth, you are a little biased, aren't you?



Jealousy is not a healthy emotion and not a good reason to deny someone something.



Envy is indeed a justifiable reason to do counts-as. If it would lead to more fun for the person doing it, then it is justified for them.



It's basically a knee-jerk 'you're playing WRONG!!!' reaction that causes a lot of strife in the community.


Objectively speaking.......Count-as is playing the game wrong. Maybe not wrong in an unethical manner, but wrong, as being played not how the game designer meant to. Why make models for 12 different armies, if playing with models from another army is just as correct as playing with the proper army models?

Ok, a SM predator is the same as a SW or a BA predator, no problem there. But a SW model is not the same as a SM model.

To me it's just a matter of being coherent and not having double standard. If i'm not comfortable with someone playing his orks as Tau or Dark Eldar, i won't feel comfortable with someone playing his CSM as SW, or his Ultramarines as BA.

I'm fine with using count-as just to try an army, or a unit. If you like the army/unit and want to play with it, buy it. I'm not fine with using count-as as a permanent way of playing another army.....one that is usually more powerful than the army whose models you've buyed.

I won't enforce anybody to play the way i want, i just won't play with and against Count-as armies, if there's not a good reason (IMO) for counting-as.

Wishing
27-12-2011, 09:38
Objectively speaking.......Count-as is playing the game wrong. Maybe not wrong in an unethical manner, but wrong, as being played not how the game designer meant to.

I think this is a very interesting point, and one that is at the heart of the discussion really. Are we "meant" to do counts-as armies or not?

I think the answer is that counts-as is not the intended way to play the game by the people at GW - as you say, if the game was built around an idea that model stats and model fluff should be shuffled around at will, then the books wouldn't say "A Chaos Marine has WS 4", they would say "A type A warrior has WS 4, and you may call that warrior anything you like, for example Chaos Marine, Necron Annihilator, Eldar Skullcrusher, etc.". From a design point of view, a statline is only meant to be used for what it says to be used for.

However, the people at GW recognise that changing the models that go with the published game stats is something that a lot of people like to do, and that it often inspires people to make armies they would not otherwise have made. Since GW gains nothing from discouraging people from doing what they want to do with their models, GW have a positive attitude towards counts-as armies, and they promote such armies in their publications and on websites on occasion. So GW aren't against counts-as.

So counts-as is an alternative practice not intended by the designers of the game. This is why you never see battle reports in WD featuring counts-as armies. The basic, officially promoted way of playing 40k is with models representing the stats the books give them. However, counts-as is a well-known and commonly accepted alternative practice that GW themselves endorse as legitimate. So saying that counts-as is "doing it wrong" is a bit too harsh. GW's stance seems to be that it is not "dong it wrong", but "doing it differently". Which is OK for those who like it.

ihavetoomuchminis
27-12-2011, 11:15
I think this is a very interesting point, and one that is at the heart of the discussion really. Are we "meant" to do counts-as armies or not?

I think the answer is that counts-as is not the intended way to play the game by the people at GW - as you say, if the game was built around an idea that model stats and model fluff should be shuffled around at will, then the books wouldn't say "A Chaos Marine has WS 4", they would say "A type A warrior has WS 4, and you may call that warrior anything you like, for example Chaos Marine, Necron Annihilator, Eldar Skullcrusher, etc.". From a design point of view, a statline is only meant to be used for what it says to be used for.

However, the people at GW recognise that changing the models that go with the published game stats is something that a lot of people like to do, and that it often inspires people to make armies they would not otherwise have made. Since GW gains nothing from discouraging people from doing what they want to do with their models, GW have a positive attitude towards counts-as armies, and they promote such armies in their publications and on websites on occasion. So GW aren't against counts-as.

So counts-as is an alternative practice not intended by the designers of the game. This is why you never see battle reports in WD featuring counts-as armies. The basic, officially promoted way of playing 40k is with models representing the stats the books give them. However, counts-as is a well-known and commonly accepted alternative practice that GW themselves endorse as legitimate. So saying that counts-as is "doing it wrong" is a bit too harsh. GW's stance seems to be that it is not "dong it wrong", but "doing it differently". Which is OK for those who like it.

But those things are more in the field of conversions than in the Count-as one. I love some armies i've seen, where other models were used to represent another thing, but it usually involved some degree of conversion. I'm not against it. I'm against taking army A, and without any kind of effort put in it, counting as army B.

Wishing
27-12-2011, 11:52
But those things are more in the field of conversions than in the Count-as one. I love some armies i've seen, where other models were used to represent another thing, but it usually involved some degree of conversion. I'm not against it. I'm against taking army A, and without any kind of effort put in it, counting as army B.

I know what you mean, but both of these armies are counts-as, the difference is just that one is lazy and the other is decidated. It's easy to tell whether an army is one or the other, but on a theoretical level it is difficult to approve of one and not the other I think... the reason being that once you start criticising not a practice in itself, but how much effort the person put into the practice, then that quickly becomes a bit elitist.

It's somewhat like saying that you don't want to play against badly painted armies. Limiting counts-as to only be allowed to people with lots of talent at converting is a slippery slope.

Lord Zarkov
27-12-2011, 12:13
I know what you mean, but both of these armies are counts-as, the difference is just that one is lazy and the other is decidated. It's easy to tell whether an army is one or the other, but on a theoretical level it is difficult to approve of one and not the other I think... the reason being that once you start criticising not a practice in itself, but how much effort the person put into the practice, then that quickly becomes a bit elitist.

It's somewhat like saying that you don't want to play against badly painted armies. Limiting counts-as to only be allowed to people with lots of talent at converting is a slippery slope.

It's effort rather than achievement though.

If someone's obviously put effort (e.g. conversions for unique units or SCs etc) into the counts-as that's fine, even if the end result isn't very good, at least they've tried

Similarly if someone was using the 'fits fluff better' argument for an established chapter/legion (e.g. using BA for Night Lords of World Eaters), I wouldn't have a problem if they focussed on the units that fitted the theme, and left out those that clearly don't (i.e. in the WE case, no libbies or libby dreads).

It's when no effort is put in, and it's just using a bunch of generic marines as whatever the flavour-of-the-month is that a sour taste is left in my mouth (I would still play them though).

Yes these are rather subjective criteria, but then it's a rather subjective problem.

Wishing
27-12-2011, 12:47
It's effort rather than achievement though.

If someone's obviously put effort (e.g. conversions for unique units or SCs etc) into the counts-as that's fine, even if the end result isn't very good, at least they've tried

Similarly if someone was using the 'fits fluff better' argument for an established chapter/legion (e.g. using BA for Night Lords of World Eaters), I wouldn't have a problem if they focussed on the units that fitted the theme, and left out those that clearly don't (i.e. in the WE case, no libbies or libby dreads).

It's when no effort is put in, and it's just using a bunch of generic marines as whatever the flavour-of-the-month is that a sour taste is left in my mouth (I would still play them though).

Yes these are rather subjective criteria, but then it's a rather subjective problem.

Fair enough, I guess I take a more theoretical and objective approach from my academic armchair. The integrity between model fluff and model rules doesn't become less broken depending on whether a counts-as army shows lots of effort or no effort, after all.

I guess it boils down to yet another counts-as distinction, between the phenomenon of a single army built to serve as one specific counts-as force, and the phenomenon of a single army used as substitute for many different counts-as forces. In which case it isn't so much the counts-as identity of the army that is the problem, as the fact that that identity is subject to change.

Skyth
27-12-2011, 12:52
Its like breaking your leg at work and demanding they build you your own personal elevator and then getting pissed when you get flak about it, you bring it upon yourself when you step outside the established norm and tell people they have to like it.

And that's the biggest load of bull. The situations are no where analogous. Counts-as does not hurt the other player. It does not affect the other player at all other than not letting them control the other player's army.

As for the whole 'designer's intent' that's a load of bull argument as well, as the intent is for you to buy lots of models and give them even more money. Considering how often they change the rules to change how armies play. If you ask someone who wants you to buy more models, of course they're going to say no to using the same model multiple ways.

And I repeat, the same models are used in different codexes, that makes them analogous between codexes. Why should you deny a person more fun from having the ability to have a variety of lists at their disposal? It's the same as denying someone the ability to change their list within a codex without buying and painting all new models for the entire list.

Skyth
27-12-2011, 12:53
Skyth, you are a little biased, aren't you?

.

Yes, I'm against holier-than-thou bigotry.

the Goat
27-12-2011, 12:54
And yes, one Marine model is the same regardless of which codex it is used in. They are interchangable. The 'relevant models' are the same.

This statement is 100% wrong. the different Space Marine codices have different rules for similar models. That does not make them interchangeable.

If there is a marine painted to look like a blood angel on the board I fully expect it to use the rules from Codex: Blood Angels. If the controlling player starts using rules from a different Codex, they are playing the game wrong.

Wishing
27-12-2011, 12:56
Yes, I'm against holier-than-thou bigotry.

You're certainly passionate in your opinions, I'll give you that. :)

Vipoid
27-12-2011, 13:02
And I repeat, the same models are used in different codexes, that makes them analogous between codexes.

The models are similar, not the same - if they were, there would only be one set of marine models, which would be painted as appropriate for all the different MEQ races.

However, this isn't the case - there are different marine models for each of the MEQ races, so they *can't* be the same.


As an aside, if you look to the bottom right of your posts, you'll find a legendary device, known as an 'Edit Button'. If you could find your way to using it; rather than just double-posting whenever a new thought enters your head, it would be most appreciated.

IcedCrow
27-12-2011, 13:12
To answer the OP, I don't care about "counts as". So long as everything is based properly and the modeling is not confusing to me as to what is what.

I don't take the game that seriously though either. My personal preference is for your army to be representative on the table or that you are working towards it, but I have played with some people who have had some neat ideas but hated their codex (the current chaos codex for example) and so when they used a space wolf codex and counted their chaos models as space wolves, it wasn't hard for me to play against them because the models basically held the same type of weapons, etc...

Lord Zarkov
27-12-2011, 14:12
I guess it boils down to yet another counts-as distinction, between the phenomenon of a single army built to serve as one specific counts-as force, and the phenomenon of a single army used as substitute for many different counts-as forces. In which case it isn't so much the counts-as identity of the army that is the problem, as the fact that that identity is subject to change.

This is really it for me, I don't see much distinction between someone getting a cool idea for a model from the background, making it, and then finding the most appropriate rules to realise it in the game; and getting a cool idea for an army from the background, making it, and then finding the most appropriate rules to realise it in the game. That general principle is the heart of the hobby to my mind (the background is after all one of the main draws).

What I do see differently is someone using the same models and simply following around the perceived most powerful.

Getz
27-12-2011, 14:25
I've gotta agree with Lord Zarkov.

As far as I'm concerned I don't really care what models you use to represent your army, but there's still a big difference between building an all new "Blood Wolves" Chaos Marine warband to use the SW codex or suddenly deciding that the SW codex "better represents" and old Iron Warriors army that's been sitting on the shelf since the latest CSM codex came in.

Will I play against both, absolutely - and my enjoyment of the game will depend entirely on whether the person I'm playing is a decent guy, not what army list he choses to use. However, whether you like it or not, deciding to ditch your "home" codex and re-spec your existing army to fit GWs latest and greatest power codex sends a message about you that other players might not like - especially players of codices like Tau, IG and Orks which have traditionally been weaker armies (although that's obviously not true of IG at the moment) and where there really isn't much scope for "codex hopping."

Nostro
27-12-2011, 14:40
This statement is 100% wrong. the different Space Marine codices have different rules for similar models. That does not make them interchangeable.

If there is a marine painted to look like a blood angel on the board I fully expect it to use the rules from Codex: Blood Angels. If the controlling player starts using rules from a different Codex, they are playing the game wrong.

Thing is, if the had painted them as White Panthers, you'd be ok with it I guess.

So guys with uncodexed chapters (say, White Panthers) can switch codices, others can't. I understand there's a bit of a difference as when you see an Ultramarine you don't expect him to kick ass in CC, so when the guy tells you it's a BA, you have to work on keeping that in mind. That to me is the biggest argument against count-as. Yeah it's bugging that a White Panthers guy switches codices depending on power level because of the intent, but:

Would you play against a BA army? Yes.
Would you play against an unpainted BA army? Very probably.
Would you play against a WP army with BA rules? Probably.
Would you play against a BT army with BA rules? Ulikely.
Why? In the end, you're playing against a BA list in all cases. In some, you penalize your opponent for painting the minis the wrong colour.

And it's a lot easier for marines, because in the end they're maybe not interchangeable but very close to that. Bar certain special rules, it's the same profile.

Would you play against BA minis painted light green, a chapter called "Winged Acid Drop Angelmarines" with SW rules?
Let's say the guy wants a homebrown chapter, likes the angel iconography, doesn't care for red and blood-crazed CC so doesn't want BA or successors, doesn't care either for wolf pelt and vikings in space idiocy, so doesn't want to use SW minis, but he likes the rules for whatever reason (monstrous cavalry? trained heavy weapon specialists? or downright list competitiveness?).
That's a genuine question by the way, to all the "against count-as" posters, I'm interested in your stance on the above.

For me it's not about the coolness of the guy but the plausability of the replacement, statwise (that's why it's easier with marines of any flavour).

Examples OTOMH:
- A marine army using Kasrkin models. If a Catachan has a 5+ save in a tank top, a Kasrkin can verywell have 3+. Compare it to scout armour too. Stims or supertraining for S4 T4?
- A MANz army with DW rules. The Nobz learnt how to shoot (a gretchin can...), or they have enhanced targetting systems, their mek is good.
- Tau army using eldar rules. Super Farsight training.

and so on. Where I draw the line is murky, I understand, but for instance I wouldn't be ok with a Defender Guardian mini standing for a GK Paladin. Stats are so far off it makes it hard for me to accept that.

ihavetoomuchminis
27-12-2011, 14:41
Yes, I'm against holier-than-thou bigotry.

That made me smile :)



Would you play against BA minis painted light green, a chapter called "Winged Acid Drop Angelmarines" with SW rules?
Let's say the guy wants a homebrown chapter, likes the angel iconography, doesn't care for red and blood-crazed CC so doesn't want BA or successors, doesn't care either for wolf pelt and vikings in space idiocy, so doesn't want to use SW minis, but he likes the rules for whatever reason (monstrous cavalry? trained heavy weapon specialists? or downright list competitiveness?).
That's a genuine question by the way, to all the "against count-as" posters, I'm interested in your stance on the above.



I don't want to quote all your message, but i think this sinthetizes pretty good your POV.

But again, is a matter of effort. If you play your BA models painted green as an SW army because it fits your amy idea, THAT'S GREAT! Seriously, these kind of things are what give life to the game. You've searched for a theme, for a models fitting the theme and have chosen a set of rules that allowed you to represent all the units you wanted to use. Great.

But, if i find you next month playing with the GK rules, the next game with the SW rules, and 2 games after playing with BA rules again...... i'll think that all the "this is my theme" was a bunch of lies and excuses. I'm sure everybody gets the idea.

Skyth
27-12-2011, 14:43
The models are similar, not the same - if they were, there would only be one set of marine models, which would be painted as appropriate for all the different MEQ races.

However, this isn't the case - there are different marine models for each of the MEQ races, so they *can't* be the same.


The Marines in a Tactical Squad box can be used as an Ultramarine Tactical Squad, a Dark Angels Tactical Squad, A Space Wolf Grey Hunters, A Blood Angel Tactical Squad. They also could be used as models for a Devestator squad/Long Fang squad, a Veteran squad or a Command squad/Wolf Guard squad. They are ALL the same exact models. The only difference is the paint job.

A Space Marine Commander Model can be used as a Wolf Lord, an Ultramarines Captain, a Dark Angels Captain, etc. It's all the same model.

An Assault squad kit can be used as an Ultramarines Assault squad, a Blood Angels Assault Squad, Blood Claws jump pack squad (Assuming they still exist in the new codex), etc. Use them without the jump packs and they work the same in any of the armies as well.

A predator kit can make a Predator for any marine chapter.

A Dreadnaught kit can make a Dreadnaught for any marine chapter.

I could continue as there are multiple examples. These are all the same exact models that are interchangable between codexes.

ihavetoomuchminis
27-12-2011, 14:57
The Marines in a Tactical Squad box can be used as an Ultramarine Tactical Squad, a Dark Angels Tactical Squad, A Space Wolf Grey Hunters, A Blood Angel Tactical Squad. They also could be used as models for a Devestator squad/Long Fang squad, a Veteran squad or a Command squad/Wolf Guard squad. They are ALL the same exact models. The only difference is the paint job.

A Space Marine Commander Model can be used as a Wolf Lord, an Ultramarines Captain, a Dark Angels Captain, etc. It's all the same model.

An Assault squad kit can be used as an Ultramarines Assault squad, a Blood Angels Assault Squad, Blood Claws jump pack squad (Assuming they still exist in the new codex), etc. Use them without the jump packs and they work the same in any of the armies as well.

A predator kit can make a Predator for any marine chapter.

A Dreadnaught kit can make a Dreadnaught for any marine chapter.

I could continue as there are multiple examples. These are all the same exact models that are interchangable between codexes.

No, some of your examples are not Count-as. Grey hunters have their own set of models, wich allow you to build different units, including long fangs and bloodclaws. SW termies have their own set of models. GK have their set of models. A GK is not just an SM painted silver, and a SW is not just a SM painted in Fenris Grey. Dreads, vehicles, and some other things? Yes, of course.

ANd of course, you can combine the bitz in the SW Grey hunters box with a pair of SM boxes to obtain 30 GH. NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. But taking a vanilla Space Marine and saying that it works for half the armies in WH40k....i'm sorry, but no. If you combine 2 SM boxes and a GH box to make 30 GH, they will be Grey Hunters, or Wolf GUard, or even bloodclaws, and if they have some Heavy weapons, Long fangs, but they won't be GK or BA. In the same manner a SM with bolter can be a Devastator, a Tactical....or whatever, but it's not a SW or a GK, as it's not an ork.

Using a SM from the tactical box as a BA or a DA, no problem, that's not count as, that's just using the proper models. Using a SM as a GK...isn't.

Lord Zarkov
27-12-2011, 15:08
Would you play against BA minis painted light green, a chapter called "Winged Acid Drop Angelmarines" with SW rules?
Let's say the guy wants a homebrown chapter, likes the angel iconography, doesn't care for red and blood-crazed CC so doesn't want BA or successors, doesn't care either for wolf pelt and vikings in space idiocy, so doesn't want to use SW minis, but he likes the rules for whatever reason (monstrous cavalry? trained heavy weapon specialists? or downright list competitiveness?).
That's a genuine question by the way, to all the "against count-as" posters, I'm interested in your stance on the above.
It depends. If the player has genuinely designed a mythos for his WADA marines that only really works with SW (or has say a unique unit idea that requires TWC say), and has properly thought out how everything fits, then that's ok (although tbh a name like "Winged Acid Drop Angelmarines" would set off alarm bells that the they don't really care about the fluff and are just using it as an excuse).

Alternatively if someone loved the concept and idea of Space Wolves (like the sagas, the honour stuff, the ferocity, etc, or even things like a Dreadnought commander, Iron Priests, scouts as specialists, marines riding monsters, etc), but hated the models, then finding appropriate alternatives would be OK, as long as genuine thought was put into it.

Just doing it because the list is more powerful is the worst reason IMO.


For me it's not about the coolness of the guy but the plausability of the replacement, statwise (that's why it's easier with marines of any flavour).

I would consider both (although I would say "coolness of the concept" rather than "of the guy").

The concept has to be cool (or at least well thought out), and the realisation should be the most appropriate way to realise that concept.

I wouldn't outright refuse to play someone for having a bad count-as army, but it would certainly sour my disposition towards them.

And yes 'appropriate' is a very subjective measure, but so is my submersion in the game.

Edit: Ninja'd three times
I agree most whole heartedly with Ihavetoomuchminis's post three above this one, it gets across the point I tried to make much more succinctly.

Nostro
27-12-2011, 15:46
Now, compare:

WADA player who switches codices depending on power level and meta
to
Guy B who has every marine army and picks the pest depending on power level and meta

You can't say much against Guy B because he's using correct rules/models correspondence. But you can blame WADA guy or blame that on count-as.

I think I'm as much against these kind of guys as you are, 'cause I like count-as for theme and thought and conversion, not for powergaming, but I'm playing devil's advocate here. What's inherently more wrong with WADA guy? That he goes the cheap (moneywise) way compared to Guy B?

EDIT: what I'm trying to say is that the problem is not count-as, it's the people. Don't blame the gun blame the one pulling the trigger.

Ravenous
27-12-2011, 16:05
And that's the biggest load of bull. The situations are no where analogous. Counts-as does not hurt the other player.

Sure it does, if I have to play 20 questions on whether or not your berzerkers are actually grey hunters, wolf guard, blood claws, blood angels, black templar, vanilla, dark angels, grey knights or whatever, then it is YOU who have generated the issue. If I make a single mistake trying to figure out whether your Sanguinary priest is actually a squad leader then you've created an issue that didnt need to exist in the first place.

You're retarding the process and procedure of the game, and therefore in the wrong.

Egaeus
27-12-2011, 16:09
No, some of your examples are not Count-as. Grey hunters have their own set of models, wich allow you to build different units, including long fangs and bloodclaws. SW termies have their own set of models. GK have their set of models. A GK is not just an SM painted silver, and a SW is not just a SM painted in Fenris Grey. Dreads, vehicles, and some other things? Yes, of course.

They may now, but they haven't always. I like to point out that a good portion of my Marines-that-use-Black-Templars-rules came out of boxes labeled "Space Wolves" (mostly Blood Claws but at least one box of Grey Hunters).

So if someone has an army they build during 3rd edition when the models were all exactly the same with just some extra optional bits you're seriously going to tell me that they aren't the "right models"? Or that even today if I purchase a Tactical Squad box set and paint them in Space Wolf colours to go with a Space Wolf army that I'm doing something incorrect? :wtf:

What if I like the Space Wolves playstyle but don't want to do them as "Vikings in Space"? Obviously they won't be "Space Wolves" but as long as I still use appropriate Marine models and make things look appropriate I'm not doing anything wrong?

StratManKudzu
27-12-2011, 16:53
Where I draw the line is murky, I understand, but for instance I wouldn't be ok with a Defender Guardian mini standing for a GK Paladin. Stats are so far off it makes it hard for me to accept that.

Why draw the line there? If the other examples are good for you why not this one?

For the record, I have no opinion one way or the other on count as but am always fascinated in the discussion as both sides have a sound arguement. In the end the count as debate can be settled by everyone choosing not to be "that guy"

Slightly OT edit:
Furthermore i had stumbled upon an army a while ago that was a deathwing army but the models where IG in exoskeleton suits. Very cool, can't seem to find them anymore.

Lord Zarkov
27-12-2011, 16:54
They may now, but they haven't always. I like to point out that a good portion of my Marines-that-use-Black-Templars-rules came out of boxes labeled "Space Wolves" (mostly Blood Claws but at least one box of Grey Hunters).

So if someone has an army they build during 3rd edition when the models were all exactly the same with just some extra optional bits you're seriously going to tell me that they aren't the "right models"? Or that even today if I purchase a Tactical Squad box set and paint them in Space Wolf colours to go with a Space Wolf army that I'm doing something incorrect? :wtf:

What if I like the Space Wolves playstyle but don't want to do them as "Vikings in Space"? Obviously they won't be "Space Wolves" but as long as I still use appropriate Marine models and make things look appropriate I'm not doing anything wrong?

See IMO that wouldn't be an issue, as these are some of the 'right' reasons for doing counts-as.

Few people would object to you doing an army which plays like SW, but is lovingly made with alternative miniatures because you dislike the 'Space Viking' motif, and want to use your own concept.

The problem comes if you have a generic marine army that uses C:SM one month, C:SW another, and then C:BA on another, following which ever you think is more 'powerful'. That is not cool, the former is.

Captain Collius
27-12-2011, 17:09
look it is simple in my view i recently got back in and choose to do DA why cause they look grim and i love the concept of an elite unit strike force.
I recently realized our codex is poor. (unless you use deathwing or ravenwing) but will that stop me no.
Any army can beat any other army with good leadership and dice Rolls.
back 10 years ago when i played my BA army against my friends nids he incorractly interpreted a rule for 4 months til we got to a shop where he was put straight but in that intervening time he kicked my ass every time.
The game is about fun build a large and deverse army make interchangable special and heavy weapns carriers. make your army diverse enough to deal with any threat you'll have more fun.

that said if you are building a unique version of a model then go right ahead.

if you are using a temporary stand in to test out an idea okay.

but don't be so lame as to black out a codex or play chaos grey knights or space wolves just to gain an advantage

Nostro
27-12-2011, 17:24
Why draw the line there? If the other examples are good for you why not this one?

Well to be honest I don't really. Scorpion armour is already 3+ without massive bulkiness added to 5+ guardians, so why not 2+; give the guardian a DA shield arm for the 5++, a witchblade/lance for nemesis force weapon, tell me his craftworld figured out why shuricats had that junk range so theirs are upgraded to 24", and I'm ok.

massey
27-12-2011, 17:40
There are 3 questions to answer with regard to counts-as.

#1: Can I tell what it is that I'm fighting?
#2: Does the army look cool?
#3: Is the player fun to play against?

If the answers to the above 3 questions are "yes" then we're good. If the answers to any of the 3 questions are "no" then it's not as good. If the answers to 2 or 3 questions are "no" then the guy can leave.

IcedCrow
27-12-2011, 17:57
There are 3 questions to answer with regard to counts-as.

#1: Can I tell what it is that I'm fighting?
#2: Does the army look cool?
#3: Is the player fun to play against?

If the answers to the above 3 questions are "yes" then we're good. If the answers to any of the 3 questions are "no" then it's not as good. If the answers to 2 or 3 questions are "no" then the guy can leave.

Yeah I'm pretty much in this camp as well.

Skyth
27-12-2011, 18:39
Sure it does, if I have to play 20 questions on whether or not your berzerkers are actually grey hunters, wolf guard, blood claws, blood angels, black templar, vanilla, dark angels, grey knights or whatever, then it is YOU who have generated the issue. .

I am not responsible for your incompetence creating an issue. If I tell you I'm using Space Wolf rules and I have Beserkers with bolt pistols and ccw and I tell you I'm using the rules for Blood Claws for those models, then it's not my fault if you are incompetent. And this is besides the point that you handle all of those models the same way. They are both nasty close combat models that are stronger if they charge...

Now if I tell you that the guy with a melta gun is actually a guy with a heavy bolter or that the Beserkers are actually Long Fangs or Terminators, then there's a problem. It's rather ridiculous to say that you can't keep track of all the Beserkers actually being Blood Claws.

Ravenous
27-12-2011, 18:43
Lol so everyone else is stupid for not following your idea? Yep, thats a winning arguement.

Skyth
27-12-2011, 18:43
They may now, but they haven't always. I like to point out that a good portion of my Marines-that-use-Black-Templars-rules came out of boxes labeled "Space Wolves" (mostly Blood Claws but at least one box of Grey Hunters).

Exactly. Back when I started, the Marines from the boxed set were supposed to be Blood Angels. They were the exact same Marine models that were sold seperately in the box with pictures of Ultramarines on it.

A Tactical Marine model is a Tactical Marine model. It doesn't matter what color they are painted.

Skyth
27-12-2011, 18:45
Lol so everyone else is stupid for not following your idea? Yep, thats a winning arguement.

If that was the argument I was actually making, then you might have had an effective counter. My argument is the same as saying that if you don't know the difference between a melta and a flamer, it's not my fault. If you lose track of which squad has a melta and which squad has a flamer (And they are modeled correctly) then that is the fault of your ignorance, not something caused by me.

Better than the I'm upset because some random powergamer used counts-as once somewhere, so I'm going to malign anyone else who wants to use counts-as argument.

DEADMARSH
27-12-2011, 19:28
This thread is probably the best debate for why there should only be one Marine codex I've ever seen.

:)

Vipoid
27-12-2011, 19:58
This thread is probably the best debate for why there should only be one Marine codex I've ever seen.

:)

Couldn't agree more.


My argument is the same as saying that if you don't know the difference between a melta and a flamer, it's not my fault.

But it *is* your fault if you're using a melta as a flamer (or vice versa).

Similarly, if you're using random special weapons as psycannons (I sprayed them silver, so they're obviously Grey Knights...), then it's still your fault if people get confused.

Much as you might like to blame it on them being stupid,
you are the one using models which are not only incorrect, but misleading.

ForgottenLore
27-12-2011, 20:10
After reading today's posts I noted a bit of a pattern.

For the most part (there are a couple exceptions), the people who are arguing against counts-as armies really seem to be arguing against changing codexes regularly, not the actual counts-as process. Whereas the people who are in favor of counts-as put forth arguments about a player who creates an army, settles on which codex to use for it and stays with that book more or less permanently.

Just some food for thought. You guys might want to read further posts with that distinction in mind.

Skyth
27-12-2011, 20:20
But it *is* your fault if you're using a melta as a flamer (or vice versa).


But I'm not, and counts-as doesn't either. (I did specify correctly modeled melta).

Everything in a counts-as army is appropriately modeled and not intended to deceive. If you think a squad of guys all armed with bolt pistol and ccw are good at taking out tanks from a distance and suck at fighting in close combat, then that is your fault regardless if it's using Blood Claws models for Blood Claws or Khorne Beserker models for Blood Claws. That is not the fault of the person doing the counts-as.

Skyth
27-12-2011, 20:22
After reading today's posts I noted a bit of a pattern.

For the most part (there are a couple exceptions), the people who are arguing against counts-as armies really seem to be arguing against changing codexes regularly, not the actual counts-as process. Whereas the people who are in favor of counts-as put forth arguments about a player who creates an army, settles on which codex to use for it and stays with that book more or less permanently.

Just some food for thought. You guys might want to read further posts with that distinction in mind.

Actually, I'm arguing in favor of making full use of a generic Marine force to have more variety in playstyles available to you. Marines are more than capable of being any of multiple codexes and changing it day to day. More variety==More fun.

ForgottenLore
27-12-2011, 20:33
Actually, I'm arguing in favor of making full use of a generic Marine force to have more variety in playstyles available to you. And you and the some of the people arguing with you were the exceptions I was thinking of when I said

(there are a couple exceptions)



Marines are more than capable of being any of multiple codexes and changing it day to day. More variety==More fun.
Actually, I think I have to disagree with that. I would much rather play the same guy with the same army over and over again in a campaign that outlines the epic war our armies (with their detailed backgrounds and personalized characters) are engaged in than an endless series of one offs against a bunch of different opponents all with different armies, regardless of what those armies looked like or what codexes they used.

Similarly, I would prefer to stick with one army and develop the background for it, with history and characters and an emotional attachment rather than jump books every 6 months. In fact, I have. going on 8 years in 40K now and I still really only have one army.

So, I can't really agree with " More variety==More fun.", for me it is More immersion==More fun

and keep in mind that I am more in favor of "counts-as" than against.

Egaeus
27-12-2011, 21:51
look it is simple in my view i recently got back in and choose to do DA why cause they look grim and i love the concept of an elite unit strike force.

And that's perfectly fine, but then I question why not do a successor chapter, something you can make (at least partially) your own? I suppose part of it is that by choosing an "established" force players can feel that they aren't just playing a "generic Space Marine army" they are playing The Ultramarines!


There are 3 questions to answer with regard to counts-as.

#1: Can I tell what it is that I'm fighting?
#2: Does the army look cool?
#3: Is the player fun to play against?

If the answers to the above 3 questions are "yes" then we're good. If the answers to any of the 3 questions are "no" then it's not as good. If the answers to 2 or 3 questions are "no" then the guy can leave.

Well I would argue that #1 will typically fail since that's the point of "counts as". At some point you will likely have to be told just what it is your fighting and what they represent. Heck, even with basic Marines that's all you know...are they Ultramarines, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Black Templars, Grey Knights (at least this last one should be distinctive)? Assuming the army isn't painted in a "stock" scheme what distinguishes one army from another? I would wager I could probably build an army from each book that would be indistinguishable from one another on the tabletop without some kind of declaration from the player (although this would be a challenge since I never did pick up the Blood Angels book).

#2 is highly subjective. I would almost guarantee that you and I do not share the same "cool meter". While one always does have the option to turn down a game doing so because your opponents army "doesn't look cool" (or even just "cool enough") seems a somewhat petty argument.

#3 is somewhat subjective as well...but again, if the player were a fun guy to play with why does the appearance of his army matter as much? I think I would much rather play with someone who was fun to play with despite having a partially or poorly painted army than someone with a great looking army but happens to not be enjoyable to play against.


The problem comes if you have a generic marine army that uses C:SM one month, C:SW another, and then C:BA on another, following which ever you think is more 'powerful'. That is not cool, the former is.

Ah, if new Codexes came out every month I doubt this discussion would be much of an issue. :D What if you are changing Codexes to try out something different? Can you only do this once? If I were to say "Well, this army usually uses the Black Templars rules but everyone is making such a fuss about Space Wolves so I made a list and want to give them a try...is that alright with you?" what do you think your response would be? Would it depend on how the game turns out? So next week I show up and say "Wow, those Space Wolves really [won/lost] last week, I think I would like to give them a second try." Perhaps I've even made some changes to my list so am still trying out something new or different. How many instances before I am actually "playing Space Wolves" instead of Black Templars?

Hmm...this makes me realize that there is another aspect and that is different players' experiences and expectations. The venue you play at will affect how you feel about different choices. Personally, when I played it was at a FLGS where there were around 20 players, so we got randomly assigned an opponent or opponents (with so many players it was typically 4 to a table)...so I'm used to playing against different armies constantly (even if individual players brought the exact same army week after week), as well making my army lists "on the fly" to use what I felt like using that day. So it may well be that this makes me more lenient towards people who want to "switch it up" with their army lists.

Darn...I thought I had snagged another quote...someone mentioned something about choosing an army to "gain an advantage" and I wanted to ask "What 'advantage?'" A Space Wolf army is a Space Wolf army even if the models that make it up are painted orange or purple or cyan. Even if you use, say, Orks to represent them they are still roughly the same size. It's only when one admits that GW does not do a good job of balancing the army books that allows an "advantage" to be gained merely by the selection of the ruleset one is using for an army.

Captain Collius
28-12-2011, 00:02
And that's perfectly fine, but then I question why not do a successor chapter, something you can make (at least partially) your own? I suppose part of it is that by choosing an "established" force players can feel that they aren't just playing a "generic Space Marine army" they are playing The Ultramarines!



honestly i choose dark angels because I'm a bit of a purist and i wanted to use the etched brass dark angels symbols on my tanks.:p

but as pointed out earlier i don't think anyone has a probably with a custom model i.e. ( a space marine commander made with power armor and your choice of weapons from the codex(i personally would also play with someone who had added in for example artificer armor or master crafted weapons if they appropriately accounted for the extra point cost).)

but when someone uses khorne berserkers as space wolves that is bull. use your own army become skillful with them I'm sure if you asked around the army matters less than how you use their strengths and abilities rather than changing to flavor of the month.:eek:

Captain Collius
28-12-2011, 00:09
Ah, if new Codexes came out every month I doubt this discussion would be much of an issue. :D What if you are changing Codexes to try out something different? Can you only do this once? If I were to say "Well, this army usually uses the Black Templars rules but everyone is making such a fuss about Space Wolves so I made a list and want to give them a try...is that alright with you?" what do you think your response would be? Would it depend on how the game turns out? So next week I show up and say "Wow, those Space Wolves really [won/lost] last week, I think I would like to give them a second try." Perhaps I've even made some changes to my list so am still trying out something new or different. How many instances before I am actually "playing Space Wolves" instead of Black Templars?

Hmm...this makes me realize that there is another aspect and that is different players' experiences and expectations. The venue you play at will affect how you feel about different choices. Personally, when I played it was at a FLGS where there were around 20 players, so we got randomly assigned an opponent or opponents (with so many players it was typically 4 to a table)...so I'm used to playing against different armies constantly (even if individual players brought the exact same army week after week), as well making my army lists "on the fly" to use what I felt like using that day. So it may well be that this makes me more lenient towards people who want to "switch it up" with their army lists.

Darn...I thought I had snagged another quote...someone mentioned something about choosing an army to "gain an advantage" and I wanted to ask "What 'advantage?'" A Space Wolf army is a Space Wolf army even if the models that make it up are painted orange or purple or cyan. Even if you use, say, Orks to represent them they are still roughly the same size. It's only when one admits that GW does not do a good job of balancing the army books that allows an "advantage" to be gained merely by the selection of the ruleset one is using for an army.


i get what you are saying and to an extent i agree with you. to your point about playing a different army i would personally say after the third time you need to play them as they are. But this is not perfect it simply a matter of preference in what you deal with i played an ork player last week he had custom trukks made from rhino shells he declared them had made them open topped completely fine cause they go with his orks.

and no the rule books are not balanced hopefully one day the will acheive balance

StratManKudzu
28-12-2011, 00:16
and no the rule books are not balanced hopefully one day the will acheive balance

This has never been a goal of GW, and as far as I'm concerned it never will be.

Wishing
28-12-2011, 00:51
Would you play against BA minis painted light green, a chapter called "Winged Acid Drop Angelmarines" with SW rules?
Let's say the guy wants a homebrown chapter, likes the angel iconography, doesn't care for red and blood-crazed CC so doesn't want BA or successors, doesn't care either for wolf pelt and vikings in space idiocy, so doesn't want to use SW minis, but he likes the rules for whatever reason (monstrous cavalry? trained heavy weapon specialists? or downright list competitiveness?).
That's a genuine question by the way, to all the "against count-as" posters, I'm interested in your stance on the above.

Firstly, I don't think "would you play against this?" is a relevant question really. If my best friend comes up to me and asks me for a game, I'll play against whatever he wants. The relevant question is more like "would you build an army like this?" or "do you think this kind of thing is a great idea?", which you can actually get relevant answers to.

To answer, I am one of the more conservative anti-counts-as people in this thread, and my view on the above is that when the player in question starts building the Winged Acid Drop Angelmarines, he should decide what their identity is. If he wants them to use the space wolf rules, then they should be a space wolf successor chapter, and be themed accordingly. If he doesn't want them to be a SW successor, then they shouldn't use the SW codex, because that codex is specifically presented as being designed with SW armies and their successors in mind.

"Themed accordingly" is subjective of course, but the point should be clear. If a player wants an army that has no identity, and is just "green marines", then he's certainly entitled to make one, but I personally feel that the game is more rewarding when the army identities and associated rules as set forth by GW are followed in the way they are presented.

HunteR got bored
28-12-2011, 05:28
counts as between armies doesn't help anyone.
e.g. 10 ork boys that have power armour and a bolter, not cool
but within the same codex is ok
e.g. an icon bearer of khorne actually has an icon of chaos glory

the Goat
28-12-2011, 12:40
it's using Blood Claws models for Blood Claws or Khorne Beserker models for Blood Claws.
But those two unit types have different rules. Yes the rules are similar, but they are not identical. Some of the differences are quite important (if i remember correctly Beserkers are fearless where Blood Claws are not). The priority I assign to engaging the Blood Claws/Beserkers is determined by other unit choices in the respective codex.


Marines are more than capable of being any of multiple codexes and changing it day to day. More variety==More fun.
But your codex hopping and play-style changing (a.k.a. win at all costs, min-maxing) decreases my fun. Why do you think it is okay to increase your fun at the expense of my fun? It makes more sense for everybody to use the correct rules for their models on the table.

What if I had more fun making up my own codex where all my models have 10's for all their stats and 2+ invulnerable saves? Would you play against me? I'm sure to have fun.

StratManKudzu
28-12-2011, 14:03
counts as between armies doesn't help anyone.
e.g. 10 ork boys that have power armour and a bolter, not cool

I for one would love to see an ork army all in power armor with bolters count-as a marine codex, my opinion is that is cool.


2cents:
the problem is with people who feel entitled to change army rules for "variety" (read: more perceived game power) because "power armor is power armor and all marine rule sets are interchangeable." This is not a question of the merits of the count as rule but how much of a tool your opponent is.

ashc
28-12-2011, 14:12
Or how stupid it is to have so many varieties of space marine with very little difference between them...

StratManKudzu
28-12-2011, 14:15
Or how stupid it is to have so many varieties of space marine with very little difference between them...

Fair enough

Commissar von Toussaint
28-12-2011, 14:42
To answer, I am one of the more conservative anti-counts-as people in this thread, and my view on the above is that when the player in question starts building the Winged Acid Drop Angelmarines, he should decide what their identity is. If he wants them to use the space wolf rules, then they should be a space wolf successor chapter, and be themed accordingly. If he doesn't want them to be a SW successor, then they shouldn't use the SW codex, because that codex is specifically presented as being designed with SW armies and their successors in mind.

What a delightful world you must live in, where miniatures are free and they paint themselves!

For me, things have costs, and when a new book comes out, one way to see what is in it is to play it.

I don't play an "official" chapter, I play a successor with my own unique paint scheme. So it can be whatever I want it to be. Generally, they are vanilla marines, but I reserve the right to say "Hey, I think it would be interesting to play Blood Angels" and have them be successors of that chapter.

Who is to say that is wrong?

For people in transition between armies or trying to put together a force, it's a great way to get playing. I had a friend of mine who used index cards with unit types written on them to "count as" undead troops. As he fleshed out his force, the cards disappeared and figures replaced them - but at least he could play.

Indeed, it was because he could experience the fun of playing that he got inspired about finishing the army off. I personally don't much care for painting for its own sake. I only paint when I think I'm going to use what I have. So I fully understand people who use the prospect of the next game or the one after that to motivate themselves to finish their work.

I also fully agree that at this point 40k has too many flavors of marines and the unending cycle of editions means that no army is ever really "finished." GW wants it that way: Finished armies don't make them any money. So they need to create new vehicles, weapons, troop types and so forth and these need to be better than what was out there so everyone will buy them.

With a more static concept of game design (that is, work on refining it to a definitive edition and then focus on supporting it), most of this problem would go away.

Egaeus
28-12-2011, 19:07
But your codex hopping and play-style changing (a.k.a. win at all costs, min-maxing) decreases my fun. Why do you think it is okay to increase your fun at the expense of my fun? It makes more sense for everybody to use the correct rules for their models on the table.


the problem is with people who feel entitled to change army rules for "variety" (read: more perceived game power) because "power armor is power armor and all marine rule sets are interchangeable." This is not a question of the merits of the count as rule but how much of a tool your opponent is.

As I've stated previously, the problem is that you are assigning a blanket intent to people when it may or may not be the case. How exactly does one prove that a particular player was swithching army lists solely for the perceived power they provide (which to me is very similar to list tailoring, so has the same stigma attached to it)?

Hmm....hypothetical situations aren't really that useful because they can be tailored to provide the desired response. I suspect that for every "you're doing it wrong" example that one can provide a counterexample where the same issue would be acceptable could be created.

So say I like the chainaxes that Berserkers wield because I think that axes are very "viking" so wanted to use them for my Blood Claws. I also like the running legs as well as they are appropriate for a "headstrong" unit. But it seems like such a waste to not use so much of a model just to get these bits. So I would do some head swaps to make them look a bit less "Chaos-ey" and paint them up in my Space Wolf colour scheme. You're honestly going to tell me I can't use them as Blood Claws?

Ok, that's meant to cover the more straightforward "Khorne Berserkers aren't Blood Claws" bit, but in this scenario I have done some work on them and made an effort of not just dropping down Khrone Berserkers and flat out saying they're Blood Claws.

And I still don't think I've heard a good response to this mythical "game advantage" that people acquire by changing codexes...by the same token why should a player have to suffer through on the bottom side of an imbalanced game simply because GW hasn't seen fit to update their army's rules in years (and assuming that when they did receive an update it put them ahead of the curve at the time)?

Wishing
28-12-2011, 23:42
What a delightful world you must live in, where miniatures are free and they paint themselves!

Random comment I gotta say, but I presume your point is that it is cheaper to buy one army and use it to play multiple codexes than to buy multiple armies. This is very true, but it is even cheaper to play with cardboard circles instead of models. How cheap it is to play a certain way isn't really relevant in a discussion about what approach to playing is most enjoyable.



I don't play an "official" chapter, I play a successor with my own unique paint scheme. So it can be whatever I want it to be. Generally, they are vanilla marines, but I reserve the right to say "Hey, I think it would be interesting to play Blood Angels" and have them be successors of that chapter.

Who is to say that is wrong?

Nobody, and I certainly wouldn't say that. I also wouldn't say that you are wrong in playing with cardboard cutouts, or pieces of cheese. I'm just saying that I personally find it more rewarding to play with painted models that have a specific fluff-based identity that doesn't change depending on my mood.


As I've stated previously, the problem is that you are assigning a blanket intent to people when it may or may not be the case. How exactly does one prove that a particular player was swithching army lists solely for the perceived power they provide (which to me is very similar to list tailoring, so has the same stigma attached to it)?

Agreed. In most of this thread, players who are against counts-as aren't actually against the concept of counts-as itself, they are against people who want the most powerful army and use counts-as as the means to achieve this. The stigma is, as it always is, against the perceived idea of powergaming, which is always a subjective judgment. Counts-as is just a minor footnote in that regard.

Commissar von Toussaint
29-12-2011, 00:00
Nobody, and I certainly wouldn't say that. I also wouldn't say that you are wrong in playing with cardboard cutouts, or pieces of cheese. I'm just saying that I personally find it more rewarding to play with painted models that have a specific fluff-based identity that doesn't change depending on my mood.

When you say "mood," do you mean over the long term, or short term?

There are two distinct issues here: One is overall appearance, and I'm a huge fan of keeping the board beautiful. The scenario I described earlier was an interim: I have a nice-looking gaming table and I don't like it disfigured by unpainted or cardboard figures.

However, it seems to me that I have nothing to say in terms of which successor chapter my opponent uses. I also don't mind him saying that a dreadnought with one weapons load-out counts as another because he wants to see how the combination works.

Wishing
29-12-2011, 00:41
When you say "mood," do you mean over the long term, or short term?

There are two distinct issues here: One is overall appearance, and I'm a huge fan of keeping the board beautiful. The scenario I described earlier was an interim: I have a nice-looking gaming table and I don't like it disfigured by unpainted or cardboard figures.

However, it seems to me that I have nothing to say in terms of which successor chapter my opponent uses. I also don't mind him saying that a dreadnought with one weapons load-out counts as another because he wants to see how the combination works.

My point with the "changing according to mood" thing was that I like my models to have a fixed identity, which I like to be based on the looks and rules as they are presented in the books. If I were to decide to change my marine army from a Ultramarines army to a Salamanders army, I would re-convert and repaint it, because it would be a new army with a new identity - not just the same army with new rules.

That you don't mind counts-as or proxying is just fine if that works for you. You do mind unpainted figures or cardboard circles on your painted tables. Some people don't mind that, and that is fine if it works for them. The reason I mind (read: don't have any interest in or attraction towards) counts-as is because I see consistent army identity as a part of the overall artwork of the game.

What you see when you look at a beautiful table of terrain that has unpainted models on it, that is what I see when I see an army that looks like one thing, but uses the rules of something else. To me, mismatched models and rules clashes with the overall aesthetic feel of the game system. Which is important to me, much more important than the rolling of dice.

Commissar von Toussaint
29-12-2011, 01:48
This is where we part ways, then: As long as the model is painted and looks nice, I don't much care what it represents.

In fact, I'm somewhat indifferent to what the rules are so long as I can tell what everyone is supposed to be.

Want to use Imperial Guard as Chaos cultists? Fine by me. For my next game I am planning to use spearmen for Frateris Militia. Hey, they are armed with great weapons, why not?

On the surface, we're pretty close to agreement, but where we part ways is the notion that a model can have only one use, complete with background etc. I try to get as much as I can out of my models. Of course, I also tend to use non-GW models and kit bashes because that to me is much more interesting both from a visual standpoint but also creatively.

The only issue as far as I'm concerned is differentiation, and that is where distinctive paint jobs and modeling come to the forefront. For example, years ago I began painting the muzzles of all special weapons bright yellow. Since my marines were in a camo paint scheme, this made them easy to identify. Because historicals are harder to see, I put identifying stripes on the bases so you can easily tell who has what.

But I have no problem saying that plasma counts as melta, so long as there is no melta. Honestly, the models look the same, and only a GW stickler can tell the difference.

As noted earlier, the real issue is the constant parade of codicies that never quite get done and the proliferation of space marine chapters.

TheMav80
29-12-2011, 02:27
Take these into consideration.

If someone had an Ultramarines army and wanted to play a game field the Ultramarines 1st Company...they can't. The rules in Codex: Space Marines don't allow for that. There are legal rules in other books that will allow this though.

Similarly, if you wanted to field an army of all Jump Troops, there is only one codex to do that with. Or maybe you have been collecting for a while and would like to play a game where you get to field all of your various Dreads all at once, BA can do that.

Doesn't matter to me though. The same people that would have a problem with these would also throw a fit if they saw a Landspeeder in a force painted like Salamanders. I've got no time for that type of pretentious ********.

Hellebore
29-12-2011, 04:18
There are two ways around these kinds of subjective biases - either leave the army unpainted/undercoated and declare them to be whatever you want (I love the irony that people are forced to NOT paint their army because opponents will complain about the wrong colour) or paint up a crusading marine army and just declare whichever marine codex they use based on the predominant colour you use.

Mav says it well. The fact is that people can't have a problem with an army using a different codex because the rules don't change. Playing space wolves with blood angel rules has no effect on the rules of the game. The colour of the minis doesn't alter the fabric of rulestime.

And as I like to point out, GW themselves use counts as. There is no objective truth to what rules go with what abstract gaming pieces or colours thereof. GW change their minds every edition. The assault cannon has had its rules changed ~6 times in the last 20 years. So are we using GW counts as circa 1996 or circa 2001?

Then we have things like the hotshot lasgun... oops I mean the hellgun ... no I mean the hotshot - except if you're playing daemon/witchunters before the grey knights codex showed up.

Now I freely admit that someone could be confused if they associate one set of rules with a speific model design especially in the case of weapons - but GW doesn't care about that either. Whirlwind launchers fired different ammo based on the codex they came in (and still do iirc as the DA codex still has the old ammo). So even then, if GW deems it ok to confuse you with identical yet not weapons, your opponent is hardly a wretched hive of scum and villany.

So sure counts as ing the whole force is a bit different to a few weapons, but when 99% of these situations involve space marines this is a moot issue. Pretty much every weapon used by every marine codex does the same thing (except whirlwinds and now blood angel dreadnought ccws) and uses the same model. Thus confusion should be virtually nil when swapping between them. Only grey knight swapping can be an issue due to the variety of weapon designs.

But I wouldn't stop someone counting their guardian army as space marines to ensure that some eldar survive the battle to keep up the pretence of actually caring about their civilians....

Who knows? In an edition or two the marine bolter's rules could look like the guass flayer's does now. Oh the confusion. Better make sure they're painted the right colour.

Hellebore

madprophet
29-12-2011, 04:30
Counts as....something that is commonly done wrong and in the short term...but man when done right its a beauty to see.....

For every ten grey marines, orky inquisition, goat marines there that one sexy admech/dark admech, hrud, misc xenos, orginal daemons

For me its all about substance and quality.....

THIS!

I see "counts as" as an opportunity to do an army not represented in the current rules/codex set. Ad Mech, Space Skaven, Hrud, Squats, Arbitrators, Gene Stealer Cults, PDFs, Chaos Guard...that stuff is cool! :cool:

Power gaming is boring!:rolleyes:

You want to use your vanilla marines as space wolves, blood angels or dark angels? Okay, if you insist - just don't make me guess what is what. If you have a Dark Angels successor and want to use the DA codex, that's better. but make sure your force is WYSIWYG.:shifty:

massey
29-12-2011, 05:46
I agree with Hellebore a lot here. Tell me guys, what differentiates a Khorne Berzerker from a regular marine? Is it: 1) his 2+ armor save, 2) his single extra attack, 3) his bonus attack after a 6 to hit, or 4) his WS 5 and furious charge? Think carefully, because those are 4 different sets of rules that the Berzerker has had since 2nd edition. I anticipate that when the new Chaos book is released, we'll have to add a 5th option.

So what differentiates a Khorne Berzerker? It's not a specific set of rules, that's for sure. It's changed too much, too frequently for that to be the case.

Tell me guys, what differentiates a Blood Claw from a Grey Hunter on the tabletop? How do I look at a Blood Claw and say "oh yeah, that's obviously a Blood Claw, while that guy over there is a Grey Hunter". The Blood Claw has two close combat weapons. Oh, but the Grey Hunter also has two close combat weapons. The Blood Claw is wearing power armor. Oh, but the Grey Hunter is wearing power armor. The Blood Claw has no helmet. Oh, but...

So, how do you tell them apart? Simple. You rely on your opponent to differentiate them somehow. It might be through a color scheme. It might be through some modeling decision. But understand that they can be perfectly WYSIWYG and completely indistinguishable. The same goes for Dark Eldar Warriors/Trueborn, Grey Knight Strike Squads/Purifiers, and several other units.

So again, we come back to the 3 questions, which are really questions that apply to playing against anybody, not just a counts-as guy.

#1: Can I tell what everything is? It doesn't matter if the guy is using Ultramarine Blue painted Blood Angels led by Marneus Mephiston or the Unpainted Grey Horde. Can I tell what is what? Is it confusing? If I can tell what it is, if it is actually clear, then it's good with me. If I can't tell what anything is, even if it's painted exactly like the pictures in the codex, then it's not good. "Oh, those guys are Bloodbrides. They have an extra attack." "How am I supposed to know that?" "Umm, because... they have an extra attack." I've had too many games where the sergeant had a power fist that was indicated by a red splotch of paint on his base, where I found out he had a power fist only after he started smacking my Captain with it. "But he's clearly marked by this red splotch." Uh-huh. I'll take blue Space Wolves any day over that.

#2: Does the army look good? I have played against pieces of torn paper before, coke-can carnifexes, and cardboard box tanks. I prefer not to, but I have. I'm normally a good sport. But the game really shines for me when you have two nicely painted armies on a table with cool terrain. Did you make neat conversions in your counts-as army? There's a local guy with a lot of heavily converted Tyranid models. No offense to our local guy, but... they look absolutely terrible. I mean, horrific. I know he's trying hard but they just look like big lumps of crap. They might as well be made out of play-doh. He's like the Anti-Jes Goodwin. Again, I would much rather play against an army of well painted Black Templars who use the Space Wolf rules than I would play those deformed Nids. The only enjoyment I get out of playing those is I imagine that after my marines kill them, they don't exist any more.

#3: Is the guy cool to play against? You can be a raging douchenozzle and have an army that matches your codex. You can be a power gamer with money to burn who buys a new "greatest army ever" with every release. Does the guy switch between codexes every day? If today the orange marine is a Grey Hunter, and tomorrow he's Death Company, and the next day he's in a squad with a twin-linked meltagun via Vulkan, then he's gotta be a pretty damn cool guy for me to want to play against him. But that's only one of a number of irritating behaviors that this guy could display. If the guy is cool about it, and he says "hey, I really want to change things up today and bring a lot of assault marines" then I probably won't mind if his previously-Ultramarine guys use the Blood Angel rules. I myself have 60 assault marines. Sometimes I want to use them all too. Being cool about it, even if you're very competitive, is better than having two dozen individually painted armies and being a complete prick.

Personally, if I could get the models for cheap and a new Chaos codex wasn't rumored to be coming out within a year, I'd like to get some Thousand Sons and use them as Necron Immortals. Use Chaos Sorcerors as Crypteks (no psychic test because they're just that badass). Arhiman could stand in as the Stormlord or something. A few conversions and you're ready to go. But some people think that would be wrong.

Someone earlier criticized my "three rules" and said they were too subjective. Well of course they're subjective. That's the whole point. Who do I want to play against? Well, I want to play against someone fun. If I get that, then the army is cool. If I don't, then I don't want to play against them anymore.

Hellebore
29-12-2011, 05:57
Personally, if I could get the models for cheap and a new Chaos codex wasn't rumored to be coming out within a year, I'd like to get some Thousand Sons and use them as Necron Immortals. Use Chaos Sorcerors as Crypteks (no psychic test because they're just that badass). Arhiman could stand in as the Stormlord or something. A few conversions and you're ready to go. But some people think that would be wrong.

Someone earlier criticized my "three rules" and said they were too subjective. Well of course they're subjective. That's the whole point. Who do I want to play against? Well, I want to play against someone fun. If I get that, then the army is cool. If I don't, then I don't want to play against them anymore.

Hey that's a cool idea. One of the things I enjoy about counts as is the rationalising of one set of rules into another set. We apologise for enough crap from GW as it is in the normal stuff, so it's not much of a stretch to do it with counts as.

Necrons getting up? Tzeentch protects his followers. Where does it say that HAS to be an invulnerable save? In second ed thousand sons sucked the jumbo, get a drain power card and 1d6 sons were removed from the table as their souls were sucked out. Thanks Tzeentch.

Flayer shots? Tzeentchian bolts phase through probability and strike down the optimal line.

I once rewrote the ork codex to create a ninja grot army. Used the same rules but instead of sluggas they were chukkin' stars. Instead of a power klaw it was the Five point palm 'splodin' grot tekneek.

In the end you have a concept and a set of rules to represent it. Two different concepts could end up with the same set of rules because it's a convenient similarity - space marine jump packs and the warp spider warp jump generator. Why should they use the same rules? Why should a lasgun and a shoota use two different sets of rules?

Because. And when your argument for doing something comes down to something so arbitrary you have no argument at all.

Hellebore

ashc
29-12-2011, 09:24
Really good arguments from Massey + Hellebore there. Well said chaps.

Wishing
29-12-2011, 10:34
In the end you have a concept and a set of rules to represent it. Two different concepts could end up with the same set of rules because it's a convenient similarity - space marine jump packs and the warp spider warp jump generator. Why should they use the same rules? Why should a lasgun and a shoota use two different sets of rules?

Because. And when your argument for doing something comes down to something so arbitrary you have no argument at all.

The answer wouldn't be "because" though, it would be "because it makes sense in the context of the game design". You may disagree that it makes sense, but that's because the game's design is based on conceptual aesthetics, and aesthetics are inherently subjective. That you don't like a piece of art doesn't mean it isn't good.

If people really don't think rules matter at all when it comes to the character of an army, then good on them. But please recognise that this is simply because there is a quality of the game that you don't care (very much) about. And there are others that do care.

A couple of concluding comments. Firstly, the argument that you have to use the DA or SW codexes in order to play an Ultramarines terminator army is a very good one. I do recognise that if a person would like such an army, and wants it to comply with the official codex rules in order to be able to play it in tournaments, then doing counts-as is the only solution. Fair enough. But a much better solution in my view is to simply say that if your Ultramarines army has a captain in terminator armour, then it can take terminators as troops. This is based on my very firm belief that most GW codexes are badly designed and overly restricted, and all groups should modify them severely in order to achieve good and flexible lists. This is again based on my view that GW games should be played in small groups of likeminded friends where people are comfortable enough with each other that people can make up their own rules and army lists and play them in a supportive and creative environment.

Secondly, I have a game sitting around called Battle Rage, which is a cute little pamphlet containing an entire wargame based entirely around the concept of counts-as. The army lists of the game are generic and designed to be able to approximate any type of army in any fantasy setting. The way it works is that you choose a race and combine it with a culture, so if you choose "dwarfs" as your race, you could take the "evil" culture and make them sorcerous chaos dwarfs, or the "wild" culture to make forest-dwelling dwarven beastmasters. Basically the game's armies don't come with a pre-established identity - you build the identity yourself as part of the army building process. In my opinion, *that* is where the counts-as mentality belongs - in a game designed for it, not in 40k where armies come with pre-established identities.

Hellebore
29-12-2011, 11:21
The answer wouldn't be "because" though, it would be "because it makes sense in the context of the game design". You may disagree that it makes sense, but that's because the game's design is based on conceptual aesthetics, and aesthetics are inherently subjective. That you don't like a piece of art doesn't mean it isn't good.

If people really don't think rules matter at all when it comes to the character of an army, then good on them. But please recognise that this is simply because there is a quality of the game that you don't care (very much) about. And there are others that do care.


Except GW dosen't care either as has been proven by copious amounts of evidence. They change how weapons and whole units are represented continuously.

There is no aesthetic context because there isn't an objective baseline. Blood Angels have been represented with 4 different sets of rules since 2nd ed:

2nd ed angels of death
3rd ed blood angels
5th ed WD Blood Angels
5th ed codex blood angels

In 2nd ed they were identical to other space marines. Where's the aesthetic that requires they have unique rules?

In 3rd ed they had furious charge, because apparently their aesthetic demanded it.

In the WD list they turned back into normal space marines. They no longer need the 'furious charge' aesthetic anymore?

In the current codex they are like a cross between 3rd and the WD list.


So what's the aesthetic of the blood angels that totally needs specific rules exactly? Are they crazed berserkers or not? Because currently of their 4 army lists the majority support NOT.

Ergo, rules aesthetic doesn't exist and GW do whatever the **** they want.

There is a conceptual aesthetic for each force in their qualitative prose, but as has been proven by decades of different rules, how this interacts with the rules is subjectively tenuous at best and compeltely disconnected at worst.

Hellebore

Wishing
29-12-2011, 12:35
What I mean about conceptual aesthetics is quite hard to explain I guess. It's not about specific rules for specific chapters - I totally agree that it is utterly irrelevant whether Blood Angels have furious charge or not, or whatever other stupid rules detail GW comes up with. It's a concept related to army identities being anchored in distinct rules, whatever those rules may be.

I guess the only way I can explain it is by imagining it visually. If I see an army painted like Ultramarines, through my knowledge of the game, I know what Ultramarines are and what kind of rules they follow, because they are a defined entity in the game. That I can look at the army and know what they are without having to ask, is to me part of the beauty of the game. That is the overall conceptual design/aesthetic that I'm talking about. If the player says "just so you know, these actually use the space wolf rules", then the integrative beauty is lost. I prefer there to not be a disconnect between what I see, and what the models are used to represent. The only way to avoid this disconnection is to make the models used representative of how GW presents the army whose rules are being applied.

(Feel free to think my opinion of this integrative beauty and connection/disconnection is a load of bull if you want, but you can't tell me it doesn't exist, since it is based on my own purely subjective and personal view.)

the Goat
29-12-2011, 12:36
If someone had an Ultramarines army and wanted to play a game field the Ultramarines 1st Company...they can't. The rules in Codex: Space Marines don't allow for that. There are legal rules in other books that will allow this though.
Except they can field the Ultramarines First company if they follow the fluff. The Ultramarines First company does not deploy as an army for 40K sized battles. By the fluff that never happens. Traditionally the Ultras divide up the first company into many support units and attach these units to many separate strike forces. The Ultramarines codex was written to reflect that fluff.

But in major conflicts the Ultramarines do deploy the First company as a single unified force. And you can do that in games of Apocalypse. In major Apocalypse sized battles the fluff makes sense for the Ultras to deploy the first company together.

Lord Damocles
29-12-2011, 13:38
The Ultramarines First company does not deploy as an army for 40K sized battles. By the fluff that never happens.
The defence of the Polar Fortresses on Macragge, The assault on the Cathedral of True Faith on Ichar IV, boarding space hulks, Calgar's deployment on Karthax III (oh look, it's a 1500pt battle report (WD 304, pg.36) featuring an entire army of Ultramarine Terminators!), etc. etc....


The 'only Dark Angels can make an all Terminator [/Veteran] army' is almost entirely arbitrary.

The Dark Angels split their 1st company between various strike forces as well; and other Chapters have been shown to have almost the same number of Terminator suits without having the option (the Blood Angels deployed eighty Terminators aboard the Sin of Damnation for example).

massey
29-12-2011, 16:27
What I mean about conceptual aesthetics is quite hard to explain I guess. It's not about specific rules for specific chapters - I totally agree that it is utterly irrelevant whether Blood Angels have furious charge or not, or whatever other stupid rules detail GW comes up with. It's a concept related to army identities being anchored in distinct rules, whatever those rules may be.

I guess the only way I can explain it is by imagining it visually. If I see an army painted like Ultramarines, through my knowledge of the game, I know what Ultramarines are and what kind of rules they follow, because they are a defined entity in the game. That I can look at the army and know what they are without having to ask, is to me part of the beauty of the game. That is the overall conceptual design/aesthetic that I'm talking about. If the player says "just so you know, these actually use the space wolf rules", then the integrative beauty is lost. I prefer there to not be a disconnect between what I see, and what the models are used to represent. The only way to avoid this disconnection is to make the models used representative of how GW presents the army whose rules are being applied.

(Feel free to think my opinion of this integrative beauty and connection/disconnection is a load of bull if you want, but you can't tell me it doesn't exist, since it is based on my own purely subjective and personal view.)

Certainly I understand that someone who comes in and says "these grots are actually Terminators" might strain the connection between rules and models. When you see a bolter, you think of a certain statline. When you see a bolter in this counts-as army, it helps if the statline is similar.

Even that, though, has its limits. Sternguard get special ammo with different stats using their regular normal bolters. Thousand Sons do as well. Longer range, higher strength, better AP, assault instead of rapid fire. All these are changes that GW has made to the common bolter. So it's not out of line for a weapon to have a statline different from what you traditionally expect. GW does it in their own books. A bolter as a scatter laser... would probably be pushing it.

I could see a squad of demon possessed grots having the statline of a Terminator. They would probably need to be modeled in some way to show they were special. Put them on 40mm bases, greenstuff in some evil looking flames on the base, some weird mutations on the grots, and give them a cool paintjob. Voila, grot demonhosts. If I ever do a demon army, I'm tempted to take the energy vortex from the Storm of Magic terrain set, put a model (probably from some other miniatures company) of a 5 year old girl on top, hovering above the vortex, and use it as a Lord of Change. She's a crazed Alpha-level psyker, you see.

I'm sorry, but my suspension of disbelief is NOT broken when someone says "these Ultramarines get counter-attack". Certainly it's not broken any more than when they say "these Ultramarines get twin-linked flamer and melta because they're led by Blue Vulkan" or "these Ultramarines get stubborn because they're led by Blue Lysander".

I find it interesting that you also champion making up your own rules. All groups should modify the GW codexes severely I believe you said. You are okay with that, but NOT okay with someone saying "I'm using this perfectly legal list with a different paintjob"? Meanwhile the guy who says "I think my Terminators should be WS 5" is fine?

Nostro
29-12-2011, 21:46
I find it interesting that you also champion making up your own rules. All groups should modify the GW codexes severely I believe you said. You are okay with that, but NOT okay with someone saying "I'm using this perfectly legal list with a different paintjob"? Meanwhile the guy who says "I think my Terminators should be WS 5" is fine?

This.:wtf:

Of all the counterarguments that you came up with, while the others I can understand your POV and agree to disagree with, this one makes little to no sense. :confused:

EDIT: not trying to be rude, it's just that all along you've been championing "keep your army's feel in the realm of what GW designed for them, if you want SW rules you should use a SW successor and NOT a Salamanders, White Scars or Ultramarines successor", now suddenly out of the blue (ha ha pun non-intended) comes this "GW designs codex badly feel free to modify them and end up with a non-legal list"?

Wishing
29-12-2011, 23:55
I'm sorry, but my suspension of disbelief is NOT broken when someone says "these Ultramarines get counter-attack". Certainly it's not broken any more than when they say "these Ultramarines get twin-linked flamer and melta because they're led by Blue Vulkan" or "these Ultramarines get stubborn because they're led by Blue Lysander".

I find it interesting that you also champion making up your own rules. All groups should modify the GW codexes severely I believe you said. You are okay with that, but NOT okay with someone saying "I'm using this perfectly legal list with a different paintjob"? Meanwhile the guy who says "I think my Terminators should be WS 5" is fine?

I'm glad you pick up on this, because this is at the core of my approach to this issue really (which seems to be a rare one if everyone thinks I'm a freak :) ). I have no problem with terminators being WS 5, or having counterattack, or anything else of that nature. These all seem like plausible things for terminators to have. However, what is not plausible to me is Blue Lysander or Blue Vulcan. These characters do not exist in the game world. Feel free to make up your own character, but don't just copy an existing one. It seems within the scope of the game to me for terminators to have WS 5. It doesn't seem within the scope of the game to me for there to be two fully identical characters in different chapters with different colours of armour. And it doesn't seem plausible or within the scope of the game that a Thousand Sons army should happen to have the exact same rules as a Grey Knights army. If an army of Tzeentchian mega-sorcerers should be possible - and I don't see why it shouldn't - then they should have their own unique rules. And the player with that army would have to put in the work to write a set of appropriate and unique rules. Doing counts-as instead is letting the game down, in my view.

I agree with the last poster that it revolves around "legality". People who do counts-as do so not (only) because they are too lazy to write their own rules - they do so because they want a "legal" army to their particular liking, whatever the motivation for that liking. Presumably this is based on playing in an environment where you are expected to play "legal" lists, not home-modified or -written ones. Which is fair enough - my personal view is just that GW's official rules suck and the game is much more fun when played with custom army lists, so I have no interest in or need for "legality". This is based on my view of the game as a creative exercise, not a competitive one, and my being able to play with people who can appreciate this mentality.

Edit: I don't actually intend to bash GW as being idiots, even though it may seem that way. 40k is a great game in my view, based on the fact that its background is great, the factions are great, the aesthetics are great, and the models are superb. GW does loads and loads of things right, but I don't like many of the rules changes they've made since 2nd ed, and modifying the game is basically an enjoyable game development game within itself, so I see no reason to knuckle under and accept GW's restrictions (such as being unable to make an Ultramarines terminator army).

TheMav80
30-12-2011, 00:05
If you cannot disconnect what happens on the table top with the rest of the Universe all sorts of weird things happen.

My Tau have clearly wiped out the Ultramarines several times over since I started playing only 5 years ago. I have killed Calgar numerous times. I have made Mephiston eat hot melta death (before he was Uber Mephiston in this edition).

It doesn't bother me if next week I fight them again. In the same vein, I don't mind if someone paints Calgar purple and calls him "Chapter Master Jim of the Purple People Eater Marines".

I also don't mind if you have your own Chapter Master with three pages of back story. That's cool too.

Wishing
30-12-2011, 00:42
If you cannot disconnect what happens on the table top with the rest of the Universe all sorts of weird things happen.


If the comment is directed at me, then there is a difference between what happens during a game and the rules that an army uses. Events that happen during a game are only relevant during the game and aren't written down anywhere. Army rules exist both before and after the game and are always written down and referenced. To me, that Eldrad killed Calgar in the game I played last night and that the Dark Angel codex allows you to make all terminator armies are entirely different and unrelated types of information.

Col. Dash
30-12-2011, 01:02
Having read a few things here I have some issues. Lets go through how I decide on an army and what rules I use.
One: I want to have a Night Lords army.
Two: I love terminators and want a complete army of terminators in Night Lords colors.
Three: Fluffwise Night Lords see in the dark no problem
Four: Night Lords scavenge and use what each individual feels is best over decades upon decades(or centuries upon centuries) and many have imperial gear they have bought/stolen/scavenged/aquired.

Now given what I have as my wants, what codex options do I have.
One: I can go with Chaos(which I do when not going termy heavy) or I can go any of the normal space marine codices because Night lords IMO do not have any of the real chaosy stuff the other legions have as they dont like chaos very much. As long as I dont go something completely set aside for a chapter, Baals for example, there shouldnt be an issue, a marine is a marine with different paint scheme.

Two: Terminators, three options narrow it down and chaos isnt one. Space wolves, GK and DA. Of the three, GK makes no sense so it is out as their weapons and gear are far to divergent to be Night Lords.

Three and Four: Night Lords see in the dark. So do Space Wolves. In addition DA are very strict in what gear they are allowed, Space Wolves each guy is his own.

So what does this leave me if I want my Night Lords termy army? Space Wolves is the obvious choice. As long as each model is WYSIWYG there should not be an issue. I do not know if I would want to play against such a poor of sport that would have an issue with it.

Proxying is a bit different and do not think that is the subject. Proxying is ok while building an army or trying somethign out once and awhile to see if it works. Long term is not ok.

Commissar von Toussaint
30-12-2011, 01:05
You know what? Sometimes a game is just a game.

Sometimes figures are just figures.

I've said before, I'm all about aesthetics and it's true. I love a nicely-set up tabletop.

But that doesn't stop me from letting people proxy the crap out of armies. Why not? It looks good, and I can tell what the units are, so what possible issue can there be?

Now it so happens that I have an army of (wait for it) gray marines. Yes, I painted them gray. (Feldgrau, actually.)

So they can be whatever I declare them to be. Could be Blood Angels successors, could be vanilla. I almost always go vanilla because they are the Iron Defenders Chapter, 14th Founding, descended of the Ultramarines. See, I've got fluff.

But I'm not above seeing how the Dark Angels rules go (okay, actually I am, but I will give the Blood Angels a try now and then).

This part will probably really mess you up, but here goes: My fantasy armies are all ambiguous. I have a unit of cavalry that is red. Red as in Imperial, red as in chaos, red as in mercenary or whatever I want them to be. They wear red because I like red.

Is that wrong? Have I sinned against the GW Commandments? ("IX. Thou shalt not use a miniature for more than one army type.")

I don't know and don't care. Having just finished a bunch of Sisters of Battle conversions (using VOID figures, natch), I'm now looking at an Ork army. Talk about changes! You think marines are inconsistent, between shokk attack guns and zzap cannon, who knows what anything is these days? Are those chain axes or choppas? Heavy bolters, heavy stubbas or Big Shootas? Please, I'm dying to know what that crap on my GW model is supposed to represent.

It keeps changing. I'm so confused. :confused:

Wishing
30-12-2011, 09:18
This part will probably really mess you up, but here goes: My fantasy armies are all ambiguous. I have a unit of cavalry that is red. Red as in Imperial, red as in chaos, red as in mercenary or whatever I want them to be. They wear red because I like red.

My mind is officially boggled. :p

lantzkev
30-12-2011, 09:22
for some reason makes me think of this joke:

"Long ago, when sailing ships ruled the sea, this captain and his crew were always in danger of being boarded by pirates from a pirate ship.

One day while they were sailing, they saw that a pirate ship had sent a boarding party to try and board their ship. The crew became worried, but the Captain was calm.

He bellowed to his First Mate, "Bring me my red shirt!"

The First Mate quickly got the Captain's red shirt, which the captain put on. Then he led his crew into battle against the mean pirates. Although there were some casualties among the crew, the pirates were defeated.

Later that day, the lookout screamed that there were two pirate vessels sending two boarding parties towards their ship. The crew was nervous, but the Captain, calm as ever, bellowed, "Bring me my red shirt!" And once again the battle was on!

The Captain and his crew fought off the boarding parties, though this time more casualties occurred.

Weary from the battles, the men sat around on deck that night recounting the day's events when an ensign looked at the Captain and asked, "Sir, why did you call for your red shirt before the battle?"

The Captain, giving the ensign a look that only a captain can give, explained, "If I am wounded in battle, the red shirt does not show the blood, so you men will continue to fight unafraid." The men sat in silence. They were amazed at the courage of such a man.

As dawn came the next morning, the lookout screamed that there were pirate ships, 10 of them, all with boarding parties on their way. The men became silent and looked to the Captain, their leader, for his usual command.

The Captain, calm as ever, bellowed, 'Bring me my brown pants!!!' "

Egaeus
30-12-2011, 11:21
The 'only Dark Angels can make an all Terminator [/Veteran] army' is almost entirely arbitrary.

I think this is a very important point to remember: the game, being based on fictional works, is entirely arbitrary. Units have the stats and models they do because GW says that's what they are at this time. And both are subject to change.

I started playing 40K with 3rd edition and my first impression on reading the rules (having a gaming backgound) was "wow, these aren't very good rules". They were very "loose" with multiple gaps that would need to filled by the players. At the time I gave GW the benefit of the doubt and figured this was advantageous, allowing different people some flexibility to play the game how they wanted to play it instead of having a rigid structure that must be adhered to. Unfortunately this doesn't work well at all for a pick-up game environment where every opponent may have their own ideas of "how things should be done".

I provide this annecdote because I don't think GW's opinion of the game has really changed over the years...it's never been a "hard" set of rules, rather guidelines for using their cool miniatures. So it does still confound me a bit when people confuse "You're not playing the way I would like it to be played" with flat-out "You're playing it wrong." Although I do fully understand that each individual player has their perceptions and preferences for how they like the game to be played, so at some point the social aspect kicks in and we must make some allowances so we can try to have a good game even if our opponent doesn't share our views of the game 100%.

Warmaster Bill
31-12-2011, 08:15
A friend of mine plays silver skulls but wanted a "counts as" Marneus Calgar. He made a good looking customized commander with all the kit Calgar has. As long as everything is identifiable I think "counts as" is fine.

Sierk
01-01-2012, 11:11
Im joining this conservation late and i only read through the beginning but my thought is..
That if a newer player is using counts as to represent his space wolves as chaos spacemarines because he thinnks that statistically their better, would you allow it? to him it is power jumping but you would allow it because it is actually making his army worse, right? so if you would allow that than you should allow the vice versa.

jt.glass
01-01-2012, 11:15
When I think of "counts as" I think of "My codex sucks so I am going to use my Chaos Space Marines as Space Wolves instead"Yes, because playing with a Codex that sucks is so much better than playing with a codex that will actual give you and your opponent a good game... :wtf:


jt.

Vipoid
01-01-2012, 11:21
Yes, because playing with a Codex that sucks is so much better than playing with a codex that will actual give you and your opponent a good game... :wtf:


Why will space wolves automatically give you a better game than CSM? It might balance the field more if you're playing against GK, but against codices like 'nids, surely it will make the game more unbalanced and less fun?

jt.glass
01-01-2012, 12:03
Why will space wolves automatically give you a better game than CSM? It might balance the field more if you're playing against GK, but against codices like 'nids, surely it will make the game more unbalanced and less fun?I never said automatically. But if I believe that it will, who are you to tell me that that's "bad"?


jt.

Vipoid
01-01-2012, 12:54
I never said automatically. But if I believe that it will, who are you to tell me that that's "bad"?


You certainly implied that it would automatically result in a better game, because you gave no alternative or clause in your argument.

My point was simply that a game is surely only good if both players view it as such.

If one player decides his CSM are now going to represent a top-tier codex like SW from now on, then surely he should ask the permission of his opponent, and be prepared to revert to playing CSM if it results in said opponent having less fun.

Hellebore
01-01-2012, 13:08
Why will space wolves automatically give you a better game than CSM? It might balance the field more if you're playing against GK, but against codices like 'nids, surely it will make the game more unbalanced and less fun?

I assume then you don't play against space wolf armies either? Obviously their codex is totally broken and using it is the height of cheese.

Or is it only ok to play a cheesy army if you've spent money on one? So the ethos of the game changes according to how wealthy you are - poor people aren't allowed to play cheesy armies unless that's the only one they spent money on. Rich people are allowed to cheese it up though.

Or what about if you repaint your chaos marines grey so they match the colours of the cheesy army? You are only allowed cheese if you buy the right paint.

What about if you just never get around to actually painting your models, leaving them in an undercoated state? You're so flustered for choice that you keep uming and ahing over wheather your marines should be one army or the other. It's such a hard decision to make because once the army has picked its pigment then its game over. The decision has been made, maths has been attached via paint.

Hellebore

Vipoid
01-01-2012, 13:28
I assume then you don't play against space wolf armies either? Obviously their codex is totally broken and using it is the height of cheese.

Ah, good. You've completely misinterpreted my post.



Or is it only ok to play a cheesy army if you've spent money on one? So the ethos of the game changes according to how wealthy you are - poor people aren't allowed to play cheesy armies unless that's the only one they spent money on. Rich people are allowed to cheese it up though.

If that's the rules you want to follow, feel free.


What I was saying was that using a count-as army because it will automatically create a 'good game' seems somewhat dubious. It would be no different to the same CSM player going out and buying a full GK army because it would make for a 'good game'.

My point was that 'good game' is subjective, and based on the opinions of both players - not just one. Therefore, if you are going to switch armies or use a count-as army to create a 'good game', it seems reasonable to consult your opponent(s), and ask if it is likely to improve your games (or, if you've been trying a count-as army, if it *has* made the games more fun).

I'm not saying that people can't switch armies or use count-as. However, if their new army doesn't make the games any more enjoyable - or even less enjoyable for some - then their new/count-as army hasn't made for a 'good game'.

Again, I'm not saying that such people can't use new/count-as armies - just that, if they do, they shouldn't cling to their excuse of doing it for a 'good game'.

Hellebore
01-01-2012, 13:35
Well I'm not sure how playing anothe GW codex changes the enjoyabilitiy of the game. Obviously if in the gaming group the space wolf codex is banned due to cheese there's no problem - the chaos player can't use it anyway.

but if the codex is being used by other people, then a player with marines with horns using the space wolf codex won't produce a game any less or more 'enjoyable' than one using marines with bits of fur on them.

The game uses the same rules after all and the group has decided that those rules are fine by allowing games using the codex. What models represent that codex doesn't have any affect on how the game is played. You could even have a restrained chaos player and a cheesemaster space wolf player - one using the uncompetitive bloodclaws to represent his beserker initiate force and the other using logan grimanr wolf guard thunder wolf spam army with the official models and everything.

If there is no issue with the army list in question then it will have no effect on game play if the models used to represent that army list are one kind or another, or a different colour. The rules didn't change.

Hellebore

Vipoid
01-01-2012, 13:43
Well I'm not sure how playing anothe GW codex changes the enjoyabilitiy of the game. Obviously if in the gaming group the space wolf codex is banned due to cheese there's no problem - the chaos player can't use it anyway.

but if the codex is being used by other people, then a player with marines with horns using the space wolf codex won't produce a game any less or more 'enjoyable' than one using marines with bits of fur on them.

The game uses the same rules after all and the group has decided that those rules are fine by allowing games using the codex. What models represent that codex doesn't have any affect on how the game is played. You could even have a restrained chaos player and a cheesemaster space wolf player - one using the uncompetitive bloodclaws to represent his beserker initiate force and the other using logan grimanr wolf guard thunder wolf spam army with the official models and everything.

If there is no issue with the army list in question then it will have no effect on game play if the models used to represent that army list are one kind or another, or a different colour. The rules didn't change.

Hellebore

In interesting point, but if enjoyment is the same, regarldess of which codices are being used, then surely you can't do count-as to create a 'good game' anyway?

Because, as you've said, enjoyment has nothing to do with which codices are being used, so changing your army won't change anyone's enjoyment of the game.

Egaeus
01-01-2012, 20:31
but if the codex is being used by other people, then a player with marines with horns using the space wolf codex won't produce a game any less or more 'enjoyable' than one using marines with bits of fur on them.

Ah, but it will be less enjoyable because the Chaos-as-Space-Wolves player is obviously a WAAC powergamer whose only reason for using that codex is so they can crush their opponent utterly, and so there's no way that could be a good game. :rolleyes:


If there is no issue with the army list in question then it will have no effect on game play if the models used to represent that army list are one kind or another, or a different colour. The rules didn't change.

I've said it repeatedly throughout this thread and I feel it bears repeating: It is the fault of GW for creating imbalanced codexes. If they made an effort to ensure that the books actually were balanced then I believe two things would occur:

First, no one would have a reason to codex-hop because each codex would represent its army reasonably well and be competetive with other books. Although this may not fully be the case since each codex is meant to provide a slightly different playstyle, so players might want to use a different book for actual thematic reasons. Although this leads directly to:

Second, even if people did codex-hop it wouldn't be a big deal since each book being roughly equivalent in power would give essentially the same challenge. That is, if it were simply playstyles that differentiated codexes rather than perceived power level differences it wouldn't matter which book a player used to represent their army. There would be no "power gamer" stigma attached to trying out something different.

One interesting note here is that this already exists in the game with Special Characters. Marneus Calgar is the leader of the Ultramarines, but you can use him in a chapter of your own creation, just paint him a different colour and give him a different name. As Hellebore states, the rules stay the same.

madprophet
01-01-2012, 21:04
As long as it is obvious what each mini is and how it is armed - game on!

If you are using counts as for a cool concept army (custodes, ad mech, arbites, chaos guard, etc.) all the better! If the army is properly converted and painted, even better still!

If you want to use the rules for red marines with your blue marines, no worries as long as everything is clear up front. Want to use the rules for grey marines with your red marines? fine - as long as it is clear up front.

If you are using counts as to provide rules for older figures or conversions or (gasp!) non-GW figures - why not? The rules are the same, and as long as the points are balanced, let's give it a go - might be fun!

Taking a character from one army and transplanting him to another is actively encouraged in Codex:IG. I have a Valhallan version of Creed done up. The only caveat here is SCs are really intended to illustrate the fluff of the army they were designed for. Calgar is the ultimate Smurf - of course, if your army is a UM successor, this is not an issue but if your army is supposed to be a Salamanders successor, you might want to look at SCs for Salamanders rather than Ultramarines... but I'd still play against you regardless.

Col. Dash
01-01-2012, 21:16
It all comes down to, its a frikken made up paint scheme. None of these armies are based on fact. All of it is paint on a marine or whatever. If its WYSIWYG who frikken cares?

Wishing
02-01-2012, 00:08
One interesting note here is that this already exists in the game with Special Characters. Marneus Calgar is the leader of the Ultramarines, but you can use him in a chapter of your own creation, just paint him a different colour and give him a different name. As Hellebore states, the rules stay the same.

I think this is an interesting point too. I haven't read the Marine codex, but what is being refered to here is that the book specifically states that you don't have to play Ultramarines to use Calgar, you can just use counts-as to make him part of another chapter, right? If anyone thinks that GW are against counts-as, that is certainly proof otherwise.

What is interesting to me about this though is that while GW do suggest and promote people doing counts-as armies, they don't actually ever do it themselves in an official capacity. You're not going to see a battle report in WD where Calgar is being used in a Salamanders army with a different name, and the Space Wolf codex isn't going to feature a gallery of Khorne models because many people like to use the SW rules for their Khorne armies. So counts-as is clearly not considered 100% standard and given, but is seen as something fun that people can do if they want to do something non-standard.

Toadius80
02-01-2012, 00:34
A little late on the topic but....


Wow that is a really nice conversion. Amazing green stuff skills.
Kevlar- i am not using another codex because mine sucks though. It just doesn't exist anymore and I thought vanilla marines would work.
You have an inquisition force right? (going from 1st post)
Use the rules for a INQUISITION force then an stop trying to get better rules for models that are obviously not what rules you are trying to use. They are lightly armoured and armed mortals, not bio enhanced 7foot heavy armed and heavier armoured marines. There are rules in the Gray knights codex for forces such as yours, failing that use codex imperial guard. Both codexs supply rules that fit those models, CSM do not.

Now I personally don't mind counts as forces when done right as sometimes idle done right it can make some fantastic games etc though when people choose rules either to there advantage or completely off from there model collection that's where I draw the line.


Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

Hellebore
02-01-2012, 01:38
A little late on the topic but....


You have an inquisition force right? (going from 1st post)
Use the rules for a INQUISITION force then an stop trying to get better rules for models that are obviously not what rules you are trying to use. They are lightly armoured and armed mortals, not bio enhanced 7foot heavy armed and heavier armoured marines. There are rules in the Gray knights codex for forces such as yours, failing that use codex imperial guard. Both codexs supply rules that fit those models, CSM do not.

Now I personally don't mind counts as forces when done right as sometimes idle done right it can make some fantastic games etc though when people choose rules either to there advantage or completely off from there model collection that's where I draw the line.


Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

Again with the 'advantage' fallacy. Unless you consider the vanilla marine codex broken and ban it, using that codex is not an advantage REGARDLESS of what models you use to represent it.

It has no bearing on the rules themselves. There is no advantage - the army is just as hard/easy to play against as someone else with plastic models painted blue.

And you can rationalise anything if you try. this is an inquisitorial force made up of experimentally enhanced troopers using compact power armour and particle rifles. Result? A model that looks like a stormtrooper has the stats of a space marine. not that you actually need to bother justifying it anyway, there is no universal constant that says a bolter's rules work the way they do, or that ATSKNF works the way it does (it was different last edition and 2nd edition), thus there is no rule that says X models MUST be represented with Y rules, because they change anyway.

Can you imagine if people complained like this in online games where you could reskin your character? You can't use that sword and shield it's only available to elves and you're using a character that looks like a smurf! but it's just a picture wrapped around a 3d model tied to a list of commands - no it doesn't look right so you can't use those other 3d models wrapped in sword pics tied to commands either!

It's just an absurd argument.

Hellebore

Toadius80
02-01-2012, 01:58
I'm surprised you of all people supporting that view Hellbore. As I said I'm all for people to convert or adapt with the condition that they use models that fit the rules.
I agree, CSM isn't an over powered codex, personally I believe most of codex's are actually quite balanced.
If people start going this is my Marine army, yep I know the models are actually guard but I use them as marines because I rationalise it as the las guns are really high power and the black armour actually power armour, just lighter. That's what ruins the game. Where are the limits? I don't know about you (though I actually thought you shared this view) but part of my interest and that of my gaming group is the background and fluff of it all, that's what makes a game. If someone wants to do a new race, sure use whatever codex fits but if there is an existing codex then use the one for the force you got.
An example. A friend with a chaos guard army. Uses a FW list for chaos guard as his view is he collects chaos guard, not imperial. Even though it means he has none of the imperial vehicles or units.
For one off see if you like the army I've no problem using the wrong codex to the models but as a regular thing, big no no and I don't know personally anyone that would actually allow it. But as said, the group I play like the background and fluff. I suppose there are those that see the game purely as a rules set and over priced gaming tokens/pieces.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

Scaryscarymushroom
02-01-2012, 02:11
And you can rationalise anything if you try. this is an inquisitorial force made up of experimentally enhanced troopers using compact power armour and particle rifles. Result? A model that looks like a stormtrooper has the stats of a space marine. not that you actually need to bother justifying it anyway, there is no universal constant that says a bolter's rules work the way they do, or that ATSKNF works the way it does (it was different last edition and 2nd edition), thus there is no rule that says X models MUST be represented with Y rules, because they change anyway.



I don't know about you (though I actually thought you shared this view) but part of my interest and that of my gaming group is the background and fluff of it all, that's what makes a game. If someone wants to do a new race, sure use whatever codex fits but if there is an existing codex then use the one for the force you got.

These two views aren't mutually exclusive...

After all, space is a really big place. There's room for all sorts of madness and fluff related deviances.


And, you know. This is fiction.

Oh, and just to add fuel to the fire...
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/blogPost.jsp?aId=16800105a
a Khornate Space Wolves army.

Who's to say whether the CSM codex or Space Wolves codex is more appropriate? They're models. Not 7 foot tall genetically modified super mutants.

Commissar von Toussaint
02-01-2012, 14:59
I think it is interesting that people keep assuming that the only reason people would shift armies is because of a WAAC mentality. What about variety? Doing something different?

"Say, those chaos marines look interesting. I think I'll play a few games with proxies to see if I like the style."

Because miniatures aren't free and don't paint themselves, everyone in my group will usually proxy a new army to see if they like it before investing hundreds of dollars and hours of painting time.

The larger issue is, of course, the rules themselves. I know I'm Warseer's resident 2nd ed. crank, but one of the (many) things I like about that edition is that the design space is not as cluttered. There were six main factions, all quite different, all filling a niche. I have no idea how many there are now, but the proliferation of marines means that there are at least a dozen different armies with power armor.

This heavily encourages players to "defect" from one faction to another simply to avail themselves of better rules.

As the mechanic says: "That right there is your problem."

Egaeus
02-01-2012, 18:59
This heavily encourages players to "defect" from one faction to another simply to avail themselves of better rules.

And I am going to continue to say that this is really the fundamental problem. If certain armies didn't have "better rules" there would be far less ire directed at those who choose to use them whether or not they have the "correct" models to do so. As others have said in this thread it's much more rare for a player to codex-hop to one that is perceived as a weaker ruleset.

Toadius80
03-01-2012, 05:50
But what marine codex has the better rules?
None.
Its forum hype. When the wolves got their codex this place was up in arms with crystal of broken, beardy etc, now? Not so. Ok they have their nasty bits but everyone knows how to combat them so no worries.
Angels where the same then Knights. Yet who hasn't beaten them? Its just they are all different and when one gets a new dex people jump as they are new and shiny and appear that much more powerful.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

AndrewGPaul
03-01-2012, 14:46
I didn't see this (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/blogPost.jsp?aId=16800105a) mentioned in this thread. A Chaos Space Marines army using the rules from Codex: Space Wolves - or conversely a Space Wolves army using models and parts from the Chaos Space Marines range. Looks like GW have no problem with it. :)

Wishing
03-01-2012, 14:52
I didn't see this (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/blogPost.jsp?aId=16800105a) mentioned in this thread. A Chaos Space Marines army using the rules from Codex: Space Wolves - or conversely a Space Wolves army using models and parts from the Chaos Space Marines range. Looks like GW have no problem with it. :)

It was actually mentioned a couple of times already. :)

I think it is also worth noting, which you also point out, that it is not really a chaos marine army model-wise, it is mainly a space wolf army painted in chaos colours and with chaos bits added. Most of the base models are space wolf models, and everything is covered in beards, wolf pelts and wolf iconography. It doesn't look like either a standard SW army or a standard chaos army, but something in between.

So it's a very different type of army to, say, the popular "Night Lords using Blood Angel rules" army. For such an army to be similar in principle to the featured SW army, the army would have to use mainly BA models painted in NL colours, with chaos spiky bits but also liberally covered in angel wings and blood drops. They would also have to be called the Night Angels. :)

Toadius80
03-01-2012, 16:13
Just to make things more fun ;-)
For those that are fine with people chopping and changing or view as those who have more get the better rules etc. Say I'm skint, I want to play as orks so instead on investing the few I have I just print ork pictures off that are correct size and use them? Going by the view of it doesn't matter what you use as the rules don't change because of models paint etc then you couldn't say no to my cardboard cutout army with looted banblade the works all in full technicolor cutout ;-)

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

Scaryscarymushroom
03-01-2012, 16:20
I would gladly play games against these tyranids. (http://www.goldenboltersociety.com/paperhammer40k)

fluffstalker
03-01-2012, 17:27
Those are actually pretty awesome paper nids. Though I'd imagine it would be a pain if someone opened the door into the club and a strong breeze came through :P

ThunderLamb
03-01-2012, 19:04
As long as it's a reasonable count as rule, I don't mind. I play with a Space Wolf army which is a slight deviation to be my own marine army - I just make sure people know my Grey Hunters/Blood Claws are which each.

I only see an issue when my good will is abused by grots counting as dredds and such.

TheMav80
03-01-2012, 21:56
Obviously everyone has a different stopping point. Outside of stop-gap proxies (which I don't consider as "counts as" really) as long as things are WYSIWYG, then I don't care.

You tell me what codex you are using and I am usually good to go.

Egaeus
03-01-2012, 22:59
For those that are fine with people chopping and changing or view as those who have more get the better rules etc. Say I'm skint, I want to play as orks so instead on investing the few I have I just print ork pictures off that are correct size and use them? Going by the view of it doesn't matter what you use as the rules don't change because of models paint etc then you couldn't say no to my cardboard cutout army with looted banblade the works all in full technicolor cutout ;-)

I suppose at some point we have a broader question of "When are we no longer playing 'Warhammer 40,000' but simply a tabletop wargame that happens to use Games Workshop's rules?" At what point are we stepping outside of the hobby?

As TheMav80 points out, everyone is likely to have a different point at which what is being done is no longer acceptable for them to consider that they are still "playing 40K".

Wishing
03-01-2012, 23:17
I suppose at some point we have a broader question of "When are we no longer playing 'Warhammer 40,000' but simply a tabletop wargame that happens to use Games Workshop's rules?" At what point are we stepping outside of the hobby?

That's definitely the underlying question to all questions to do with fluff, miniatures, modelling and painting that come up in my view. "The Hobby" is what we all do, but it means different things to each individual, so we all have different levels of what we think is an enjoyable hobby experience and what detracts from it.

If someone sees the hobby as being only the game rules and nothing else, then they'll be fully satisfied playing against just cardboard circles with "marine" written on them. On the other hand, if someone feels that full miniature-aided immersion in the wargame universe is the core of the hobby, then they will always be striving towards a fully fleshed out and GM'ed narrative campaign with only fully painted armies with personal histories. Most players will see The Hobby as being something in between these two extremes, but everyone will be at a different point of the scale/diagram.

Commissar von Toussaint
04-01-2012, 00:29
And I am going to continue to say that this is really the fundamental problem. If certain armies didn't have "better rules" there would be far less ire directed at those who choose to use them whether or not they have the "correct" models to do so. As others have said in this thread it's much more rare for a player to codex-hop to one that is perceived as a weaker ruleset.

I should clarify that "better" is somewhat subjective and does not necessarily mean wins more often.

In the waning days of 3rd ed. (or the dawn of 4th, I forget), I was sorely tempted to switch chapters because of all the traits stuff that was coming out. It wasn't because I wanted more wins, it was because the rules better suited my style of play.

I like orthodox, shooty marines. Back in the day, that made my chapter use the Ultramarines codex.

But then along comes Armageddon or traits or whatever, and now there are seriously shooty marines. I think: "Hey, that's my playing style! It does it better! I should switch to those rules because it better fits what I want to accomplish."

Similarly a lot of the chaos/space wolves/blood angels thing I think boiled down to who was more interesting in hand to hand. Oh, and does anyone remember when Black Templars were all the rage? The guys who'd just painted their ultras a high-gloss red now felt the need to go black and white.

Sure, some of it was to benefit from codex creep, but I'm sure a lot of players thought: "I want an outstanding assault army. That's how I like to play. This new list gives me that. So that's what I will play."

The glitch is that because 40k is now so focused on hth, any improvements in assault will also mean the army is empirically stronger. Thus the supposed WAAC mentality that people decry.

I think there's a clear difference between wanting an army that works as advertised (and meets your style) vs just wanting to win.

Hicks
04-01-2012, 05:49
Well done counts as with no ambiguities is more than ok in my book. In my gaming group it is well accepted, wich is a nice thing.

My Loganwing Space Wolves actually use the DA Deathwing rules and no one complains. Of course with marines wargear don't change, so it's pretty easy to identify everything. The only problem is with the Apothecary, I would nned to find a suitable count as for that.

Freman Bloodglaive
04-01-2012, 07:48
My Codex Marines are a Dark Angel successor. In general I simply use Codex Marines rules for a biker captain/bikes as troops army.

However I have enough terminators to make a terminator army, so to do that I use the Lysander model as Belial with thunder hammer and storm shield and use my 25 terminators as Deathwing squads.

Depending on whether I'm using the Codex Marines or Dark Angels rules determines what rules I use for things like Land Speeders and Devastators (no signums for Dark Angels).

I find myself with a few assault marines, so my next step will be to make an assault marine army with the Blood Angels rules, using the model for Shrike as a Captain with twin lightning claws (a very sub par unit in the Blood Angel dex). It'll probably be very small though, I don't intend to buy many more models. Likewise if I take tactical squads or scouts I'll have to run them using the rules in Codex Blood Angels.

All of them will be painted in my army colours which is quartered bone and green with black robes/tabards (which I raided from a Black Templar box).

They will never be used with Space Wolves rules. I have my Space Wolves for playing Space Wolves. I might field them as a Chaos list led by a Chaos Lord (Cypher) and a Sorcerer (Ezekiel model).

To be honest I don't see different coloured marines as counts-as. Counts-as would be more my henchmen army (Coteaz and some Imperial Guard models I had lying around) where I use second edition heavy bolter marines as purgation squads with psycannon. Or the lasguns "count-as" storm bolters. There are no "shoulder mounted heavy bolters" that are not psycannon, and no "lasguns" that are not storm bolters. Basically I use them that way because I like the models and don't want to have spent money on models that I can't play. They've not won a game yet.

Kerrosive56
04-01-2012, 13:42
I proxied Guardians in as Dire Avengers for the last few month while I was getting into the hobby. So ling as you opponent is okay with it, and so long as you break no rules I see no problem with it. Just make sure that you clearly identify everything.

ashc
04-01-2012, 16:45
Am I going crazy or are there two discussions going on here? 'counts-as' is completely different to 'proxying', right? :confused:

Lord Damocles
04-01-2012, 16:51
Am I going crazy or are there two discussions going on here? 'counts-as' is completely different to 'proxying', right? :confused:

They're to points on the same scale.


'This sponge counts as a Pirana' can just as easily be phrased as, 'I'm going to proxy this sponge as a Pirana'.

ashc
04-01-2012, 17:03
and what about 'these adeptus mechanicus counts-as imperial guard?'

Egaeus
04-01-2012, 20:56
and what about 'these adeptus mechanicus counts-as imperial guard?'

The question of the distinction between terms has come up a few times throughout the thread, but it appears that fundamentally they are equivalent, although there are varying "levels".

Some people make the distinction between existing rules and models. That is, if "Model A" is a model for a particular army which has a codex and a particular set of rules ("Rules A") then using it as something else isn't as agreeable unless said use is intended to be temporary, as in the case of trying out a new unit or model before one makes the investment in the "proper" model[s]. For a number of posters this is the difference between "proxying" and "counts-as"...essentially, proxying is meant as a specifically short-term activity.

For some (like me) using the term "counts-as" implies that one is using a model/unit for which no rules exist within the currrent gamespace and so to use them one is applying a rule for an "existing" model/unit that fits the nature of the model[s] being used. In such a situation there is no way to say "Model B" really should be using "Rules B" because that is "what it is".

As there is no "Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus", if one wants to use such an army in the current game then one needs to find/create an appropriate set of models and an appropriate ruleset. If one decides that they are just an Imperial Guard army with a certain thematic look then so be it. If someone else wants to build them as a Grey Knights henchman army then who is to say that this isn't an appropriate choice, since they don't have any "proper" rules?

Wishing
04-01-2012, 23:08
and what about 'these adeptus mechanicus counts-as imperial guard?'

You could also phrase that as "these admech are proxies for imperial guard". The word "proxy" means "stand-in", which is essentially the same as "counts-as".

As previously explained though, when people say proxy in the context of 40k they usually mean that the stand-in is a temporary and improvised solution to not having the correct model, where counts-as is a deliberate choice to not use the correct model but use something else instead.

So I agree that asking if a player is OK with proxies or is OK with counts-as is two different things, even though the basic premise is the same - using a stand-in for the correct figure.

Wishing
04-01-2012, 23:23
As there is no "Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus", if one wants to use such an army in the current game then one needs to find/create an appropriate set of models and an appropriate ruleset. If one decides that they are just an Imperial Guard army with a certain thematic look then so be it. If someone else wants to build them as a Grey Knights henchman army then who is to say that this isn't an appropriate choice, since they don't have any "proper" rules?

I kinda disagree with this opinion a little bit. Whether something is appropriate or not is personal opinion of course, but I think that deciding that Ad Mech are simply a differently looking IG army, and arguing that this is the best way to represent them, is a somewhat unimaginative view.

Lets imagine that GW or FW were to produce a new range of Ad Mech models tomorrow. Does it seem likely that that range would mirror the Krieg and Elysian model lines, and simply be IG with some small tweaks? To me, the answer would be a resounding "no!". Clearly the line would contain units of tech-priests, servitors, and giant scary mecha-bio monstrosities (in addition to tech-guard which could admittedly use normal IG rules), which would all have their own set of unique rules.

So in my view, if someone makes an Ad Mech army to fit the IG army rules, they don't do so because they feel that the rules for an Ad Mech army should be identical to the rules for the IG army - they do it because they want the army to use only GW published rules so they can play it with minimal preparation with a majority of unknown future opponents. Which is an entirely sensible reason to do so... but that doesn't make the IG rules the best or most representative Ad Mech rules. Those are as yet undefined, but would certainly be unique to them alone.

Commissar von Toussaint
04-01-2012, 23:35
So what about alternative figures?

Most of my Imperial Guard are historicals and my Eldar are VOID models. Are those "counts as" or "proxies?"

Or does it matter?

Rootmars
05-01-2012, 00:18
as most have said, i wouldn't mind as long as they are painted and converted according to your fluff.

Commissar von Toussaint
05-01-2012, 00:29
Ah, but what if I use the winged "swooping hawks" as "seraphim?" Is that cheaty, or merely efficient?

Wishing
05-01-2012, 00:50
Most of my Imperial Guard are historicals and my Eldar are VOID models. Are those "counts as" or "proxies?"

I'd say these are neither. If you consider the models to be IG and Eldar in the game, then they're just non-GW models that you play 40k with. I presume you don't see the army as "a historicals army that uses the IG rules", so it isn't counts-as because you don't consider them to be something else than the rules they use, and they're not proxies since they're not temporary. It's just a normal 40k army that you've selected non-GW models for, with no "stand-in" nature to it.

ForgottenLore
05-01-2012, 01:43
I'd say these are neither. If you consider the models to be IG and Eldar in the game, then they're just non-GW models that you play 40k with. I presume you don't see the army as "a historicals army that uses the IG rules", so it isn't counts-as because you don't consider them to be something else than the rules they use, and they're not proxies since they're not temporary. It's just a normal 40k army that you've selected non-GW models for, with no "stand-in" nature to it.
But the whole crux of this argument is that some people DO feel that certain rules are supposed to be associated certain models and anything that varies from that is a counts as.

I don't get it myself, but that is what some of the posts here are saying.

Wishing
05-01-2012, 08:52
But the whole crux of this argument is that some people DO feel that certain rules are supposed to be associated certain models and anything that varies from that is a counts as.

It's not that certain rules are associated with specific models, it is that certain rules are associated with certain army identities. What makes a counts-as army into a counts as army is that you have to explain when you show it to someone, "this is an army A that uses the rules of army B". An Ork army that uses non-GW or home-made Ork models is still an Ork army. It doesn't count as anything else.

Does that make sense?

Egaeus
05-01-2012, 09:42
So in my view, if someone makes an Ad Mech army to fit the IG army rules, they don't do so because they feel that the rules for an Ad Mech army should be identical to the rules for the IG army - they do it because they want the army to use only GW published rules so they can play it with minimal preparation with a majority of unknown future opponents. Which is an entirely sensible reason to do so... but that doesn't make the IG rules the best or most representative Ad Mech rules. Those are as yet undefined, but would certainly be unique to them alone.

As I was writing my previous post it occurred to me that IG fit into an interesting niche...that is, there are multiple IG armies that are somewhat distinctive in appearance but all use the same codex for representation. That is, there is no Codex: Cadian, Catachan, Valhallan, etc. (the Catachans did have their own minidex back in 3rd, and 4th edition had special rules to allow for customizing armies and thus representing different distinctive elements) in the same way that there is a seperate book for different Marine Chapters.

Although I would expect that if GW thought they could make money by having different IG codexes then that would be the case (personally I'm one of those that would love it if they did come out with greatcoat plastics). Of course because their different armies are so distinct they don't have as much of the same cross-selling advantage that they do by making a new kit or two and creating a "whole new" Marine army that uses mostly the same models as every other Marine army out there (vehicles yes, troops not as much, although a properly mixable kit could allow a lot of customizability).

It was in this vein that I suggested that an AdMech army could just be another IG army with a unique appearance. Note I also said that if a player thought that a Grey Knights Henchman army was more appropriate then, lacking specfic rules for such an army, a player is free to choose what they are most comfortable with for representing the army they want to play.

Lord Damocles
05-01-2012, 10:06
Actually, I have an Ad Mech army which has been built around Codex: Imperial Guard (the bulk of Mechanicus' fighting forces are Skitarii; and as per the description in the 4th ed. rulebook, most of these are standard humans with only basic augmentations).



and what about 'these adeptus mechanicus counts-as imperial guard?'
Egaeus pretty much has my view on it.

'Proxy' and 'counts as' are effectively different ways of saying the same thing. Although there are different 'degrees'/'levels' etc. of proxying/counts as-ing.

I could say, 'this sponge counts as a Piranha', because I don't have a Piranha model for some reason (in which case the fact that it's a sponge isn't important in the slightest - it just happens to be what's to hand, and has no relation to the rules it represents at all); or it could be becuase I'm playing an army themed around the sponge-beasts of Lothar IV (in which case, I've chosen to use a sponge for a reason, and I think that the rules for a Piranha best represent the sponge).

If one was to use models converted to represent Skitarii Hypaspists as Guardsmen (me), this is like the latter case, but if one was to take a handful of Marines, or whatever happened to be nearby, and use them as Guardsmen, then it's the former case.

Wishing
05-01-2012, 12:23
As I was writing my previous post it occurred to me that IG fit into an interesting niche...that is, there are multiple IG armies that are somewhat distinctive in appearance but all use the same codex for representation. That is, there is no Codex: Cadian, Catachan, Valhallan, etc. (the Catachans did have their own minidex back in 3rd, and 4th edition had special rules to allow for customizing armies and thus representing different distinctive elements) in the same way that there is a seperate book for different Marine Chapters.

It's true that the IG are unique in that they are the only army that actually has different model lines within it based on a variety of uniforms (a development that started in 2nd ed, before then there was just a generic imperial army who all had the same uniform).

The reason for it is obvious - since they are meant to be ordinary human soldiers, they can be uniformed differently in the same way that ordinary real-life human armies have been uniformed differently throughout history. It wouldn't make as much sense to make, say, 10 different eldar armies all wearing different types of eldar uniform, since eldar are meant to look exotic and sci-fi, and we therefore shouldn't recognise their uniforms as being based on human history. Therefore, 10 different eldar uniforms would just be 10 random alien designs, and wouldn't have the appeal of recognisability that the IG uniforms have.

Captain Collius
05-01-2012, 17:03
let me try and put this very succintly

proxy, unique build stand-in, and things of that nature are fine as long as you maintain competitive balance. (e.g. this lokks like marneus calgar has the same equipment and stats as marneus calgar but because his name is jimbob owens he costs 10 points)

saying this is my chaos army ohh by the way i'm using space wolf rules when i can't see any attempt to put out a space wolf model. not cool. (however the exception to this is if someone asks i want to try out this new army i'm planning on getting would you play against me using my currrent ______ to fill in?)

IcedCrow
05-01-2012, 17:08
I will be using cryx warjacks to "counts as" tomb spyders as there are no current tomb spyder models.

I will also be using some other cryx models to "counts as" flayers because I'm not paying $90 for 10 plastic men. The mecha thralls with the fists will be "counting as" forever in that regard.

I am using an autobot ark model to "counts as" a scythe transport. Because it looks cool. And is a spaceship looking model. And because there currently is no model.

I will be using bane thralls to "counts as" wraiths because there are no current models.

I am using a starwars miniature spider-walker thing to "counts as" a triarch stalker because there are no current models.

I have nothing for jetbikes sadly. I don't have anything suitable to counts as a monolith but I don't know how often I will use that model anyway to justify the $70 price tag.

Sinnertje
05-01-2012, 17:51
Text

Looking on the warmachines site, I was shocked to see the prices. People always say that it's cheaper than Warhammer, but that's only because you need less models to play.
I mean, I saw 3 cavalry models (http://privateerpress.com/warmachine/gallery/khador/units/iron-fang-uhlan-unit), 60 euro's! (And they look crappy to boot.)

Anyway, that's that. Now back OT:
For my Eldar, I use the 10 or 20 Guardians I got in the battleforce + some box which also included a falcon, as Dire Avengers, with the 5 Dire Avengers I have as squad leaders (I forget what they were called) and a.. erm.. general type thing. Archon I believe.
Yes, it's purely based on the money I'd have to spend to get Dire Avengers/Pathfinders and not having any use for the Guardians.

IcedCrow
05-01-2012, 18:08
I have had a cryx army for years so there's no cost to me for these. I already paid for them back when they weren't super expensive :D might as well get some use out of them.

Commissar von Toussaint
05-01-2012, 23:35
Although I would expect that if GW thought they could make money by having different IG codexes then that would be the case (personally I'm one of those that would love it if they did come out with greatcoat plastics). Of course because their different armies are so distinct they don't have as much of the same cross-selling advantage that they do by making a new kit or two and creating a "whole new" Marine army that uses mostly the same models as every other Marine army out there (vehicles yes, troops not as much, although a properly mixable kit could allow a lot of customizability).

I think this is a key point in the debate and why it is GW rather than players that really gets worked up over proxies and "counts as."

You are absolutely correct about the IG - if ever there was an army that could have "mini-dexes" it is these guys, with specialized rules for jungle fighting (Catachan), hostile environment (Armageddon/Valhallan/Tallarn), discipline (Mordian), or enhanced armor (Cadian).

Instead it's all personal taste - you play the flavor of IG that looks nice.

I believe that the interchangability of space marines is on purpose and facilitates selling more books - and why not? All the other armies will buy the codex for their army and be done with it. But if they use power armor, you have the potential to sell them a dozen of the things.

It think it is akin to the old rules for taking allies. Allies were a great way to "branch out" into a new army. Since it took a while to get a full force put together, you could ease into the thing (even Tyranids, who could ally with no one, could take Genestealer Cultists, allowing them to side with Chaos and renegade IG).

Now instead of allies, you simply take the signature units for each kind of marine. So the counts as is a feature, not a bug.

(Speaking of allies, can you take them now? Used to be forbidden - and with good reason: Since all the unit types are savants, the cheese potential of balancing shooty IG with a squad of Blood Angels was off the chart. )

TheMav80
06-01-2012, 16:24
I've thought of a pretty good way for me to explain how I feel about the Counts As thing, and why I don't see a problem with hopping your Marine army around.

I've constantly said that a Marine is a Marine is a Marine. I know the rules slightly differ from army to army, but not so drastically. The stat lines are pretty universal. I am not quite so old yet that if you tell me which codex you are using that I will forget half way through the game.

The thing is, especially with Marines, most of the units in their own codex look nearly identical. What is the model difference between a Wolf Guard and Grey Hunter? Between a Sternguard Veteran and Tactical/Devastator? Pretty much nothing. Yes Sternguard have their own models now (a whole five of them!), but they are not so indistinguishable from the rest of the game that I don't need the other player to point at them and say, "These are Sternguard." Plus, if any of them have special weapons, they won't be using those Sternguard models.

So, for me, it is not any more effort to need to be told that a unit is from a certain codex. It doesn't take me out of the game any more to say that this Chaos Marine is a Grey Hunter than it does for some to tell me that this plastic guy out of the Devastator box is a Sternguard with a lascannon.

Col. Dash
06-01-2012, 16:32
Captain Collis- Why? Its simply a paint scheme as far as models go. Would you have an issue with red painted space wolves? Why does it matter if the models are completely WYSIWYG but are missing a fur tassel here and there? Do you really look that close? Now obviously if they arent WYSIWYG then yeah, I can understand a problem. They are just rules which to me are completely interchangable between the different marine codices. Power armor is power armor and does the same thing regardless if it doesnt have the silly wolf's heads all over the place.

ashc
06-01-2012, 16:41
I've thought of a pretty good way for me to explain how I feel about the Counts As thing, and why I don't see a problem with hopping your Marine army around.

I've constantly said that a Marine is a Marine is a Marine. I know the rules slightly differ from army to army, but not so drastically. The stat lines are pretty universal. I am not quite so old yet that if you tell me which codex you are using that I will forget half way through the game.

The thing is, especially with Marines, most of the units in their own codex look nearly identical. What is the model difference between a Wolf Guard and Grey Hunter? Between a Sternguard Veteran and Tactical/Devastator? Pretty much nothing. Yes Sternguard have their own models now (a whole five of them!), but they are not so indistinguishable from the rest of the game that I don't need the other player to point at them and say, "These are Sternguard." Plus, if any of them have special weapons, they won't be using those Sternguard models.

So, for me, it is not any more effort to need to be told that a unit is from a certain codex. It doesn't take me out of the game any more to say that this Chaos Marine is a Grey Hunter than it does for some to tell me that this plastic guy out of the Devastator box is a Sternguard with a lascannon.

I think this is quite apt nowadays.

Huoshini
06-01-2012, 21:40
My thing is this:

If you are going to play chaos, you army should look somewhat chaos-y. I don't want to see Ultra Marines on the table just to find out that my opponent is playing with the chaos book and visa versa.

But if you're converting an army into something orginal like Admech or something off the wall, my only plee is that you use Wysiwig. If the model is shooting a las gun, I want to see a las gun on the model. If the model has a jump pack, I want to see a jump pack.

Egaeus
06-01-2012, 23:52
But if you're converting an army into something orginal like Admech or something off the wall, my only plee is that you use Wysiwig. If the model is shooting a las gun, I want to see a las gun on the model. If the model has a jump pack, I want to see a jump pack.

One of the things I've questioned before is the idea that if you're doing something "original" how far can one stray from intent before it becomes unacceptable? Some units in the game have wings. Wings aren't "jump packs" but it isn't a huge logical leap when the rules say they "move like/are Jump Infantry". So if I see a model with wings I am likely to assume that it is intended to move like or be Jump Infantry. But then you've got units like Warp Spiders and Grey Knight Interceptors that have short-range teleporters...this allows them to function like Jump Infantry while remaining somewhat indistinguishable from other "ground pounding" Troops. So if I want to say a unit has "anti gravity belts" that allow them to move like Jump Infantry then I would agree that they should have some sort of distinct look that sets them apart from other units in the same army but other than that how much differentiation is required?

Wishing
07-01-2012, 00:04
One of the things I've questioned before is the idea that if you're doing something "original" how far can one stray from intent before it becomes unacceptable? Some units in the game have wings. Wings aren't "jump packs" but it isn't a huge logical leap when the rules say they "move like/are Jump Infantry". So if I see a model with wings I am likely to assume that it is intended to move like or be Jump Infantry. But then you've got units like Warp Spiders and Grey Knight Interceptors that have short-range teleporters...this allows them to function like Jump Infantry while remaining somewhat indistinguishable from other "ground pounding" Troops.

This is a good point. Personally, my view is that if you are making up stuff on your own, such as AdMech jump infantry, then you should hold yourself to stricter WYSIWYG standards than GW does. The simple reason for this is that everyone will be familiar with the GW models already, but nobody will be familiar with your home-made models.

khaosmarines
07-01-2012, 02:06
I really don't mind count as. friends and i have played games with lolly jars as Necron monoliths paper cut out bases for various units these games had more random house hold implements then models =p.

Warhammer is a VERY expensive and time consuming hobby i can't simply by a whole stack of new things just to try it out. I often use count as to test army combinations before buying models.

IN regards to more what your doing, competitively the only problem i see different bases/ model sizes could have an impact but as long as there around the same size it shouldn't impact it the game much. I think what you plan on doing is fine and i would have no problem with it, your using set rules your not cheating the only difference is aesthetics, just make sure your opponent knows what everything is =p

Competitively (tournaments) their could be issues but most friendly clubs probably wouldn't mind and for friendly games i doubt you would have any difficulties.