Honestly I never understood the new marine codexes. To use the phrase I'd say they've gone full retard.Originally Posted by wyvirn
Why should a marine player have to use inferior marines ? One army get storm bolters the other get vanilla marine with bolters ? ?
It would be if they released another nids codex called " blood tyranids " and genestealers were actually useable in that list, but the wore pink top hots. I'd be annoyed and want to use the new list.
I think what space marines really need is a dreadnaught commander mounted on a landraider with a special land raider jump pack and that can also deep strike from an assault drop pod meaning it can fire all weapons and assault on the same turn it was dropped. Cost 400 points. Thats the only way to balance marines, otherwise a shrukien catapult is just too op.
Not all people who won't play ultra-blood angels are waac or not fun, nor are all people who play ultra-space wolves waac players either. Although it is funny when one side of the argument says don't generalize my side and then generalizes the other side.
Personally, it would depend on the person I was playing against and their list. WAAC is fine for tourney's but for pickup games, sorry, I'd rather not play then play a power build. We've had a few people at our store quit or change games because people refused to play against them. Some people might not like that, but why should i suffer through 2 hours of a game I know I won't enjoy?
One of the worst offenders bought mephiston and just added it to his generic marines. His 1250 list was 2 land raiders, mephiston, 2 5 man assault squads a stormraven and a baal predator. Every game was completely pointless and boring. So nobody played him again. Now, if his list was more balanced nobody would of cared that his army was blood angels one week and changed codex's every once in a while. But because he was a power gamer, nobody wanted to deal with it.
In short, if your using a codex simply to gain waac benefits and your list confirms it, I and a number of others in our group wouldn't play you. If its a more balance or theme list then saddle up.
Matt Schuur
"If i was Swiss cheese I'd kill myself!"
"If the pen is as mighty as the sword, then is not this feather as sharp as my wit?"
Let's not over analyze things. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out if someone is playing within the spirit of the game.
I have no issue with competitive gaming as it can be a fun challenge so long as everyone involved is on the same wave length. People who apply a WAAC attitude to every setting are a complete bore though.
To borrow from George Carlin, I don't have any issue with painted Ultramarines being used with the Blood Angels or Space Wolves codex. It's the WAAC *sshole who is using them that I'm worried about.
To me using SW or BA one should actually like and want to play/paint/read about those armies, or one of there main successors. Alternatively, if they just like the models, I can not find fault if someone goes "man I love the thunder wolf cav" They are creating an army based on the models. I understand the want to represent Night Lords as BA, or World Eaters as SW Terminators... now with that said I expect an effort too make these look the part/the person actually comes across as wanting the modelling and painting opportunity and those codex rules give them those opportunities over just "I am gonna paint them dark blue with white helmets and call them Night Lords". I don't mind people maybe wanting something different from there army or going "damn I wish I could add something like thunder wolves, but as this conversion etc" but if thats the case stick with that codex after. I think some of what is not portrayed on the forum here is watching someone jump from C:CSM to C:SM to C:BA to C:SW as they become deemed better or stronger.
No, when "Count-as" uses a codex that it has to manipulate fluff to justify using. It's WAAC untill proven otherwise.
So:
Any Codex, Chaos or other SM chapter that uses another SM varient codex is WAAC untill proven otherwise.
Any army that has a codex but uses another "Power" codex is WAAC untill proven otherwise.
I don't see any players painting armies blood angels or space wolves and using them as standard marines - why would they? That's the only reason people want to use another chapter as one of those codexes - not enough special rules and over-powered gamey units in the standard one. Stop making ridiculous rules for invidivual marine armies - make one codex fits all. If they did that, they might have enough time to introduce a new race!
One consolidated marine codex will fix nothing. It just means that that codex will get redone more often...
And when it's attempted, it's not really a "One codex to govern them all". It's a basic list and expanded upon to make different lists. Then you apply your own bias to "Balance" the list as you see fit. For example Bunnahabhain's codex. Where Tactical Marines gain CCW standard but Grey Hunters lose them.
Even a good one like Tempus Fugitive's just uses codex SWs for the SWs instead of the more standardized Legion entries.
In the end you are not going to make every one happy with a single codex. If anything you will end up with turning all SM armies into a monobuild that the designers didn't even see coming.
Your point of view really amazes me. Inquisitor Karamazov would be proud. You're so quick to blame people of WAAC "heresy", it seems to me that, in your point of view ALL people who put some sort of creative approach to their armies are already guilty "until proven otherwise". But when one tries to "prove otherwise" like I tried in Squallum's list then he is accused of "fluff manipulation".Very convenient but that is a sign of a very dangerous approach that excludes thinking.No, when "Count-as" uses a codex that it has to manipulate fluff to justify using. It's WAAC untill proven otherwise.
So:
Any Codex, Chaos or other SM chapter that uses another SM varient codex is WAAC untill proven otherwise.
Any army that has a codex but uses another "Power" codex is WAAC untill proven otherwise.
I'd say it should be the other way round, You see the list, player's fluff, behaviour while playing and THEN judge him. And yeah there would be personal bias involved in judging. You can't escape that. But that would be judging after seeing all of the arguments.
Labelling people with "Win at all cost" just after knowing that they use count-as list is one of the best examples of personal bias. Another one would be calling "fluff manipulation" explanation of some of the rules that may fit in while representing other armies - the choice of word "manipulation" already says something about your negative approach.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.
NO I do not have to. Unless I want to be a mindless automaton. Giving extreme examples contributes nothing. It would be like saying "Chaos spawns are a great unit ! I play CSM 10 years and once they killed more points than they are worth".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.
Codex choice is by no means a crucial argument wheter someone is a WAACer or not. At best it is just a hint that must be combined with other factors to prove anything.
You just accused me of WAAC playing and that is not true. And by commonly accepted standards I do not have to prove innocence. You may say I'm a WAACer but only after You take ALL arguments into account. Otherwise it's just a slander.
Last edited by Szalik; 01-05-2012 at 17:43.
What makes me curious here is:
First, what if the army doesn't have a codex? Where do "custom" chapters lie? I painted my Space Marines in my own colours but they've been Black Templars since I started the army approximately 10 years ago. I will freely admit that I painted them in my own scheme because then I wasn't beholden to any particular codex...if I wanted to "codex hop" I could and to some degree no one can really call me out on it. Although I would also mention that when I started the army it was a very close race between Templars and Space Wolves, the Templars only "winning" because they were slightly more "Codex" so moving between codexes seemed like it would be easier. So if I say I really have always like Space Wolves and wanted to give them a try with my "otherwise unidentified" chapter why is that inherently WAAC?
Second, when you say "manipulate fluff" how far does that go? To my knowledge Space Wolves and Black Templars are two chapters that don't really have successors...so in order to play either of those armies "properly" it seems the only way to do so is to paint them in "official" colours. So anyone (such as myself) who is using either of these rulesets for "miscoloured" armies is inherently "manipulating fluff"...unless we say there are other Chapters out there that are organized almost exactly like one of these armies but use different colours (not a huge stretch but again nothing "official"). I think that any "counts as" inherently has to manipulate fluff...so now we are making a value judgement about when it's good and when it is bad...which is an individual opinion.
Third, and this goes to a number of posters: at what point is this decision about WAAC made? Is it simply upon seeing the army? Humanity isn't telepathic (at least that I am aware of) so how exactly do we know the intent of the player until we've actually played against them? Now I can understand if we know the common "power builds" and identify cookie-cutter armies as such regardless of paint scheme. I think that this is a big crux of the issue as well: I don't know that we've clearly established the venue in which this hypothetical game is occurring. Obviously the player must be an opponent we've never faced before (as I would think that if you had you might know their play style...if they've already established themselves as a WAAC player then codex-hopping wouldn't be unexpected). Of course we have to look at our own preferences in this matter as well...if I am a casual player then any "competitive" player may come across as a WAAC jerk if that is not the kind of game I am expecting.
Warseer is losing its normal affable community feel. Lines have been drawn, and I am sitting in no mans land wondering if I should have sold house and moved.
Free your hobby! Be creative and stop slavishly following the damn Book.
RIP Brimstone.
I used to read the GW Other Forum, but I am much happier now.
I need a copy-paste response once "WAAC" starts getting thrown about.
WAAC means win at all costs. This has very negative connotations, because this implies those costs can include niceties, sportsmanship, letter and spirit of the rules. This to me is different from being merely competitive. If you're coming to a tournament, for example, you are playing to win, but that doesn't mean sportsmanship or the rules should be trodden underfoot and the vast, vast majority of tournament players will agree with me. I've played some absolutely terrific opponents who were expert players with optimised lists - I wouldn't consider them WAAC because their lists were prime gouda, that's just a competitive player with a competitive list.
Now, WAAC might be applicable here. Using a colourscheme designed for one codex as another codex is proxying, even if of a fairly tame nature. Allowing your opponent some reasonable proxying is good form, but the person using proxies should be aware that there is an imposition on the opponent, however slight, to have to remember what counts as what. Certainly I've known a few genuinely WAAC players who codex-hop to whatever the flavour of the month is (often with unpainted figs) but that's not saying that everyone who codex-hops or uses another codex should be considered WAAC.
Just wanting to use a more competitive codex is not WAAC in and of itself. I certainly have sympathy for Dark Angel players - a few short months later, the Space Marine book comes out with an almost-identical army list but simply cheaper, better or both. Considering Dark Angels are almost codex in format, it was a real kick in the teeth. What choices do Dark Angel players have? Use a codex that is simply inferior in almost every way, or use the new Space Marine codex. Lacking specialist units of the Blood Angels and the Space Wolves, the Dark Angels map directly over to Space Marine units with the same models used for both.
As I said before, I'm not delighted to face Blood Angels using the Space Wolf rules. If there is a discrete reason for proxying one army as another, such as using pre-heresy Blood Angels with Chaos Space Marine rules, that makes sense, since there are thematic reasons for doing so (equipment is more appropriate e.g. terminators have combi-bolters, can use daemon prince as sanguinius, etc). In general, while I really don't care how your models are painted in general, just to avoid one of the pre-set paint-schemes that are associated with a given codex but even then I can understand why you'd want to proxy them and I'm not going to call you WAAC for doing so.
Last edited by Lord Inquisitor; 01-05-2012 at 16:08.
... and then I won.
I've got a Night Lords army that uses BA rules. I also use the reg CSM book too.
The reason had nothing really to do with "BA does Night Lords better than CSM"
I decided to do a Marine army because I had inherited a good amount of marines from people who had ceased playing. These marines consisted of Chaos Marines and several different Marine varients/bits. To make a full army I would need to kit bash all these together anyway. So Night Lords who have scavenged bits of armour off their fallen enemies...cool. So originally, just using the CSM book. Then one day I decide to borrow some Assault Marines from a friend and try out a full Jumper BA list. I really liked it. It's a fun list to play. So I started turning man of my kitbashed guys into assault marines and gave them jump packs. Got some bits from a friend's Warriors of Chaos bits box and made some (imo) cool looking Sanguinary Guard.
So now I have Night Lords who use the BA rules when I want. Just trying to have a little fun. If other people don't like that.... /shrug. Whatever. That is the main reason I pretty much only play with a small group of friends anyway.
“The unreal is more powerful than the real, because nothing is as perfect as you can imagine it. Because its only intangible ideas, concepts, beliefs, fantasies that last. Stone crumbles. Wood rots. People, well, they die. But things as fragile as a thought, a dream, a legend, they can go on and on.”
Chuck Palahniuk
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.
The SWs have their lost Companies. So in theory you can have any color SWs that you want. Black Templars, are a little trickier but in the end color will not matter. Both armies however have their specialty built into their codex. Space Wolves are the SM CQB specialist. Their troop choices cannot stand across the board and wear done an enemy. Also, their FA assult choices are limited because of a lower then normal WS/BS. Which means that the Grey hunters need to be able to handle themselves against assult units. They have to be in or near assult range to be effective and don't really have the same fast assult backup other marines have. Black Templars, are the "In your face" SM specialist. Their units and rules are built to allow them to cross the battle field quikly and do well when they get there. They actually share this specialty with Blood Angels but they both go about it in different ways.
So if you where to take say a pre-Heresy World Eaters army. The Black Templar's codex would be a much better fit then the SW's. But when it comes down to the choice most often made; The players choose codex SW. They have to manipulate the fluff so that the SWs look more "Shock troopish" and World Eaters look more shooty to get the fluff to match. Counter attack is far less fluffy for World Eaters then Righteous Zeal no matter how you look at. So the choice boils down to what codex gives you best precieved odds of winning. It has nothing to do with the fluff. It's a choice based only on winning with the manipulation of the fluff to justify it.
You have to remember that I have Khornate SWs that use codex Chaos Space Marines and have said in this thread that I would not mind letting someone take Terminators as troops for Blood Angels. Rather then forcing them to play Deathwing. Even though you could make a much stronger army that way. It's more fluffy and would make for a better game.
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.
(Bolded emphasis mine)
That is pretty ridiculous. Any reasonable person can see that it is ridiculous. You cannot tell me that the difference between a Tactical Marine, Chaos Marine, and Grey Hunter is the same as the difference between an Ork Boy and a Dire Avenger. Hell, Tactical Marines have the same name in 3 different books! You have to buy the same box of models for them! You can easily mix and match legs, arms, torsos, weapons, heads, whatever and get a model that is almost exactly the same.
Space Marine with bolter/missile launcher/flamer/etc. is (appearance wise) the same across all those books. That is not true for any other army out there.
“The unreal is more powerful than the real, because nothing is as perfect as you can imagine it. Because its only intangible ideas, concepts, beliefs, fantasies that last. Stone crumbles. Wood rots. People, well, they die. But things as fragile as a thought, a dream, a legend, they can go on and on.”
Chuck Palahniuk
That's another area of confusion in terminology. I'd like to define the following terms:
"Counts as": using a model without rules in the game (often converted) and using an existing unit to provide rules for it. For example, Skitarii = Stormtroopers, Praetorians = Sentinels.
"Proxying": using one model as a stand-in for another. Using orks as eldar, using a Land Raider Crusader as a regular Land Raider, etc.
Sometimes the lines are a bit blurred, TheMav80's Night Lords I would call a "counts as" army even though he's using Raptors proxied directly as Blood Angel Assault Marines, since he has converted "counts as" Sanguinary Guard.
I think it's important to keep these things distinct, because most of the time "counts as" is done to allow really cool conversions a place in a "tournament legal" list, whereas "proxying" is something to be looked down upon - we all do it because we don't have infinite model collections and budgets but it's not to be encouraged as a permanent fixture in your army.
... and then I won.
And yet if you paint them blue and call them "Ultramarines" they have different rules than if I paint them grey and call them "Space Wolves". Actually here the colour doesn't matter...the fundamental fact remains that there are multiple rulesets out there for the same models, and the usual distinguishing factor to tell them apart is how they are painted.
And that really seems to remain the fundamental issue...to some, the fact that colour is the identifying feature to tell otherwise similar armies apart means that which colours are used says something about the army. The sad realization I've had in this thread (although I've known it all along, such discussions just make it more apparent) is that it's all make believe...we aren't representing anything factual here. It's not like they're historicals where we could get upset about units not having the "proper colours" because we know what they really looked like. Although at the same times this is sort of the same issue...because it is fictional these colours are associated with that element of the background, and thus going against it ruins our suspension of disbelief.
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?
I think the point there is that the gaming pieces need to represent their rules. It doesn't really matter if you play with green army men and plastic dinosaurs BUT both sides need to know what represents what. If you're talking about playing the same person, yeah, you can proxy as much as you like but each proxy needs to be learned. When playing new people, it is unreasonable to expect them to remember a whole list of which green army man represents what (what does "minesweeper guy" represent again?) quite aside from the desire to play with appropriate looking models. The default is always that the meltagun guy is carrying a GW meltagun model which looks like a meltagun, even though there are several variations. The colourscheme really does give a WYSIWYG message to the opponent, space marines with space wolf colours, insignia and accessories are very different from dark angels in rules and that's the only thing distinguishing them visually.
... and then I won.
Tactical marines are definitely an oddity when it comes to counts-as. If you take a DA army mostly painted as DA, but paint all the tactical marines as ultramarines, is the UM part of that army counts-as? Hard to define exactly, because they have the correct stats for what they appear to be, but they fluffy-technically are proxies since any unit fielded as part of a DA army are nominally DA. If we raise up to the army level though, then I agree that counts-as is counts-as, no matter what you are counting. BA as SW is also counts-as just like orks as eldar is, even though the models have a greater visual similarity. They are all different codexes with no overlap.
I don't think these definitions will catch on, because per what you suggest, almost all counts-as armies would be considered proxies. It is my impression that the people who actually build full admech armies or genestealer cult armies that they need to play as counts-as are quite rare - it is far more common that people take models that have their own codex and use them with a different codex. These people still feel their armies are permanent counts-as, not temporary proxies (which is how I tend to differentiate the two terms).
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote