WYSIWYG vs Creativity

[Freakiq]

If it's used to further creativity and showcase conversions it's fine.

If it's just a matter of saving money or proxying I'd be more hesitant.

[Gingerwerewolf]

A really good line has been drawn by Games Workshop themselves: The Warhammer World Event Guide and Rules

The Downloaded PDF has this to say:

Using Converted or ‘Counts As’ Models
Every hobbyist loves seeing converted miniatures, especially if it’s a whole themed army, and even more
so if they get to play against them! Here at Warhammer World, we look forward to seeing these ideas
and being inspired by them- imagination and ingenuity is a part of the hobby we want to actively
encourage. To that end, using models you’ve converted to represent rules not currently covered by a
model in the Citadel range, or an idea you’ve had is absolutely fine. They may even look nothing like
the figures we sell! These examples are from the Autumn 2010 Warhammer 40,000 Throne of Skulls.

These are great examples of the kind of armies we love to see. Both hobbyists here have really gone to
town with the conversions, but still accurately represent what they are based on. Both had reference
cards for their opponents so that they knew what represented what, as they knew it might otherwise be
confusing! We have to set some rules here, however, as we want to keep the experience positive for all
our players, and make sure there is no confusion:
 All your models should be on the appropriate base size (ie- the base supplied with the model).
 If Games Workshop produce a model for a unit entry, we expect you to use it. For example,
plastic Ork Boyz painted slightly differently cannot be used for Kommandos. Similarly, you
cannot use plastic Moria Goblins to represent Gundabad Blackshields. The exception to this is
any conversions you may have done for thematic reasons.
 All models must clearly show all the correct weapon options on them.
 Any conversions should be clearly obvious as to what they are, and be the same size as the
Citadel miniature sold.
 All models and their components must be produced by Citadel Miniatures, Forgeworld or
Warhammer Forge.
Using these rules ensures all players have great experience at our events

[Wishing]

It's nice to see them actively encourage conversions and such and emphasise how creativity is important for the hobby. However, the rules quoted above don’t really answer anything I think, because it always boils down to a judgment call. To take a few of the most relevant points as examples:

- If Games Workshop produce a model for a unit entry, we expect you to use it. For example,
plastic Ork Boyz painted slightly differently cannot be used for Kommandos. Similarly, you
cannot use plastic Moria Goblins to represent Gundabad Blackshields. The exception to this is
any conversions you may have done for thematic reasons.

Not very helpful guideline in my view. Read at face value, it makes the only kind of legal conversions for army options that don’t have models yet. For everything that GW produces a model for, you have to use that model. This per definition excludes all counts-as. Thematic conversions are allowed – but then it boils down to a judgment call whether a conversion is “thematic” or not.

- Any conversions should be clearly obvious as to what they are, and be the same size as the Citadel miniature sold.

“Clearly obvious” is the ultimate judgment call issue. Is using daemonettes instead of death cultists clearly obvious what they are meant to represent? In their introduction to the guidelines, they state that it is good form for players to provide a chart that shows what represents what… suggestion that those correlations weren’t clearly obvious; otherwise the chart shouldn’t really be necessary.

So yeah, the statement of being positive towards conversions is a good thing, but the rules aren’t really rules when they boil down to personal aesthetic opinion (as questions of this nature always do).

[Nurgling Chieftain]

For me, weapon swaps are the most confusing. Your lightning claws count as a power weapon? Your halberds count as thunderhammers? Your flamer is a meltagun? I'd rather see a "terminator with a hellblade" standing in for a bloodcrusher(!) than the halberd/thunderhammer swap on an otherwise perfectly normal assault terminator used as an example earlier in this thread. Why? Because at a glance I'm looking for what can that model do to my guys more than anything else, and the former doesn't make me have to stop and think, "no wait he's actually using a slow high-strength weapon instead of a fast low-strength weapon like he appears to be".

[madprophet]

So I converted 2 Ogryns out of GW/MB Battlemasters Ogres - all the conversion bitz are GW and back in the day GW called the Battlemasters game and it's miniatures Citadel. Is this Kosher according to the GW rules?

I also converted some rough riders. The grunts are 100% GW components except for the banner bearer's pole (that's made from a toothpick) and the banner (that was designed in Photoshop and printed on an adhesive label). The officer is on a GW horse (head swapped for an Elven Steed from the fantasy line). His head and left arms come from the hairy heads sprue. His right arm is from a Tallarn rough rider. His right arm carries a bolt pistol from a Chaos Marine sprue. His legs come from the Empire Command sprue. All the bits and bobs on his utility belt are from the IG sprue. His torso, however, is from a Wargames Factory Heavy Weapons officer (the fur lined coat torso). Is he Kosher?

My Officer of the Fleet is the Lt. Varras model from the Battle for Macragge box set - He's a GW figure but not the official "officer of the fleet" - is he kosher? What about the Master of Ordinance I made out of Cadian bitz taken from the Tank Accessory sprue? Is he kosher? My female Valhallans are right out - only their arms and weapons are GW bitz. The heads and torsos are Laughing Monk and their legs and feet come from Wargames Factory's heavy weapons officers - they still look awesome.

I have the Brides of Faruq (chosen CSM for my Is'Malal chaos army) who represent the actual harem of my CSM commander who is a conversion based on the Archeron Lord of the End Times model (all GW but not the official CSM Lord on a mount) - I have him "Count As" a CSM Lord on a bike.

I also have a sorcerer on a flying carpet - again, all GW parts.. is that okay? The army has an "Arabian Nights" theme.

Would my heavy converted Guard or CSM armies pass muster under these rules?

[Novafix]

Because....they.....use too... many proxy Carnifexes?!

It's been known sir.



not my creation btw...source: http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/52...0Carnifex.html

[Chem-Dog]

It's nice to see them actively encourage conversions and such and emphasise how creativity is important for the hobby. However, the rules quoted above don’t really answer anything I think, because it always boils down to a judgment call. To take a few of the most relevant points as examples:

- If Games Workshop produce a model for a unit entry, we expect you to use it. For example,
plastic Ork Boyz painted slightly differently cannot be used for Kommandos. Similarly, you
cannot use plastic Moria Goblins to represent Gundabad Blackshields. The exception to this is
any conversions you may have done for thematic reasons.

Not very helpful guideline in my view. Read at face value, it makes the only kind of legal conversions for army options that don’t have models yet. For everything that GW produces a model for, you have to use that model. This per definition excludes all counts-as. Thematic conversions are allowed – but then it boils down to a judgment call whether a conversion is “thematic” or not.

No it's not the most legally exacting set of phrases I've ever clapped eyes on but I think the intention is quite clear.
If you've gone to some effort to make this unit specifically different enough to make it A)Distinct from other units in the army or B)Have a theme that informs the look of the unit in such a way as the appropriate GW standard model would be out of place. You're fine.
Using IG to represent your Own Bog-monster army and then having River Trolls to represent Ogryn FINE.
Using Orks to represent non specific Ork army #82748732 and having regular Boyz represent Flash Gitz, BurnaBoyz and Stormboyz. PROBLEM.
Using Lizardmen models to represet Tyranids and then using a Carnifex to represent a Carnifex.....IDUNNO.

- Any conversions should be clearly obvious as to what they are, and be the same size as the Citadel miniature sold.

“Clearly obvious” is the ultimate judgment call issue. Is using daemonettes instead of death cultists clearly obvious what they are meant to represent? In their introduction to the guidelines, they state that it is good form for players to provide a chart that shows what represents what… suggestion that those correlations weren’t clearly obvious; otherwise the chart shouldn’t really be necessary.

Again I think the wording is amiguous but the intention is clear enough.
Example 1: Amorphous grey blob 1 (the one with the spike on the top) is a Broadside, Amorphous grey blob 2 (which did have two spike on the top but one broke off....) is a Plasma/Melta armed Shas'O.

Example 2: Gloriously modelled Gun platform manned by a Kroot team is a Broadside, Helicopter-backpacked Kroot carrying a Meltagun and Plasmagun is a Shas'O with Plasma/Melta combo.

It's a guide to try to curb the worst excesses, lest you end up facing off against Invisible Stealthmarines (with scuplted footprints on bases), Scuba marines (boltguns on backpack poles) or are forced to witness the sanity shredding horror that is Sprueranids *shudder*.

So yeah, the statement of being positive towards conversions is a good thing, but the rules aren’t really rules when they boil down to personal aesthetic opinion (as questions of this nature always do).

But that is the crux of the question. If a judge can't see the theme in an army or the signifier on a model that shows it to be significantly different from the umpteen others it's stood next to or the umpteen² others in the army WHY should you expect your opponent or anyone else to be able to see it? It's not a game of Annihilation rules Spot-the-difference.

If your Lizardman-as-IG army features a massive flock of Terradons all clumped together on a single large oval base atop a large flying stand, how many things is it likely to be? It's a Valkyrie. But what if there are three of those flocks each armed differently?
Theme's there but where the clarity? Do red claws represent MMP's? Are green eyes Miltilasers?

Would my heavy converted Guard or CSM armies pass muster under these rules?

Heavily converted doesn't mean confusing, most armies that are a take on a theme that already exists within the GW mythos tend to be quite happy leaving a flamer/Meltagun/Missile Launcher as what it is. You don't need to go far to see people using a different model to represent Khorne Berzerkers in their all-Nurgle army (or Plaguemarines in their all-khorne army).

[Wishing]

No it's not the most legally exacting set of phrases I've ever clapped eyes on but I think the intention is quite clear.

Agreed, and the intent is simple enough too: If you've made some effort to make something that looks cool, is appropriate for the setting, and is as unambiguous as possible, and if the judges and your opponents agree with the above, then you're fine. The point of my quoting the guidelines is simply to point out that they are not hard rules, and there is no way of being 100% certain that your converted counts-as army will be accepted, because whether it is accepted or not will depend on the subjective judgments of others, not any strictly defined rules.

[Tymell]

In my opinion/experience, the more thought and effort you put into it, the more people will be likely to accept it.

Many folks will have no problem with the idea of using one model to represent another. Daemonettes could be a fine basis for some wyches, or vice versa. But putting some work into customising and converting them, giving them a new twist or personal touch, that will go a long way toward convincing any sceptics. People are a lot less likely to frown and complain if they're too busy going, "Wow, those look great!"

If however you've just put an unchanged unit of daemonettes down and said, "Those are wyches", that might not work so well. I'm not saying it's horrible/sacralige/etc, just that putting some work into it makes it a lot more palatable. After all, the whole idea behind doing things differently in this game is to express yourself and add your own touches.

On a personal note, I draw a line at using one codex to represent an army which already has it's own book. Yes, I know, some people are fine with it. But I don't like it. Using Space Wolves to represent your own homebrew chapter, using Imperial Guard to represent a lost & the damned force, using pretty much any codex to represent a minor alien force you've expanded into a full race, great. But if an army has it's own book, then that's the one to use.

A lot of the guidlines GW give are good, but this one is...less so:

If Games Workshop produce a model for a unit entry, we expect you to use it. For example, plastic Ork Boyz painted slightly differently cannot be used for Kommandos. Similarly, you cannot use plastic Moria Goblins to represent Gundabad Blackshields. The exception to this is any conversions you may have done for thematic reasons.

This is an obvious case of profit >>> hobby, since it boils down to them saying "You're not allowed to use a cheaper model to represent one you should be forking out a lot more for". It doesn't matter that a good modeller could make great Kommandos out of Ork Boyz, they just don't want anyone getting away with not paying double the price for it.

[DietDolphin]

Since when does count-as = creativity?

Maybe I'm just getting old, but creativity would be carefully modelling and painting your whole tyranid army to fit the "Aliens" theme. Using a khorne berzerker on a juggernaut as thunderwolves is count-as, but hardly creative.

[Wishing]

This is an obvious case of profit >>> hobby, since it boils down to them saying "You're not allowed to use a cheaper model to represent one you should be forking out a lot more for". It doesn't matter that a good modeller could make great Kommandos out of Ork Boyz, they just don't want anyone getting away with not paying double the price for it.

I'm not so sure - the end of it which allows "thematic conversions" could be understood to mean that if you've actually modified the ork boys in some way, you can use them as commandos, you just can't take unaltered boys and say they are commandos, even though there are no WYSIWYG issues with doing so (assuming the commandos have the same weaponry as normal boys).

Since when does count-as = creativity?

Maybe I'm just getting old, but creativity would be carefully modelling and painting your whole tyranid army to fit the "Aliens" theme. Using a khorne berzerker on a juggernaut as thunderwolves is count-as, but hardly creative.

I guess there are two ways to argue it... one is that using one model to represent something entirely different is thinking creatively. I don't agree with this either though. The other is an assumption that if you're doing counts-as, you are also converting models to fit the theme, in which case the conversions are the creative part. An example might be gobbo rebellion imperial guard, with the grots converted to carry lasguns and the chimeras being converted to an orky look.

[Tymell]

I'm not so sure - the end of it which allows "thematic conversions" could be understood to mean that if you've actually modified the ork boys in some way, you can use them as commandos, you just can't take unaltered boys and say they are commandos, even though there are no WYSIWYG issues with doing so (assuming the commandos have the same weaponry as normal boys).

It could be read that way, but I read the opening line "If Games Workshop produce a model for a unit entry, we expect you to use it." to counter that. It sounds to me like a firm rule about only using "the official models".

[Wishing]

It could be read that way, but I read the opening line "If Games Workshop produce a model for a unit entry, we expect you to use it." to counter that. It sounds to me like a firm rule about only using "the official models".

True, but I think that has to be taken with a grain of salt considering the nature of GW products. Unlike in, say, Warmachine, GW games have never had a direct 1:1 connection between specific models and specific rules. There isn't only one space marine captain, for example, there is a whole range of models that can be used for this purpose, and converting your own captain from a variety of plastic marine bits wouldn't be considered improper in any way... codexes frequently display examples of models that have been turned from one thing into another thing through conversion. Hence I don't think they mean "If your army contains a Space Marine Captain, the only model legal to use is the most recently produced model by GW specifically labeled as Space Marine Captain" - I think they mean "If your army contains a Space Marine Captain, you should make sure the model is recognisable as how a Space Marine Captain usually looks, simply taking a Tactical Marine and saying 'this is my captain' is not cool."

[Freakiq]

True, but I think that has to be taken with a grain of salt considering the nature of GW products. Unlike in, say, Warmachine, GW games have never had a direct 1:1 connection between specific models and specific rules. There isn't only one space marine captain, for example, there is a whole range of models that can be used for this purpose, and converting your own captain from a variety of plastic marine bits wouldn't be considered improper in any way... codexes frequently display examples of models that have been turned from one thing into another thing through conversion. Hence I don't think they mean "If your army contains a Space Marine Captain, the only model legal to use is the most recently produced model by GW specifically labeled as Space Marine Captain" - I think they mean "If your army contains a Space Marine Captain, you should make sure the model is recognisable as how a Space Marine Captain usually looks, simply taking a Tactical Marine and saying 'this is my captain' is not cool."

This.

GW regularly showcase conversions such as Obliterators made from Chaos Terminators or Sternguard Veterans made from Tactical Squads.

[carldooley]

okay, WYSIWYG vs creativity and 'counts as'
I am building a HALO themed BA list. This is a 'counts as' Las&Plas Razorback. it is a warthog from actionclix that I modified so that it is WYSIWYG. It isn't particularly creative, because I just got a toy and slapped the correct weapons on it, yes?

On the other hand, here I have 2 'counts as' Sanguinary Priests - members of Noble Team, Kat & Jorge. this is creative (under your aegis, correct?) but getting them buttonholed into WYSIWYG is a bit harder. I gave Kat a hand flamer & power weapon, while Jorge got a storm bolter and a power fist. not the best loadouts to represent them, but the best that I could use that were available to me.

Now, I suck at converting. I could have gone and used storms (as I originally intended) to make the warthogs, but it was easier for me and cheaper to get the toys and convert* them so that they are WYSIWYG.

*btw - I need 3 Cadian CCS plasma guns to convert the other 3 that I have. if you have any let me know.
I'm willing to trade too. . .

[Nurgling Chieftain]

I think the "must use all GW figures and parts" is pretty much a GW-only thing. For example, I would have no problem with the Warthog example above since it's converted to have the right weapons obvious, but GW wouldn't like it. I've yet to have anybody complain about my various Reaper models converted with splinter pistols as Wyches, nor my Hasslefree slavegirls toted about on Raiders/Ravagers/Venoms. But I game with friends and a LGS, not at official GW events.

[Avatar111x]

This is a subject that gets my goat to a degree because I think that Counts As armies were fine when people were using them as a way to create interesting and unique looking armies. However, people have been abusing this for sometime now and certainly in the tournament sides, just throwing together several models from their collection to create the next flavour of the month army list. I can think of two options for what I consider a good approach and what I believe is the wrong way to go about it.

Option 1 - Imperial Guard Beastmen. Exactly what is sounds like. Based on the old Rogue Trader lists that had Beastmen in Imperial Guard armies, every model in this army was converted using Catachan arms and bodies with Beastmen heads and legs. It was used as an infantry Guard list and most importantly, everything was held together as part of the theme. Some people may have claimed it was silly, but it was something this player had thought through and did not do it to get a gaming advantage.

Option 2 - Blood Angels. This list was small and did not contain a single unit that was painted in either Blood Angel or successor chapters. Indeed, almost every unit was painted in as a different Chapter. It was clear the player had written a powerful list and just seen what he could throw together from his collection to represent what the list was.

I understand this is an expensive hobby and people want to get the most out of what they buy. But seeing the same army and same models being used as Blood Angels, Space Wolves and Chaos Marines over three different tournaments does make me wish this was enforced a bit more rigourously by (some) tournament organisers.

[Wishing]

Option 1 - Imperial Guard Beastmen. Exactly what is sounds like. Based on the old Rogue Trader lists that had Beastmen in Imperial Guard armies, every model in this army was converted using Catachan arms and bodies with Beastmen heads and legs. It was used as an infantry Guard list and most importantly, everything was held together as part of the theme. Some people may have claimed it was silly, but it was something this player had thought through and did not do it to get a gaming advantage.

This actually sounds like one of the less silly (or inappropriate) army concepts in my view, since it is based on something that used to exist in the game but has been phased out over time, squat style. It's a shame that the beastmen have to have lasguns when they used to be melee only, but hey.

Option 2 - Blood Angels. This list was small and did not contain a single unit that was painted in either Blood Angel or successor chapters. Indeed, almost every unit was painted in as a different Chapter. It was clear the player had written a powerful list and just seen what he could throw together from his collection to represent what the list was.

This sounds like a proxy list rather than a counts-as list if it was improvised in the way you describe. However, it does raise a big problem with regards to counts-as and WYSIWYG and their collision with the marine subcodex phenomenon. You state that none of the models were painted like Blood Angels, and therefore you consider it to be a counts-as army. Does an army's paint scheme really have the power to determine what army list it should be using? To me, this raises serious alarm bells, because I find it very fundamental to the hobby that fantasy games are not historical wargames, and even though you may have to use specific models for specific rules, you are free to paint those models any way you like, there is no "right" or "wrong" colour scheme. This clearly is a problem when you have multiple marine lists that are differentiated only by colour scheme and nothing else, but I have still never heard anyone being disqualified from any kind of game for having painted their models the wrong colour (eg. not painting their Blood Angels red).

[Avatar111x]

This sounds like a proxy list rather than a counts-as list if it was improvised in the way you describe. However, it does raise a big problem with regards to counts-as and WYSIWYG and their collision with the marine subcodex phenomenon. You state that none of the models were painted like Blood Angels, and therefore you consider it to be a counts-as army. Does an army's paint scheme really have the power to determine what army list it should be using? To me, this raises serious alarm bells, because I find it very fundamental to the hobby that fantasy games are not historical wargames, and even though you may have to use specific models for specific rules, you are free to paint those models any way you like, there is no "right" or "wrong" colour scheme. This clearly is a problem when you have multiple marine lists that are differentiated only by colour scheme and nothing else, but I have still never heard anyone being disqualified from any kind of game for having painted their models the wrong colour (eg. not painting their Blood Angels red).

A very valid point and I would never suggest that there is only one colour Blood Angels should be ... I am all for creativity in an army's composition. But I would question whether this player is actually going to get around to assembling a actual Blood Angel or successor army ... my claivoyance is a little off at the moment, so perhaps I am doing them a disservice. However, in my opinion a tournament is usually a valid aim to get an army ready for.

When I first saw the army it looked a mess, as there was no uniform chapter. Each squad and vehicle had different chapter markings - I remember seeing Black Templars and I think Ultramarines. I cannot remember the rest. I looked at the army and thought Space Marine - anyone looking at it would have said the same. Then before the games we sudden find out they are Blood Angels and clearly assembled to make advantage of a series of their more vicious rules. Oh - and there was an Ork Dreff Dredd in their masquerading as a Librarian Dreadnaught ...

Proxy has its place - I want to try before I buy and I will do such things, but in a friendly environment. This was a competitive environment and I (personally) think it detracts away from the hardworking people who put a lot of thought and care into their armies and present stuff that whilst may be a little left field, is clearly what it is with minimul explanation before the games ...

[DietDolphin]

okay, WYSIWYG vs creativity and 'counts as'
I am building a HALO themed BA list. This is a 'counts as' Las&Plas Razorback. it is a warthog from actionclix that I modified so that it is WYSIWYG. It isn't particularly creative, because I just got a toy and slapped the correct weapons on it, yes?

On the other hand, here I have 2 'counts as' Sanguinary Priests - members of Noble Team, Kat & Jorge. this is creative (under your aegis, correct?) but getting them buttonholed into WYSIWYG is a bit harder. I gave Kat a hand flamer & power weapon, while Jorge got a storm bolter and a power fist. not the best loadouts to represent them, but the best that I could use that were available to me.

Now, I suck at converting. I could have gone and used storms (as I originally intended) to make the warthogs, but it was easier for me and cheaper to get the toys and convert* them so that they are WYSIWYG.

*btw - I need 3 Cadian CCS plasma guns to convert the other 3 that I have. if you have any let me know.
I'm willing to trade too. . .

I'm not sure if this was directed at me, but i was the one who brought up the count-as =/= creativity debate so i'll respond...

I think both your conversion are creative (although, just like the Aliens theme, a Halo theme isn't that original in itself...) and I think they are done well. You have clearly chosen a theme and have thought about models that fit that theme. You use that warthog as it fits your theme and you have modelled the weapon to be WYSIWYG. I was getting at people who put a tonka truck on the table and call it a battlewagon with out any real reason or thought, and think they are creative and innovating.

And I think this is the same as people using GW models for a completely different unit. It's about how much thought into why they are doing it. People could just as easily Juggernauts as Bikes, yet everyone insist on using them as TWC and changing codexes, regardless of the fact that juggers are no more cavalry than they are bikes. It seems it's more for the awesome rules that actually fielding their models.

EDIT:I just wanted to clarify that I do think there can be creativity in count-as and i'm not entirely against it. But would you really praise someone as creative if they put down Thousand Sons with chainaxes and said they used the Khorne Berzerker rules, as opposed to say someone modelling up a Vindicare assassin or Marbo to look like Solid Snake?