Marine Paradox

[TheMav80]

I guess I just have an easier time divorcing the crunch from the fluff maybe? Or maybe since I have played Tau for so long, I deal with any color Space Marine the same way: Run away and shoot them. :P

The reason I, and I think most people, dislike proxying is just because it is confusing. It isn't the same (to me) when it is just a color swap. If you tell me you are using Vanilla, SW, BA, or CSM, I can remember that because it is across the whole army. Granted this is probably different for everyone. This is the same reason I find swapping marine books better than swapping other books. It is just easier.

I know there are some other really good armies out there that are counts-as, but it is a lot of effort to get that to work well the more different the armies are. Using Necrons to represent Eldar would be much more difficult, for example. Eldar swaps might be pretty easy too. I still toy with the idea/dream of using the DE codex to make a Kroot army.

[althathir]

This is 40K, you are definitly guilty untill proven innocent.

Back on track:
I have already said that if there was a lesser term then WAAC I would use it. "Competitive" just is not harsh enough of a term for it. Because saying that "This is my fluffy army" that can built almost identically using the army's own codex; But uses a codex that's viewed as being a stronger codex. Was not done for the sake of fluff. And I have no problem with someone who says that they choose to use a different codex because they wanted an advantage over their existing codex. That's a competitive discision. It's when a person will argue that it's only a fluff discision when they are codex hopping to stronger codices. That they are stomping on their fluff just for the sake of winning; That it treads into the WAAC territory.
... (I cut this post down a bit).....
You're either ok with count-as or you're not. One army using another codex is no different then another army using a different codex. To say otherwise is just being hypocriticall. I'm against the reasoning behind it untill you can prove otherwise. And view all armies using a different codex the same. IW using codex SW is no different then Tau using codex Grey Knights. If either one can show that they are using a setup that cannot be done with their own codex without fluff backflips... No problem. Or if the player just says "My codex sucks and I wanted to use a stronger codex"... No problem.

Then steps in Mr fluffy who cannot show a real difference between his selections from his own codex and the one he wants to use and will argue that it's not because he wanted a stronger codex. That I have a problem with. He is misrepresenting his intentions just for the sake of winning.

The intial disclaimer is depressing but I guess I understand your stance a bit more.

I still think though that maybe instead of saying WAAC you should call it whatever the original codex name +1 which amounts to what your trying to say. Typically most people that make count-as lists will admit that codex strength is part of the equation. If they try to follow the fluff, the lists they end up with aren't better then what they could make in the original codex, and as long as thats the case its not a WAAC list. There aren't degrees of WAAC, beyond the fact that guy can take a rock hard list, and not be a tool. The same is true for really any slur, so it just irks me, moreso because you don't have a problem with someone using a different book because they feel their codex sucks if they admit it.

.....
So I do tend to agree (or maybe it's disagree in a different way? ) with Stonerhino on this particular bit...why should it be so heinous to represent Orks as Imperial Guard or Tau as Eldar or any other crazy mix-em-up that you want to do since they're just models and it's just a game?

For me, I wouldn't care if its in a pick up game, in tourney though it would really depend on the effort put into the army. Orks to imp guard with be confusing and in a tourney game where time might be an issue its kinda rough to spend the time learning what units are what unless the player went out of their way. For example one of my friends made an inquisitor army that used the eldar codex, he put a ton of work into it, and limited his weapon options radically. He wanted to use valkyries & have a daemon host that didn't suck it was pretty easy to tell what was what and nothing would be considered modelling for advantage, I would never blink at playing againist an army like that.

[agurus1]

I honestly have no problem with marine armies with the "wrong" color scheme. To me the only thing I need to know is that all Marines have the same stat line, and I'm golden. Special rules for the army (if you are confused) are in the codex which (if you opponent is sporting) you can ask to have a look in. Honestly though, I doubt I would play differently against two armies painted both as Ultramarines but one uses the BA codex. The same basic rules for killing marines apply. At my local meta, there are a fair amount of marine armies, and pretty much every game, not matter the painting or special rules or what have you, have been the same: keep them at arms length, kill the transports, then kill the marines. Simple, and honestly doesn't change between varying Codex's.

[Ebon]

For me, it's a matter of degree. For example, if you have someone with a Dark Angels army that wants to count them as generic Marines because DA haven't had a codex update in forever, then fine. Likewise, I'm fine with someone proxying half their army if they're just testing out a new list and I'm fine with pieces being proxied because they haven't been released yet or the player can't afford the model just yet. I couldn't count the number of times I saw a Carnifex standing in for a Tervigon for exactly that reason. If a player makes up their own chapter, no problem. Just choose which chapter they count as and stick with it.
The point where I have a problem with it is when it's clearly just a player jumping on whatever the current codex-of-death is. I especially have to wonder when someone wants to use a different codex while their army is painted in a way that already has a functional codex. What I mean is someone has an army painted as, say, Ultrasmurfs but want to use the Space Wolf codex.
Obviously, that's for friendly games. In a formal tourney or suchlike, the organisers make their own rules.

[Stonerhino]

You've been given an example, twice, by two different people; Iron Hands using C:SW, you just refuse to acknowledge it because it meets your criteria and sinks your crummy argument.

Frankly, you're beginning to come off badly, throwing around accusations, assumptions, and stating your opinions as absolute fact, then pullin a "tide goes in, tide goes out, YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT!" whenever anyone objects.

I guess you missed it since it was the post right after your's.

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.

And find me an Iron Hands player that wanted to use the old SW codex instead of the current SM codex and I'll retract this. because that codex could field Terminator squad leaders as well.

I still think though that maybe instead of saying WAAC you should call it whatever the original codex name +1 which amounts to what your trying to say.

It would definitly slow people's jump to defensiveness.

There aren't degrees of WAAC, beyond the fact that guy can take a rock hard list, and not be a tool. The same is true for really any slur, so it just irks me, moreso because you don't have a problem with someone using a different book because they feel their codex sucks if they admit it.

Like I said you can't make that distintion untill you see the list and or the actual army. So you don't have any idea of how fluffy their "Fluffy" list is untill you see their list. Instead of giving an out to people who say "Fluff" but mean "As competative as they can". I choose to just view all of them as the later until they prove otherwise.

However when someone says that they are doing it to up their competative level. You can expect to face a competative list every time. There are no questions as to their motivation.

And in responce to TheMav80's statement. I'll add "I don't have the time, money, desire, ect to actually build the army; But want to play it anyways". to the list of count-as that get a by just for the player expressing it that way. Doing a proxy BA army is the same as BA army for all intents and purposes. As opposed to this is a Chaos Marine Army with what I precieve as better special rules and points cost.

[DrunkTerminator]

This is 40K, you are definitly guilty untill proven innocent.

Why? Because you say so?
How about you go out and play with some people and see when they decide if you're WAAC or not?

[Rogue Star]

This will never be answered as it will always come down to what sort of hobbyist you are:

Roll-play: It's all about the game, and you see no reason to not try other army lists, provided everything is WYSIWYG, and explained beforehand. You've painted your army how you like them, purely to enhance the game.

Role-play: For you, you've painted your army with the correct unit markings, scars and badges to mark out pivotal bits of lore you enjoyed most about the force, to capture on the tabletop what you've read in the background. Tossing that aside for a one game tactical advantage is simply saddening.

[wyvirn]

Why? Because you say so?
How about you go out and play with some people and see when they decide if you're WAAC or not?

No, because this is the 40k setting:

There is no such thing as a plea of innocence in my court. A plea of innocence is guilty of wasting my time. Guilty.

Secondly, 99.9% of the time you will not be able to meet and play with the people who post online, so you can only guess what their like based on their internet postings. So if they sound consistant with what a person considers a WAAC player, then they are according to that particular person. If that person met the accused in a store it may change their mind because the know more about the person than just his list and his online adequate, like his attitude and play style.

I know I don't want to play a jerk, and I'll determine that based on more than his army models and rulebook. But it is still a factor.

[DEADMARSH]

I think prior to the 5th ed Marine codex, a case could be made for raising an eyebrow to blue Blood Angels or red Ultramarines, but once GW said you can use whatever special characters in whatever armies, to me that signaled the end of getting uptight about paint jobs.

[Yodhrin]

I guess you missed it since it was the post right after your's.
And find me an Iron Hands player that wanted to use the old SW codex instead of the current SM codex and I'll retract this. because that codex could field Terminator squad leaders as well.

I did ffs! And before that I used the Chapter Approved rules from WD. You remember those, back in the days when using rules other than the ones presented in the Official Laminated Book wasn't a high crime punishable by death?

I didn't -miss- anything, I just fail to see what the hell that has to do with the central charge I'm leveling; you're being uptight, unreasonable, and judgmental. It's possible to make an equally Aged Gouda list using the regular Marine codex, that such a thing is possible does not make it certain, nor even probable. You admit openly that it's impossible to judge one way or another until you actually see the list, yet you seem oddly proud of the fact that you will cynically assume the worst, and accuse people of being the worst on nothing but that assumption. The former is your prerogative; it's a bit sad and bitter, but it's up to you, the latter is what I take issue with. I'm not the world's biggest fan of religion, and I have a lot of negative associations based on that sentiment, but I don't open my gob and start spewing bile the moment I discover the person I'm talking to is religious, because that's just crappy behaviour.

[Fithos]

It seems like the real problem is that people don't want to have to remember new things when they are playing a game. This is, in a sense fair as it might detract from the enjoyment you get from playing the game, but it is also kind of sad since it's pretty much the reason they got rid of chapter approved and I really like chapter approved. I think it's unfortunate that people didn't want to play chapter approved lists for the same reason they don't want to play against "proxy" armies or even in many cases differently painted armies, possibly depriving them of the chance to make new friends and have a fun game. Of course it's their time, their hobby, and their money, so tehy should be free to enjoy it however they want.

Which brings me to my second point of maybe we should not judge people. I know it's really easy to call people WAAC jerks because they do something we don't agree with, but wouldn't it make for really nice gaming environments if people would just come in and have a good time instead of getting their panties in a bunch because someones GK are painted blue, or getting all high and mighty because they see someone playing Ogryns in an IG list (OMG U NOOB OGRYNZ SUCKZ!!! LOL) Maybe then I wouldn't mind going to my LGS so much.

but I guess...
"This is 40K, you are definitly guilty untill proven innocent."

[Egaeus]

I think prior to the 5th ed Marine codex, a case could be made for raising an eyebrow to blue Blood Angels or red Ultramarines, but once GW said you can use whatever special characters in whatever armies, to me that signaled the end of getting uptight about paint jobs.

The thing is you can't just use any character in whatever army, you are still limited to what is presented in the specific Codex you are using. And I think the biggest issue there is that they could easily have presented them as "archetypes" (which is essentially what they are doing) with an example (i.e. the specific named individual). Then there is somewhat less of a disjoint between using what are otherwise chapter-specific characters with the "wrong" chapter.

It is Codex: Space Marines and not strictly "Ultramarines" (although they are the focus of the book)...the book actually represents many chapters. And I think there are still people who get uptight about others using the "wrong" special characters in their army even if it's in the rules, because in some instances it isn't about the character being a fluffy addition to the army but that they give them a real game advantage. I suppose the issue should be just as bad with other books using "chapter" characters in successor chapters...how many Mephistons or Belials are actually running around in the universe ?

I still think the core problem is the idea that if one paints an army in a specific recognizable scheme then uses another set of rules that they are, at least, misrepresenting the army. The idea of using other models for other armies has been brought up and the argument has been "but it's recognizable as what it represents so using it to represent something different is wrong" (I dislike how that sounds but I'm not sure how to phrase it better at the moment) and I ask why this is so much worse when the only distinguishing feature between some Marines armies is the colour the units are painted (with the important distinction that in this case the same model can have different rules based on which book it comes out of so saying "a Marine is a Marine" isn't strictly true)?

[althathir]

I guess you missed it since it was the post right after your's.
And find me an Iron Hands player that wanted to use the old SW codex instead of the current SM codex and I'll retract this. because that codex could field Terminator squad leaders as well.
It would definitly slow people's jump to defensiveness.
Like I said you can't make that distintion untill you see the list and or the actual army. So you don't have any idea of how fluffy their "Fluffy" list is untill you see their list. Instead of giving an out to people who say "Fluff" but mean "As competative as they can". I choose to just view all of them as the later until they prove otherwise.
However when someone says that they are doing it to up their competative level. You can expect to face a competative list every time. There are no questions as to their motivation.

And in responce to TheMav80's statement. I'll add "I don't have the time, money, desire, ect to actually build the army; But want to play it anyways". to the list of count-as that get a by just for the player expressing it that way. Doing a proxy BA army is the same as BA army for all intents and purposes. As opposed to this is a Chaos Marine Army with what I precieve as better special rules and points cost.

You Posted that list Lol, so most people are gonna discount it when your using it to try to prove your own point. Also Iron hands don't run termie squads fyi (edit: i'm wrong here, they're still rare), and competitive wolf lists run termies with logan otherwise termies aren't that great. So if your trying to prove a point you should have included him marginalizing the grey hunters (the justification for the list). As far as older players, in 3rd they had WD rules, and in 4th their own traits, it wasn't until fifth that they entered paint scheme territoty.

What bothers me is that the underlined portion of your quote. "As competitive as they can" makes no sense, as soon as they put any fluff restrictions on the list they've thrown that out the window. I can completely agree that it makes a lot of lists better but thats overstating things.

Beyond that I'm fine with you having a guility to proven innocent stance on things cause your entitled to that, so if I have implied otherwise I'm sorry. edit: As long as you respect that i'm entitled to feel the opposite.

This will never be answered as it will always come down to what sort of hobbyist you are:

Roll-play: It's all about the game, and you see no reason to not try other army lists, provided everything is WYSIWYG, and explained beforehand. You've painted your army how you like them, purely to enhance the game.

Role-play: For you, you've painted your army with the correct unit markings, scars and badges to mark out pivotal bits of lore you enjoyed most about the force, to capture on the tabletop what you've read in the background. Tossing that aside for a one game tactical advantage is simply saddening.

I think it depends on the fraction quite a bit too and thats what really complicates things. Iron hands have had their own rule sets in the past, same for Night lords now they are paint schemes, so players look for books that allow them to field them in way that they feel better represents them. Personally I like count-as I think it keeps people interested in the game, I don't see myself doing it because I'm happy with both my wolves and eldar but i'll defend the option.

[Lord Damocles]

Also Iron hands don't run termie squads fyi

'Entire squads of Terminators are rare...'
(Index Astartes: Hand of Justice [Iron Hands], in White Dwraf 262, pg.68)

Ie. not non-existant.

[althathir]

'Entire squads of Terminators are rare...'
(Index Astartes: Hand of Justice [Iron Hands], in White Dwraf 262, pg.68)

Ie. not non-existant.

Fair enough my buddy who plays IH will probably stop talking to me now, either way 3 squads of termies would be a bit much for most people looking for a counts-as force.

Edit: Thanks for pointing that out.

[DEADMARSH]

The thing is you can't just use any character in whatever army, you are still limited to what is presented in the specific Codex you are using. And I think the biggest issue there is that they could easily have presented them as "archetypes" (which is essentially what they are doing) with an example (i.e. the specific named individual). Then there is somewhat less of a disjoint between using what are otherwise chapter-specific characters with the "wrong" chapter.

I realize that. What I'm saying is there's a precedent that's been set that you no longer have to be playing Salamanders with green marines to use Vulkan, so to me, everything else kind of goes out the window at that point. It tells me that GW aren't really all that concerned about folks using armies of different colors. I probably could have phrased that better in my original post. Of course, that being said, whatever, y'know? I used to get a little peeved when folks would roll Calgar in non-Ultra lists, but after I saw the new(est) Marine 'dex, I thought to myself, "Well, if they don't care, why should I?", and changed my mind about the whole thing.

It is Codex: Space Marines and not strictly "Ultramarines" (although they are the focus of the book)...the book actually represents many chapters. And I think there are still people who get uptight about others using the "wrong" special characters in their army even if it's in the rules, because in some instances it isn't about the character being a fluffy addition to the army but that they give them a real game advantage. I suppose the issue should be just as bad with other books using "chapter" characters in successor chapters...how many Mephistons or Belials are actually running around in the universe ?

Exactly. As we've all seen time and again, there's such a significant disconnect between the fluff and what you actually put on the table, what difference does it really make? Especially when a player can just retort with, "Oh these blue Blood Angels are a successor chapter called 'Angels of Azure' and I wrote 25 pages of fluff about them because I was inspired after I watched Tree of Life and blah, blah, blah." Somehow, that's kosher, but somebody just turning up with blue Marines they want to use as BAs because the SM 'dex has been out for awhile and they're bored with it but don't have the dough to drop on an entire army of some very similar models? Who cares, man?

I still think the core problem is the idea that if one paints an army in a specific recognizable scheme then uses another set of rules that they are, at least, misrepresenting the army. The idea of using other models for other armies has been brought up and the argument has been "but it's recognizable as what it represents so using it to represent something different is wrong" (I dislike how that sounds but I'm not sure how to phrase it better at the moment) and I ask why this is so much worse when the only distinguishing feature between some Marines armies is the colour the units are painted (with the important distinction that in this case the same model can have different rules based on which book it comes out of so saying "a Marine is a Marine" isn't strictly true)?

I agree, and at the end of the day, it really only matters what two people think- the guy who's trying to use the blue Blood Angels and they guy playing against them. Me personally, I don't care anymore. Hell, I'm so happy to get a game in with an opponent I wouldn't go out of my way to avoid in real life, they could use just about whatever models they wanted as long as they weren't a nightmare to play against. If other people want to get frustrated over blue Blood Angels or whatever, that's fine. I'm not going to tell them how to handle the issue. Like I said, I was the same way for a few years myself.

[Stonerhino]

You Posted that list Lol, so most people are gonna discount it when your using it to try to prove your own point. Also Iron hands don't run termie squads fyi (edit: i'm wrong here, they're still rare), and competitive wolf lists run termies with logan otherwise termies aren't that great. So if your trying to prove a point you should have included him marginalizing the grey hunters (the justification for the list). As far as older players, in 3rd they had WD rules, and in 4th their own traits, it wasn't until fifth that they entered paint scheme territoty.

The point of the list was to show that you can make a completely unfluffy list using the fluff approved units and one that would be very simular if you used codex SM. Even if you discount because I posted it. It does not change the fact that it can exist with "Fluff retrictions".

What bothers me is that the underlined portion of your quote. "As competitive as they can" makes no sense, as soon as they put any fluff restrictions on the list they've thrown that out the window. I can completely agree that it makes a lot of lists better but thats overstating things.

See and just applying fluff restrictions does not throw anything out of the window. If anything it re-enforces the point. Back when Codex Space Marines had traits (4th). Players would take traits that added to their armies ability to win games. Then take restrictions that didn't really affect them anyways.

For example:

Terminators leading squads, no wolf scouts, no thunderwolves, no blood claws, and no bikes

You are really limiting yourself when you see actual SW armies that don't include those units???

logan grinmar

1 rune priest - terminator armor combi melta

4 wolf guard- terminator armor x4- 3 combi melta- 1 th, ss- drop pod

4 wolf guard- terminator armor x4- 3 combi melta- 1 th, ss- drop pod

1 dreadnought- multimelta- tl autocanon - drop pod

1 wolf guard- combi melta- powerfist

9 grey hunter - melta- drop pod

5 long fangs - 4 missile launchers- drop pod

5 long fangs - 4 missile launchers- drop pod

I did ffs!

I appaud you for it then. But would you consider the list above to be a fluffy IH list???

[Wishing]

The thing is you can't just use any character in whatever army, you are still limited to what is presented in the specific Codex you are using. And I think the biggest issue there is that they could easily have presented them as "archetypes" (which is essentially what they are doing) with an example (i.e. the specific named individual). Then there is somewhat less of a disjoint between using what are otherwise chapter-specific characters with the "wrong" chapter.

It is Codex: Space Marines and not strictly "Ultramarines" (although they are the focus of the book)...the book actually represents many chapters. And I think there are still people who get uptight about others using the "wrong" special characters in their army even if it's in the rules, because in some instances it isn't about the character being a fluffy addition to the army but that they give them a real game advantage. I suppose the issue should be just as bad with other books using "chapter" characters in successor chapters...how many Mephistons or Belials are actually running around in the universe ?

I think the "archetype" concept is central to thinking about counts-as. And the reason it is a contentious issue is that GW specifically lets people decide for themselves whether they think the rules in the books should be considered archetypes, or "instances" for lack of a better word, ie. that there is only one army type with these rules and it is the official one. On one hand, GW are very supportive about using the rules as archetypes - they frequently mention that you can use the rules to represent chapters of your own creation or rename the special characters as whatever you want. On the other hand, they don't do this themselves - the codexes aren't presented as "codex: archetype", they are presented as "codex: instance". All the models shown in the Ork codex are various types of Orks, they don't say "You can also use the rules in this book to represent a space skaven army" and then print several pages of converted space skaven models. Likewise, the SW codex doesn't have a chaos marine section for those players who choose to use the book to represent their chaos army. GW acknowledges that some players use the archetype/counts-as approach, and they occasionally mention or showcase it. but their publications only show and promote the instance approach in any real way.

[Szalik]

I have already said that if there was a lesser term then WAAC I would use it. "Competitive" just is not harsh enough of a term for it. Because saying that "This is my fluffy army" that can built almost identically using the army's own codex; But uses a codex that's viewed as being a stronger codex. Was not done for the sake of fluff. And I have no problem with someone who says that they choose to use a different codex because they wanted an advantage over their existing codex. That's a competitive discision. It's when a person will argue that it's only a fluff discision when they are codex hopping to stronger codices. That they are stomping on their fluff just for the sake of winning; That it treads into the WAAC territory.

First of all I do not believe that You can make a playable army 100% for fluff. You would have to compromise what You know about the force You're making, with existing codices and standard FOC, and then it stops being 100% fluffy. Not a single codex will give You all traits Space Marines have that are mentioned in fluff...but some of them will give more than others or at least more diversity to represent what You focus on.

I believe that fluff is not written in stone...there is a lot of field to change things a little,limit yourself, COMPROMISE (not manipulate), and still stay ok, within the spirit of the fluff. Like playing NL with a BA codex. Or IH with SW. Or let's take a different example...chaos civilian human mutants as Orks (using converted orks miniatures painted with human like skin tones). It is all about being creative but not going too far (Tau using GK rules). If by those means I can get both fluffy, varied army supported by rules that do not make it an auto lose army - then I have it all.

You're either ok with count-as or you're not. One army using another codex is no different then another army using a different codex. To say otherwise is just being hypocriticall. I'm against the reasoning behind it untill you can prove otherwise. And view all armies using a different codex the same. IW using codex SW is no different then Tau using codex Grey Knights. If either one can show that they are using a setup that cannot be done with their own codex without fluff backflips... No problem. Or if the player just says "My codex sucks and I wanted to use a stronger codex"... No problem.

This is the main problem. This is seeing things only black and white. Of course there is a difference but You do not want to see it, to keep things simple for yourself or because You take codex names too literal.
Look at the special characters in SM book. Even GW admits that those "chapter specific" characters may be used in other chapters with different names (changing "red thirst" to "paranoid vision" came to my mind here), using other books is the same thing but on a larger scale. And what can I do that SW is both quite powerful codex and a varied one ? Not use it for my CSM because others hop to it for more power ? And yes I have tried all up to date SM books, this one suits me the most.

I think the "archetype" concept is central to thinking about counts-as. And the reason it is a contentious issue is that GW specifically lets people decide for themselves whether they think the rules in the books should be considered archetypes, or "instances" for lack of a better word, ie. that there is only one army type with these rules and it is the official one. On one hand, GW are very supportive about using the rules as archetypes - they frequently mention that you can use the rules to represent chapters of your own creation or rename the special characters as whatever you want. On the other hand, they don't do this themselves - the codexes aren't presented as "codex: archetype", they are presented as "codex: instance".

Very true. I've mentioned it before somewhere before but will repeat. They do this because Codex: Blood Angels or Codex:Grey Knights will sell better than Codex:Aerial assault aggressive marines or Codex:Psychic Marines. GW can match it with a certain batch of miniatures and voila. It's more newcomer friendly I guess.

In my view those names Blood Angels or SW both on the codex and character level just represent an archetype from fluff. It happens that those chapters/characters excel in this kind of combat or chapter organisation but it is not exclusive to them.

In my opinion the whole problem stems from some people taking codex names too literal ( special rules with spammed adjectives like blood, wolf, grey or whatever do not help too), from grief that owners of SM miniatures have a lot of choice when it comes to rules and from some sort of false pride from "sticking" to the book "for good and bad" like it were something more than a bunch of rules for toys.

[agurus1]

I agree with Wishing, GamesWorkshop has featured on "What New Today" several "counts-as" Chaos Marine armies which are based off C:SW