PDA

View Full Version : Codex Hopping: Yay or Nay?



Kaldor Draigo
02-02-2013, 01:38
How do people feel about codex hopping?

By which I mean, taking an army modelled and painted to be one thing, and using it as another? For example: Ultramarines using the Blood Angels rules? Or the other example: Deliberately leaving an army unpainted or undercoated so that it can be used with any given codex?

I'm not asking if you tolerate it or if you'd still play against it, but do you approve of it? Do you think it's a good idea, and are you happy to see it over the table from you?

omgadinosaur
02-02-2013, 01:56
If an ultramarine player wants to do first company by using dark angels, i don't have a problem.


Assuming its for power gaming purposes? I kind of find it annoying. Why should every power-armored model have access to 6 different rule sets when everyone else only has one?

I also think leaving armies only undercoated is a silly excuse. I might not enjoy Crimson Fists using the Space Wolf rule set, but I'll take Crimson Fists over plain black/ plain white/ plain plastic any day of the week.

Ronin_eX
02-02-2013, 03:07
Don't really see an issue with it myself. If someone is doing it for power gaming purposes then I still wont tend to care. Because in the end the only thing that makes him different than the guy with the "properly" modelled army (who may also be a power gamer) is cash and time. I refuse to distinguish between a more affluent power gamer and a less fortunate one. The second guy is no worse or better than the first. If they aren't doing it for power gaming purposes, then I continue not to care. Chances are their vision for how they want their army to work differs from the one prescribed by GW. These are often the guys who will go to a lot of trouble explaining why special rules are present in a list and what they represent and will come up with justifications for everything. Whether it is an Ultramarine player doing an 8th Company list using Blood Angels or an Eldar player running an old-school Corsair list using Dark Eldar rules to represent piratical raiders. And if, next week, they run them as Ultramarines using the Space Marine codex or as Craftworld Eldar using the Eldar codex, then more power to 'em.

I play a lot of games where the rules you use for units are in flux until you get together with friends and work out the scenario. At that point you grab stuff out of the collection that looks about right for what you are looking to do and have a game. The visuals and the rules are two separate and interchangeable things. So long as one vaguely backs up the other then I couldn't give two craps at how it does it.

As a personal example, after 4E came around with the Dark Angels codex, I played it for a good, long while. When the Space Marine codex came out, I got kind of fed up with the game and left it alone for most of 5th Edition. But when I did get back in for a bit, I ended up coming up with an alternate-history version of the Dark Angels that didn't go Codex-adherent after the Great Betrayal. They also kept a lot of the traditions of Caliban and that included the knightly orders. Each specialist unit was refluffed as a different order, with a unique fighting style. I basically used the SW codex to do a Great Crusade era Dark Angels list and it was tons of fun, and I had a lot of fun working out the alt-history fluff. It also helped that it wasn't a hopelessly crappy codex either so it made list-building and playing a lot less frustrating. I may not have abused any of the general power-gamer list archetypes (usually only one squad of Longfangs, never more than one Runepriest, etc.) but I know many would look down their noses at my audacity to "trade up".

But whatever, I had fun while I did it and that is all that should matter. Eventually it booted me in to writing my own codex for Dark Angels which I got to use a few times. Luckily, GW's vision of the Dark Angels and mine seems to have gotten a lot closer, and my faction was blessed with one of the first good codices we have ever received (outside of its one power-build, Angels of Death wasn't even that competitive since marines sucked quite a bit back then).

Carnage
02-02-2013, 03:51
Of course it's okay. Why should the codex you use be dictated by the color you painted your marines?

And what of custom paint schemes? Do they get carte blache to use whatever they want and red marines HAVE to be Blood Angels?

Forcing people to play using the appropriate codex to match their color scheme just encourages more unpainted armies, and people do not any more reasons to not paint their models.

TheDungen
02-02-2013, 11:47
no its annoying for the players and its not financially god for gw.

MikeyB
02-02-2013, 12:24
If you're playing a pace marine army you get no sympathy. Use the codex their supposed to use or gtfo. There are 6 different rulsets to choose from. If you want a BA army you use BA's or a successor chapter not smurphs. Otherwise i'll start saying "yeah my craftworld eldar use dark eldar rules because they're from Craftworld Evilmcdoom and now you have to remember what all my units actually are". Lets see how many people like that....

Muad'Dib
02-02-2013, 12:42
I don't think DA or BA (or other SM chapter codexes) fit any force of Ultramarines other than extremely specific themes (1st company, assault company). But in case of themed forces, it's not even codex hopping - because the person hasn't been able to field this force/theme with vanilla SM codex.
So I'm against giving normal SMs additional power by using codexes with more competitive rules.

Misfratz
02-02-2013, 12:44
I can't give a simple answer to this, because for me motivations matter, because it is indicative of a player's overall approach.

So, for example, if the "codex hopping" is because it enables an interesting idea that the obvious codex doesn't then that is brilliant.

If a person is switching from codex to codex in search of the one that gives them the best chance of winning then... I don't think they are in the same hobby as me, and I wish them all the fun in the world playing against like minded people, but I don't think I would enjoy such a game.

Wargaming is a diverse hobby - there is no right or wrong answer - but it cannot be all things for all people at all times.

Radium
02-02-2013, 12:47
If someone does it purely for the power gain: sure, I'll bring my tournament list and we'll see how many of your silly power armoured dudes are still around at the end of it all.

I'd still rather see people would stick to one army and master that instead of trying to get some more power the easy way. People fielding an army they love (and have spend quite some time painting/converting/collecting) almost always bring a better and more interesting game than a codex-hopper.

MajorWesJanson
02-02-2013, 12:55
I have a custom chapter that is an Iron Hands sucessor, but I use whatever Marine codex I feel like for a game. The stuff is all WSYWYG, so MIKEYB's complaints don't matter. I don't do it to power game, or to win (most lists I run in my local league are chosen to use units that need painted, to give me motivation to paint the stupid things) but I like the ability to change books so I can try different units or characters. If I feel like an armored list, I'll run BA for the larger selection of vehicles, fast vehicles, and dedicated land raiders. Space Wolves if I want to run a lot of characters. Marines for a mixed list, often running with Kantor because I like Sternguard and Storm Talons.

Ulthwe's Tears
02-02-2013, 13:01
I have no problem with people using their marine armies with whichever codex they desire so long as the models are representative. If you say that you are playing Dark Angels then bikers obviously=ravenwing bikers irrespective of the missing crests/green colours. But using regular combat terminators as Deathwing knights wouldn't work. If you see what I am saying...

Nikolaus
02-02-2013, 18:09
some things work and makes more sense for other dex's to get your ideals across.

Like Heresy Era Thousand Sons can only really be played using GK dex, as trying with anything else to get as many psykers into an army as possible just falls flat.

Gorewing using SW dex works.. as Khorne got shafted in the chaos dex.

terradax
02-02-2013, 18:17
I allow it, but am not a big fan of it. Have a friend who have painted a really good Space Marine army (a chapter of his own making), and constantly use them as Blood Angels. Saying it's a Blood Angels successor chapter, that I have no problem with, but when the assault squads, death company and vanguards all look the same, THEN I'll have some problems...

Dr Zoidberg
02-02-2013, 21:36
...and its not financially god for gw.

Then - at the risk of being off topic - perhaps GW should make its products affordable enough for people to be able to buy multiple armies, instead of having to codex hop because they can't afford or justify forking out for multiple armies.

IcedCrow
03-02-2013, 01:01
Im not a fan and it ruins the aesthetics of the game for me when world eaters are really Blood Angels in disguise.

Its typically done in my experience for powergaming purposes and im not really a fan of that style of playing.

To each their own.

Grocklock
03-02-2013, 07:51
There's a chap at the local store who is known to hop, sometimes they are blood angels sometimes there wolves. Tmhim this was ok as they where all marines.

Strangle when i said I will be running deathwing using my mega nobs, that was breaking the spirit of the game

Szalik
03-02-2013, 08:23
I have no problem with people doing it as long as they have their miniatures painted and as long as it makes at least some sense. Marine players are in position where they can use a few codecii without having to change miniatures too much, why not use it.

I, for example have DYI chapter based mainly on C:SM codex but with two branches using C:SW and C:CSM. That means some of my rhinos, land raiders and tactical squad marines are interchangeable. Moreover most of my vehicles are interchangeable with Grey Knights and Sisters of Battle forces that I own too.

Bike heavy list taken from codex DA with miniatures painted like White Scars is ok. World eaters using GK codex is not ok. Thousand Sons using GK codex is fine with me as long as they are converted and painted. Aesthetics, paint scheme and player's declaration backed with at least some fluff is what makes an army for me, not the codex used.

Craftworld Eldar using DE list would be ok (craftworld pirates or something like that ? sounds good to me).

NemoSD
03-02-2013, 08:30
I have no problem with people doing it as long as they have their miniatures painted and as long as it makes at least some sense. Marine players are in position where they can use a few codecii without having to change miniatures too much, why not use it.

I, for example have DYI chapter based mainly on C:SM codex but with two branches using C:SW and C:CSM. That means some of my rhinos, land raiders and tactical squad marines are interchangeable. Moreover most of my vehicles are interchangeable with Grey Knights and Sisters of Battle forces that I own too.

Bike heavy list taken from codex DA with miniatures painted like White Scars is ok. World eaters using GK codex is not ok. Thousand Sons using GK codex is fine with me as long as they are converted and painted. Aesthetics, paint scheme and player's declaration backed with at least some fluff is what makes an army for me, not the codex used.

Craftworld Eldar using DE list would be ok (craftworld pirates or something like that ? sounds good to me).

Got a guy out here who has 'one' Marine Chapter, but he runs each company from a different book. His First company is Deathwing from DA, his 2nd is the Puppies, 3rd is the Blood Angels, 4th, is Codex Vanilla, 5th is Ravenwing, and his Reserve companies are Black Templar. He has the models for all the companies, and he could field the entire chapter if he wanted to. (And has at an apoc game.)

Horus Lupercal
03-02-2013, 09:10
That sounds quite cool actually. Do you think you could get a whole army pic for us??

As for codex hoppers I don't like it to be fair. Pick a list and play with it. I'm not against people doing ultramarines 8th coy as codex BA or 1st coy with DA but when it changes game to game I draw the line.

Ruination Drinker
03-02-2013, 09:24
If you voted nay I hope you walk from any game where your opponent proxy's a model or doesn't have absolutely perfect representations of the models they intend to play with. I also hope that you are millionaires and will give your money freely to those who in this time of worldwide economic hardship so that they can purchase all the necessary models to acheive compliance with your wishes so that they don't infrige on you right to enjoy the hobby in the purest way possible. Perhaps there should be some sort of regulatory commission to enforce these strictures that would shave the heads of any player playing primer grey marines so we can trot them out on the streets and throw rotten vegetables at them?

Cthell
03-02-2013, 10:52
If you voted nay I hope you walk from any game where your opponent proxy's a model or doesn't have absolutely perfect representations of the models they intend to play with. I also hope that you are millionaires and will give your money freely to those who in this time of worldwide economic hardship so that they can purchase all the necessary models to acheive compliance with your wishes so that they don't infrige on you right to enjoy the hobby in the purest way possible. Perhaps there should be some sort of regulatory commission to enforce these strictures that would shave the heads of any player playing primer grey marines so we can trot them out on the streets and throw rotten vegetables at them?

You might want to check the terms of the poll


I'm not asking if you tolerate it or if you'd still play against it, but do you approve of it? Do you think it's a good idea, and are you happy to see it over the table from you?

I'm willing to play against a codex hopper, but that doesn't mean I approve unreservedly.

Horus Lupercal
03-02-2013, 10:55
Drinker I'm guessing that you are a codex hopper yourself.

Malagor
03-02-2013, 11:21
While I can see the reason to codex hop sometimes, I in the end, don't approve of it.
This could be due to the place where I play that is more casual in nature and we have had discussions regarding codex hopping.
And in the end it was determined to be a bad move to be codex hopping as it would in the end be about power gaming.
Now this is not to say that we don't allow proxying models or look down on that but if constantly switching codex, you will be told to pick one and go with it.

Misfratz
03-02-2013, 12:16
If you voted nay I hope you walk from any game where your opponent proxy's a model or doesn't have absolutely perfect representations of the models they intend to play with. I also hope that you are millionaires and will give your money freely to those who in this time of worldwide economic hardship so that they can purchase all the necessary models to acheive compliance with your wishes so that they don't infrige on you right to enjoy the hobby in the purest way possible. Perhaps there should be some sort of regulatory commission to enforce these strictures that would shave the heads of any player playing primer grey marines so we can trot them out on the streets and throw rotten vegetables at them?Oh, please. Save us the histrionics.

We are talking about a leisure activity which people are free to enjoy as they wish. They are not obliged to enjoy it in the way that you enjoy it. You do not have a right to insist that they enjoy it in your chosen way.

If some people don't like codex hopping then go find someone else to play against. It doesn't have to be a big drama.

MikeyB
03-02-2013, 12:34
If codex hopping is fien im going to hop from the crappy WD update sisters got back to the which hunters codex and see how many people approve of that...

LokkoRex
03-02-2013, 14:10
MikeyB: i'd do. can i bring my 3,5 Edition chaos too?

seb2304
03-02-2013, 16:01
it is ok when used to match fluffe.g. white scars using ba codex to represent chogorian rage..

Horus Lupercal
03-02-2013, 16:15
Because that's in the fluff?? Where did you read that because iv never heard of it. Scars have a book, codex SM and it fits them perfectly!!

NemoSD
03-02-2013, 16:27
That sounds quite cool actually. Do you think you could get a whole army pic for us??

As for codex hoppers I don't like it to be fair. Pick a list and play with it. I'm not against people doing ultramarines 8th coy as codex BA or 1st coy with DA but when it changes game to game I draw the line.

Do my best, he is not the best painter in the world, and I have pointed at least a hundred of his dudes, so the paint job varies as he pays others to paint his stuff, and does some of it himself, it is very hodge podge. :-p

Vaktathi
03-02-2013, 19:58
Very few people I'd imagine approve of it, it defeats the underlying nature of having multiple factions in most instances, which often also provides really good reasons that many of these factions *don't* need to be their own individual releases.

That said, if you're playing marines with a DIY color scheme, well, there's not really much that's tying you to one book.

stroller
03-02-2013, 20:03
I voted no, but that's not the whole answer.

Intent matters. I can't quantify it, but if my opponent is trying TOO hard to win, then it's not fun. Needless to say, I've never played a tournament in my life, and have no plans to start.

Codex hopping FOR ADVANTAGE I object to: codex hopping for variety is fine. Don't know if that makes sense, but it works for me.

Gorbad Ironclaw
03-02-2013, 20:56
If codex hopping is fien im going to hop from the crappy WD update sisters got back to the which hunters codex and see how many people approve of that...

That would be fine with me. Or you could use a Marine book, or Tau or whatever float your boat. As long as you make it playable then it will be fine(so no having identically painted bolter sisters be different things, etc).

Of course these days I'd probably prefer to play 2nd end if I am to play 40k but we can use any ruleset, it won't make that much of a difference.

Gu Long: Ancient Dragon
03-02-2013, 21:03
I've voted yes, but for me it's only if it truly fits the army better. For example I play Flesh Tearers, for most games I use C: BA but I also have a first company list so I use C: DA. Used old one now use new one as allows for termi list. However I would not use the new Vanilla marine dex to do my basic list just coz it was better.

Hope tht made sense lol

Gu

Archaon
03-02-2013, 21:16
Not a big fan of it for a few reasons:

- I choose my armies on both visual style and playstyle the rules enable.. rule of cool if you will. It's ok to try out a different rulesset with non-fitting miniatures in a private setting but if you are playing public and want to play the new, tournament ruling army at least loan the models if you can't afford them. Playing is as much style as it's rules

- It invites huge misunderstanding.. if by example someone uses Ultramarine Terminators to play Deathwing at a tournament (and the organizers allow it for some reason) who is to say one can tell which unit are Deathwatch Knights or which Assault Cannon bearing dude is actually toting a Plasma Cannon? I see actual problems if in the heat of the moment people forget what is what and sometimes even the small mistakes may decide a battle

- I generally have little respect for army hopping people who just want to win at all cost and jump the bandwagon to the new army and exploit everything just to win. I have refused and burned bridges with local gamers because of this when i publicly criticized them.

Carnage
04-02-2013, 00:45
Not a big fan of it for a few reasons:
- It invites huge misunderstanding.. if by example someone uses Ultramarine Terminators to play Deathwing at a tournament (and the organizers allow it for some reason) who is to say one can tell which unit are Deathwatch Knights or which Assault Cannon bearing dude is actually toting a Plasma Cannon? I see actual problems if in the heat of the moment people forget what is what and sometimes even the small mistakes may decide a battle


You don't understand how codex hopping works. Done properly it doesn't use stand-ins, it will be 100% WYSIWYG just using a different color scheme to the "main" one.

-It's perfectly legal to do a "successor" chapter, like lets say Knights of Blood, Angels of Redemption or the Wolf Brothers.
-It's perfectly legal to do a "home made" chapters, like "Angry Marines" or my "Cerulean Angels" and use the rules for any codex.
-It's not legal to use rule books that are outdated, like the old 3.5 edition chaos or old SOB book.
-It's not legal to use stand-ins. No using bolt pistol/CCW marines for bolter armed tacticals, no using terminators for obliterators, no using an assault cannon to represent a plasma cannon, no using SB/power fist terminators to represent GK terminators/paladins.

For some reason, people get bent out of shape when you use a home made chapter and have enough models to be flexible and build totally WYSIWYG lists from several books, like you are cheating on your army or something.

Far Seer
04-02-2013, 06:59
Depends on how you hop I guess. If you do it primarily because you want to powergame, then it leaves a bit of a sour taste in my mouth. I'd still play against you sure. But I'm totally fine with anyone hopping for fluff/cool reasons or they feel that they want to emulate a special power/unit that they feel matches their fluff.

Doing a first company terminator list for example, using the Dark Angels codex would be absolutely fine in my books.

Imperialis_Dominatus
04-02-2013, 07:10
Let me quote my favorite member:


The better gamer will often win more games.

The better hobbyist plays the game with a painted army.

The richer of either can afford to buy a new army all the time.

Most of us... can't.

Play any and all books that make you happy. Use models that make sense. Try to paint them (I know, its hard). That's all that really matters.

If you feel up in arms about someone using a Red Marine to represent a Green Marine or a Spiky Marine to represent a Furry Marine, I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems but a snob I ain't one.

tl;dr: I'm good, bro.


no its annoying for the players and its not financially god for gw.

Given how much buying from GW generally costs I feel that their financial health is hardly my concern given their lack of concern for my own, and given their business "model" it's completely out of my hands anyway so I should hardly trouble myself.


i'll start saying "yeah my craftworld eldar use dark eldar rules because they're from Craftworld Evilmcdoom and now you have to remember what all my units actually are". Lets see how many people like that....

One vote here for not giving a Chaos Lord's codpiece. I'll help you justify them!


If you voted nay I hope you walk from any game where your opponent proxy's a model or doesn't have absolutely perfect representations of the models they intend to play with. I also hope that you are millionaires and will give your money freely to those who in this time of worldwide economic hardship so that they can purchase all the necessary models to acheive compliance with your wishes so that they don't infrige on you right to enjoy the hobby in the purest way possible. Perhaps there should be some sort of regulatory commission to enforce these strictures that would shave the heads of any player playing primer grey marines so we can trot them out on the streets and throw rotten vegetables at them?

Heh. You are a funny man, funny man.

kieranhoare
04-02-2013, 07:15
i think its absolutely fine for friendly games, and i dont really see the problem in tournaments, its not like the colour of armour is part of wargear

murgel2006
04-02-2013, 10:09
To me it comes down to painted and modelled.
I would play a hopped listed any day if I can look at the model and identify what I see. IMO for marines that is easy.

recently I have played a brilliant Wolf Brothers army that used BA rules. The guy had combined the two model ranges in a most brilliant way. And if a model had an infernus pistol, it was there.
I am so sorry for taking no pictures.

When it comes to proxying the large chunks of your army I begin to feel uncomfortable some times.
Say you play IG and use only Eldar models as your infantry models, that would be acceptable.
The whole army? If it is not to big a step, like Deathwing list with Meganob models or SM with SOB. it might still work and be fun.
But if I have to ask every time I look at a model it stops to be fun and thus is not acceptable. I have only so many hours of-time a week and I would like to enjoy them, not get frustrated.

Commandojimbob
04-02-2013, 10:16
I dont mind at all so long as all the weapons / options are represented. In really friendly games, if people want to try stuff out and proxy here and there (i have done it to see how things work in game before investment), no big deal - if they always did it then perhaps it would annoy me because I like to face what I am actually seeing.

At the end of the day Marines are Marines - if you build up a big force of generic marines then why cant you pick a codex, again, so long as when you say "these are BA's today" you have the models that have BA specific weapons.

Freakiq
04-02-2013, 10:29
I have no problem with you doing a counts as like using codex Blood Angels to represent your Night Lords drop-pod army.

What I don't like is playing against The Emperor's Grey Plastics who have different rules every week.

Hellebore
04-02-2013, 10:30
Well i find it incredible that people would use 'power gaming' as an argument against it.

Is the new codex broken then? WELL *********** BAN IT! You do NOT get to say that because an army's colour scheme is different the army being played is somehow powergaming.

You do not get to let off rich people who can afford to buy every new army that comes out. You do not get to condemn people with custom colour schemes.

Powergaming is in the mechanics, not the colours. Changing the colourscheme of an army does not change its power. You cannot make such an artificial and patently ridiculous distinction.

If the army is broken then ANY colour scheme will be broken, ANY colour scheme will be power gaming. You cannot condone one army and condemn another when they both use the same *********** army list. That's just the height of absurdity.

All the argument you are using is that the codex hopper gets to use new rules that you don't. It's a whinge that they're doing something that you won't. That is not powergaming and it is impossible to claim an army is powergaming unless you ban all ues of that army list. Anything else is a hypocritical double standard of monumentally stupid proportions.

EDIT: By arguing that such a player is power gaming you are by default also saying that anyone that buys the army is also a powergamer. You cannot split the two, because there is no difference. The army list works the same regardless of the models used to represent it.

Hellebore

Vidzero
04-02-2013, 10:57
If you voted nay I hope you walk from any game where your opponent proxy's a model or doesn't have absolutely perfect representations of the models they intend to play with. I also hope that you are millionaires and will give your money freely to those who in this time of worldwide economic hardship so that they can purchase all the necessary models to acheive compliance with your wishes so that they don't infrige on you right to enjoy the hobby in the purest way possible. Perhaps there should be some sort of regulatory commission to enforce these strictures that would shave the heads of any player playing primer grey marines so we can trot them out on the streets and throw rotten vegetables at them?

I enjoyed this post quite a bit and agree 100% why does everyone care so much what other people play as long as the codex is a real codex and they are not breaking rules. Stop being selfish.

mikefrench178
04-02-2013, 15:21
This wouldn't really bother me as long as your there for the fun of the game and not just to destroy and humiliate your opponent. Although, that's what allies are for ! If you want a bit of vanillas and dark angels then ally them. I don't suppose I'd mind an army that used two codices and the allies rules that were the same chapter as long as you could differentiate between the two ie. Tactical/assault marines using SM codex in one colour and 1st coy terminators in another colour using DA codex with the same DIY chapter markings. Like a sons of horus army (green and black). I'm just here to enjoy the game and if some blokes a prat I won't play him no matter how he's painted his army.....

Gorbad Ironclaw
04-02-2013, 16:15
Hellebore makes the best point in this thread I think. I've been trying to formulate the same thing but he did it better than I could have done. Either there is a problem with a codex or there isn't, the problem can never be that people pick that codex to use over another. And frankly I'd much rather people just picked the list they wanted to play for whatever reason rather than felt the need to justify why they are allowed to and I'd rather have someone say "this list is better than this other list so I'm playing that" than "Codex Y totally represents X better so it's for the fluff".

NemoSD
04-02-2013, 16:26
If you voted nay I hope you walk from any game where your opponent proxy's a model or doesn't have absolutely perfect representations of the models they intend to play with. I also hope that you are millionaires and will give your money freely to those who in this time of worldwide economic hardship so that they can purchase all the necessary models to acheive compliance with your wishes so that they don't infrige on you right to enjoy the hobby in the purest way possible. Perhaps there should be some sort of regulatory commission to enforce these strictures that would shave the heads of any player playing primer grey marines so we can trot them out on the streets and throw rotten vegetables at them?


I enjoyed this post quite a bit and agree 100% why does everyone care so much what other people play as long as the codex is a real codex and they are not breaking rules. Stop being selfish.

To me it is not about the rules, but the social contract between to players. When two players come to the table and agree to play, you are each agreeing to entertain each other. This is not a single player game where you are the center of it, this is a multiplayer competitive game which means the two players need to support each other in the basic level of being a fun and interesting challenge.

This is where people get upset at codex hoppers because mostly unpainted armies are a slap in the face for people who work their butts off to paint an army, model it, and in general, even if the paint job is crappy or iffy, make it obvious that effort was applied. I mean when I paint, I paint with the idea that you're never going to see the models super close, and focus on motiff more then super-fine detail. That is not to see I am not good at painting, I pull aside individual units and go to town with them, but I learned with my High Elves, going to town on every model makes building a large army in pain in the ******* ass, because once you start, you can't stop without breaking cohesion of appearance... anyways off of tangent. Although in short, there is nothing more dissappointing then laying out an epic array of High Elves, a massive 3000-4000 point army, to watch you opponent drop 4000 points of Empire, completely unpainted, and most of them missing bits. The game loses its flare. Same goes for 40k, when a well uniformed regiment of Guard takes the field to face down a force of plastic Grey Knights, any epicness that fight could of been is gone.

The next problem people have is that codex hoppers tend to be less aware of the rules, result in frequent and multiple challenges as the game proceeds, which gets VERY frustrating to the point where I sometimes just go "**** it, do what you want, one turn left, lets just get this abomination over with." I am an anthropologist, not a lawyer, if I wanted to argue rules and law all day, I would of chosen a different career.

Some what piggy backing on the no painting problem, codex hoppers tend to have the least imaginative lists. For example, LGS, we have a guy who bought six DV boxes the Chaos and DA codex, and that is all. His lists are boring and spammy, and quite frankly crap. He bought the models a day before the release of the DA, and I will quote him to the best of my memory, "I didn't really care about the DA, but a friend gave me an advanced PDF and I was like, damn this army is cool, so I am going to build on."

This next thing may just be my local area, but die hard codex hoppers, especially the less creative ones, have a higher tendency towards cheating. DO NOT TAKE this to mean all codex hoppers are cheaters, just in my personal experience, and my area, I have noticed this correlation.

This reason goes into the money thing, people who can hop to every new codex regardless of cost tend to have less respect for the other person and his own models. What they view as a minor investment, is a significant chunk of change to many. (This is the main reason I suspect they don't paint the stuff, it is not as much of an investment for them.) This problem shows itself when they pick up models to look at them, without permission, and then carelessly handle them. I had a player break my Nightshroud, and Sammy's Speeder this way. I was very upset, espeically considering the damage to Sam's speeder is very difficult to correct. (Broke the cattle prod up front when he dropped it onto the Nightshroud, which lost the flimsy sword on the statue that I was prepared to lose anyways.)

One last point, I hate when players who were bagging on an Army, "Gah the Dark Angels suck, their fluff is horrible and they are stupid!" then the codex becomes competitive and quite nice, "Oh my god Dark Angels are the roxxers! Their fluff is so deep and enthralling, I mean it is SO COOL, like totally!" This is infuriating...

The good news is codex hoppers like the above are not regular fixtures in a gaming environment. These players are often distracted by the next shiny, and only have to be worried about until they get bored, and hop to the new stuff from another game, or just move onto a new hobby altogether. And not all Codex Hoppers match the trends above, some take the time to paint everything, and respect the spirit of the game and their opponents. However, like WAAC monkeys ruining the perception of toruney's and tourney players, the disrespectful codex hoppers ruin the perception of all codex hoppers.

Remember though, in tournament play, the WAAC Monkey rarely wins because min maxing results in an easily exploitable flaw, and good players will hammer down on the min to the exclusion of the max and leave the WAAC Monkey complaining to his friends about how insert X codex is over powered. (True story, Guard WAAC Monkey running Arty spam complain the Tyranids were OP because they spanked him. The Tyranid player had just hid everything on the first floor, then used genestealers and warriors to murder the arty up close.) The same goes for the 'bad' codex hoppers, at the end of the day, they will feel cheated by their investment, which is why they hop. They never take the time to enjoy the army, they just enough a gimmick until the gimmick becomes countered, then they pout until the next shiney comes along.

Marshal
04-02-2013, 16:29
No no and no. In friendly games, if someone want to try something out, then sure. In a tournament where I paid money to attend, with real prizes on the line, then **** no. I'm sick and tired of people dusting off their Templars army to be played as Space Wolves. Every army has a core set of rules associated with them (Black Rage, Counter Attack, Righteous Zeal...). General Marine wargear also differs from codex to codex, some get bolters and pistols, some get bolters, pistols and cc weapons, while others don't even get grenades and have to choose between the bolter or pistol and cc weapon.

So no, a Marine is not the same as the next one. Water and Vodka both look very similar but drink them and they're much different. If you want to include their rules within your army, that's what allies are for.

Carnage
04-02-2013, 17:14
The sheer volume of people confusing codex hopping, proxying and count-as is staggering. These are 3 separate things people!

Codex Hopping: Having marines of one paint scheme/chapter and using the rules from different codexes from one week to the next. Everything is fully WYSIWYG. Completely legal.

Proxying: Using a dreadnaught as a hellbrute one week, a maulerfiend the next, and a furioso dread the next, or "Oh, these bolter guys actually have BP/CCW today. Creates a logistical mess and really isn't super fun to play against. Tournament banned, and against the WYSIWYG rules straight up. Should only be allowed in friendly games to test out new units/combinations. Not for pickup games/tournys.

Count-as: This is the big grey area in my opinion, and it will be largely allowed or disallowed on how well it is modeled and carried out. Examples; The Ork mega-nobz Deff-wing army (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=3TMHq1CbGUeSRM&tbnid=t4kBgu4dhEDdVM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.middlepillarpathpainting.net% 2Fgallery%2FOld%2520projects%2FWarhammer%252040K%2 FOrks%2FDP%2520Deffwing%2520B%2FDeffwing%2B(4).JPG .php&ei=cfkPUen7FsOs2QWw7oDQAQ&bvm=bv.41867550,d.b2I&psig=AFQjCNHXzqimmRKr9rHI9KMVHKwDdVii_A&ust=1360087778310955) using the rules for the Dark Angels codex. How about the Orkrons? (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=e6Rv-RLBh-qAdM&tbnid=wfiiyD-nk9PORM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.warseer.com%2Fforums%2Fshowth read.php%3F274765-Waaargh-Grimcog-An-Unusual-Looking-Necron-Army-56k-Beware&ei=N_oPUf3vCePw2QXO44CwCg&bvm=bv.41867550,d.b2I&psig=AFQjCNG05MdQ7xAiuBgOYw6BSELpfcb_sQ&ust=1360087988624343) Or female space marine armies using the SOB models? Pre-heresy Thousand Suns using the GK rules. There's a hundred others I could bring up, but their acceptance is largely based on how well they are done. You need to be internally consistent with changes, so all ork shoota = bolters, then EVERY SINGLE SHOOTA has to work as a bolter, not just some of them. There's a line in count-as armies for everyone and for me it's the modelling aspect. I will accept the "deff-wing" and "Orkrons" but if someone showed up with a stock tyranid army and said "Termigants = shoota boyz, Hive Tyrant = Warboss, Carnifexes = Dreadnaughts"....then no, that won't fly.

Lantern
04-02-2013, 18:14
Proxying, I wouldn't really mind, everyone should be able to try something out ONCE or TWICE. I think I would take issue with someone turning up each week with a unit that last week was standard Grey Knights, this week is Deathwing, next week is space wolves etc. I feel that there's a certain degree of love goes into collecting an army, carefully choosing the units and equipment you use each week and slowly crafting your force over time through trial and error, painting your units as well as you can. Codex hopping removes this element of care and attention, turning it into a purely numbers game. For me, there is another element of I've tried to put effort in, but I feel that codex hopping is just phoning it in, trying the best Internet/can't fail list if the week, so in that respect, I feel codex hoppers only rob themselves of the pride that can be taken from a 'finished' army (ok, they are never if used :) ).

Also, a few posts mention proper army collecting as the preserve of the rich and wealthy. I do not consider myself 'well off', but I don't smoke or drink (though I will admit, computer games are another vice) and so to some extent, I buy what I like. I don't pick up an army each time a new book comes out, nor do I drop/sell my existing forces. In my opinion, the hobby would benefit greatly from everyone finding that army they are passionate about and 'sticking with it'. If you enjoy an army on its own merits, you can weather what ever hobby storm you encounter. Poor rules? I collect them cause I like them. Poor models? It's the background that draws me in. Too expensive? I'm not buying them everyday, it's a treat, a past time and hobby and should be viewed as such.

Midvalley
04-02-2013, 18:37
Codex Hopping: Having marines of one paint scheme/chapter and using the rules from different codexes from one week to the next. Everything is fully WYSIWYG. Completely legal.


I think this is what frustrates me about this discussion (and did about the "bandwagon" one previously). People are conflating the issue of "Codex Hopping" with proxying, changing rules, or otherwise not having a WYSIWYG army. If I place space marines on the table and they are modeled with plasma talons on their bikes, but I paint them yellow, it shouldn't be an issue for me play from the Dark Angels Codex and calling them Black Knights. As long as everything is properly modeled, it doesn't seem to me that playing a different Codex is a real issue. If things aren't properly modeled then I don't care if you use the same Codex every time, that's unacceptable. Saying "this guy with a missile launcher really has a plasma cannon" is just as bad if he's painted dark green as if he's painted magenta.

Luffwaffle
05-02-2013, 07:02
I vote no as a Tau player can't (you can, but I'm not gonna play you) use their models for an Eldar army, space marines shouldn't be able to use their models for every space marine codex. You shouldn't get the advantage of being able to use 5 different codices just because you play space marines.

Hellebore
05-02-2013, 09:48
I vote no as a Tau player can't (you can, but I'm not gonna play you) use their models for an Eldar army, space marines shouldn't be able to use their models for every space marine codex. You shouldn't get the advantage of being able to use 5 different codices just because you play space marines.

Tau aren't eldar, the comparison is not equivalent. The equivalent would be using Iyanden eldar as Ulthwe eldar. In 3rd ed with the craftworld codex, you could actually run into this situation. Hell, I wanted to be able to play each eldar army list, so I specifically painted up my own army to be able to use any of them. Every eldar army will have a guardian contingent, a wraithconstruct contingent, a bike contingent and a ranger contingent. Playing only that part of the eldar warhost appealed to me and they actually had a set of lists to do just that.

This argument is muddied by the encouraged interchangability of space marine models. There is no blood angels land raider, they all use it. And it's entirely legal to buy a normal tactical squad and paint it as any chapter.

Your issue is actually with GW's insistence on making entire codices around colour schemes of effectively the same army, resulting in this. Not the other way around. If GW made half a dozen of each other faction's army lists, we'd be seeing that as well. The difference is simply that GW considers Goffs and Snakebites as the same army, whilst they consider Blood Angels and Space Wolves to be separate.

GW also condone this by offering special characters as counts as alternatives for other chapters, which throws out any notion of rules=colour schemes.

Hellebore

kane40k
05-02-2013, 20:38
Are they having fun with it? Yes? Good no problem. EVEN in competitive areas of the hobby you should be having fun right? It's not codex hopping but along the same lines as themed lists such as UM 1st Company. . . I play a 'full Slaanesh' army. Using Khorne Berserkers and Plague Marines, just modeled differently, they look Slaaneshi, and i have a nice little fluff bible coming along with it too. . . I Don't see this as any different to codex hopping because the principle is the same. Using something to represent something it's not. BUT it's fun. Now not painting i guess is a bit of a bummer, but i'd never turn down a game because of it. . . (you guys who CAN play all the time and complain don't know how lucky you are). I would suggest the more sensible option there if your not doing a deliberately themed army is to paint a custom chapter, then you can chop and change all you like. So what am i getting at? The spirit of the game that's what. . . Make sure you are aware what your getting into before your playing, then relax with it. :) Your lucky to be able to play.

Kaldor Draigo
05-02-2013, 21:01
Tau aren't eldar

And Blood Angels aren't Space Wolves.


which throws out any notion of rules=colour schemes

Why do colours not equate to rules, but shapes do? Why is it worse to run an Ork as an Eldar than it is to run a Space Wolf as a Blood Angel?

Hellebore
05-02-2013, 21:12
And Blood Angels aren't Space Wolves.


No, but then it's a fallacious comparison to say that they are the same value of 'aren't'. A tau, relative to an eldar is more different than a blood angel to a space wolf. This can easily be proven by simply comparing them. To use the famous apples and oranges analogy: A granny smith isn't a red delicious. An orange isn't a red delicious. Your argument would have that a granny smith and an orange are both equally not red delicious. However, granny smiths and red delicious are both apples. They're just different colours.....


Why do colours not equate to rules, but shapes do? Why is it worse to run an Ork as an Eldar than it is to run a Space Wolf as a Blood Angel?

In the end they don't, it's all abstract. You can use tokens to represent a whole army. I'm not averse to anyone using any army to represent any other army. Mechanically the only issue is that every piece of wargear or unit type that is represented must be consistently so. It is extremely difficult to use tau as space marines, because you have no models to represent special/heavy weapons, or even melee weapons. The only problem with proxying is if you are unable to represent each distinct unit or model separately from the others. If you used kroot as assault marines, you've got nothing to use as scouts. Which wouldn't be an issue if you only took one of those types.

However, there are degrees of difference and space marine armies degrees are in their colour scheme. They use the same wargear, they wear the same armour. They have the same statlines. They use the same vehicles. You don't need to worry about whether you have a model to represent another model, because they use the same models.

GW also encourages divergent chapters, home made ones, successors and so on. Therefore I can paint blue marines and call them a blood angel successor, despite the fact that they look like ultramarines.

Ergo, the only difference is in colour scheme. Using the same wargear means you aren't proxying a heavy bolter marine you are USING a heavy bolter marine. If I were to paint a dark reaper red, it doesn't make it a tau. If I were to paint a battlesuit yellow, it doesn't make it an Iyanden wraithguard. HOWEVER, if I paint a heavy bolter marine Red, he's a blood angel. If I paint him Green a dark angel. If I paint him grey a space wolf. And if I leave him unpainted or just undercoated, your ability to determine what he is relies entirely on me TELLING YOU.

Hellebore

Chapters Unwritten
05-02-2013, 21:25
I'd say, given the huge emphasis on the marine armies, and how their cores are all similar enough to make this viable, that this codex hopping stuff is a vital part of GWs financial strategy.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Flogger
05-02-2013, 22:29
There is nothing in the rules-system saying that models need to have a certain color to be the models they are (red paint job for ork vehicles might be the one exception, unsure of the wording there though). If you wanna paint green marines and use them as Ultramarines, go ahead, you're not breaking any rules! If you wanna use them as Dark Angels, go ahead!

As long as I can see what model is what and which weapons are where then I have nothing to complain about.

As for using meganobz as deathwing, awesome! Just make sure you model them correctly so you don't confuse your opponent :)

Luffwaffle
06-02-2013, 01:07
This all boils down to people's own decision. If you are ok with using a smurf army as a Dark Angels, and your opponent is fine with it, then there is nothing stopping you from doing it. I personally view using smurfs for DAs on par with using Tau for Eldar, orks for deamons, etc. I will refuse to play you, as I think allowing access to 5 codices for one army is unbalanced.

Hellebore
06-02-2013, 01:20
This all boils down to people's own decision. If you are ok with using a smurf army as a Dark Angels, and your opponent is fine with it, then there is nothing stopping you from doing it. I personally view using smurfs for DAs on par with using Tau for Eldar, orks for deamons, etc. I will refuse to play you, as I think allowing access to 5 codices for one army is unbalanced.

Well it isn't unbalanced, because the army lists all work the same regardless of colour. You're going to have to find a different thing to complain about because balance is not affected by paint colour.

Hellebore

Luffwaffle
06-02-2013, 01:32
Well it isn't unbalanced, because the army lists all work the same regardless of colour. You're going to have to find a different thing to complain about because balance is not affected by paint colour.

Hellebore
Last time I checked they didn't work the same way.

Carnage
06-02-2013, 01:43
Last time I checked they didn't work the same way.

But the person is still only using 1 list at a time, and you have no problem with people using the army, you have a problem with them using the same models.

Here's some questions for you;

If I own a Blood Angels army painted 100% codex approved red and play you one week, then the next week show up with a 100% codex painted approved Space Wolf Army, am I being "unbalanced"?
How about 2 different successor chapters? BA successors painted purple week 1, and bronze colored SW the next week?
How about if I have a custom paint job (lets say pink marines) and play using the BA codex the first week, and the SW codex the next? Same army lists and everything....unbalanced yet?

The end result here is that you are playing the same lists...it has ZERO effect on game play, and as long as it's WYSIWYG and looks good how can you possibly argue against it?

Your hang up is money. As long as people pay the money for 5 armies, then they are allowed to play 5 armies? Sure, it's not really fair for xenos armies, but that's the way GW has made the game.

Freakiq
06-02-2013, 03:09
My hang up is that an identical army has different special rules every time I play it.

I can understand switching codexes when a new, more fitting one comes out.
But juggling codexes between weeks?

You're of course free to do as you wish but eventually I might tire and seek out other opponents.

Luffwaffle
06-02-2013, 03:26
Sure, it's not really fair for xenos armies, but that's the way GW has made the game.
Which is what I'm trying to say. While a xeno must spend time and money switching codices, a space marine player can change his entire army just by saying "blue marines are actually green cause new dex came out". I feel that's unfair and refuse to support it. People can do what they want, but I wont be playing against them. If I let an ultramarine be a dark angel, then I should let my Tau friend play as Eldar. I'm not gonna let my Tau friend play Eldar so I'm not gonna let someone use ultramarines as dark angels, just because the models look similar.

AngryAngel
06-02-2013, 04:25
If you voted nay I hope you walk from any game where your opponent proxy's a model or doesn't have absolutely perfect representations of the models they intend to play with. I also hope that you are millionaires and will give your money freely to those who in this time of worldwide economic hardship so that they can purchase all the necessary models to acheive compliance with your wishes so that they don't infrige on you right to enjoy the hobby in the purest way possible. Perhaps there should be some sort of regulatory commission to enforce these strictures that would shave the heads of any player playing primer grey marines so we can trot them out on the streets and throw rotten vegetables at them?

Oh my, I didn't know someone disagreeing with codex hopping was putting people into such hardships. Sure there are plenty of armies I'd like to play to. Do I play them all ? Nope, because my armies are what they are. I don't proxy if I can help it, I do without. I don't just codex hop every new marine book, even if I can sometimes see its appeal. I ask nothing from someone I am playing against I don't hold myself to. I'm sorry if that leaves some people butt hurt.

Do I just attack codex hoppers ? No, do I find it disagreeable, yes. Its personal opinion, same as who plays the game for fluff and who plays it for competition. Its simply a choice. No need to grow all full of the rage.

kanebbcksc
06-02-2013, 05:08
Voted yes... But, felt I needed to comment. As long as it stays WYSIWYG I wouldn't have a problem at all, but without WYSIWYG games can become quite droll for me, as I have to be reminded of what's what. For my purposes, I would rather play an unpainted WYSIWYG army than a army with a large amount of "Counts as" items. I'm not talking conversions that bear a familial resemblance to what they represent, but say a splinter cannon in place of a lascannon or some other such annoyance would be a problem for me. Although, if someone is play testing a codex to see if they want to buy the minis for it, I would definitely help them out and play the game. I'm sure my opponents would agree that it could get quite annoying and cumbersome for me to be constantly asking for clarifications such as "What's that guy got", or "Is that the Vet SGT?", etc...

I also can't stand codex hopping into the "latest and greatest". I play Tau, Grey Knights, and Ogres (WHFB). I've been a GK fan since I began in the hobby back in '95-'96 timeframe, and started collecting and converting quite early on. Started Tau when the 4th ed codex came out, and Ogres when they were first released. I have added to these armies with newer models when available, and sold off my very first army (Warriors of Chaos, forget the edition # but it was about 15 years ago). What I'm trying to say is that I respect loyalty to the army(s) that you really like the aesthetics of much more than constant twitching amongst the newest and best. It just seems more "Geeky" to me! I am a miniature geek by the way!

Definition of GEEK (Merriam-Webster)

3
: an enthusiast or expert especially in a technological field or activity <computer geek>

The Emperor
06-02-2013, 05:15
I'd be fine with someone using a Codex for a different Space Marine army in order to try out a brand new Codex and see how they like the playing style, but as a regular thing? No. I went through the trouble of stripping all the red paint off my Blood Angels so I could repaint them as Ultramarines, so either repaint them or get new guys, because I'm not going to tolerate week-after-week of seeing Imperial Fists using Blood Angel rules, Dark Angel Rules, Space Wolf rules, Black Templar rules, Grey Knights Rules, etc.

Klajorne
06-02-2013, 05:55
I've got no beef with codex hopping. Especially if everything is WYSIWYG, then more power to you for getting the most from your models. Sure, as primarily a xenos player, I might not have the good fortune you have of playing the GW-centric army, but it's not for me to rain on your parade just because you "lucked out". I chose a xenos army because I enjoy it the most. That does not give me the excuse to act superior.

chromedog
06-02-2013, 06:35
There WAS a kid in my club who deliberately chose to never paint his space marines so that they could be whatever new powered armour army was out that month.
I joked, calling them his "spiky, dark, black, blood wolf Templar Angel Marines". He just switched to the new codex-on-the-block to stay ahead of the curve so to speak, and to give himself an edge. He would frequently also mix rules from various codices, also. He no longer plays 40k, or even games, calling the hobby "childish" (he joined the Army reserves and thinks of himself as a "proper soldier" - the minor detail that one of his instructors (FULL time Army) is also in the club and still plays with toy soldiers seemed to have escaped him).

He would have loved 6th ed with its allies, allowing him to do 'legally' what he used to do not-so-legally.

I'm of the opinion that you pick an army because you like some aspect of it. Then you paint them. I'm not against seeing blue Blood Angels or Dark Angels or spiky Space Wolves, but FFS, pick something and stay with it. Dilettantism is the mark of the rank amateur. :D

5Pointer
06-02-2013, 07:05
It's the hopping that is key here - it indicates, to me, a constantly shifting 'allegiance' which is at odds to how I like to enjoy my hobby.

Using a codex to represent something that you can't do in the 'proper' codex for that faction is one thing; hopping left right and centre to find an advantage over your opponents is poor form in my opinion.

And, on the subject of money, if I want a new army/warband/whatever - I save up and get it, proxying to try out something before you buy I'm fine with, but 10 games down the line you'd better at least be trying to convert something up that suits if you can't afford the new shiny toy.

Hellebore
06-02-2013, 07:09
How about I just respray my marine army a new colour with every codex then.

Hellebore

5Pointer
06-02-2013, 07:16
How about I just respray my marine army a new colour with every codex then.

Hellebore

Feel free, if you are so desperate to gain an advantage over your opponents by getting access to toys normally denied your supposed faction of choice.

This seems as fundamental a schism as the tournament debate :/

Hellebore
06-02-2013, 07:40
Feel free, if you are so desperate to gain an advantage over your opponents by getting access to toys normally denied your supposed faction of choice.

This seems as fundamental a schism as the tournament debate :/

What toys? Your argument is utterly illogical. When someone uses the blood angel codex, they are using the blood angel codex. All the toys in that codex are usable by that codex. There is nothing there to complain about.

You're complaining that someone using the blood angel codex gets to use librarian dreadnoughts, but can't if they don't use the blood angel codex. That's called playing a different army list. People do it all the time. They even do it with armies the same colour as a completely different army, cuz they want to.

Until you can explain why it's not fair to run a blood angel army, or use a dark angel army, all you're complaining about is that some marine army lists have units with rules that aren't available to others, but use models that are usable in any marine army. Woopty do.

Hellebore

5Pointer
06-02-2013, 07:47
You conveniently ignore that my opposition to hopping is based on a lack of allegiance to a faction - I clearly stated that this was at odds with how I enjoy MY hobby. Others, quite clearly, differ in how they enjoy THEIR hobby - thankfully we have no requirement to ever actually play each other.

Hellebore
06-02-2013, 08:00
You conveniently ignore that my opposition to hopping is based on a lack of allegiance to a faction - I clearly stated that this was at odds with how I enjoy MY hobby. Others, quite clearly, differ in how they enjoy THEIR hobby - thankfully we have no requirement to ever actually play each other.

I responded to what you said in your last post and what you said was illogical and baseless - the equivalent of complaining that the blood angel army list has units the dark angel one doesn't. You never mentioned allegience to faction in that post and I've not commented on that at all. It's not what your last complaint was about so you can't simply fob off it's baselessness on something completely different.

You and I both apparently enjoy the game the same way. I love the story telling aspect of wargaming, the background and painting/modelling. Where we differ is on whether we would play against someone who wanted to use a different army list to represent their models.

The naysayers don't seem to want to admit their argument is based on personal opinion. Everyone seems to be trying to prove that there's some objective evidence that says it's wrong. But it all boils down to the fact that you don't like it and want other people to not like it either. This is the same way of thinking that all conservatives have about things when people don't do things the way they want them done.


Hellebore

Kaldor Draigo
06-02-2013, 08:29
The naysayers don't seem to want to admit their argument is based on personal opinion. Everyone seems to be trying to prove that there's some objective evidence that says it's wrong.

I don't think *anyone* is trying to say that. People have a preference. They're allowed to. This poll exists to gauge the popularity of list hopping, and to discuss it. Not to prove objectively whether it's good or not.

It's like taking powerful lists, or having clearly written army lists, or only using painted models. It's an opinion, an extra condition we place on ourselves and our opponents. Some people are for it, and some are against it. I'm against it, but I was curious to see the opinions of the wider gaming community, hence the poll.

Cheeslord
06-02-2013, 09:08
I voted yes purely because the hobby is too expensive to collect multiple armies of similar models! Also I think people should be able to start their own marine chapters if they want, and then choosing which marine codex rules to use to represent them becomes a matter of preference, which you should be able to change if you want.

It does encourage powergaming by choosing the latest/besterest marine codex, but at least it doesn't just restrict this to rich people (or increasingly people with rich parents).

Mark.

m1acca1551
06-02-2013, 10:47
Personally i dont give a flying ******* if they use a different dex each time, i can understand why they do this as the cost is very prohibitive to buy red marine, blue marine etc etc. It can actually add to your gaming experience facing different lists from different dex's, i normally prefer the armies to be painted and not unprimed but hey a games a game, and i cant be picky.

The only time i can get a little sour about this is when you face unpainted armies spamming the most hard core elements of a certain dex purely because it is the in thing and that you know that the same army and player spammed last dex's most op list, this is when frustration can occur.

But each to there own, do i think that people are lesser because of this? No i do not, 40k isnt a cheap hobby and sometimes you have to make what you have stretch that little further.

WarsmithFarrus
06-02-2013, 11:55
I wouldnt have a problem with it as such, however I have to ask all the people out there who disagree. Im primarily a chaos marine player and im doing a Iron Warriors splinter warband/ successor chapter. Now I include a loyalist dreadnought in my army which has been slightly chaos fied and I use a few basic space marine as chaos marines. Now would you have a problem if I say went to use a loyalist book not really for power but because certain elements which I should have (Namely elite choice tech marines thunderfire cannons and drop pods ffs Iron Warriors are siege specialists why are these elements not in the chaos book il never know) I cant get access to unless I swap books?

carldooley
06-02-2013, 12:01
so, I play GK using my guard inventory (Coteaz builds) with 3-4 dedicated GK models. Am I going to be penalized for that? it is all WYSIWYG (if it isn't, then I don't use it), and I bring a premade list to games at my LGS. Are you naysayers going to refuse me because my ally Guard and my GK Henchmen all have the same color scheme? even if it is 'fluffy' for a Coteaz build?

Lighten up!

I will admit to powergaming though. I mitigate this somewhat by ceding control of units not necessary to my battleplan to observers. (in casual games - I WILL NOT do this during tournaments). Then again I use premade lists - because I am not going to bring my entire collection to a game night.

Polaria
06-02-2013, 12:08
I voted for no, but it really depends on the motive. If you want to play a style of army that your current codex does not allow and don't have money/time to get a whole new army then I'd say its okay. If you want to jump into the latest broken bandwagon and roll over some seal pups then its definitely not.

Freakiq
06-02-2013, 12:27
I wouldnt have a problem with it as such, however I have to ask all the people out there who disagree. Im primarily a chaos marine player and im doing a Iron Warriors splinter warband/ successor chapter. Now I include a loyalist dreadnought in my army which has been slightly chaos fied and I use a few basic space marine as chaos marines. Now would you have a problem if I say went to use a loyalist book not really for power but because certain elements which I should have (Namely elite choice tech marines thunderfire cannons and drop pods ffs Iron Warriors are siege specialists why are these elements not in the chaos book il never know) I cant get access to unless I swap books?

There's no problem with you using a Loyalist Codex.
The Steel Brethren chaos warband can only be played using the Space Marine codex for example.

If you keep switching between using the Space Marines codex and the Chaos Marine codex every time we play however people might tire of it.

WarsmithFarrus
06-02-2013, 12:31
There's no problem with you using a Loyalist Codex.
The Steel Brethren chaos warband can only be played using the Space Marine codex for example.

If you keep switching between using the Space Marines codex and the Chaos Marine codex every time we play however people might tire of it.

Oh I am planning to stick with the chaos book for a while :) it suits my needs for now its just something I was thinking of trying out one day

Infern0
06-02-2013, 13:28
It depends. If all models can be recognisable from each other (I mean units don`t look mixed up and it is easy to tell what is what), I`m for it.
I love playing against heavily converted army with a theme.

wyvirn
06-02-2013, 15:34
I don't have a problem with codex-hopping in and of itself. I just find that there is a correlation between people who codex hop and people who are TFG. The guy I'm thinking of in particular really isn't that good (skill and sportsmanship) a player, and is a bore to play with when he gets really bad. He sends spammy, unimaginative, and often tailored lists with GK, SW, and IG, but he's still fairly easy to beat. That's who I think of when someone says Codex Hopping.

AngryAngel
06-02-2013, 19:05
I don't think *anyone* is trying to say that. People have a preference. They're allowed to. This poll exists to gauge the popularity of list hopping, and to discuss it. Not to prove objectively whether it's good or not.

It's like taking powerful lists, or having clearly written army lists, or only using painted models. It's an opinion, an extra condition we place on ourselves and our opponents. Some people are for it, and some are against it. I'm against it, but I was curious to see the opinions of the wider gaming community, hence the poll.

Exactly so, I think most of the naysayers, are simply saying by opinion they don't like it. As really this is all a judgement call at the end of the day.

I find the claims of " Im not rich " from the people complaining of having to not be able to codex hop. Thats fine, then why not save up ? Why not take time ? I don't drop a whole lot into the game at one time. I plan out my armies and buys pretty carefully. It took me near on a year to get my guard army up and running. DA was my first marine army, and since then I have space wolves. Was going to work on GK but decided against it. Have a very small amount of chaos marines for zombies. It took long amounts of time to get all these going. However I did it, and didn't codex hop or feel the need to.

So the hoppers get angry I don't think its fine, thats their choice. However I'm not holding anyone to anything I don't hold myself to. The naysayers are also not saying they would never play the otherside, we are saying we disagree with their choice to do such. We are saying we wouldn't do such, don't do such.

Its for the sake of I don't want to see proxyrama, counts as palooza for stuff that clearly is not what it should be. I don't wish to see clearly space wolf models as black templars for when they come out, for instance. It could go on and on. For some in the naysayer group, its a matter of army loyalty, for others its a matter of disliking loathsome front runners who can't be botherd to really get the new shiney thing they seem to need. For a great many its seeing clearly painted and modeled armys as something else or just plain plastic men all the time forever being something else, in some cases from game to game.

It's a matter of choice to accept or not to and the nay sayers, like me, choose to not accept it. Pure opinion, which you'll find in any and all message board post, as well as within the poll.

Tymell
06-02-2013, 22:57
In certain cases, it's fine: testing out a possible new army? Sure thing. Trying to cover something that doesn't have a codex? Fantastic, lots of potential for creativity. And in some cases it fits with the background, like using a loyalist marine list to cover a traitor chapter before it truly plunges into chaos (or one that's just renegade).

My objection only comes in with those who use another codex to represent their army when it already has one of it's own, when it feels like it's just because that list is seen as cooler/stronger/trying to make some kind of point.

passwordman
07-02-2013, 02:33
163689
How about this for a colour scheme, Space Marine Bob his armour incorporates each of the first founding chapters as well as the Black Templars and the Crimson Fists. This isn't going to be my actual scheme as it would take too long to paint, but I will be using my own colour scheme on my DIY chapter and I will change which chapter they represent each week, just as I choose different flavours of ice cream. I'm not a competitve player and I don't care if I win, I play for fun and I don't care for 'net lists.


Passwordman

Eldartank
07-02-2013, 18:12
I originally posted this in the other topic about codex jumping, but I thought it would also be appropriate for this thread, too:

Hmmm... I just thought of something. I think I may be able to do the "codex jumping/bandwagon" thing, with a fully painted army, with complete impunity and without even violating the "proper colors of the codex" rule. I currently have a large collection of Terminators, a Land Raider and a Dreadnought painted in my own color scheme and chapter symbol which I call the "Black Omega Chapter." For a few years I have been playing them as a Dark Angels Successor Chapter (lots of Terminators makes for a perfect Deathwing army). I am in the process of adding some more new Terminator models, and I want to assemble my space Commander mini and a couple other power-armored units (2 Tactical Squads, an Assault Squad and a Devastator Squad). I just realized that if I get enough various Space Marine minis and Vehicles, all fully painted in my "Black Omega" colors, I can play them as any Chapter I want, all fully painted and 100% properly represented, no matter which codex I use. One day I could pull out some of those minis and play a fully painted and WYSIWYG Blood Angels Successor army. The next day I could use those same minis with some variation to play a Dark Angels Successor amy the same way. Then a Black Templars variant the next day, maybe a Space Wolves variant the next day, some vanilla chapter the next day, and then maybe back to the Blood Angels variant the day after that. If I really wanted to, I could annoy the ever-living heck out of the "proper codex color nazis" and be totally, absolutely, 100% game and codex legal, incuding absolute 100% WYSIWYG representation on all my models in every game. It could be an odd sort of fun, always being able to "codex hop" and "jump bandwagons" at any time with complete impunity.

Amusing as that idea sounds, I have no real intention of actually doing that, even as I do add some power-armored guys to my "Black Omega" Dark Angels Successor army. I kind of have a bit of attachment to the storyline I invented for my Dark Angels Successor Chapter. I'm also attached to the memory of that day I looked at that rediculously excessive amount of Terminator models I had lying around and came up with the idea of making my own Dark Angels Successor Deathwing army. I should also add that I have my decently-painted Crimson Fists army for playing Vanilla Marines, and I rather like their storyline, too.

Well, after re-posting that, it made me think. What would you think if you encountered someone like that - someone who jumped from one Space Marine Codex to another frequently, and particularly when a new powerful Codex was just released - but his army was always fully painted with the same uniform color scheme (regardless of what codex he used), never had any proxies or 'counts as,' and was always 100 percent WYSIWYG with all weapons and wargear represented perfectly regardless of what codex he was using at the time?

Grimbad
07-02-2013, 20:40
What would you think if you encountered someone like that - someone who jumped from one Space Marine Codex to another frequently, and particularly when a new powerful Codex was just released - but his army was always fully painted with the same uniform color scheme (regardless of what codex he used), never had any proxies or 'counts as,' and was always 100 percent WYSIWYG with all weapons and wargear represented perfectly regardless of what codex he was using at the time?

I'd think that the codex hopping was pretty pointless, really.

Worship
07-02-2013, 23:57
I've seen a lot of good answers in here and it's pretty hard to pinpoint where to draw the line in hopping around dexs.

The way I look at it is by starting question the whole scenario down to nothing. If my opponent is going to hop around different dexs and use different miniatures to represent different things, then what's the point?
In that case, why don't I hop dexs as well? What does it matter what the miniatures look like? Why don't we both just use random objects to represent whatever list we'd like then? In fact, why don't we just create our own unit stats and game rules?

It's the complete opposite point of the hobby despite the price of minis. There are many other factors as mentioned by all of you, but my answer is leaning toward 'No'. :(

Hellebore
08-02-2013, 00:09
I've seen a lot of good answers in here and it's pretty hard to pinpoint where to draw the line in hopping around dexs.

The way I look at it is by starting question the whole scenario down to nothing. If my opponent is going to hop around different dexs and use different miniatures to represent different things, then what's the point?
In that case, why don't I hop dexs as well? What does it matter what the miniatures look like? Why don't we both just use random objects to represent whatever list we'd like then? In fact, why don't we just create our own unit stats and game rules?

It's the complete opposite point of the hobby despite the price of minis. There are many other factors as mentioned by all of you, but my answer is leaning toward 'No'. :(

The issue there would be the presumption of what the 'hobby' is. The different components are conflated by people to the point no one seems to realise they're all separate. 40k is a wargame using abstract mathematical mechanics. That in itself constitutes the entirety of something; playing a game. You don't have to do any of the other things to play the game, because the game is by itself a complete entity. The miniatures released as gaming pieces in 40k are collected, converted and painted. That in itself constitutes the entirety of something; building models. Both of these things can and do occur independently of one another, one does not require the other to do or enjoy.

The 'point' is enjoyment and it's pretty obvious that people that enjoy one thing don't always enjoy another. That shouldn't require that you impose your 'point' of the 'hobby' on others though.

Codex 'hoppers' don't try and force other people to hop as well, playing one won't turn you hopper. Any feelings of pressure to hop are entirely of self inflicted and other people shouldn't suffer just because someone is making themselves angry.

Hellebore

Kaldor Draigo
08-02-2013, 00:50
Both of these things can and do occur independently of one another, one does not require the other to do or enjoy.

But I, as a player, am allowed to blend the issues if I want, right? Like, I don't need to be in a dark room on a comfortable seat to watch a movie, but I generally prefer to be in a dark room on a comfortable seat. Similarly, I don't need to use any models at all to play 40K, but I generally prefer to use nicely painted models. That's allowed, isn't it?

Hellebore
08-02-2013, 01:18
But I, as a player, am allowed to blend the issues if I want, right? Like, I don't need to be in a dark room on a comfortable seat to watch a movie, but I generally prefer to be in a dark room on a comfortable seat. Similarly, I don't need to use any models at all to play 40K, but I generally prefer to use nicely painted models. That's allowed, isn't it?

I made no claims in that area because it's not what I was talking about. The point was to recognise that there isn't 'one' hobby. Obviously people vary in their degrees of different aspects of the hobby, but that has nothing to do with whether there is only one thing or not.

It's the implication that 'preferring' nice models is 'the reason' to play the game, or is 'necessary'. It's just preference and people need to realise that just because they don't see a 'point' in the preference of others does not therefore mean there isn't one because it starts from the fallacious assumption that there is only one point and you're doing it right and they aren't.

My preferred way of playing wargames is the polar opposite of a chess player. However, I would play chess if I got to use converted models on a terrain board with a grid and turned it into a story. I don't get anything out of playing chess with tokens and black and white checks, it doesn't mean anyone who does is missing the 'point', nor that if I wanted to play it 'my' way I'd be missing the point either.

This whole argument is around a subjective moral highground where people like me who enjoy the background and aesthetics, think that this is the objectively higher ground and anything else is wrong by association. Some people just like to play a game and couldn't give a **** about what special colour represents what thing, or even if a coke bottle is a carnifex. Because they enjoy the gameplay, not the miniatures. And there is nothing wrong with that. Saying 'no there isn't anything wrong with that, but I wouldn't play them' still reveals that you have an ingrained sense of what's right and wrong about how to enjoy 40k and you wish to enforce this on others by punishing them when they don't do it the right way.



Hellebore

Kaldor Draigo
08-02-2013, 01:47
The point was to recognise that there isn't 'one' hobby. Obviously people vary in their degrees of different aspects of the hobby, but that has nothing to do with whether there is only one thing or not.

However, isn't it true that each person only has one hobby? By which I mean that, although collecting, modelling, painting and playing are all different things, each person only enjoys the hobby in one way. A mix of playing, painting, collecting, etc. People may well revolve through fascinations with certain aspects from time to time, playing a lot of games in this period and not painting any models, then doing a lot of painting in the next period and not playing any games, but I think it's a matter of course that each player brings to the game his own personal biases and preferences for how he likes to enjoy his hobby, regardless of the fact that there are multiple ways to enjoy the hobby.

I mean, this is the core argument between 'power' gamers and 'fluff' gamers. People just like to enjoy the game in different ways. That's fine, isn't it? Because in reference to this point:


the fallacious assumption that there is only one point and you're doing it right and they aren't.

you're incorrect. Each player approaches the game with only one point. For me, for example, it is to have a closely fought game with interesting, well painted armies. And if someone else has a significantly different approach to the game, then they aren't matching my 'point' and they aren't "doing it right" as you say.

And that's fine. We, as players, have to navigate these hurdles on a regular basis. Sometimes we run up against a hardcore powergamer who only wants to play as hard as he can. We don't like that type of game, so we have a hurdle to navigate.

It seems to me what you're saying is that people play differently, and we all have to like it. I agree that we all play differently, but we don't have to just like it and put up with it when our opponent does something that detracts from our enjoyment of the game.

Because this is the key to the issue for me: Everyone has a different reason for getting into the hobby, and indeed, everyone has a different idea of what the 'hobby' is! But a game is a match between TWO people. When you're playing a game with two people, you need to consider your opponent. You can't just say "Well, my way of playing is different to yours so too bad, you just have to deal with it."

Instead you (both!) have to modulate your behaviour. You might not think it's important to have a clearly written army list, but many people do. So bring an army list. You might not think it's important to have a shower and wear clean clothes to games nights, but many people do. So wash, you filthy urchin. You might not think it's important to use the rules associated with your models, but many people obviously do. Now obviously it's a free world, and you can do whatever you want. No one can make you do any of these things, but it's discourteous to simply stamp your feet on the ground and say "This is how I want to enjoy the game, so you need to like it!"


Saying 'no there isn't anything wrong with that, but I wouldn't play them' still reveals that you have an ingrained sense of what's right and wrong about how to enjoy 40k and you wish to enforce this on others by punishing them when they don't do it the right way.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. We all enjoy the hobby differently, and should endeavour to play against like-minded hobbyists. There's no requirement to play against everyone, and nor should there be.

This whole thread centres around the discussion of whether or not wanting people to use the rules associated with their models is a reasonable request or not. Not whether or not it's acceptable to have different ways to enjoy the hobby, or whether it's acceptable to only want to play in the way you enjoy, with people who share your views.

AngryAngel
08-02-2013, 06:15
Very well put Draigo, I agree pretty much completely, as well for what its worth, I hope you make it out of the warp sometime soon.

CrystalSphere
08-02-2013, 19:04
Being a hopper implies that you continually switch between different codexes, its not like you want to play an odd race/combo, and use an official codex to proxy it (ex. playing sisters of battle, but you use the imperial guard codex or some marine one, but you always use the same one). Iīm fine with people using another codex to fit in the creative vision of their army, as long as it makes sense in WYSIWYG context, so the miniatures are modeled correctly and look similar to what they are in gameplay terms.

However, i am not fine with my opponent using the same miniatures but each game they represent something different. That means extra mental effort on my part, to remember that now this is a vanilla marine but later it will be a blood angel. Gaming is a visual medium, and miniatures should show clearly what they represent. I would not give my opponent extra mental work just because i am not dedicated enough to collect all the codex i want to play, for either being cheap, lazy (not want to paint) or simply donīt caring.

If you want to use all the marine codexes, then save money and collect them all, or if you want to have always the most powerful codex, then sell your army and buy the newest each time it is released. Codex hopping is being selfish and forcing your opponent to deal with your own shortcomings, it is similar to playing with proxy models and changing what they are after each game, it is confusing and bad sportmanship.

cfoley
09-02-2013, 02:53
I'm a codex hopper... but listen to why before you judge me.

I've collected Blood Angels for 17 years. Back then they had no special rules. I didn't ask for the Death Company, the Black Rage or Baal Predators. I certainly didn't ask for my codex to have overpowered rules (as it has at times over the years). Sometimes I do use the rules that I accidentally invested in but more often, I play them as vanilla marines. My opponent always knows which in advance and while I sometimes get grumbles about the Blood Angels rules, that never happens with the vanilla rules.

As for other people, they can do whatever they want. Life is too short to get upset by things like that. Finding someone with good sportsmanship is far more important than petty details like whether their models are painted or which rules they are using.

Hellebore
11-02-2013, 00:14
However, isn't it true that each person only has one hobby? By which I mean that, although collecting, modelling, painting and playing are all different things, each person only enjoys the hobby in one way. A mix of playing, painting, collecting, etc. People may well revolve through fascinations with certain aspects from time to time, playing a lot of games in this period and not painting any models, then doing a lot of painting in the next period and not playing any games, but I think it's a matter of course that each player brings to the game his own personal biases and preferences for how he likes to enjoy his hobby, regardless of the fact that there are multiple ways to enjoy the hobby.

I mean, this is the core argument between 'power' gamers and 'fluff' gamers. People just like to enjoy the game in different ways. That's fine, isn't it? Because in reference to this point:



you're incorrect. Each player approaches the game with only one point. For me, for example, it is to have a closely fought game with interesting, well painted armies. And if someone else has a significantly different approach to the game, then they aren't matching my 'point' and they aren't "doing it right" as you say.

And that's fine. We, as players, have to navigate these hurdles on a regular basis. Sometimes we run up against a hardcore powergamer who only wants to play as hard as he can. We don't like that type of game, so we have a hurdle to navigate.

It seems to me what you're saying is that people play differently, and we all have to like it. I agree that we all play differently, but we don't have to just like it and put up with it when our opponent does something that detracts from our enjoyment of the game.

Because this is the key to the issue for me: Everyone has a different reason for getting into the hobby, and indeed, everyone has a different idea of what the 'hobby' is! But a game is a match between TWO people. When you're playing a game with two people, you need to consider your opponent. You can't just say "Well, my way of playing is different to yours so too bad, you just have to deal with it."

Instead you (both!) have to modulate your behaviour. You might not think it's important to have a clearly written army list, but many people do. So bring an army list. You might not think it's important to have a shower and wear clean clothes to games nights, but many people do. So wash, you filthy urchin. You might not think it's important to use the rules associated with your models, but many people obviously do. Now obviously it's a free world, and you can do whatever you want. No one can make you do any of these things, but it's discourteous to simply stamp your feet on the ground and say "This is how I want to enjoy the game, so you need to like it!"



There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. We all enjoy the hobby differently, and should endeavour to play against like-minded hobbyists. There's no requirement to play against everyone, and nor should there be.

This whole thread centres around the discussion of whether or not wanting people to use the rules associated with their models is a reasonable request or not. Not whether or not it's acceptable to have different ways to enjoy the hobby, or whether it's acceptable to only want to play in the way you enjoy, with people who share your views.

It is a punishment because there is not an equality of consequence for both players.

If a 'fluff gamer' meets a 'game player', they refuse to play them.
If a 'game player' meets a 'fluff gamer', they don't refuse to play them.

Someone who wishes only to play the game is more accepting of opponents, they aren't going to deny you a game because you DON'T codex hop. It's your right to choose not to play against someone, but the fact that the 'type' of player you're refusing to play against will actually accept MORE types of opponents than you says far more about your position on playing the game.

The fluff gamer is taking a position of moral authority, what you would call a position of 'priviledge'. No one refuses you a game. How would you like it if people said 'I'm not playing you because you refuse to play people who don't play the same way you do.' You can choose not to play someone for any reason whatsoever, but not using the 'right' rules with the 'right colour' is one of the most petty reasons and does nothing but cast yourself as intolerant.

A power gamer ≠ a hopper. Not all fish are sharks. A powergamer could have an army entirely painted 'correctly' for one book but game the crap out of it.

Codex 'hopping' is mechanically no different to playing an all assault marine blood angel list one week and playing an all tactical marine blood angel list the next, then maxing terminators and so on. People can 'list hop' WITHIN a codex.


Hellebore

Kevlar
11-02-2013, 01:42
I find it annoying but not because of the people doing it. More because Games Workshop refuses to balance their rulebooks forcing, or at least nudging people in this direction.

Kaldor Draigo
11-02-2013, 03:42
the fact that the 'type' of player you're refusing to play against will actually accept MORE types of opponents than you says far more about your position on playing the game.

Does it? What does it say? Let's not get too emotional here, no one is refusing to play anyone. In the OP I even made specific reference to people not *liking* codex hopping, not refusing to *play* against codex hoppers. I can play against another person and not like or approve of everything they do.


How would you like it if people said 'I'm not playing you because you refuse to play people who don't play the same way you do.' You can choose not to play someone for any reason whatsoever, but not using the 'right' rules with the 'right colour' is one of the most petty reasons and does nothing but cast yourself as intolerant.

No one should be made to feel petty or intolerant for saying "I don't like it when you do X, and it ruins my enjoyment of the game" where X is a suitably contentious issue.

That's such an obvious fact, that it's not even the point of the thread. The point of the thread is to discover if enough of the player population thinks codex hopping is *enough of an issue* that saying you don't like it is justified. Is codex hopping a suitably contentious issue?

On one hand we have obvious faux pas. Like, cheating. Or having a temper tantrum during a game. These things are universally reviled. On the other hand we have things that only a tiny minority will get upset about. Like not painting squad markings or numbers onto shoulder pads, or not weathering your models. Things that are pretty universally accepted.

In the middle we have things that are not uncommon, but not universal: Only playing with painted models, bringing a clearly written list to each game.

It's never wrong to say "I don't like this" although it is unusual in some instances where that makes you part of a tiny minority. But according to this poll, people opposed to codex hopping are NOT a tiny minority.

Commotionpotion
11-02-2013, 11:02
I didn't actually vote, because the poll question is flawed. I don't care about codex hopping, and what an opponent chooses to field in their army is no business of mine (unless it's something totally 'illegal', and even then that would only be an issue in pick-up games - established groups can organise their own parameters for special games beforehand).

I believe that what grinds people's gears about 'codex hopping' the most is that it can easily appear as yet another reason for those who play loyalist space marines as being the 'privileged few' (or the privileged many, if you prefer it). It is arguably the basis for the whole 'one codex to rule them all' faction. No one would mind if every player of every faction, could do it at will. However, because of the over-representation of SM codicies (because they sell, and it's good business for GW), this is not the case.

The Allies system even exacerbates this by counting all those permutations of the same army as different armies, whereas everyone else - with the possible exception of Guard - is far more restricted.

The last time GW made an active effort in the main studio to promote different factions of all armies was in 3-4th ed. with a variety of means: the Regimental Doctrines for Guard, the Craftworld Eldar sub-codex, Chaos Marines 3.5, the optional rules for Ork Clans in WD. The problem was that this vision was never truly coherent EXCEPT with SM (because they sell) and so was promptly dropped when 5ed 'streamlined' everything. 6ed now looks like things are going to stay the same way in this regard, because this is a consequence of the cutting down of GW's Research and Development budget - they seem to have a much smaller Design Studio staff now having to handle three flagship games that notionally need to be given the same degree of attention.

Anyway, sorry about the tangent. As I said, I don't give a monkey's either way.

Freakiq
11-02-2013, 16:39
I believe that what grinds people's gears about 'codex hopping' the most is that it can easily appear as yet another reason for those who play loyalist space marines as being the 'privileged few' (or the privileged many, if you prefer it). It is arguably the basis for the whole 'one codex to rule them all' faction. No one would mind if every player of every faction, could do it at will

That's not really my problem with it.

My problem is that a model will have different rules from game to game without any change in appearance.

cfoley
11-02-2013, 16:50
But surely that's a problem with any kind of proxying or "counts as" armies.

Freakiq
11-02-2013, 17:34
But surely that's a problem with any kind of proxying or "counts as" armies.

Not really.

An army of Praetorians that counts as Grey Knights will use the Grey Knights rules every game.

A codex hopping army will have Blood Angels rules one game and Space Wolf rules the next.

BrainFireBob
11-02-2013, 23:04
What's interesting about this is the most disliked Codex-hopper seems to be the one that doesn't buy new models and doesn't repaint them. While it could be that the hobby is expensive, it seems to send the message that they are, in fact, only in it to win- that they don't care about anything else.

Howloutloud
12-02-2013, 04:40
An interesting (at least to me) anecdote: I play Dark Angels, have since the pamphlet codex was released in third. I have a friend that has a tendency to codex hop a little (he plays BA, Vanilla and Chaos). For some reason he decided he wanted to try to out "DeathRaven" me.... so he wrote up a vanilla list that only used units you would find in a ravenwing or deathwing list, except he had to use 1 unit of scouts as he had double his force. At 2280 points.

I will not post his list as it was 1. not good, 2. he never actually showed it to me.

I on the other hand decided to go with a basic dual wing list, not using any real gimmicky tactics or units... a somewhat fluffy list if you would:

Sammael
Belial
Librarian with Bike (no other upgrades)
Ravenwing Command Squad with Apothecary and the Ravenwing banner
10 Terminators with 2 Plasmacannons and 4 thunder hammer storm shields
10 Terminators with 2 Cyclones and 4 thunder hammer storm shields
2x 5 bikes with 2 plasma gun and combi plasma and the multi-melta attack bike
5 bikes with 2 melta guns and a combi melta.

By turn 4 I had killed all but his one bike commander (in hth dueling Belial), and still had 2/3 of my army.

Why is this important to this particular discussion? Remember the part about him being an army book hopper? He's now convinced that my bikes are better than his, my terminators are better than his, my commanders are better than his, etc... Had nothing to do with the fact I might have outfought him, or that my tactics were better....

Therefore he is now looking at using a 4th codex.... Needless to say I will not be letting him live it down if he does.

TL;DR: If you have a genuine thought out fluffy reason for using a different codex then I don't really have a problem with it, but if you are jumping to the new hotness or trying to use a codex to represent something that isn't fluffy *cough* counts as 1st company Ultras/Blood Angels/etc... using Deathwing *cough*, then your darn right I'm gonna let you know what I think of you... in detail... and I can ramble on.

KronusDaSneaky
12-02-2013, 06:43
I do not really mind people using whatever codex they want to if it makes for a fun, relaxed game. What I dislike is having to listen to people speak with pride about the fluff they have created for their army to explain why it makes sense to use codex Grey Knights to represent his khornate Assault force or similar non-nonsensical force. In all honesty use what you like, when you like as long as you do not bother to justify in fluff the unjustifiable.

ReveredChaplainDrake
12-02-2013, 07:17
The way I see it, there's a trade-off involved in playing all the marine chapters simultaneously. The pros are pretty obvious. You get to use whatever codex you want, either keeping up with the newest, hottest marine book in the meta, or to shake up your usual routine with a different playstyle. However, the cons of doing this are a bit more subtle.

Take two hypothetical players: one playing the Marines with enough models to be either Space Wolves or Blood Angels, and the other being a xeno player running two different armies, Necrons and Tyranids. I'd be surprised if the xeno player managed to afford their collection for less money than the marine player, and even more surprised if they actually painted their army quicker. The Marine player also takes less space to store their models, and could turn their Space Wolves / Blood Angels into Space Wolves / Blood Angels / Dark Angels very easily, or at least far easier than the xeno player could go from Necrons / Tyranids to Necrons / Tyranids / Dark Eldar. And if the marine player wanted to try another flavor of Marines, they could easily ally them into their current army (so long as they're not Chaos Marines), while allying xeno races together tends to be a bit trickier. (And in the case of Tyranids, outright impossible.)

The problem is that, no matter how divergent the playstyle, the marine player is still playing Marines, only they switched around their gimmick. A Battle Cannon could really care less what color your Space Marines are painted. In fact, all a Plasma Cannon would really care about is a Storm Shield, maybe Camo Cloaks. The meta expects Space Marines to such an extent that showing up with a xeno army can throw off a meta-ready army's entire strategy. Also, xeno armies cover each others' bases very well, far better than various Space Marine chapters, because xeno armies are so radically different from one another. For Tyranids, heavy psychic defense and a ton of fliers can really ruin their day, but Necrons almost laugh at stuff like that. Necrons, on the other hand, fear assault like the plague, whereas running headfirst into Tyranids is practically doing them a favor. The xeno player may have spent twice the money (or knowing Tyranids, four times the money), but they will have more options if playing a pick-up game against someone who only owns a single army that just so happens to be the bane of one of their armies.

Then there's a closely-related problem of painting. The marine player will likely get their stuff painted faster and, due to having more time than the xeno player, probably to better quality. The problem is that you're just painting more and more Marines. I can't imagine it would take too long for the monotony to set in. Xeno armies tend to have more varied model structures, letting the xeno player change gears and go from painting Termagants to painting Hive Guard, Tervigons, and Flyrants instead, to keep from getting too bored too quickly. But all the Marine player has to look forward to in terms of variety are Terminators, tanks (which largely share the same boring old chassis), and weapon specialists. If the marine player isn't dedicated enough to stick to a single codex, I doubt their dedication to painting 40+ Space Marines that all wear very nearly the same power armor and where 70% carry the same basic weapon.

Another problem with codex-shifting Marines is that the number of models you re-use between the armies can often be deceptively low. In the Space Wolf / Blood Angel example below, Space Wolves have some very solid "Tactical" Marines, but have notoriously terrible "Assault" and "Bike" Marines, so they often opt to flood their lists with Grey Hunters on foot until the points run out. Blood Angels are almost the exact opposite, having some rather lackluster Tactical Marines but have Assault Marines that are even more viable than the vanilla Marines' version, to the point where you could have Assault Marines as the bulk of your army. What models would the Space Wolves and Blood Angels likely have in common? The Librarian / Rune Priest, and maybe Devastators / Long Fangs, assuming the Blood Angels didn't just go the Stormraven route. It's very likely that the Space Wolves and the Blood Angels armies might not even share a single model in common, allies notwithstanding. Grey Knights take this even further, as a Grey Knight Strike Marine and a Tactical Marine / Grey Hunter aren't even comparable beyond their statline. This is why my rule of thumb is that you should only codex hop between codex-adherent chapters. Any further either invites confusion or defeats the purpose of saving time and money. Possibly both.

To make an overly long post short, I can see the appeal of why someone would want to codex hop their Marines around to whatever chapter, but I just don't have the devotion to power armor required to do so myself. So long as the proxies are minimized (a written list helps), I don't care if anybody else does it. Though I always chuckle a little inside whenever anybody uses Space Wolves as Dark Angels or vice versa. Fluff for the Fluff God.

carldooley
12-02-2013, 15:39
sorry, what does TL;DR mean? I keep trying to equate it to TSLR(Turn Signals on a Land Raider).

ForgottenLore
12-02-2013, 17:36
sorry, what does TL;DR mean? I keep trying to equate it to TSLR(Turn Signals on a Land Raider).

TL;DR = To Long; Didn't Read

I had to look that one up several months ago as well.

Luffwaffle
12-02-2013, 17:38
sorry, what does TL;DR mean? I keep trying to equate it to TSLR(Turn Signals on a Land Raider).

Too long; Didn't Read.

It's usually used before including a summary section on a rather long post. Thus if the post was too long and you didn't read it, then you read the summary instead.

It also can be used in a reply to a long post saying the post was "too long" and you "didn't read" it.