Marine Paradox

[agurus1]

I don't understand what TWC means, are you saying Twin Wolf Claws or Thunderwolf Calvary. The former I will most likely take at somepoint down the road, the latter... never... never ever lol, not even if I played straight space wolves.

This is the basic load out I was configuring in my head for "counts as" IW:

HQ:
Wolf Lord
-frost blade, belt of russ, wolf tail, melta bombs, pistol, runic armour, saga of the bear

Elites:
Iron Priest
- not sure how I want to configure him yet

Also I'm pretty sure I want to get a Dread in here, cause I have an awesome forgeworld one

Troops:

2x 10 Grey Hunters in Rhinos with meltas and power weapon
1x 10 Grey Hunters in Rhino with Plasma and power weapon

1x 12 Blood Claws with power weapon

Fast Attack:
only thing that stands out to me here are the actual Wolf Wolves, I know there is some sort of mutant laborer conversion there just ready to happen

Heavy Support:
Land Raider Redeemer (Warpfire Cannons) w/ extra armour, multi-melta

Vindicator

5x Long Fangs w/ 4 missile launchers

Also considering putting several units in subterranean assault vehicles (counts as drop pods) which would be epic to model!

[althathir]

I'm pretty sure that a standard non-TWC build out of the SW dex will stomp on an IW build out of the CSM dex. I don't care if you have 9 Oblitz, as 3 Long Fangs are way stronger, and more versitle.

without rune priests it would be fairly close imo, regardless my point isn't that it would be better than an IW build out of the Chaos marine dex, its that it wouldn't be as good as a proper WAAC build from the chaos dex. From a Competitive perspective I wouldn't see the list as that tough, thats why the term WAAC in this debate makes me angry. There is a big difference between WAAC and using a codex that makes weaker list less of a pushover.

[wilsongrahams]

For the moment I will leave the issue of terminators as it offends the 'visual identity' which to me could be Blood Drinkers or one of the other red chapters just as easily anyway. Regardless, I also have two full battle companies of Blood Angels. Using the Blood Angels codex I cannot field either of these in full as I only have 6 troops slots and a company has 8 with the assault squads counting as troops.

This is an example of the new codex breaking an existing army and also not allowing a fluffy list (Eg: me using the entire 2nd or 3rd company and nothing else).

There will likely be the suggestion of 'agree to use the assault squads as fast attack' but that is takaing apart the codex and changing things about which is changing a printed rule (the FOC) and obviously worse than the visual identity crisis.

Codex hopping only seems to be a problem if the new codex is thought of as being better than the original. Most call the BA codex powerful, yet when I wish to use my fluffy lists requiring the DA or Vanilla codex, surely it's obvious this isn't for gaming advantage but just to use an official list with the models in my collection?

Just wanted to hear some thoughts on this as not being able to field a proper blood angels company occurred to me. (When I have done this, we have played a campaign and ignored the FOC chart anyway - just took a full company, with support and selected from it for each battle).

[Wishing]

There will likely be the suggestion of 'agree to use the assault squads as fast attack' but that is takaing apart the codex and changing things about which is changing a printed rule (the FOC) and obviously worse than the visual identity crisis.

This is the part that interests me the most, because I don't see anything whatsoever wrong with changing a printed rule when the rule is so arbitrary as the FOC allocations. If we take terminators as the example, all-terminator armies clearly aren't broken in principle, since you can make them with the DA and SW codexes. So why would a house rule saying that a BA army can take terminators as troops if they are led by a captain in terminator armour be a problem?

[Chivs]

I was looking through the rules trying to find where they define WYSIWYG. In the Space Marine codex there is a line that states "Any upgrades that are taken must be shown on the model" but beyond that I didn't really see anything in the BRB or the Codex (I could easily have overlooked it as I wasn't looking that hard)...

I think there was a longer description in the 3rd edition rulebook when WYSIWYG first appeared, but I don't have it anymore so couldn't check. The 5th Edition Rulebook mentions WYSIWYG on P47 (The Characters section).

'What You See Is What You Get'
Character models in particular tend to have a lot of options as to what weapons and wargear they can use - given in the army list of their Codex. The rule is that such equipment [Emphasis Mine] must be visually represented on the model so your opponent can clearly see what they are facing. This concept is often referred to as WYSIWYG, which stands for 'What you see is what you get'.
Of course, many gamers enjoy trying out different combinations of wargear in different battles. So, for example, a player might decide that for his next game a model's power sword will simply count as a close combat weapon, but he will also equip the model with melta bombs. While some tournaments may be more strict about this kind of thing, most opponents are happy to accommodate a small degree of one thing counting as another, long as you explain exactly who has what at the start of the game.

If someone, after deploying 3 Ultramarine Assault squads at the start of the game, and then on turn three brought on another 2 squads from reserve and said "Oh, by the way, this army uses the Blood Angels rules so I can do that' then they're not following the spirit of this rule. That's deliberately concealing something to gain a hidden advantage later, and is simply not on (same as the hidden lascannon analogy I used earlier). But nowhere in the rules does it say that an army has to go with a particular colour scheme, and I'm pretty sure there are more quotes about painting an army any way you want to.

[wilsongrahams]

This is the part that interests me the most, because I don't see anything whatsoever wrong with changing a printed rule when the rule is so arbitrary as the FOC allocations. If we take terminators as the example, all-terminator armies clearly aren't broken in principle, since you can make them with the DA and SW codexes. So why would a house rule saying that a BA army can take terminators as troops if they are led by a captain in terminator armour be a problem?

I agree with your logic. But then, surely the same logic should apply to the colours a model is painted? You see no problem changing a rule, and I see no problem with changing a rule or changing a colour. I think that Space Wolves should be grey like wolves not blue like non-existant wolves. If I painted some space wolves grey there would likely be no complaint. If I painted them red suddenly there is. Where does the double-standard come from? Why couldn't a house rule be applied that the ultramarines assault squads have been fighting fiercely in this campaign for weeks and have become experts in combat against their enemy and so gain furious charge?

I understand the uncomfortable feeling surrounding a game when one player has been changing codex every other game and is simply trying to win. That's fine - their motives are to win not to have fun. However just using a different book is not the same, and I still feel strongly that there is no basis to complain about the colour of a model if all else is correct. Sure fluff says one thing, but colour choice is different to army choice. Some care more for the fluff and models than the rules - look at those non-BA players that bought Stormravens, or those BA players that already owned Thunderfire Cannons before their codex came out and made them illegal. People want to use the models they own, simple as.

The WHY can make a difference, but the FACT shouldn't. If the fact the models are the 'wrong' colour is the issue, then whom is to say what the right colour is? Games Workshop? Not one single Blood Angels player I know paints their Blood Angels the same as GW. Mine are bright red with orange highlights. My friend has crimson. There is no dark rusty red in any of them. Where does the difference start to matter? When red becomes black? Or goes through orange and becomes yellow? If he highlights by mixing white and they turn pink should they then be playing chaos as noise marines?

[Axeman1n]

The existance of an exact list, from a different book, for less points shows that one book is better than the other. The IW's list will be better in any other codex but the CSM codex.

[Bubble Ghost]

The existance of an exact list, from a different book, for less points shows that one book is better than the other.

This at least is true, as I discovered when, for a combat patrol tournament recently, I picked a 400 point Chaos army which, it turned out, could have a few special rules ADDED to it to turn it into a 315 point Space Wolf army. It's this sort of soul-crushing handicap that means I can understand why some people proxy, even if I choose not to do it myself.

[althathir]

The existance of an exact list, from a different book, for less points shows that one book is better than the other. The IW's list will be better in any other codex but the CSM codex.

I don't disagree with you there, my point is that it still wouldn't be as good as a WAAC chaos build, or WAAC space wolf build. IT does gain some power and like I posted earlier to stonerhino players should admit its part of their choice, but there is a big difference between a making fluffly list stronger, and WAAC list.

[Wishing]

I agree with your logic. But then, surely the same logic should apply to the colours a model is painted? You see no problem changing a rule, and I see no problem with changing a rule or changing a colour. I think that Space Wolves should be grey like wolves not blue like non-existant wolves. If I painted some space wolves grey there would likely be no complaint. If I painted them red suddenly there is. Where does the double-standard come from? Why couldn't a house rule be applied that the ultramarines assault squads have been fighting fiercely in this campaign for weeks and have become experts in combat against their enemy and so gain furious charge?

I understand the uncomfortable feeling surrounding a game when one player has been changing codex every other game and is simply trying to win. That's fine - their motives are to win not to have fun. However just using a different book is not the same, and I still feel strongly that there is no basis to complain about the colour of a model if all else is correct. Sure fluff says one thing, but colour choice is different to army choice. Some care more for the fluff and models than the rules - look at those non-BA players that bought Stormravens, or those BA players that already owned Thunderfire Cannons before their codex came out and made them illegal. People want to use the models they own, simple as.

The WHY can make a difference, but the FACT shouldn't. If the fact the models are the 'wrong' colour is the issue, then whom is to say what the right colour is? Games Workshop? Not one single Blood Angels player I know paints their Blood Angels the same as GW. Mine are bright red with orange highlights. My friend has crimson. There is no dark rusty red in any of them. Where does the difference start to matter? When red becomes black? Or goes through orange and becomes yellow? If he highlights by mixing white and they turn pink should they then be playing chaos as noise marines?

Good arguments, and I admit that there is a certain point where distinctions break down. For example, the basic marine codex is supposed to represent a variety of chapters, and the only special chapter rules in the list only come into play when certain special characters are taken. So when an Ultramarine tactical squad and a White Scars tactical squad are identical in every way except fluff, is it possible to counts-as one as the other?

However, I think you are barking up the wrong tree with your colour arguments. Clearly we aren't talking about colour alone - we are talking about fluff identity. Red Space Wolves would not be a problem if they have SW markings on them and you refer to them as Space Wolves who have ritually painted their armour in the colour of the blood moon. Then they are just red Space Wolves. However, when you give them Blood Angel markings and start calling them Blood Angels, despite still using the SW rules, you have changed their identity which results in a simple alternate colour scheme turning into full-blown counts-as.

You say that since I don't mind changing the rules, why do I mind changing identities, since you can just say "I've changed my BA army list to be identical to the SW army list"? The answer lies in keeping true to the game format and not subverting it. Writing your own codex is keeping true to the game philosophy in my view. Pretending that an existing codex represents your army which has its own different codex is not. This is obviously just my subjective opinion, but most opinions are. As an example, I would not mind if someone played a BA army using the basic marine codex. Why? Because BA (and any other loyalist marine type) are just marines. All chapters can be adequately represented by the base codex in my view. The alternate codexes are OK, they add extra character for those that want extra blood bloody blood in their BA, or extra wolfy mcwolf in their SWs. But to me they will always be optional variants, because a marine is a marine is a marine and their real codex is codex: space marines. Their core identity is in the core codex, and their added extra identity is found in the sub-codexes. Using the wrong sub-codex for your army breaks the purpose and integrity of the system though in my view, and is therefore very different from modifying the codexes as they are without changing an army's identity either looks- or rules-wise.

[Stonerhino]

I don't disagree with you there, my point is that it still wouldn't be as good as a WAAC chaos build, or WAAC space wolf build. IT does gain some power and like I posted earlier to stonerhino players should admit its part of their choice, but there is a big difference between a making fluffly list stronger, and WAAC list.

You can't make that statement untill you actually see the lists in question. Meaning that you can withdraw your WAAC calling from each player on a by player basis. But that does not change the fact that disreguarding the fluff for an advantage on the table is a WAAC move. One that's actually made worse when you justify it with fluff shenanigans. On the surface there is no different between:

Well if i was to do the world eaters one i would only be using wolf lord grey hunters blood claws wolf guard thunderwolf cav (converted to be bezerkers riding juggers) and long fangs.

And

Army list

Untill you see the army lists. You can't say "Oh, but fluff armies are not as strong as WAAC armies from the codices".

[althathir]

You can't make that statement untill you actually see the lists in question. Meaning that you can withdraw your WAAC calling from each player on a by player basis. But that does not change the fact that disreguarding the fluff for an advantage on the table is a WAAC move. One that's actually made worse when you justify it with fluff shenanigans. On the surface there is no different between:
AndUntill you see the army lists. You can't say "Oh, but fluff armies are not as strong as WAAC armies from the codices".

Right so you shouldn't cry "WAAC" either because the list may not be one. Take the lists Sqallum suggested in his thread, and the one that agursus1 posted earlier neither list is some fluff travestry, so why decide they're guilty before even seeing them. Hell if Dreadpaul's list has bloodclaws in it, than most competitive players aren't gonna see it as WAAC either.

[Axeman1n]

Just because one list gains more of an advantage than another list when both are Counts as, does not mean that the 2nd list is not gaining an advantage. The advantage you gain by switching codecies will be different from each prospective, but No one does it to make their army less useful on the battlefield. By it's very nature, those who do Count's as Armies do so to gain an advantage. They may hide behind the reason of fluff, but in the end, then would not have done it unless there was something in it for them. Show me a person using a counts as list to make their army worse. No was is doing it to keep their army the same either.
If you are using a counts as list to make it better, then you are giving up some fluff for winning. It's not win at all costs, but it is win comes before other considerations. Maybe if we understood the WAAC to mean, winning is your primary consideration, people wouldn't take it so rough.

[Stonerhino]

Sqallum's, list had a Blood Taloned Furioso dread being deployed via a Stormraven. As a fluffy Night Lords army.

agurus1's, list has 19-24" open field charging "Slaves" to act as both a bubble wrap and or tie up units. And 3 S4 attacks on the charge they are not to shabby. Think fast moving Kroot.

Dreadlordpaul"s, list was just an excuse to have TWC backed up by Long Fangs in the army.

So it's not like any of those list are free from having non-fluffy WAAC like combos. It's just varying degrees of the same thing. So I won't give the idea the thumbs up untill I see the list. So any post that says "Is this idea of a fluffy army ok?". No, it's not untill you prove that judgement wrong. And if you ok some count-as but not others just based on the choice of codex. Then you are applying you own bias into that call.

Meaning that if you approve IW using codex SW. Then you have to approve Catachan using codex Dark Eldar or Tau using codex Grey Knights.

[Melkanador]

Meaning that if you approve IW using codex SW. Then you have to approve Catachan using codex Dark Eldar or Tau using codex Grey Knights.

If the weapons/vehicles fit, everything is fine with me.

I´m using my Marines (Dark Green, red Eagle) since 2nd Edition with several codices (3rd SM, DA; 4th SM; 5th SM then SW). I play my army generally the same way: lots of standard Marines and Devastators.

Am I a WAAC no, but winning plays a role in switching codices as I won´t play an army for 10 years with a bad codex just because GW failed with this codex.

Just my 2ct.

[Axeman1n]

Have you ever seen a Sorcerer on a disk of Tzeentch, counts as Warlock on a Jetbike? They are T4, 3+, 4++ and move 12" in the movement phase. Mine would have had destructor. Totally fluffy! <_<

[El_Machinae]

I misunderstood the OP. The idea seems to be to paint your miniatures with one theme, but use a different set of rules because you perceive the mechanics to be better for what you're wanting to do. I've not seen that done, but you know, I think I have no problem with it. As long as the WYSIWYG was easy to do, I mean. In theory, the system of points is supposed to balance out the rules. If one army is broken, then it's broken no matter its paint scheme.

[Yodhrin]

Just because one list gains more of an advantage than another list when both are Counts as, does not mean that the 2nd list is not gaining an advantage. The advantage you gain by switching codecies will be different from each prospective, but No one does it to make their army less useful on the battlefield. By it's very nature, those who do Count's as Armies do so to gain an advantage. They may hide behind the reason of fluff, but in the end, then would not have done it unless there was something in it for them. Show me a person using a counts as list to make their army worse. No was is doing it to keep their army the same either.
If you are using a counts as list to make it better, then you are giving up some fluff for winning. It's not win at all costs, but it is win comes before other considerations. Maybe if we understood the WAAC to mean, winning is your primary consideration, people wouldn't take it so rough.

Anyone who uses Wolves to represent Iron Hands; unless Terminators leading squads, no wolf scouts, no thunderwolves, no blood claws, and no bikes has suddenly become more powerful than a perfectly fluff-valid melta-mech-spam list from C:SM. People take sentiments like the ones you express "rough" because you accuse them of "hiding behind" what they consider to be a perfectly valid position, for no reason other than it suits your preconceived absolutist opinion to do so.

[Stonerhino]

I only use codex SW so my Iron Hands can have Terminator squad leaders:

HQ:
Rune priest X4

Elites:
X3 Wolf Guard X5+Terminator+Cyclone Missile Launcher

Troops:
X2 Grey Hunter Pack

Fast Attack:
X3 Land Speeder Typhoon

Heavy Support:
X3 Long Fangs X5 Missile Launchers

Yup, looks perfectly fluffy to me.

[althathir]

Sqallum's, list had a Blood Taloned Furioso dread being deployed via a Stormraven. As a fluffy Night Lords army.

agurus1's, list has 19-24" open field charging "Slaves" to act as both a bubble wrap and or tie up units. And 3 S4 attacks on the charge they are not to shabby. Think fast moving Kroot.

Dreadlordpaul"s, list was just an excuse to have TWC backed up by Long Fangs in the army.

So it's not like any of those list are free from having non-fluffy WAAC like combos. It's just varying degrees of the same thing. So I won't give the idea the thumbs up untill I see the list. So any post that says "Is this idea of a fluffy army ok?". No, it's not untill you prove that judgement wrong. And if you ok some count-as but not others just based on the choice of codex. Then you are applying you own bias into that call.

Meaning that if you approve IW using codex SW. Then you have to approve Catachan using codex Dark Eldar or Tau using codex Grey Knights.

Yeah Sqallums list did, have a storm raven, and furioso dread. Though the main thing he wanted was a skimmer transport (considering he seemed to decide on the vanilla list when he saw the storm eagle) Regardless that first list wasn't a WAAC list. I'd be more scared of chaos list with lash princes, plague marines, and oblits. A storm raven and furioso dread aren't really the scary to be honest, if they were spammed maybe but one is just an av 12 deathstar.

agurus1 list - Wow thats the first time I've heard fenrisian wolves considered a WAAC option.... ever. I'm saying that they are bad cause they are viable, but honestly I'd rather take lesser daemons. Or if using the SW book landspeeders & TWC which are more competitive options.

Dreadlordpaul's list is more of a WAAC style list, depending on how many units of blood claws he ran. I wouldn't blame you for considering it a WAAC style list, I just don't like that you do before you see it.

That said there's a big difference between IW as SWs, and GK as tau. The SW/IW model is gonna have the correct wargear and power armour. The tau army wouldn't be close unless they put an ungodly amount of work into to it and if they did I wouldn't have an issue at all. For me its more that I have to be able to understand what I'm up againist visually beyond that I don't care. One of my friends used the eldar codex for an Inquisitor army (daemon hunters) he put a ton of work into it and it was fun to play againist.

I only use codex SW so my Iron Hands can have Terminator squad leaders:

HQ:
Rune priest X4

Elites:
X3 Wolf Guard X5+Terminator+Cyclone Missile Launcher

Troops:
X2 Grey Hunter Pack

Fast Attack:
X3 Land Speeder Typhoon

Heavy Support:
X3 Long Fangs X5 Missile Launchers

Yup, looks perfectly fluffy to me.

Cause thats how people run them? Look if you ran into a list like that then I agree the kids trying to bring a WAAC list (a really *&^%y one but they're going for it) my issue is more that your deciding that count-as is WAAC until proven otherwise. My main issue with the hobby has always been how passive aggressive it can be, so I don't like the ideal of someone coming into a game or looking through posts expecting the worst possible case. It just makes for a negative experience.