PDA

View Full Version : "played as" armies and WYSIWYG



Brothermarcus
29-08-2006, 19:43
I've seen a number of armys - both locally and in assorted WDs - using one set of (usually heavily converted) models represented by a different, albiet perfectly legal, ruleset.

How does this work? How much leeway do you have? Obviously in a friendly setting I would think ensuring your opponent is well informed as to what everything represent would be sufficient...

What about in a tournament setting? How accurate do you have to be?

For example does a 3+ powerarmour save have to be power armour or could it be a shamanistic person covered in painted wards, medallions, feathers, etc?

Do 2 CCW have to be 2 seperate weapons held in each hand? What about a 2-handed staff with blades at both ends?

Can an eviserator be a huge ritualistic glowing blade or MUST it be a 2-handed chainsword?

I think you see what I'm getting at... how accurate do you need to be?

I guess to finish this off I'll ask a WYSIWYG question in general... lets use feral orks as an example... they have 3 different class of boar...

Boar - your standard piggy
CyBoar - a piggy that has been modified with elements of technology
Super Cyboar - a cyboar that has been given a large red button that can be pushed to send it surging forward, presumably more armored and generally more impressive then a standard cyboar.

How diverse do you have to be with your modelling? If I have a standard boar and tell you my orks are mounted on cyboars - is that illegal?

I could really use some direction here - thanks in advance!

~BM

BrainFireBob
29-08-2006, 19:56
It has to be universal and consistent, I think, realistically proportioned as a model for gameplay purposes, and most of all, readily apparent/intuitive.

This gun represents a bolter, the same gun with a line of red is a meltagun- doesn't fly, I can't immediately tell by glancing at the unit.

If you have an army painted in runes, etc., and a good reason for why- so after a quick "this was my modelling idea and how I did it" I don't need to ask what everything is- I don't think you'd find anyone with a problem with it.

As to Orks- if you don't have any regular boars, tell me they're cyboars at deployment. If you have both, make the cyboars different, and preferably cybernetic so when I look, I don't mistake the two.

Supercyboar- same deal. Although in that case, I wouldn't go with regular boars called Cyboars, I'd give a reason it's a better boar- even if it's a goading stick labelled "Da Button"

William Moran
29-08-2006, 19:58
Ok dude, it is you and one other dude playing the game, you give the other guy as much leeway as you can take! I guess that because you are playing a made up game with plastic mini's that you have enough imagination to give a very large amount of leeway.

Brothermarcus
29-08-2006, 20:00
William,

Unfortunately you can't predict what any given person will do in a given situation. Thus I am asking what I am entitled to do within the rules and in a tournament setting.

I personally would give people leeway to play whatever they want as long as they have justification for it and have put thought into it - but that doesnt mean some random person I don't know will do the same for me...

BrainFireBob
29-08-2006, 20:03
Again, consistency is the key.

If one unit of Guardsmen is armed with bows, they'd better all be armed with bows if you want them to count as lasguns.

All units of the same type should be converted the same way.

Sandals
29-08-2006, 20:04
the new tournament packs for this years GT have a new section called 'counts as.' this enables you to turn up and, as long as you inform the judges at the start of the weekend, you can pretty much use anything as anything. this, for example, lets me use my dark eldar, but more of that later...

as far as i'm concered, everything you described is fine by me, as long as the same thing doesn't represent two different items then i'm fine with it.

Brothermarcus
29-08-2006, 20:11
Thanks for the quick response all...

I'm interested in the general ruling for my own general knowledge primarily but specifically I am interested in playing Feral Orks using kroot models. I really like the forgeworld knarlocs and knarloc riders but dont like the rules for either when played properly... However Knarloc-turned-squiggoths and a warboss and nobs on cyboars that look like kroot knarloc riders... that piques my interest. Also the wierdboy would be great fun to convert as a Kroot Shaman in my opinion. This also strikes me as a very reasonable and fluffy 'counts as' army since kroot are obviously feral by nature with similiar starlines to an ork.

Thoughts?

BrainFireBob
29-08-2006, 20:12
Heck, you can tell your opponent they're Kroot who've had a few too many Feral Ork snacks.

VetSgtNamaan
29-08-2006, 20:15
I have two different tolerance levels to be honest. If I am playing a friendly game then I give alot of leeway. I am used to teaching kids how to play so I am pretty patient. Those rare times I actually do playing in a tourney then well I am pretty picky.

Chaplin Loki
29-08-2006, 20:33
As long as the basic unit type is the same Iím okay with as long as I know in advance. I'm a lot more lenient if the unit is painted different, like the boar/cyboar example, put a little silver paint on there and im more than happy.

I play Templars, I went and bought the chapter upgrade and slapped as many close combat weapons to my squads as I could, I'm not spending another $30 bucks for some arms when I can mix the squads and just let my opponent know all my bolters are bolt pistols/ close combat weapons. Special weapons (meltas, plasma, heavy weapons) are different and have the proper weapon in hand.

If anyone ever gave me trouble for not having the proper set up, I just find someone else to play.

Farseerixirvost
29-08-2006, 20:49
Brothermarcus, Its really hard to answer the original question w/ a "yes or no" or a "you can/you can't" type of answer. As the handful of replies indicates, different people are going to have different personal tastes. From a tournament perspective, there's also multiple possibilities, all of which can be settled by the tournament organizer. IF its a GW event, then sounds like there's some semi-official rules in the GT pack (as mentioned). If its NOT a GW event, then 'buyer beware.'

Me? I'm very lenient and would allow just about anything that is (a) consistent and (b) explained to me up front. From your examples, I'd say no-problem w/ them - I kinda cringe at counting a 2-handed weapon (staff w/ 2 blades) as 2 1-handed weapons, but again, if you said up front "this double bladed staff counts as 2 1-handed weapons" I'd be fine, cuz from that point on, I'd know what to expect.


{paraphrased} kroot = feral orks

As for this, EXCELLENT idea. I'd run with it full force! :evilgrin:

sulla
29-08-2006, 20:58
Thanks for the quick response all...

I'm interested in the general ruling for my own general knowledge primarily but specifically I am interested in playing Feral Orks using kroot models. I really like the forgeworld knarlocs and knarloc riders but dont like the rules for either when played properly... However Knarloc-turned-squiggoths and a warboss and nobs on cyboars that look like kroot knarloc riders... that piques my interest. Also the wierdboy would be great fun to convert as a Kroot Shaman in my opinion. This also strikes me as a very reasonable and fluffy 'counts as' army since kroot are obviously feral by nature with similiar starlines to an ork.

Thoughts?

It wouldn'y really sit comfortably with me if you just plonked down a bunch of kroot stuff and said it was ork stuff unless you were trialling the army.

However, if you had heavily converted the army to resemble a tribe of kroot heavily evolved toward orkyness (Orky looking guns, a giant kroot as the warboss, Knarloc turned squiggoths with shabby fortresses on top and lots of choppas etc) then counts as would be appropriate IMO.

Sulla

Brothermarcus
29-08-2006, 21:36
Thanks all for the answers, I think this tells me most of what I need to know.

The reason I asked about the 2-handed weapon being counted as 2-ccw is because there is a (sort-of) precedent in the kroot army already in the form of a bladed kroot rifle which counts as an extra CCW due to the weapons resemblence to a traditional kroot fighting staff.

In response to Sulla - I'm not insinuating a group of vanilla kroot has begun to become more orky at all. I am using the rules for feral orks to represent a more flexable (but still very fluffy and viable) kroot list.

Kroot have a very similiar statline to an ork and in my opinion the adaptation from one list to the other would require very little in the way of conversion/elaboration to explain it. It's not like saying "this group of fantasy dwarves is actually greyknights"... basing GKs off fantasy dwarves is something that would require a massive stretch in terms of rules AND Fluff.

Kroot vs feral ork? fluff wise they'd have very similiar habitats, technology levels, reliance on beasts more then technology...

Instead of painting kroot green, giving them ork arms, and replacing my smaller knarloc legs with sentinel legs I'm more inclinced to give the kroot weaponry appropriate to the statline the feral ork list gives them and bedeck my knarlocs in spiritual symbols and various wards and hexes to denote their better-then-an-average-animal status.

Personally I think this would be rather cool - hopefully Sulla's in the minority, no offense intended whatsoever *grin*

~BM

jfrazell
29-08-2006, 21:36
Assumption: non-tournament.

As long as the differences are uniform bring what you want. teh more conversion ideas the better!

Easy E
29-08-2006, 23:11
Wow, tournaments seem to suck the life outta conversion work.

I think the Kroot to Feral Orks would work fine. A quick once over before you start the game as to what squads equal what, a clear way to distinguish units, and your set.

cailus
29-08-2006, 23:19
Ok dude, it is you and one other dude playing the game, you give the other guy as much leeway as you can take! I guess that because you are playing a made up game with plastic mini's that you have enough imagination to give a very large amount of leeway.

In my experience people often proxy in order to gain an advantage. Most people that I have played have marine killer armies. When someone like myself turns up with Orks, then all of a sudden they want their lascannons to count as heavy bolters.

Personally I say stiff. If the Italian army could fight in Stalingrad with cardboard boots then a Marine killer army can fight with lascannons. Maybe they could use those other guns known as bolters or lasguns.

In fact I have noticed that a couple of guard players I know would regularly forget to fire their lasguns but always remember to fire their ordnance and heavy weapons.

I once even pointed this out to one and he said "who cares, they're only lasguns."

Funny cause my Orks would rather face 5 Terminators with storm bolters than 30 Guardsmen with lasguns.

EDIT: Oh if someone is playing "my Squats count as Marines" then I'm totally cool with it and actively support it.

Kordos
29-08-2006, 23:50
I'm cool with count as - as long as it is NOT a simple these lascannons count as heavy bolters like Cailus says above me.
If you are going the count as route have an army list on hand at all times - even go so far as to make notes on your list about your conversions like 2 x CCW (double bladed staff)

SBRTy
30-08-2006, 00:25
So with the "counts as" thing for GW tournaments, it'd be acceptable to field Cadians as inquisitorial stormtroopers b/c I don't want to throw down $80 for Kasrkins and even though they have lasguns and not hellguns? That'd be pretty damn sweet.

Anvils Hammer
30-08-2006, 00:43
So with the "counts as" thing for GW tournaments, it'd be acceptable to field Cadians as inquisitorial stormtroopers b/c I don't want to throw down $80 for Kasrkins and even though they have lasguns and not hellguns? That'd be pretty damn sweet.

yes, you could do this, but its cutting it close to the line.
Id recommend atleast seom converting to make them more heavily armouered, perhaps the respirator heads from forgeworld.

ALso, if you use cadians as ST's, you cant have any of them counting as anything else. its ST's or nothing.

consistence and an informed oppoennt is vital. but after that, go for whatever you want!

cailus
30-08-2006, 00:49
So with the "counts as" thing for GW tournaments, it'd be acceptable to field Cadians as inquisitorial stormtroopers b/c I don't want to throw down $80 for Kasrkins and even though they have lasguns and not hellguns? That'd be pretty damn sweet.

I don't think they'll let you get away with this one. The Cadian Guardsmen are explicitely Guardsmen while Kasrkin are explicitely Kasrkin.

It'd be like using Tactical Marines as Assault Marines.

I think the "counts as" is more applicable to my example e.g. "My Squats count as Marines." Or another one is "my 4 wheeled Guard buggy with a multilaser counts as an IG Sentinel." Or "this extensively converted Ork tank built out of plastic card and gubbinz counts as a looted Hellhound."

However if you extensively converted your Cadians to look like Stormtroopers/Kasrkin or to look like something totally different that doesn't look like either a Guardsman or Kasrkin then you would be alright.

Sandals
30-08-2006, 00:59
and as Anvils Hammer says, if you have cadians as ST you'd have to use something else as guardsmen.

as for the kroot idea, as long as everything was consistant and i was told before the game started, i wouldn't mind in any situation. the problems occur if two units have kroot rifles and one has slugga and choppa and one has shoota, for example. i'm sure with a little work this could be a great army idea.

(quietly files away for possible future use!)

sulla
31-08-2006, 13:15
Personally I think this would be rather cool - hopefully Sulla's in the minority, no offense intended whatsoever *grin*

~BM

It certainly looks like I'm in the minority but yeah, I wouldn't be comfortable with what you're suggesting. To play one army using another army's rules because those rules are better/more powerful just seems wrong to me. Sorry, but I would say if you like the feral ork rules, play feral orks... if you really like kroot, just add some as allies.

Sulla

shartmatau
31-08-2006, 13:41
As a quick sidenote, about the Cadians as Inq. Stormtroopers. Many people have done this for exactly the reason you stated. I know several people that use Cadians as both guardsmen and stormtroopers in an allied Inq./Guard army. What they did was paint the guardsmen like the ones from the codex (green and tan) and painted the stormtroopers Black and Grey. There was a very clear difference between the two. Also, try to do a little converting to make those lasguns into hellguns.

Nkari
31-08-2006, 13:47
Aye, I agree with sulla.. Unless you _heavily_ convert your kroot.. I would hate to play vs out of the box kroot that counts as orks..

Achilles
31-08-2006, 14:01
Well i use a reasonable amount of counts as in my armies, but all because of a fluff or Cool Conversion angle.

Example:
One of my Khornate Champions is an Ogryn (rule wise: mounted on a Juggernaut)
In my Rogue Trader force (deamonhunters) my:
Deamonhosts are Slann. (alien psykers)
Death cult Assasins are Dark eldar Wyches
Eversor is a Spyre Hunter
One of my advisors is a Tau Air caste
One of my Speed-Freaks trukks is a Flat-Bed Chimera
And I use deamonette chariots in my WHFB chaos army as marked warrior chariots.

I agree with the 'As long as its clear and consistant' ruling here, and would like to add 'fluffy & cool' :D

ashc
31-08-2006, 14:06
i don't see a problem with this at all really; nicely converted shamanistic feral kroot would be cool and interesting.

Ash

AmKhaibitu
31-08-2006, 18:03
Basically if there's any chance of confusion, even after you've explained what an item is, then don't do it.

But if you can make sure there's no problem with confusion, then more power to you.

Right now I'm converting beastmen into LatD mutants, and ork arms work really well on the gors, so firearms all round.

Malphax
31-08-2006, 18:11
As for the Cadians, the Inquisition codices basically TELL you to take cadians as your ISTs, so there ya go.

The only real issue with 'counts as' is consistency. For instance, every meltagun must look more or less the same, and no weapon used to represent a meltagun should be on any non-meltagun model to represent something else. Otherwise there's a lot of confusion as to what's what. As long as you're consistent in your conversions, there's really no problems with it at all. Heck, one of my friends uses LEGOs for his Mech Tau. Looks pretty cool too.

Edited so as not to get sued

UnRiggable
31-08-2006, 18:15
and as Anvils Hammer says, if you have cadians as ST you'd have to use something else as guardsmen.

Then wouldn't you need different models for conscripts?

Mikko
31-08-2006, 18:57
Heck, one of my friends uses Legos for his Mech Tau. Looks pretty cool too.
But not quite tourney legal, I'm thinking. :)

(And technically, that's "LEGO bricks". The LEGO Group, the company that makes the blessed things, is rather vehemently insistent on this. :D)

BrainFireBob
31-08-2006, 19:03
The Cadian conscripts- the whiteshields- just have a white stripe and white shoulder pad, though they're the same models. (One assumes no bare-headed conscript would EVER have grey hair). Against the dark colors, they pop and stand out as a different unit. Those, and the old SM veterans (before they released models for them) who just had a different shoulder pad trim, are excellent official examples of making it clear there's a difference with just paint, but still making it an OBVIOUS difference.

Toppan
01-09-2006, 01:44
im a feral ork player. for once, im the star! yay!

anyway, boars, cyboars and super cyboars...theyre all completely different. if it were me, i would NOT allow you to use just ol non-converted boars as cyboars. if you wish to play a chapter approved custom army with no "actual" models, then you bet your ass, youd better convert a little, just to show effort. as for me, you can clearly see which boars are which. my warboss stands out, hes the biggest and has the big red button. my cyboars may look more converted than the super cyboar, but thats because the warboss doesnt need a big ass fancy boar...his boar is awesome without armor :).

anyway, my point is thus. if you dont use out-of-the box boars as cyboars and super cyboars, then you are fine, convert them...thats what orks are for.

as for krootses, im thinking of using a squad for my huntas...or trappas or something like that. awesomeness abound! and kroothounds for my ogre sabretusks. i love kroot, its too bad they suck :(

as for the general subject of wysiwyg...i think that at least they look like what they are supposed to be its fine with me. i dont want to go up to youre heavily converted catachan models and tell you that you cant use them as stormtroopers...thats a waste of everyone's time and effort and is really not worth it.

dumbuket
01-09-2006, 02:22
The fact that there's even an argument about this is a bad sign in this hobby.

Of course you should do this! If the conversions are clear and an effort is made to minimize confusion (and you brief your opponent ahead of time) then you should be fine. Even completely unconverted, a lot of armies are confusing to their opponents anyway - most people can't tell the difference between my spinegaunts and my termagants even thought they've been built completely standard. Unless you're keeping your list secret, there's no reason not do go nuts with the conversions.

Also, in my own feral ork army, I use completely different animals for each type of boar. Regular boars are the old raptor-style cold ones. Cyboars will be the larger, nastier dark elf lizard mounts from Gamezone, and the boss's supercyboar is the biggest, nastiest lizard of all, a carnosaur.

zealousheretic
01-09-2006, 05:49
As long as you're up front about what isn't WYSIWYG (I usually point anything that's not WYSIWYG out at the start of the game), and are consistant, I'm pretty laid back about this. Most people are on a limited budget, so I have no problem with proxying special weapons or the like.

Obviously, people that abuse this get no sympathy, but as long as I know what's what before the game starts, it's all good. I appreciate my opponent having the decency to remind me of something if it's about to become relevant.

Obviously, if you have a cool conversion or the like, please, by all means, use it. I'll usually complement you on your work, ask you what it counts as or the like, and then get on with the game. It's a sad day for the hobby if we ever get to the point where people object to a converted marine character because he's modelled with an odd weapon that counts as a pair of lightning claws or the like. That kind of thing should be encouraged.

Brothermarcus
06-09-2006, 04:12
Wow,

Thanks all for the great input, I really appreciate all the insights and feedback.

I agree with pretty much everyone - even the dissenters.

If an army is well planned, justified, painstakingly converted, and logically modelled to represent their list I welcome it to the table.

I actually think the Kroot merc list could be quite competative my main problem with playing that list is the lack of diversity in the models. Everything is a 'kroot'. I mean, you can play Krootox but since they don't infiltrate they blow. I want to be able to play knarlocs and knarloc riders because I love the models and they arent represented outside of forgeworld rules which I'm very hesitant to play with.

Basically I am only playing feral orks because it is the list that most fits the look and feel of the kroot models (and forgeworld additions) - not because I find the feral ork list superior (though it is). I'm not all that interested in winning with the list, moreso I'm interested in playing with what are my favorite model range.

I hope that makes sense - and again thanks everyone.

~bm

Kelstonwells
06-09-2006, 09:53
I'm pretty pro WYSIWYG... to me its as important to a model based wargame as the rule system itself. But Imagination should also have a fundamental part a to play. 'Count As' is great so long as the replaced feature has been equally represented by the imaginative one. Saying a double ended wpn counts as 2 c.c.wpns is totally fine, But I once played vs a guy who used the basic demonhost model from the inquisitor range as a totally tooled up demon prince who's dreadaxe was nothing more than a slain space marine in his grip! vast majority of the wargear had no visable equivalents yet the model was upheld by referee... this was not acceptable in my view.

Kriegsherr
06-09-2006, 11:04
I think as a Feral ork player I would give all cyboars bike wheels for starters... as a very clear conversion.... and then maybe add some smaller parts.

The super cyboar should be completly cyber (metal, whires) (why can't I stop thinking about just using the Juggernaut with some trimming? :))

But I'm always happy to lower my standarts for reasonable people with cool conversions.

TheHereticsPaintbrush
06-09-2006, 11:56
3rd. edition rulebook clearly lined this out for the most part; basically you have to represent everything(with the exception of grenades); i.e. if a model is supposed to have something, then represent it somehow, just makes sure it is consistent throughout. Personally i think that totally does away with only giving a few models, say close combat weapons and then saying that they all have it.

Kelstonwells
06-09-2006, 12:43
My understanding was things like grenades, marks, c.c.wpns etc had to be represented on majority of models. After all they do produce grenades as kit form. And altho I think 'Count As' helps with making models more unique there is a danger of the rule being abused. I personally think if a player wants to use Space wolf rules for example then he should use their form, icons,grey colours inc or at the very least imagery that is derivative of the space wolves as in a second founding chapter. I've seen bright Multi coloured Eldar played as Ulthwe simply because of the seer council advantage which I believe is against the nature of the fluff... unconverted old style necron immortals played as Chaos obliterators... a bog standard chaos marine riding on the back of a giant lizard used as demon prince with statue and speed when WYSIWYG would dictate it to be lord on a steed which is a totally different combo. Count As is fine as long as it still adheres to WYSIWYG and is appropriate to the official written background as anyone could write fluff to explain anything they like.

Kelstonwells
06-09-2006, 12:57
I think its important to remember that 40k isn't simply about playing toy soldiers.. but that it has an established background full of rich resources. If you feel that by creating an army that is still true to this universe and does not go against what has already been established then do it! but if you're simply doing it because you want said advantage of that army for gaming purposes then i'd think twice! and alwys remember WYSIWYG :cool:

VetSgtNamaan
06-09-2006, 13:45
As much as I myself love to have everything modeled up and all looking very cool. I tend not to worry about the WYSIWYG. Because as I mentioned before we all have lives and frankly other things become more important. it is after all a hobby. When I have the time to devote I will and get things done if I don't have stuff done by the time I want to play no biggie. I am not in this for an ego trip or even to show off my skills as a converter its to play the game and chuck some dice.

Griffin
06-09-2006, 13:51
I like having the models have what you say they have - Thats why i'll cconvert some of my stuff.

Kelstonwells
06-09-2006, 14:00
VetsgtNanaam..

Complying to WYSIWYG rule isn't ego trippy nor is it being a show off.. its simply taking part in this model based wargame how its intended. Fair play to you if you have more important things in your life as do we all, its just many of us like to put abit of effort into whatever we do choose to do, hobby or not :cool: