Marine Paradox

[brightblade]

One of the armies nominated for 'best army' at April's throne of skulls was a beautifully painted ultramarine army. Beautiful.

Led by a beautifully painted Vulkan.

It did not win best army.

Anyway, my point is; I will play against anything as long as I can tell what it is, or supposed to be, but don't expect me to applaud cheese.

[althathir]

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".

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:
You are really limiting yourself when you see actual SW armies that don't include those units???
I appaud you for it then. But would you consider the list above to be a fluffy IH list???

I get that they can abuse it, i've never stated otherwise when I was suggesting logan I was trying to make it appear more WAAC to show your point to a degree. At this point I get that you look at things from an guility to proven innocent mind set, and I'm fine with that as long as respect that I tend to look at things from the opposite perspective. That said the lists their coming up with wouldn't be considered WAAC in the Wolf book and that makes a clear distinction IMO.

[TheMav80]

I think the best part is that people would gladly play your "terrible WAAC army"...just as long as you spend another $400 to build it.

[Mirbeau]

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

To be fair, they were modelled as actual renegade space wolves though...

[Stonerhino]

I get that they can abuse it, i've never stated otherwise when I was suggesting logan I was trying to make it appear more WAAC to show your point to a degree. At this point I get that you look at things from an guility to proven innocent mind set, and I'm fine with that as long as respect that I tend to look at things from the opposite perspective. That said the lists their coming up with wouldn't be considered WAAC in the Wolf book and that makes a clear distinction IMO.

It's not a guility vs innocent first question. It's one player wishing to stretch how their models were intended to represented rules wise.

GW will tell you that their rules don't matter if all the players are having fun. So if I said "I want the assult phase to happen before the shooting phase. Because it's more fluffy". GW would not care if I could find other players to play it that way. Most people would however say that they don't want to play that way and I would have to convince them that it's better, the same or maybe more fun. It's really no different then count-as armies. They are just much more common and if they say it's for fluff, they get a free pass.

To me it's the same as changing a rule, FAQ or other aspect of the game. Just a much easier to swollow. But it's still on the person wanting to do it to show that they are justifed in doing it.

Or how about an extreme example:
One person killed another person, are you ok with this??? There is a reason.

You are not going to see a whole lot of people to being ok with it untill they know that reason why. And that's how I feel about count-as. It's not until I know the reason why and even then just having a reason is not always going to be good enough. This is especially true for people who say "Fluff" but really mean "Rules/points advantages".

PS: Mirbeau, beat me to the Blood Wolves.

[TheMav80]

Except it isn't changing the rules. I suppose you could think painting Shrike Ultramarines Blue is like changing the rules. In which case we just have no common ground, so whatever.

[Egaeus]

Except it isn't changing the rules. I suppose you could think painting Shrike Ultramarines Blue is like changing the rules. In which case we just have no common ground, so whatever.

This particular issue is actually covered in the rules. They specifically say that you can use the characters in the Space Marine book to represent characters from other chapters.

I suppose one could take this "writ large" that colour doesn't matter at all, even between books. However I think the basic issue still stands that if you paint them in a particular scheme then most people are going to expect you are playing by the rules for that scheme. In almost exactly the same way that if you start pulling out Tyranid models they are going to expect you to be using Tyranid rules, and not the rules for Orks or Space Wolves.

You are not going to see a whole lot of people to being ok with it untill they know that reason why. And that's how I feel about count-as. It's not until I know the reason why and even then just having a reason is not always going to be good enough. This is especially true for people who say "Fluff" but really mean "Rules/points advantages".

I understand what you are saying, but I suppose what still rubs me the wrong way is the sense that you are somehow entitled to determine the level of justification that makes someone else's army "OK".

Now each individual is responsible for their own enjoyment of the hobby so I can see not wanting to play someone who isn't going to match up with your own desires about the type of game you want to play, so if you are a "fluff" player then deciding that "that guy with the Ultramarines that he is running as Space Wolves only for the game advantage" isn't going to be fun to play against may prevent you from having an unenjoyable time. However, if you don't know "that guy" then you may be completely incorrect and you might have a great time playing against them.

I suppose that's the issue (and I've brought it up before)...I have been under the assumption that this is a "first contact" situation ...that is, if you haven't played the person before and are only making that decision based on what you see and hear (the "by the way, these Ultramarines are using Space Wolves rules") then it is at best a cautionary tale and an attempt to tell people "don't be that guy.

[S_A_T_S]

Wow, can't quite believe this thread is still going strong.

Just wanted to weigh in on the Space Marine special characters thing - they are all in the same book, and as Egaeus say, they have always said feel free to take the characters in any army. I especially think of Telion and the tanks commander guy for this - there may well be tank aces and highly experienced scout trainers in other chapters, why not represent them. Even Shrike might be good to represent an assault/recon company. HOWEVER, if you turn up with your

beautifully painted ultramarine army led by a beautifully painted Vulkan.

I'd hope and expect your Vulkan to be converted from Ultramarine/generic marine parts, or at the very, very least to have every single detail that ties him to the Salamanders removed. Same goes from Shrike - a pretty nice and easy conversion there. If it is literally the original metal/finecrap model painted in the 'wrong' colours, it looks like there has been no real effort/thought and you just quickly painted it in the colours off your force simply to use the rules that go with them. This smacks of cheese/beardyness/WAAC...

[Stonerhino]

I understand what you are saying, but I suppose what still rubs me the wrong way is the sense that you are somehow entitled to determine the level of justification that makes someone else's army "OK".

I'm not say my word is law. I'm saying everyone has this same right and should not let people force them into a mind set where if it's "Fluffy" then counts-as is fine. It's up to each individual to deside if the descision is justified. And just because marines look like other marines it does not make them different then Etheral Cortez leading a force mixed Castes riding in armed cargo trucks in the desperate defence some Tau colony (Grey Knight henchmen MSU chimera spam). Or even better Demiurg Ancestor Lord Diago allied with the Tau leading his personal gaurd of Exo-armored Demiurg (Grey Knight Paladin list).

Except it isn't changing the rules. I suppose you could think painting Shrike Ultramarines Blue is like changing the rules. In which case we just have no common ground, so whatever.

The citadel minitures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are refered to as 'Models' in the rules that follow.[snip] To represent all these differences, each model has it's own characteristics profile as described in the next section.

So if you use the Citadel model 'Chaos Space marine' and use the rules for a 'Grey Hunter'. You are not using the model's own characteristics. So you have violated a writen rule in the rule book. It has nothing to do with what color the model is painted. There are just varying degrees to this with count as. You can make this argument as extrem as you want. For example using a Space Marine Tactical Squad's models and a Space Wolves pack's rules. But the fact remains that when you use models that are using rules other then what was intended for that model's rules to be. You have change something and that change does not have to be accepted because you feel it's justified. It's up to the other person to make that judgment.

[ForgottenLore]

if you paint them in a particular scheme then most people are going to expect you are playing by the rules for that scheme.

But color schemes don't have rules. The corollary to what you just said is that if you want to play with a certain book, you must paint the figs in the correct colors. If you don't think THAT is true, then you are admitting that color is not tied to a particular book.

So if you use the Citadel model 'Chaos Space marine' and use the rules for a 'Grey Hunter'. You are not using the model's own characteristics. So you have violated a writen rule in the rule book. It has nothing to do with what color the model is painted.

So according to you using a tactical marine as one of the (non-hvy-wpn armed) marines in a devastator squad is a violation of the rules. Every Space Marine commander figure must be built from the Space Marine commander kit, you can't use a tactical marine figure with extra bits as a basis.

[wyvirn]

Everyone else does, why should SM get different treatment other than their GW favorite?

[Stonerhino]

So according to you using a tactical marine as one of the (non-hvy-wpn armed) marines in a devastator squad is a violation of the rules. Every Space Marine commander figure must be built from the Space Marine commander kit, you can't use a tactical marine figure with extra bits as a basis.

Sure as long as you add in the disclaimer I had about "You can make this argument as extrem as you want". Go as extreme as you like.

[Egaeus]

But color schemes don't have rules. The corollary to what you just said is that if you want to play with a certain book, you must paint the figs in the correct colors. If you don't think THAT is true, then you are admitting that color is not tied to a particular book.

I believe you're corollary is false. All I've been saying is that if you paint them as a recognizable chapter there is a link between that visual appearance and an expectation of the rules. I've already posted in this thread that the Space Marine Codex itself has a variety of red, green, blue, grey and black Marine armies, and when I say "scheme" I'm not simply talking about base colour...I'm talking about base colour plus trim and possibly even details such as chapter badges, unit markings and other iconography.

I would point out that Space Wolves, Black Templars and Grey Knights haven't really ever been presented as having "Successor Chapters"...IIRC if you look through the books you will only find models painted in the "designated" colours. While I am not saying those are the only colours you can paint your army to use those rules (I myself have a "counts as Black Templars" army that I've played for years) I am saying that if you do use one of these "established" schemes then people are going to presume those are the rules you are using.

So according to you using a tactical marine as one of the (non-hvy-wpn armed) marines in a devastator squad is a violation of the rules. Every Space Marine commander figure must be built from the Space Marine commander kit, you can't use a tactical marine figure with extra bits as a basis.

Well then I've been cheating for years as I like to mention that probably about half my "counts as Black Templars" army came out of packages labeled "Space Wolves". Shh...

[Yodhrin]

I'm not say my word is law. I'm saying everyone has this same right and should not let people force them into a mind set where if it's "Fluffy" then counts-as is fine. It's up to each individual to deside if the descision is justified. And just because marines look like other marines it does not make them different then Etheral Cortez leading a force mixed Castes riding in armed cargo trucks in the desperate defence some Tau colony (Grey Knight henchmen MSU chimera spam). Or even better Demiurg Ancestor Lord Diago allied with the Tau leading his personal gaurd of Exo-armored Demiurg (Grey Knight Paladin list).

See, I think this is where the disconnect is, because those sound like awesome ideas to me. If they were well modelled I would even go so far as to say I would be eager to play them, despite the tournament-y smell coming off the lists. The problem is that you're seeing "Themed Tau force Counting As GK's" and immediately defaulting to the assumption that the only reason they would do so is to create the cheesiest list they possibly can, whereas we're arguing from the perspective that such assumptions are totally unreasonable until you see the list, and that even then the theme DOES excuse the cheese to a degree providing it's consistent, well executed, and aesthetically pleasing. There's no way for those points of view to reconcile.

I mean hell, you've actually got me thinking about how to model up and theme a ragtag group of Tau and Gue'vesa auxiliaries fighting a desperate last-ditch against an Ordo Xenos-led crusade army, and I don't even like the Tau that much.

[Clarkson]

TBh i dont mind if someone has pink ultra marines, white black templars, green blood angels (green sanguard), red skinned orks, non-spiky chaos..

as long as they tell me what codex they are using, that the list is legal and they are not proxying a coke can for a dp.. they can do what they like...

say they want to try playing Eldar because they like the idea of a pre-heresy constructs thousand sons have.. so use sm/chaos bits and say contemptors as wraithlords, termies as wraithguard... etc... so what? if you know they are and know that x unit does y and z happens if xy is in effect... there is no problem..

and why cant csm players use the BA codex to field a Night Lords list? My friend uses Grey Knights for heresy era 1ksons and they work.. as the way they are modelled to represent what you would find in a GK list and coupled with missing weapons (he uses purifiers with open palms with cotton wool painted to represent magic.. as psycannons..) that are replaced with stuff that is fluffy... but from what people in this thread are saying... they wont allow stuff like that as it goes against how they play.

in all honesty if you are in the camp of "that isnt fluffy, or painted right, or x is wrong i wont play you as its distracting" then you need to grow up and realise you are playing in a gaming universe where anything goes.. and if it doesnt, create a reason why it makes sense.. ie my ultramarines look chaosy and are blood red because they were trapped in the warp for 10 millennia on their way to help the emperor and returned changed.. still loyal, and sent on a century long penance by the big I...

if you dont want to play with people who like to experiment with different armies ina trial and error way, then im glad you decline a battle.. hopefully over time you start to see how childish you are being and realise that its just a game.. its not gonna start wars or make gw go bankrupt and just play these armies... who knows you may enjoy yourself?

[Stonerhino]

See, I think this is where the disconnect is, because those sound like awesome ideas to me.

That way kind of the point. You can fluff anything up to field what ever army you want.

Just use this as an example.

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.

So if I started a thread and said "I want to make a Tau counts as Grey Knight army. Is that ok with everyone?". Szalik, would have a problem with it, as would others. But if I did the same thing and said "IW as SW" Szalik would be fine with it. So there is a double standard with counts-as from the start. I always say "No" untill I have more info. It's the only way to be fair across the board.

I mean hell, you've actually got me thinking about how to model up and theme a ragtag group of Tau and Gue'vesa auxiliaries fighting a desperate last-ditch against an Ordo Xenos-led crusade army

It's funny cause that's exactly what I had in my head.

And with those "Lists" I just took a netlist and applied a little fluff tweeking to make it work. So they are also an example of what I dislike. If I was to come out and say "Oh I'm only using Grey Knights because it's a better fluff representation". When in fact all I did was hide behind the fluff so I could field my netlist with my head held high. "No, I'm not a WAAC player; It's because the fluff made me do it". It's a simple cop out. And have said as much:

[I] 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.

[Egaeus]

Reading these last few posts made me realize that at issue is an expectation that an "acceptable" counts-as army is going to have a certain amount of work put into it to make it look unique. So it's not simply a matter of someone putting down a generic "Ultramarines" army (no matter how well painted it is) and claiming they are actually Space Wolves or Grey Knights. And it's a distaste for this particular activity that I've been stressing all along.

So I would expect that if you wanted to do some crazy Tau-as-Grey Knights setup they wouldn't just look like a "regular" Tau army and further that they weren't painted in a scheme that was associated with a "named" Sept. And if that is all you did then I would most likely find your motives questionable.

I keep having a sitcom-style image of someone putting a huge investment in money, time and effort into making a really unique-looking army just to win a few more games. I think that a lot of the perception is that this isn't what happens, that people are going to take the lazy way out which is why the idea of using an army as "something else" doesn't sit well with them.

Of course I've been up for longer than I should now so I may just be hallucinating...

[Szalik]

So if I started a thread and said "I want to make a Tau counts as Grey Knight army. Is that ok with everyone?". Szalik, would have a problem with it, as would others. But if I did the same thing and said "IW as SW" Szalik would be fine with it. So there is a double standard with counts-as from the start. I always say "No" untill I have more info. It's the only way to be fair across the board.

Not exactly. Coteaz & henchmen...well MAYBE for a "last stand" group-just like for nearly any other "last stand" band. If You want to stay reasonable there aren't that much options here. Inquisitorial bands are great, just stay away from Power weapons. Techmarine fits more or less for Demiurg, You would have to give up using nemesis force weapon abilities. Storm raven as a Tau gunship skimmer ? Nemesis Dreadknight...I see some possibilities here, load him with shooting weapons and it should be ok as a Tau walker of some sort ? (I do not know Tau equipment, well I simply dislike them...they do not "fit" for me in 40k). PA GK as Tau ? Way too far away from fluff.

In my opinion Codex IG suits better for a count as Tau list. Much more options but less varied in equipment groups. Some already included auxilaries (Ogryns/Ratling), Nice troop options ( vets as Tau, inf platoons as inducted human auxilaries, penal legion-Kroot ? Etheral as something finally useful ? (commisar)). I do not know much about tau vehicles so I cannot say anything about count as options in IG armoury...Manticore as Skyray ? Or is it too much ? Maybe human auxilaries vehicles with something rarely seen on the field of battle like Nova Cannon (Leman with mounted Tau origin weapon) ?

Tau looks and equipment is quite specific unlike in SM based books. Troops have a lot in common with guard in my opinion but vehicles more with Eldar. All SM have a lot in common so it is much easier to make count-as with them.

[AdaptUK0]

Let's just all agree that any marine variant codex is beardy. If a spacewolf/blood angel army used the standard marine codex they've done so to enjoy the game. If a salamanders player has chosen a blood angels/space wolf codex they've done it to increase their chances of winning the game. Simple - people who play those codecies are playing to win not to play.

[Melkanador]

Simple - people who play those codecies are playing to win not to play.

But isn´t a game played to win?

Leaving the WAAC attidue aside, that´s nothing someone should want.