I wasn't completely serious. But honestly, there's no real difference using X painted as Y to using Z moulded as W (other than one being determined what you choose to paint and one by what you choose to buy, as you can't very well mould the things yourself). No value judgement. It is the intent that makes the crime, right?Originally Posted by Scaryscarymushroom
“There's a hole in the world. Feels like we ought to have known.”
This is basically how I feel.
Except that if any of your squads rolls a 1 for the Red thirst. Then you are no longer playing the Ultramarine's 8th Co. But a BA successer in blue armor.
And fluff is a terrible reason to force fit your army into a codex they don't use. Especially when you can field a near identical list with their own codex.
The thing is in order for a marine to take advantage of another codex they do have a to pay to make it WYSIWYG. The weapon options are different, or the models are different, I mean how often do you see more than squad of assault marines in anythings besides BA? If they aren't putting a big investment into the force they're gonna end up with a gimped army for the most part (wolves may be an exception).
I can see your point, but in my experience the guy hopping form one dex to another tend not to be very good and don't cheat, they just hope the book makes up for their shortcomings. I'm actually more wary of the super fluffy players cause they tend to be the worst type of WAAC player the ones that feel that they're entitled to win and spend 2 hours making you miserable even though they're the ones adding extra limitations to their lists.
It really depends on the contents of the list though. Sallies using the BA book is weird because fluff wise a lot of things don't fit, but iron hands using the space wolf book (Dread hq, and termie squad leaders) makes a lot of sense.
As far as GK as DA, I would have a problem in a tournie mainly because IIRC DA termies don't have the options for power weapons, or stormbolter & hammer so they won't be WYSIWYG. Otherwise I could care less as long as I know what is what.
Last edited by althathir; 24-04-2012 at 00:18.
And I think this highlights one of the great issues with the game. If all of the Codexes were perceived to have the same "power level" then I don't think there would as great an issue with people "codex hopping" as it would be merely for play style changes rather than power. I say it wouldn't be as great an issue because I still think there would be those who think that if you've painted your army in a particular scheme you should stick with that army's rules, regardless of its perceived power level.
Part of the problem is the way GW releases rules. We're looking at 6th edition coming out this summer (at least that's what I've heard) but we still have Codexes that haven't been updated from 4th edition. Even during an edition there is a shift in direction as GW changes its mind on pricing schemes for units and upgrades. And when that scheme is a general reduction in points costs then the newer books are inherently better than the old ones. Not necessarily because they have more powerful rules but because what are essentially the same units are simply cheaper. And honestly, who wants to play at a disadvantage merely because their book is older? As much as someone can complain about codex hopping for power reasons I don't think we can discount the idea that some players may just want a more even playing field.
This isn't a matter of paints or colors or any thing like that. This is more about how an individual player feels about what the spirit of the game is. The people who roll their eyes at posters asking if they should play X as Y have grown to associate that behavior with people who don't think the same way about the spirit of the game, and in turn with games where they didn't have much fun. I'm not saying that everyone who has a counts as army is a WAAC jerk, in fact many counts-asers have put more time, money and sweat into their armies than I have with mine. But for every person who genuinely feels X army is better represented by Y, there are two people who think army X is stronger than army Y. I can't think of a poster asking whether it would be OK to represent Grey Knights or Space wolves as Chaos Marines, it always seems to be the other way around.
1222. It's a stranglehold. Not an Ogryn neck pinch.
1395. Eldar really hate it when you greet them with "Live long and prosper".
1537. My Rogue Trader does not need to announce his arrival with eight hours of orbital bombardment.
1572. The Navigator has Warp Sight. Not Insane-o-Vision.
1594. Flak armor is not just a muscle shirt with the word "ARMOR" stenciled on it.
Some of that though is most of the people that think their army would be represented better by a different codex just start it because its what they want. The people that tend to ask know there might be an issue (WAAC) or tend to be new to the game and don't want to deal with negative perceptions. I think this magnified abit for two reasons one because newcomers are looking for information online so all they read about is how x fraction is horrible, and y fraction is the strongest book in 10 years. The second that its hard to give advice online about tactics other than target priority and unit selection so some players instead of getting better just assume their book isn't strong enough.
Last edited by althathir; 24-04-2012 at 00:19. Reason: wrong there :)
I'm a pretty laid back guy, I'm not going to rule out playing against anyone, If you really want to play Grey Knights using Night Forest Goblins, fine, I'll play. I'm eager to see, and derive a great amount of pleasure from, creative counts-as solutions for models, units and whole armies. Army X as Army Y because Army Y has better <insert advantage here> is the antithesis of this, especially if it's a situation switch.
Well....Upset is the wrong word. It ticks the same box either way round for me though.
Weirdly, in my experience, the ones who pay most attention to the background when building their armies and giving them a theme tend to be the ones not so worried about how they fare in a battle, it's them who'll field a unit because it fits even though it's rubbish, your codex jumping omni-marine player is trying to do the opposite.
I would typify this kind of build as a "super fluffy" one though, an HQ dread and Termi armoured Squad Leaders are hardly the most powerful units in the game and abandoning all the stuff that'd normally be available to a Vanilla Marine list player and all of the SW unique stuff just to include those "fluffy" options is an exercise in self-gimping.It really depends on the contents of the list though. Sallies using the BA book is weird because fluff wise a lot of things don't fit, but iron hands using the space wolf book (Dread hq, and termie squad leaders) makes a lot of sense.
Why not just take an Elite slot Venerable Dreadnought and pretend he's the leader of your army and simply model your Tactical Squad's Veteran Sarges as Terminators (counts-as Power Armour) though?
40K spend '09: £205.70.'10: £87.50.'11: £29.00. '12: £89.00. '13: £6.00
Models painted in 2013: 0.5
Brimstone. Gone but not forgotten.
I don't think you are thinking about this the same way most of us are. Yes, you can use another codex to represent different organisational structures that you can't represent with your own codex (see my post above, especially the reference to Captain Korvydae). The problem lies in the special rules. Would you argue that, due to their "initiative", a codex-organised force of ultramarines decide to drop all the heavy weapons from their tactical squads, force their scouts and veterans to swap armour (and in the case of the scouts, go a little crazy in the process), ALL become very skilled at counter attacking compared to every other marine in the universe, and gain a 6th sense that allows them to sense enemies (significantly better than any other space marines, at any rates), and also happen to find some animals that they allow to follow them around and fight with them? I am sure you could, but you WOULD need to spend quite some time thinking about the background story for your abnormal Ultramarines to justify it. Same goes for an entire force of Ultras developing psychic powers at the same time, and also managing to find a crap-load of power weapons. Far too coincidental for people to NOT think you are WAAC, unless you can give them justification in the form of an interesting backstory.
Theme is justification, but theme requires restricting yourself, your choices and the rules to fit that theme.
A counts-as army can be awesome, and can let you use an army that currently has no rules legitimately (see - Squats as IG/Orks, Kroot as Dark Eldar) even a well-thought out Ultramarines-lost-lost-in-the-warp-for-decades as Space Wolves. The problem, as you say, and the OP mentions, is people who have an army already, then something 'better' comes along and they abandon their previous codex with no thought to anything other than the 'better' rules. People I most enjoy playing as 'live' their army - my most regular opponent calls the shooting phase the Dakka Phase, the assault phase the Krumpin' phase, will say "these boyz is gonna dakka-dakka that squad", and will shout (or at least say in an orkish way) "WAAAAAAAAAAARGH!" when he calls one, instead of just saying "I'm calling a Waaargh this turn." This is not the sort of person who decides "Oh, GK have a more powerful codex, gonna use my unpainted orks as counts-as GK", which is the type of person we are complaining about, cos they are generally dicks.
Knights of Baal: A Blood Angel Log
WHQ Hall of Heroes
WHQ Quarg Hunter
Ah, nothing says "Christmas" like a huge stick with a nail in it
As long as the person tells me what is what, (and even write down what is what for more obscure proxies) I am just happy to play a game. I have enough issues dealing with tantrums over video games(adults) let alone toy soldier.
Whilst the perception of codex hopping for reasons of power is a prime factor, I think it mainly comes down to idea that doing this kind of thing pretty much indicates the player couldn't care less about the background and just views the game as an abstract competetive event. Setting aside snap judgements about what this says about that player as a person, it is a rather good indication that they want something completely different from the game than I do and I might not get a good game against them.
However, the rule of cool forgives all. If its clearly being done for a well thought out and compelling background reason all is fine. If its accompanied by well implemented conversions and a stunning paint job I might even be more enthused to play this person than someone using the correct codex!
I play my Dark Angels using the regular Marine Codex.
Azrael as a captain with powersword and Combiplas, Veterans as Sternguard & Vanguard rather than a single unit. The rest as you'd expect.
Commence hating me Warseers!
Note: I also have a sizable regular Ultramarine force (using C:SM) and Death Company themed Blood Angels force (using C:BA). .. Both with thier own sets of minis.
If one's minis are painted up as a chapter that has rules, one should stick to that book... if your gents are painted DIY, then use whatever book you want, but model proxies have to be easily identifiable without having to ask "what is that?".
I agree with all of this. There is a difference between someone who is still playing "Ultramarines", but with a different book and someone playing with blue Blood Angels. I think what gets to me are the people who try to defend Raven Guard Death Company and Iron Hand Thunder Wolves. Use them but I don't want to hear your poor fluff rationalization.
But I do understand the dislike for people using different codex than standard. It's like to players playing a WW2 game and the Americans player decided to paint up his guys as Soviets because "he likes the fluff better" or hell, If Manchester United came out to a football match in Chelsea colours because "Blue looks cooler than red". Sure they might all have their names on their shirt but its just not the same....
Some people here have said Painted > Unpainted always and as much as I want to agree with this, I cringe when I see a marine with half his helmet painted red at an attempt to paint the eyes or paint so thick all detail is lost, drowning under the paint.
1) fair enough everyone is gonna have different experiences, I just want to say I don't think codex hopping is that great of an indicator of WAAC player
2) I agree, my friend that toyed around with that list, knew it wasn't that strong he just really liked being able to have termie sarges, he uses the vanilla book now mainly because he felt really limited (scouts too good, bikes too bad skillwise), he doesn't really think it fits either so he's a little down on them but we're pretty good at houseruling so he can play with what he wants againist us.
So does that mean that if you want a red dark angels successor chapter you ought to just stick with blood angels? Can you paint generic space marines black and white with spots of red, or do they become black templars when you do that?
At what shade of blue does a space wolf become an ultramarine become a crimson fist?
To be fair thats not what he said. He said models "painted up as a chapter" which would include painting chapter icons and such. So to answer your question, Space wolves become Ultramarines at the shade of blue their wolf icons are painted as upside-down omegas.So does that mean that if you want a red dark angels successor chapter you ought to just stick with blood angels? Can you paint generic space marines black and white with spots of red, or do they become black templars when you do that?
At what shade of blue does a space wolf become an ultramarine become a crimson fist?
Here's how I see it.
It's not what they're subbing/Counts-as-ing its WHY
If someone just doesn't like the standard BA paintscheme, but likes the character, let them make a successor chapter. It only counts as dex hopping if they actually are dex hopping!
If not, then they're just having some creative liberty with the fluff and game!
Also, with the way the codexes get changed and powered/nerfed it can become understandable. A friend of mine has joked that he could make a better Fluff-influenced DA army using the SM dex, than with the DA dex. He's half true.
Back with substitutions, to reinforce the 'why' side; I regularly play with 'counts-as' and semi incomplete when I'm having friendly basement games with friends. Why? Because i want to make sure that the army is developing how I wanted, and I am making logical choices to suit my playstyle. We regularly play with some proxies to add some flavour.
Its not the action that is wrong, but the motivation behind it! Discuss it with the opponent to get it all straightened out beforehand and it should be ok
If I played this way always & Forever, then I'm sure my best friends would stop inviting me for games. But I'm not. Just as the occasional codex jump isn't bad, it just *could* be.
Motivation is the reason for it being wrong, not the action itself.
if it's a tourney, I get it. But if its just a friendly at the gamestore... then Have Fun!
Molovian Guard (2,500 -ish Imperial Guard) (In all manner of shambles)
Wuzza's Whirlin' Wheelerz (In progress 2k SpeedFreeks)
The Horde of the Horned one (3k Skaven)
Check out my Painting Blog! Comments/Criticism welcome! Currently featuring Orks and Skaven!
Whilst I have the funds to buy a whole Deathwing army if I wished, I own nine Blood Angels Terminator Squads in addition to two companies. I like to field different lists from time to time. I've been collecting Blood Angels since 1995 and back then I could field as many terminator squads as I had points for. I slowly replaced my squads one for one with plastic models. Now, having read many posts here, I'm glad that my friends are fine when I decided once in a blue moon I want to field a Blood Angels 1st Company themed army. In this case I use Dark Angels codex, drop the Red Thirst etc and use the codex as is, but with bright red terminators with blood drops all over them. I have spent years painting them, and hundreds of pounds buying them, and if any 'player' refused a game (games are played for fun right?) because they were red and not white, quite frankly it's his loss, and I'd be glad not to play him.
Refusal because of the paint colour? I understand mixed codex's or proxies, but defining an army on it's colour is quite frankly pathetic. It's no different to you not allowing me to use blood angels tactical squads with black shoulder trims, or if I use a little too much orange in the highlighting compared to Eavy Metal because a different colour scheme is wrong and I'm not allowed to paint my models how I like. If it's a marine (A marine is a marine is a marine right? This isn't the same as Eldar and Dark Eldar which are not comparable in look or weapons), and the wargear is correct, the points are paid and your opponent knows which codex is used before any surprises come up, what does it matter? I could just as easily buy another five squads, throw them together and spray them bone and use them with no argument to some that would refuse my blood angels 1st company. I notice many marine armies using stormraven gunships with non-red marines too. That seems to gather less hate for some reason.
If a new ork codes came out which invalidated my Bad Moons to field a nobs army and made it goffs only, I wonder how many would refuse to play me then saying they were now proxies because they were yellow. My reason for using my nobs is simply because I love the models, have converted most, and I chose yellow because I have other armies of other colours and wanted something different. Never in my life have I picked an army or colour scheme based on power level. Every model I buy and how I paint it is to do with the models, not the rules. If I don't like a model, I don't buy one. I do often end up buying models I don't have armies for and so will never use them.
I'd like to point out that many of those opposed to using a different codex only seem to be complaining if the codex used seems to be more powerful regardless of the actual units used. Now I like the thunderfire cannon, and if ever I was to buy one, I'm sure as hell painting it red with black winged blood drops, rather than buying a whole army of blue marines. I would never take such a unit to tournament painted incorrect etc but I play for fun, and such trivialities about colour are gladly ignored. I'm so glad that I game with friends and not against opponents...
Last edited by wilsongrahams; 24-04-2012 at 04:42.
My Warhammer painting log (High Elves, Vampires, Night Goblins, Skaven and Chaos Warriors: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showth...11#post4856611
My 40k painting log (Blood Angels, Orks, Tyranids and Eldar: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showth...11#post5214911
I'm aiming to have a whole chapter at some point. I already have a full battle company and some other support elements, but I want to keep my game fresh, which is why I will be using the Blood angels codex to build my 8th company. I won't be using Blood Angel units such as death company and furioso dreads, as my chapter is a Codex chapter and doesn't have these things. I may possibly use Imperial guard models such as the hellhound to represent Baal predators as this will allow me to add to my guard army at the same time.
I'm not WAAC, but I seeing as I'm going to be painting over 1000 marines over the coming years, I don't want to add to this pile of models just for the sake of it.
Not to mention I'm painting my friends Blood Angels army for him, so no! just no!
Eagle Warriors log: http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=164372
Ava nile Eldar: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showth...07#post1765707
Im stunned at how many people are upset when others use different rules than how there "little pew pew men" are painted. Really? The rules are the rules. It shouldnt matter what colour the peices you use are.
When playing chess, and you have lost a pawn, and decide to proxy an ork, do you allow that pawn to get furoius charge or waaagh?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
wyvirn