PDA

View Full Version : Your attitude towards counts-as models



Scaryscarymushroom
13-12-2011, 21:28
Check out the poll above, and select all the options that apply to your attitude with regards to counts-as miniatures. I'm interested in getting people to think about the models they're willing to use in a game, and the models they're willing to let their opponents use in a game.

I voted yes to items 1, 4, 5, and 6. Thinking about it a little harder, I might vote yes to item 10 as well. At least with warhammer 40k, I would probably never buy both space wolves and dark angels. If I wanted to use certain rules for my models, I'd just use them. I see no particular reason that I should go out and spend hundreds of dollars to rebuild an army just to get a mildly different aesthetic.


As an aside:
Is the problem of "counts-as" exclusive to warhammer 40k? Is there such a stigma about it in warhammer fantasy?

Spectrar Ghost
13-12-2011, 21:59
MY views on the matter are more or less encapsulated here:


You may if you wish decide that certain units in your army ‘count as’ something else from the army lists that is of
roughly the same size and function. This is especially useful if you are using old models that are no longer in the range
and therefore not covered in the army lists, or you are using models that are painted differently. For example, you might
have managed to lay your hands on some of the old metal Ork Squigoth models that we made many years ago but that
are now no longer in the range. Rather than leaving these models languishing on the shelf you could simply decide that
they ‘count as’ Ork Battlewagons, which are roughly the same size as a Squigoth and have a similar function.

Alternatively, you may have decided to use the Steel Legion army list to represent a different Imperial Guard regiment
with a very different colour scheme. Again, it would be a great shame not to be able to use your gorgeously painted
army, and the ‘counts as’ rule will allow you to do so. However, if you decide to use the ‘counts as’ rule, then there are
three very important things to bear in mind:

• First of all, before the game starts you must tell your opponent that you have decided to use the ‘counts as’ rule, and
you must let him know what counts as what.

• Secondly, this rule is here to allow you to use all the models in your collection, not as a method of fine-tuning your
army for every game that you play. Therefore you may not use the ‘counts as’ rule for units that are actually covered in
the army lists. For example, if you have a model of a Land Speeder, then you must use it as a Land Speeder and pay
the points for a Land Speeder; you could not use it as a Land Speeder Tornado, or a Predator, or any other unit for
that matter. By the same token, a Land Speeder Tornado must be used as a Land Speeder Tornado and can’t stand in
for any other units. This rule is included to prevent confusion and keep game play as even and balanced as possible.
Note that you can paint the unit in any way you like, you just can’t count it as a different unit from the list.

• Finally, if you decide that any unit in your army ‘counts as’ something else, then all of that type of unit in your army
must count as the same thing. For example, if you decided that your old Squigoth model was a Battlewagon, then all
the Squigoths in your army would have to be Battlewagons – you couldn’t have one Squigoth as a Battlewagon, one as
a Gunwagon, and so on


I have entire armies made of alternate models. My Epic Minervans are a good example - not a single GW model, but very little confusion as to what is what anyway.

jack da greenskin
13-12-2011, 22:02
I'm split. And I find there's a difference between a one-off game with a mate, and what they're using for their army.

One off game -
Proxy what the hell you want, try to not make it too confusing. Paper cut outs help. Don't proxy a cheesy combo though, if you think its that good, buy the models.

Army, ie, during our games for the considerable future -
Try to have the actual models, or a suitable stand in from another company, or a suitable conversion. Ie, Mantic elves = elves no problem. Lotherean sea guard = spearmen no problem.
Retardedly expensive models are no problem to be subbed with cheaper alternatives, as long as some effort is made to make them look cohesive. ie, Chaos knights = Blood knights is a bit iffy, Chaos knights with vampire paintjob = blood knights, not bad, chaos steeds with terrorgheist rider = blood knight no problem.
Characters - Converted out of normal guys? Yeah cool, try and make it look cool though. Converted out of several plastic kits? Definitely okay with.
Chaos marines as grey knights? - Have you been using the same models for every powerful marine dex since 4th? Not so cool. Not WYSIWG? Not cool either. Not intending to ever convert them to GK, or paint them, or make them WYSIWYG? Probably wouldnt play army again :/

These are the standards I hold myself to, and prefer others to hold themself to.

shelfunit.
13-12-2011, 22:25
I voted 1,3,7 and 10, but I do have some additional points/reasons for my choices than those availible (on hindsight I probably should have voted 4 as well). A SM is a SM, and I wouldn't have a problem playing unpainted marines as whatever chapter I was told they were. If they were painted red I would expect them to be Blood Angels and so on though - if I knew which army they were suppose to be before hand - as with anything like that - I would be ok. As long as the majority of the models are equiped with the same as they have been modeled with, again no problems - for fantasy really this only requires a front rank as these are what you generally look at in the game.
I also voted for the models are just gaming pieces - and during a battle to me that is all they are. Post battle I can (and will) admire them for the little works of art they can be, but on the table in a game they could be lumps of plasticine with toothpicks jabbed in them - as long as I could readily, and without additional reference tell what they were suppose to be.
Wargaming can be an expensive hobby, but it also is a very community driven hobby, which to me means having a game against an unpainted/proxy/counts as army is preferable to sulking in a corner refusing to play someone because they don't yet have all the "correct" toy soldiers.

EDIT: I have personal standards (which I try and hold to as much as possible) such as having the "correct" units - correct armour/weapons etc and I really prefer my own models to be painted before a game, but I would never project these standards onto my opponents.

Nautyboy
13-12-2011, 22:33
Proxying and count-as does bug me to a degree, but I can afford to maintain my armies with the correct troops, not all the local players can.

The local club has a nice little rule in regard of this: Junior members can count anything as anything, or borrow club figures, as long as each unit or chara is accompanied by one of the club's 'count-as' cards; which detail name, and important rules for all players to see.

Senior members (18 years and older) cannot do this and must seek the approval of their opponent to sub troops.

I know that, in this age of tighter pockets few people can dig into their wallets every week for all the latest tech, but if I see one more Smurf army under a Blood Angel Codex, I'll flip. Their figure, their choice, but it is not a thing I can do myself..... :D

Hellebore
13-12-2011, 23:33
Counts as is one of the greatest concepts in gaming. It allows people to create really interesting armies and still play with them.

Even if a person is simply 'abusing' the concept by swapping marine armies (and it's almost entirely a marine problem due to GW's fetish for them), they are doing nothing wrong. The miniatures ARE game pieces. GW uses counts as - miniatures rules change with editions so GW's counts as rules are even looser than our own. Lastly, if a codex is allowed to be used then it's allowed to be used. The rules are all you are interacting with in a game. Therefore if a codex is allowed to be used then it doesn't matter what plastic is used to represent it.

There is only one legitimate reason to complain about counts as - if it causes extensive confusion in the opponent and results in them doing the wrong things during game because they can't remember what unit does what. However, most players don't know the rules of every enemy army ANYWAY, so in the end not knowing the rules of an opposing eldar army and not knowing which unit is counting as which in another one result in the same confusion.

When subjective arguments about the COLOUR of an army and/or the shape of its markings drive people to leave their models unpainted to allow them to claim them to be any army, there's a problem with the argument.

So long as you know what is what then there is no reason not to play. The colour of an army doesn't affect the rules it uses. If someone says 'you jumped to the next powerful codex' all they are saying is 'you are using a new legal GW codex to play with the same figures. You did it cheaper than me BOO!'

The argument gets really silly. Is it ok for someone to paint their blood angels red, then swap to space wolves and paint the same models grey? Then silver for grey knights? Yes. no? They're still using the same models that would have caused outrage in people had they been left the same colour. Could I just paint them really well in one style and say that I COULD paint them again in another colour to use a different army list, but I'd prefer to leave them as is?

This is the problem with relying on subjective arguments, being subjective you can't draw hard lines on anything. The only thing that matters in the game is the rules, what those rules are represented by is entirely arbitrary.

Of course people have the right not to play a game against whoever they want for no reason at all. But claiming that counts as is a legitimate reason to deny a game is fallacious.

Hellebore

ForgottenLore
13-12-2011, 23:38
Yeah, what Hellebore said!

scarletsquig
13-12-2011, 23:54
If your space marines are a different colour, just say that it's a successor chapter.

Only got chaos marine models? Renegade, pre-heresy chapter.

Easy.

New Cult King
14-12-2011, 00:36
I saw a post recently in 40K Gen I think, where a gamer couldn't afford all the new GK minis, so modelled up his existing Black Templars with storm bolters and power weapons and painted them silver so he could have a GK army, and people gave him grief about it. I don't think that's fair - he made a more than reasonable effort to make them into GK models - he wasn't just bandwagon jumping.

I also saw someone start a thread about using the Ork codex, but Zombie minis, to make a sci-fi zombie army. This was received more favourably, and I think it's a fantastic idea.

I am tempted by the idea of getting Blood Angel minis, painting them in blues, and using the SM Codex rules to make a chapter called the "Angels of Sorrow". Sure, BA minis, but vanilla rules - does that count as counts-as?

sigur
14-12-2011, 01:54
As with most things, it depends. If someone puts the effort and thought into his models and it doesn't completely violate the background I'm okay with it. I'm not when the guy clearly is just trying to make up a justification to use Codex BA for his Khorne Berzerkers or whatever. Still, even in this case, I'm willing to make exceptions if the army is nicely painted and the player seems like a good guy. I am however quite a bit pickier about Space Marines than other things. If some people and GW like so much to pretend that some Space Marines chapters are so completely different amongst each other it's not too cool if people just switch codices. I will turn down hardly any opponent's army in real life but there clearly seem to be some people around who take it too far. If the models are there and look nice that's a huge plus but if someone shows up with a half-assembled army of Chaos Space Marines and claims that they are Blood Angels, Space Wolves or Grey Knights... whatever.

In the end, it always depends.

TimLeeson
14-12-2011, 02:37
There is no Poll option for those of us who love counts-as because it allows us to use convert and make armies based on races that have no official model-line but do have backround (hrud, enslavers,barghesi) - or races and factions that were discontinued (arbites, squats, slaan, zoats ect).

Etienne de Beaugard
14-12-2011, 02:58
As long as the reason for the counts-as enhances the gaming experience for both players, all is good. Cool conversions and home-brew races are great examples of this. Things become problematic when counts-as is used to confuse the opponent or to seek advantage in the game.

SotF
14-12-2011, 04:15
Since my group only recently started with the current rules (We'd been primarily playing straight out of the 3rd Edition boxes set rule book with an exception for a couple people with armies not included in it), I've been using my Marines with the Grey Knights rules.

I'd had the entire group in Death Watch gear and had been using an Inquisitor and an Assassin as part of the force from the Heroes of the Imperium list the older books had.

They make more sense as part of the inquisition than part of a normal chapter anyway with the background I'd been using for them since I'd first assembled and painted them.

In Fantasy, my army has 0 GW models in it as far as I know (There's a single mini that I don't know the source of, but it doesn't look like a GW one) and it's Vampire Counts. Primarily Mantic with Reaper, Old Glory, and a few other companies making the rest of the pieces.

IJW
14-12-2011, 10:05
There is no Poll option for those of us who love counts-as because it allows us to use convert and make armies based on races that have no official model-line but do have backround (hrud, enslavers,barghesi) - or races and factions that were discontinued (arbites, squats, slaan, zoats ect).

This. There is a vast gulf between what I use the term 'counts as' for (playing my Squats using the Ork codex, Spectrar Ghost's quote from the Epic rules etc.) and 'proxying' (all these Meltaguns are actually Plasma Guns).

Theodred
14-12-2011, 11:12
Even if a person is simply 'abusing' the concept by swapping marine armies (and it's almost entirely a marine problem due to GW's fetish for them), they are doing nothing wrong...
Of course people have the right not to play a game against whoever they want for no reason at all. But claiming that counts as is a legitimate reason to deny a game is fallacious.

Hellebore

It depends on the behaviour of the gamer in question. If he's simply proxying models to gain an advantage over me on the table-top I consider it to be unsporting, and repeated instances of this will make me less likely to want to play that person.

It's the same as list-tailoring. It's fine if both players know what they're getting into, but frustrating when one player does it consistently without warning.

Freakiq
14-12-2011, 11:56
I'm okay with counts as if you can stick to a codex.

If you want to make a Minotaurs army using Blood Angels rules I'm fine with that, but don't jump ship when the new Black Templars codex comes out.
Sure, a lot of it is still WYSIWYG but any veteran skills and special rules aren't which just makes it frustrating.

6mmhero
14-12-2011, 14:05
I really don't like proxies except for a one off game.

Count as is a little tricky, I have plenty of figures from other ranges that have been put on to the correct bases and used. I always make sure my opponent is clear what the figures are etc. An example is that I have used Epic Revenant Titans as Wraith Guard in my Eldar army, some of the bases have S/M Helmets etc on so you can see they are meant to be 40k

Marine armies are the tricky ones if you ask me, I never used to mind which colour an army was painted until a few years ago. One friend codex hopped so much just for the rules it got annoying not knowing which "chapter" you were up against.

At the end of the day providing someone points out what something should be and it is on the correct base then I don't mind so much.

Spiney Norman
14-12-2011, 15:40
I don't seem to be able to select options that represent my considered view, so I'll try to articulate it here

I will allow my opponents to proxy entire units as a one-off. I'm totally fine if my opponent wants to try out a new unit or weapon configuration to see how it goes then thats fine. What I don't like is people who routinely field entire counts-as armies to avoid actually buying the models they need to field the army they want.

I'm also totally fine with people buying say wood elf glade guard and then painting them in-scheme with their high elf army because they (quite rightly) think the HE archer models look crap.

ihavetoomuchminis
14-12-2011, 16:45
I don't seem to be able to select options that represent my considered view, so I'll try to articulate it here

I will allow my opponents to proxy entire units as a one-off. I'm totally fine if my opponent wants to try out a new unit or weapon configuration to see how it goes then thats fine. What I don't like is people who routinely field entire counts-as armies to avoid actually buying the models they need to field the army they want.

I'm also totally fine with people buying say wood elf glade guard and then painting them in-scheme with their high elf army because they (quite rightly) think the HE archer models look crap.


This is quite my Point of view too. For trying a unit before buying? Right. I do it once in a while (not many times, because i'm more a collector than a player).

For taking advantage? Nope.

And i hate those games where 4 mounted heroes are a horse primed white, and i have to remember wich equipment carries each one, and in a strange way, the proper character always ends fighting against the proper unit (OH, my Heroic Killing blow hero is JUST THE ONE fighting against your monster, and yes, my "immune to killing blow" hero is just the one who is in a challenge with your KB hero...i told you at the start of the game, don't you remember? "emm...if you say so....").

And i don't feel comfortable with Space Marine Codex switch. Because 99% of the time, it is made EXCLUSIVELY for gaining advantage, and because it is unfair, IMO, that a player can play 4 or 5 different armies with the same models, while others have to buy differents sets of models to play just 2 different armies.

Scaryscarymushroom
14-12-2011, 17:29
...because it is unfair, IMO, that a player can play 4 or 5 different armies with the same models, while others have to buy differents sets of models to play just 2 different armies.

Several players would disagree that it is unfair that Space marines are as versatile as they are. What about the Space Marine codex switch-back? As in New Cult King's example? Using blood angels models with vanilla marines rules. Would you stop a player with a Space Wolf army from using the Chaos Space Marine codex? (That is, the current one written for 4th ed., not the one rumored to be coming out next year.)

After all, a human with a sword and shield can be a barbarian hero, a messenger, a rank & file trooper, a ranger, empire militia, a crusader, etc... and mantic's ghouls could make for good zombies/ghouls/cultists/vampires. If you stretch it, they could even be good rogue psykers or inquisitorial henchmen.

How much difference is there between Gnoblars and Goblins? If a person played Ogre Kingdoms and wanted to give Orcs & Goblins a try, it seems they should be able to repurpose their models. Likewise, beastmen would make for a good khorne army (see OOP bloodletter) (http://ironart.webs.com/undefined/bloodletters.jpg) and a those OOP bloodletters would be perfectly at home in a beastmen army.

For me, the shape of a model is what the model is all about. If you like space marines, buy space marines. Hate their rules? Then use a different rules set. But within reason; no "This space marine is a Dark Eldar voidraven bomber" for instance.

(If you call it a super-assault space marine and trick me into thinking it has the same rules as a voidraven bomber, however, I would be none the wiser. I have no idea what voidraven bombers are like. So if I was unaware such a thing as a voidraven bomber existed I might actually be impressed. I would more readily believe my opponent, though, if they tried to field a stormraven or a Cassus assault ram or something and give it a dark eldar vehicle's rules.)

Whitwort Stormbringer
14-12-2011, 19:08
Interesting thread!

I voted 1, 3, 5, 6, & 8.

I had typed up a lengthy response but SpineyNorman pretty much hit the nail on the head as far as my opinion goes, as well.

To sum up:

As others have said, mainly as long as who's who and what's what isn't terribly confusing, then I'm not going to complain too much. I'm OK with counts-as armies as long as they're fairly consistent with the rules they're representing.

I suppose it's also worth pointing out that I prefer internal consistency in a counts-as army, i.e. if the profile has a big gun then the model representing it should have some sort of apparent ranged attack (doesn't have to be a gun necessarily, maybe a staff to zap people or a dragon with a breath weapon). Also, differently armed units should be distinquishable on the tabletop, such as spearmen from swordsmen from warriors with two-handed weapons. Otherwise I'm really not too terribly picky.

Basically for me it boils down to this: if you like models and can make them a convincing part of your army then go for it. Gnoblars as goblins is fine, wood elves in a dark elf army works (assuming you did some kind of conversion or painting to make them look like dark elves, or at least have a well-thought out fluff justification for the alliance), marines as various other sorts of marines is fair game (again, assuming that at least the equipment is representative of the profile).

I selected 8 because I'm not really sure how people would differentiate counts-as and proxying. I'm fine with running a model that is a blatant mismatch for the profile if it's for "test run" purposes, to see how you like a unit or how it performs in your list before dropping a bunch of cash and time on it.

bolshie
14-12-2011, 22:52
It's a matter of standards.

What makes it worse is the assumption that people should just accept it.

shelfunit.
14-12-2011, 23:14
It's a matter of standards.

Whilst true, I (personally) consider it rude to impose your own standards on other people.


What makes it worse is the assumption that people should just accept it.

Well, as a temporary solution, yes, it should be accepted and generally is. Until the "correct" model or some form of alternate with broadly similar appearence can be acquired anyway. I don't think the majority of people saying that it is fine (myself included) consider the counts-as models to be a permanent solution.

silashand
15-12-2011, 02:34
I don't mind if the counts-as is well done, painted nicely and is within a coherent theme for the army. I despise counts as when models are painted like Blood Angel/Ultramarine/Space Wolves/generic marines and then used for whatever marine flavor of the month is the most powerful. I play the game mostly for the background and the latter type of "counts as" destroys that imagery IMO. It makes the games *MUCH* less enjoyable IMO.

Voss
15-12-2011, 02:56
I don't mind if the counts-as is well done, painted nicely and is within a coherent theme for the army. I despise counts as when models are painted like Blood Angel/Ultramarine/Space Wolves/generic marines and then used for whatever marine flavor of the month is the most powerful. I play the game mostly for the background and the latter type of "counts as" destroys that imagery IMO. It makes the games *MUCH* less enjoyable IMO.

Pretty much agree. I used GK models as the basis for my Black Templar command squad. But... all inquisition iconography is removed. Most of the GK iconography is removed (books gone, swords by themselves stayed if it was convenient, as did stray grails). Shoulder pads were replaced by BT pads, weapons match BT options, no GK stormbolters (partially since they're just badly done). GK helms were switched with a variety of helmets from the command squad box, the BT sprue and general SM helms (GK helmets went to the assault squad). And they are in process of being painted up strictly in BT colours.

By my way of thinking this, it helps makes the command squad visually distinct but still a recognizable part of the army as a whole, and they won't be passed around from Codex to Codex like a drunken sailor. To me, thats an acceptable conversion rather than a convenience- planning, conversion work and painting all went into the models in order to make them part of the larger whole.

Lord Inquisitor
15-12-2011, 03:31
As with the other thread the terminology is all muddled. Most people agree on the same things but since people use the terms interchangeably it gets confused.

Proxying is generally bad. It's confusing, lazy, cheap and all the problems people have with this sort of thing.

"Counts as" is generally awesome. It's imaginative, liberating and a vital tool for most of the coolest themed armies.

Lockjaw
15-12-2011, 04:07
it depends what we mean by counts as, if I'm playing an army of tyranids represented by pennies, then I'm not going to be too into it. if I'm playing a chaos SM army made up of dark eldaer converted to look more chaotic, maybe give me some visual cue what the units are, otherwise I'm fine by it.

Proxying vs. counts as always annoys me on wyrd forums too. to me, proxy is when you use said pennies to represent termagaunts, or a shoebox for a land raider, counts as could be when you used the shoebox to make a very impressive cardboard landraider, wyrd forums they tend to like using proxy for anything used in place of a wyrd mini.

I've been working off and on on a chaos SOB army afterall, so can't complain

Sgt John Keel
15-12-2011, 08:18
I'm fine with it as long as it isn't for power gaming on the cheap.

So, if you're using Dragon Princes (with at least a token of effort) as Blood Knights because you don't like the "official" models, or because you think you can do better, or because of an undead elf theme, fine.

If you're using out-of-the-box Dragon Princes for Blood Knights because the rules looked really good but you just didn't want to spend the money, even though you think that the Blood Knights are better models, I'm less inclined to approve. Might as well play with counters, then.

So, if it's done as an outlet for your creativity, awesome, if it's done to win the game, not so awesome.

And one-off "today my High Elves are Empire" are generally fine by me, with prior warning.

tu33y
15-12-2011, 10:20
And i don't feel comfortable with Space Marine Codex switch. Because 99% of the time, it is made EXCLUSIVELY for gaining advantage, and because it is unfair, IMO, that a player can play 4 or 5 different armies with the same models, while others have to buy differents sets of models to play just 2 different armies.

nail, head.

if you dream up your own chapter, the Imperial Do-dahs or the Purple Wotsits, you can play them as anything, even chaos if your a loyalist... but ideally you should keep that codex for as long as you can.

if you play Blodd angels, USE the the blood Angels codex. Ultramarines, use the vanilla codex.

pick a codex, stick with it. build your own narrative around your own army

pscm
15-12-2011, 14:11
I think as long as both players are cool with it its ok =] I think I'd feel a bit niggled by it at first if another player did it but as long as the game is played in good spirit then its fine =] Its about having fun and I think the gaming aspect of the hobby is more about pitting your strategy and wits against another, regardless of what their army looks like. That being said, I'd probably be more cool with it if there was a genuine reason for a proxy/counts-as either thematic or financial. Just my thoughts =]

That being said, I dont think I agree with it as a cop-out, if the player is lazy and isn't interested in creating his army whatever it may be then I would have a more negative point of view.

bolshie
15-12-2011, 20:10
Well, as a temporary solution, yes, it should be accepted and generally is. Until the "correct" model or some form of alternate with broadly similar appearence can be acquired anyway. I don't think the majority of people saying that it is fine (myself included) consider the counts-as models to be a permanent solution.

Standards is a two way street.

The problem is that the temporary solution often remains so, as the player involved moves from one army to the next, often with the proxies getting further and further from the figures they represent, and rarely, if ever, painted.

And rarely is it an enjoyable game.

btw, if it is the odd figure, or things not being exactly WYSIWYG, I'm not bothered, my comment is more about masses of grey plastic masquerading as whatever...

Skyth
16-12-2011, 00:07
When I was playing 40k, I used my Marines as whatever chapter I wished (They had 13 companies and each company had a different specialty...Thus different Traits/codex).

I purposfully didn't paint my marines with the colors of a specific Chapter because of the holier-than-thou 'wrong bad fun!' people if you weren't using the 'right' rules...

I have 6 40k armies, and like a lot of variety in what I'm playing. Using a different trait/codex every time allowed me to have more fun through more variety without having to buy/assemble/paint more models.

I think the last game of 40k I played (In 4th ed), I used the Dark Angels rules (Back when they were worse than generics)

Hellebore
16-12-2011, 02:41
nail, head.

if you dream up your own chapter, the Imperial Do-dahs or the Purple Wotsits, you can play them as anything, even chaos if your a loyalist... but ideally you should keep that codex for as long as you can.

if you play Blodd angels, USE the the blood Angels codex. Ultramarines, use the vanilla codex.

pick a codex, stick with it. build your own narrative around your own army

What advantage would that be? They aren't stealing units from one codex to use in their own, they're playing with one set of rules. The only perceived advantage is a monetary one, being able to exploit the similarities between their models and the codex to use another one.

But to argue that using another codex is an ADVANTAGE is to say ANYONE using that codex is at an advantage. Thus the codex is the problem, not the miniatures or the player.

If someone else can use that codex in the gaming group with no problems, then there is NO arguement to justify not letting someone else use the codex because their models are a different colour. Any game you play against them is using exactly the same rules, advantages and limitations that anyone else using that codex will have.

There is no advantage to using another codex unless that codex is so broken that no one allows its use. In which case there's no problem because no one can use it.

God this argument irritates the hell out of me. People are trying to use game reasons to justify a purely subjective opinion. There is no GAME reason apart from confusion of what things do (which is ameliorated by the fact that few people know what their enemy is using ANYWAY regardless of counts as or not) for someone to use a different codex.

What this argument boils down to is this:

You can only 'gain advantage' with a new codex by spending hundreds of dollars on an army to counts as all the units in it (counts as is a universal thing as I've said before - GW Counts As their own models every edition).

Basically it's ok to cheat if you've spent money. But cheating for free is just not on.:rolleyes:

Hellebore

Gwyddyon
16-12-2011, 02:43
I use miniatures, painted when I can, for my Fantasy armies, but I proxy almost everything. As in I use almost no GW minis. I'm in it primarily for the game, not "The HobbyTM". I really don't care what my opponents do. I've played games of Epic using pieces of paper and had a great time. If you bring empty bases with names printed on them, that's good enough for me.

Feorag
16-12-2011, 06:51
Counts as I use
Dragon Ogre - counts as razorgor (Beastmen)

Minotaur - counts as ogre (WoC)

Bestigor - Marauders with gw (WoC)

Not much of a 40k player myself so not dealt with things like chaos marines as normal marines as the book is better etc

But i use counts as because Dragon ogres look a lot better than razorgors, and I miss beasts in my WoC army as I like it to look somewhat like it did in 5th and 6th ed.

Theodred
16-12-2011, 10:32
Basically it's ok to cheat if you've spent money. But cheating for free is just not on.:rolleyes:

Hellebore

I guess the issue for me is that I choose my armies based on aesthetic and background, and I look down on people who choose their army based on power. Switching rules just because you want to use a more powerful codex is, IMO, bad form.

Hellebore
16-12-2011, 10:42
I guess the issue for me is that I choose my armies based on aesthetic and background, and I look down on people who choose their army based on power. Switching rules just because you want to use a more powerful codex is, IMO, bad form.

But in the end your problem is that the codex is 'more powerful' who or why someone plays it is irrelevant. Shouldn't you be annoyed at people with more money than sense who go and drop a few hundred to have a 'more powerful' army? Why is one not looked down on just because they have more money? Does having lots of money make you a pillar of virtue, someone who can do no wrong? Are they buying this new army out of the goodness of their heart? Or is the only difference between them and the proxier that one spent money and the other didn't? Whay does spending money on something give you the moral righ to be a bastard and play a 'more powerful' codex?

There are people out there that buy an army, then sell it and get the next one. They are effectively doing what a proxier does, except swapping miniatures instead of buying more. They spent money once and then spend less each time. If they paint well enough then they can probably make a profit. Yet they are still doing exactly what a proxier does, 'jumping' to the next 'more powerful codex'.

These lines people draw are arbitrary and I find really bizarre. I never sell models, nor do I proxy if I can help it, entirely from a story/RPG aesthetic. But that's my choice on how to play the game. Just because I want to do it that way doesn't mean anyone else should, nor that it's somehow worse that they don't.

Hellebore

scarletsquig
16-12-2011, 10:44
I would be happy to play a game against My Little Pony figures as long as they were correctly based.

In fact, that would be awesome.

paddyalexander
16-12-2011, 11:20
I often use 40k minis to play Starship Toopers because its an an amazing ruleset with terrible minis compared to 40ks good minis with a terrible ruleset, would that be proxying or counts as? (Actualy being the only time my gw minis see tabletime outside of rpgs now.)

How about a WHFB Vampire Counts army with all models being what you see is what you get but every model being from Mantic, Avatars of War, Malifaux & Hoardes?

Personaly to me wysiwyg is more important than what the model looks like, what company produced it & what it is made out of. What about scratch builds? I remember back in 2nd ed 40k a friend and I built 4 Rhinos out of cereal box cardboard. We put a lot of effort into the design & construction of them, using multiple layers to create raised details. Once they were painted we often found opponents suprised that the models were cardboard. So proxy or counts as?

I do proxy models in Warmachine & Hoardes a lot, trying to stay as close to WYSIWYG as possible. PP regularly preview the full rules for new upcomming models in their magazine No Quarter. I also use it to playtest models/units to see how they fit with my own playstyle or how usefull they are based on my own experiences versus the interwebz. All done during friendly (non-tourny) games with my opponent clear on what model represents what. Never had any problems doing this, its a fairly common practice. I suppose different games = different attitudes.

Theodred
16-12-2011, 12:18
But in the end your problem is that the codex is 'more powerful' who or why someone plays it is irrelevant. Shouldn't you be annoyed at people with more money than sense who go and drop a few hundred to have a 'more powerful' army?

I do. I think the reason you choose an army should be because something about its background or aeshetic appeals to you.

shelfunit.
16-12-2011, 15:52
Standards is a two way street.

The problem is that the temporary solution often remains so, as the player involved moves from one army to the next, often with the proxies getting further and further from the figures they represent, and rarely, if ever, painted.

And rarely is it an enjoyable game.

btw, if it is the odd figure, or things not being exactly WYSIWYG, I'm not bothered, my comment is more about masses of grey plastic masquerading as whatever...

I agree standards are two way, and I do have some (base sizes, nothing I need to constantly ask "what the hell is that?"), and they will get stricter as time passes - I would hope someone does a bit of work on their army one month to the next - but people do have other, more pressing priorities in life, and I won't demand others spend the same amount of time on modelling/painting as I do, and not everyone is as financially well off as others, so unless my opp is constantly buying and not finishing armies I won't hold them to having the "right" models if this is not an immediate option for them.
I will agree that the temp solution can occasionally get out of hand - to be fair I have rarely encountered any full unit counts-as-ing, mostly it (with the increasing unit size for 8th) is using things like Empire halbrdiers (or other troops) to filling at the back for Greatswords etc, and I haven't felt my games to be deminished by it. Of course the "dream" is to play a battle with fully painted armies on both sides with the correct troop types represented by their requisite models*, but I am not overly bothered by the fac that this happens very rarely.
I completely agree that grey armies should be grey for as short a time as possible, but again (as above) some people don't have muhc time - as long a there is a bit of progress I won't mind.
Sorry for the long post :D

*I feel I have to explain this as often (and I am still a little confuddled by the exact definitions of them) when I talk about the "requisite models" or similar I mean for an empire spearman (for example) I basically mean a human model with a spear and generally lightly armored - unless enforced by location/tournement I don't consider GW models to be "requisite" - again an often confused mix-up between proxy and counts-as.

Lord Inquisitor
16-12-2011, 16:21
I would be happy to play a game against My Little Pony figures as long as they were correctly based.

In fact, that would be awesome.

No, no it wouldn't.

Okay maybe if they were armoured and toting appropriate weaponry. That might be a bit awesome. :shifty:


On topic, ultimately, the main argument against proxying or "counts as" is simple and can be summed up in two words: "it's confusing."

"Counts as" is cool when it's being used to model something not in the army list and use a close unit as a representation. Typically, though it's not confusing. In these cases usually the model in question will be designed specifically to be approximately matching in size and weapon loadout. In worst case where it bears no resemblance at all to the unit is it counting as, it's still not that bad because you're not going to confuse it with something else. You might have to ask your opponent "what was that giant squid with rocket launchers meant to be again?" but you aren't going to assault it thinking it was a rhino and it turns out to be a land raider.

Proxying is confusing because you can forget and assume the model is what it looks like. If your heavy bolters are lascannon and your rhinos are land raiders apart from the one with the aerial, which really is a rhino, etc., there's a real chance that your opponent will forget what's what to his detriment (and annoyance). Obviously the more you proxy the worse it gets. This is the issue with codex-switching - if your dudes are painted as ultramarines there's a world of difference in charging them compared with grey hunters.

Crazy Harborc
16-12-2011, 22:57
Don't have an "official company store" anymore.GW,USA had a plan. Anyway, That was what the customers were told....STILL waiting for a hint of a "plan" happening within 3-400 miles.

Proxies, stand-ins....don't bother me. I did require opponents to put papers with each unit and or characters, be they proxies, unpainted stand-ins or whatever.

I did and do give a new opponent sometime to get the painting done. These days most new opponents have been EAGER to start.;)

Hellebore
16-12-2011, 23:31
I do. I think the reason you choose an army should be because something about its background or aeshetic appeals to you.

Well then me and you are on the same page when it comes to GW's corporate machine.:p

But carrying over that opinion to other people means there are very few people left to play. You have to balance what you'd LIKE with what's available. This is probably why some people want to try and change others' minds on proxy practices - there aren't enough people around to be too choosy, even if you want to be.

@Lord Inquisitor, as I've said in the past confusion is about the only legitimate complaint, but I don't think it's much of a problem when proxying space marines.

In fact ironically the very reason for this discussion is also the one proxy that actually works with no real modifications. Guardians as ork boys is more confusing than ultramarine tacticals as grey hunters.

Pretty much the only marine army that's visually different from all the others is the grey knights. It's more of a stretch to proxy tacticals for grey knights due to the very specific melee equipment options. But any other marine force provides or should provide little to no confusion about what it does because they all use the same equipment with very little unique gear.

So in the end, the reason this argument exists at all (GW's obsession with making 50% of the current armies space marines) is also the least appropriate example for arguing AGAINST it, because they proxy very easily anyway. Which is generally WHY so many people do it, they're already using models that are 95% identical in appearance and wargear.

It's really only when you get to proxying termagants for necrons and so on that confusion can come in because they are vastly different. But a marine with a bolter is still a marine with a bolter.

For all the proxy players out there here's an idea that will make it virtually impossible for people to complain, no matter how much they might want to (assuming to don't just leave them in a permanent state of grey plastic or black undercoat:p):

Make a crusading space marine force. Paint each unit as a different chapter, specifically those units in a chapter that might be important (blood angels veteran assault squads etc). Then when you're choosing what codex to make just assemble the units you'll need, including those painted for that army.

What codex should a crusading force use? By some of the arguments used here, whichever one the majority are painted to represent. Any unique units are painted in the colours they're 'supposed' to be painted in anyway, so there should be no confusion... :shifty:

I bought a GW marine company during apocolypse to specifically make a crusading marine force so I could model each unit individually and paint them in different chapter colours (mainly the chapters I'd never painted before), led by shockhorror! an ultramarine captain and his surviving veterans. I was even going to paint some sergeants in the colours of other chapters, having taken over leading squads that had lost all experienced marines (the crusade being on extended campaign without resupply).

Of course like all the other ideas I've had over the past decade it's never been finished, but I liked the idea (it was inspired by a Horus Heresy artpiece showing space wolves carrying lasguns and lots of extra gear, I thought that would be a great unit to model).

Then I realised it's also perfect for people who want to use every marine codex with their marine force. If the army is made up of 10 different chapters, which one is the 'true' chapter they represent? Just let me roll a d6 on my 'marine of the month table':

1 - Dark Angels
2 - Ultramarines/Vulcan
3 - Blood Angels
4 - Space Wolves
5 - Black Templars
6 - Grey Knights

:shifty:

Hellebore

rodmillard
17-12-2011, 13:10
In general, I have no problem playing against counts as or proxy armies. Hell my VC army only contains 13 GW models (of which only 3 are actual Warhammer models - the rest are LotR), and I am using a mix of necromunda enforcers, classic arbites, and vehicles from other companies for my Warpath army.

That said, there are two occasions when counts-as annoys me:

It annoys me when people's use of counts-as interferes with WYSIWYG - I have no problem if you want to say all the grenade launchers in your guard army are actually plasmaguns (or vice versa), or even if you say that all your leman russes have heavy bolter sponsons regardless of how they have actually been modelled. But don't start saying "the flamers in this squad are meltaguns, but the ones in this squad are actually flamers and the one in my command section is a heavy flamer."

On a related point, it annoys me when people go to the trouble of painting up a space marine army in official colours and then say it's counting as a different codex (if you want to do that, at least have the decency to design your own chapter so that it can use whichever rules you like - when I see an army lovingly painted as Ultramarines I expect it to use the vanilla codex).

Misfratz
17-12-2011, 21:30
It really just does depend on the context.

So, if someone has an ace idea for a theme that involves using Dark Angels models, but Space Wolf rules then that is awesome. If however they're simply flitting about from one Space Marine codex to another on a whim, or to derive a competitive advantage, then I do not think that is cool.

Personally I think the models are more than just counters to play a game with. If they were just abstract game counters then I certainly wouldn't pay so much for them.

Skyth
17-12-2011, 21:37
If someone is flitting about from one Space Marine codex to another on a whim, they are likely doing it because they think it will be more fun.

Scaryscarymushroom
18-12-2011, 02:27
For all the proxy players out there here's an idea that will make it virtually impossible for people to complain, no matter how much they might want to (assuming to don't just leave them in a permanent state of grey plastic or black undercoat:p):

Make a crusading space marine force. Paint each unit as a different chapter, specifically those units in a chapter that might be important (blood angels veteran assault squads etc). Then when you're choosing what codex to make just assemble the units you'll need, including those painted for that army.

Hellebore

Funny enough, that's what I've decided to do with all the unfinished marines I have in the house.

Some Black Templars, some "desert fists" (Kind of a mud colored imperial fist), some deathwatch, some red scorpions. And when I get around to it, I'll probably supplement that with a chaos space marines battleforce or two.

:)

Misfratz
19-12-2011, 18:17
Hmm. I intend to play my Blood Angels using the standard Space Marines Codex, because I don't like the change GW introduced for them in 3rd edition.

I think that's fine.

I can see, though, that if the next Codex Space Marines is more powerful than the current Blood Angels Codex, many people will look down on me and assume I have been codex-hopping.