Marine Paradox

[wilsongrahams]

I agree with your sentiment, but surely such a list would be more powerful than using the official dark angels? This is my point. Using a different list to get access to a different FOC chart to allow that themed army yet still allowing you to use the miniatures you've already bought and painted for a different army just adds variety.

Swapping for other reasons as you say can get tricky with the understanding, especially if the same models can be used in the original list but with less powerful rules. Counts as should be about the models not the rules right, otherwise you are just wanting to win?

Now, seperate to this, the part I wanted justified, is why an opponent would refuse to play a red terminator counts as deathwing list, yet would play a deathwing list. The game is about lists and rules, and the game would be no different. Both armies would be fully painted which surely is good for the visual side.

Whilst I'd happily play my BA terminators as BA with a tweak to just allow them as troops as long as I stuck to First Company troops and equipment, I would expect far more resistance to this, than using a deathwing list.

I bring this up because it was specifically stated by a few posters that they would not want to face a red deathwing list because it would ruin their game, and I still struggle to understand exactly why the colour makes a difference, when it can't just be fluff, as the rules already do not match the fluff in most cases, and red DA is no different to orange BA because I over highlighted - once they are no longer in keeping with one's view of what a blood angel, or dark angel should look like, it is already the wrong colour. Why is a custom chapter more acceptable than a regular one using a different list when all is wysiwyg but the shade of paint?

[Egaeus]

I bring this up because it was specifically stated by a few posters that they would not want to face a red deathwing list because it would ruin their game, and I still struggle to understand exactly why the colour makes a difference, when it can't just be fluff, as the rules already do not match the fluff in most cases, and red DA is no different to orange BA because I over highlighted - once they are no longer in keeping with one's view of what a blood angel, or dark angel should look like, it is already the wrong colour. Why is a custom chapter more acceptable than a regular one using a different list when all is wysiwyg but the shade of paint?

The funny thing is the only time I remember having an issue with the color of an opposing army was when I played against someone with a red vanilla marine list against my vanilla marines...he told me before the game began that they there weren't BA, just regular marines that happened to be painted red (IIRC they were also just basic Marine models, no BA iconography...of course this was back during 3rd edition so it's been a while).

However, throughout the game I was a bit more cautious about letting them get the charge on me because I kept thinking I didn't want them getting their Furious Charge (which they didn't have because they weren't BA). So I did play a bit differently because of my perception of the opposing army. And I suspect that this is part of the issue many players have: when you see an army painted in a certain scheme you associate the units with that scheme (as people have mentioned red doesn't necessarily mean "Blood Angel" but if it's close enough confusion can occur). So there is a level of disjoint if they aren't using the rules you expect them to...if Ultramarines aren't using Ultramarines rules then something is seen as wrong. And by painting them in a particular scheme you are in essence saying "these guys are [insert chapter being represented]".

So while it wouldn't necessarily ruin my game to play against "BA Deathwing" I would probably still have some subconscious expectation that they were actually Blood Angels.

It sells toy soldiers to kids. You don't have to copy that, but many do.

The other side of the coin that I've addressed already is that people seem to put a high level of emphasis on the competitive aspect of the game...and if we know different books have different power levels (as this is the fundamental complaint...that players are changing books for advantage) then why don't we simply acknowledge that the game isn't balanced? Why is it "change for advantage" rather than "change to maintain an even playing field"? Why isn't there a handicap for players using "substandard" books if we acknowledge that such exist?

[Chapters Unwritten]

It might be that an unpainted army at least has the excuse that you haven't made a decision yet. One that you've already painted as one chapter has a harder time masquerading as another.

I don't have a problem with it for friendly games, or just for testing a new list out.

It's especially obnoxious when the person in question used the army as one book and then another the minute a hot new book came out.

[Wishing]

Why isn't there a handicap for players using "substandard" books if we acknowledge that such exist?

Sometimes there is, I am pretty sure that there are warhammer tournaments that allow armies that are perceived to be less powerful to have more points as part of a comp scheme. But ultimately the answer to your question is: Because even though we may all agree that the game is not balanced, that does not mean we all agree on which parts are the problematic ones and what to be done about them. Since people will disagree and bicker whatever adjustments are made, might as well stick with what is printed in the books for convenience.

[yabbadabba]

The other side of the coin that I've addressed already is that people seem to put a high level of emphasis on the competitive aspect of the game...and if we know different books have different power levels (as this is the fundamental complaint...that players are changing books for advantage) then why don't we simply acknowledge that the game isn't balanced? Why is it "change for advantage" rather than "change to maintain an even playing field"? Why isn't there a handicap for players using "substandard" books if we acknowledge that such exist?

Right not sure how this links with my comment, but here goes

people seem to put a high level of emphasis on the competitive aspect of the game

some people

that players are changing books for advantage)

some players

why don't we simply acknowledge that the game isn't balanced?

I don't think anyone does claim the game is balanced.

Why is it "change for advantage" rather than "change to maintain an even playing field"?

If you are a hardcore competitive player you are never going to change for equality, only for competitive edge. Otherwise you are not being a hardcore competitive player. Its human nature. For what its worth I have enjoyed taking sub-prime lists for years. Its a great fun challenge trying to win with one of those.

Why isn't there a handicap for players using "substandard" books if we acknowledge that such exist?

Why should there be? More importantly, if you think this is important, why aren't you doing it?

This doesn't matter to kids, they do not perceive the game in the same why as a crusty old vet.

[agurus1]

I have watched this thread with a lot of interest and some trepidation which I will explain later. Personally I have no objection to playing a count's as army. The Deathwing as BA sounds like a great idea, and I wish I still had my Blood Angels to try it out. Ultimately, I feel like there is only so much a Marine player can achieve with their own codex without resorting to attempting to recreate non-Battle Companies (ie: Reserve Tacticals, Reserve Assault, and even 1st Company). This problem may have been expounded by the fact that the previous Marine Codex allowed alterations to the way your chapter worked (IE Assault Marines are troops, arm Tacticals with Bolt Pistols and CCW... ect...) I feel that a lot of Marine Players felt cheated of the sense of individuality that their custom chapters had, and sought to find that feeling in alternate Codexs.

Now on to the trepidation. I played Blood Angels up until a year ago when I sold them, since then I have been religiously playing my Vostroyan's and until recently they were the only army I planned on having for a while. Then I read "Storm of Iron" and I fell in love with Iron Warriors. In my experience however the Chaos Codex was weak in both character, fluff, and rules, especially compared to the 3.5 dex which I bought. Due to this I have decided to build my Iron Warriors using the Space Wolves codex. To me it seems the best way to fit my impression of the fierce but analytical warriors of Pertubo. I came to this decision because I knew that I would not want to use any of the cult troops in the Chaos dex, and as games I have played against Chaos, that is the only way to really secure victory. My list however would stick as close to the forces of Chaos that I could maintain (very close it seems), no Razorbacks, psykers, thunderwolves, ect... I am not codex hopping, but does this still make me WAAC that I feel Space Wolves carries more of the feel of barbaric super-human warriors?

[agurus1]

sorry double post!

[Stonerhino]

Then I read "Storm of Iron" and I fell in love with Iron Warriors. In my experience however the Chaos Codex was weak in both character, fluff, and rules, especially compared to the 3.5 dex which I bought. Due to this I have decided to build my Iron Warriors using the Space Wolves codex.

The location of the fluff does not matter at all. So I'll just ignore that part.

If you make a fluffy IW army using codex SW, you will be able to field an almost identical army using codex CSM. So that eliminates the character of the army. And if you mean Special Characters, then it's a little different. But in that case there are not really anything that can be done. Because you can manipulate the fluff to make any special character sound fluffy.

So that breaks your statement down to "In my experience however the Chaos Codex has weak rules".

The fundamental reason for using codex SW is an advantage in the rules.

I am not codex hopping, but does this still make me WAAC that I feel Space Wolves carries more of the feel of barbaric super-human warriors?

As it should because that is what the SWs are. But the IWs are not space vikings and something the 3.5 codex did not change.

Again your statements are breaking down to "I'm using codex SW because it gives me the most advantages on the table".

Ask yourself "If I choose a codex because it gives me the best chances of winning" are you not making a WAAC like discision??? There are different levels of WAAC. Just because you might limit it to choice of codex. Don't try and hide it with "It's more fluffy" because it's not. It's a discision made with winning being the only factor.

[yabbadabba]

The location of the fluff does not matter at all. So I'll just ignore that part.

It does matter to alot of people, so you can't just ignore it.

If you make a fluffy IW army using codex SW, you will be able to field an almost identical army using codex CSM. So that eliminates the character of the army. And if you mean Special Characters, then it's a little different. But in that case there are not really anything that can be done. Because you can manipulate the fluff to make any special character sound fluffy.

No you can't. SW give you access to tech marines, something that IW would have something similar, and the Chaos Codex doesn't have, nor can it replicate.

So that breaks your statement down to "In my experience however the Chaos Codex has weak rules".

It does have weak rules, so what you are actually saying is that this person has to accept all three (weak rules, poor background and an army in composition that does not reflect the army) he wants to play.

The fundamental reason for using codex SW is an advantage in the rules.

Again, no. The SW codex reflects the nature of the SW army far better than Codex CSM reflects CSM armies; so there is a definite, non competitive exploitative aspect to using a different codex.

As it should because that is what the SWs are. But the IWs are not space vikings and something the 3.5 codex did not change.

Agreed. IWs are not SWs, but that is not the issue here.

Again your statements are breaking down to "I'm using codex SW because it gives me the most advantages on the table".

No, that's your interpretation after you have dismissed parts of the argument because they are irrelevant to you.

Ask yourself "If I choose a codex because it gives me the best chances of winning" are you not making a WAAC like discision??? There are different levels of WAAC. Just because you might limit it to choice of codex. Don't try and hide it with "It's more fluffy" because it's not. It's a discision made with winning being the only factor.

Again, because you choose to dismiss important parts of the decision making process because they are not relevant to you, you will make the wrong conclusion and accusation.

So unless you know something personal about this poster, that he/she is a cheat or WAAC, you cannot simply dismiss parts of a decision because you consider them irrelevant; you need to be able to prove that the poster actually considers them irrelevant.

@OP - you will get abuse for what you want to do but my advice is simple; first and foremost they are your toy soldiers, do what you want. Second, to save you wasted effort, discuss it with your regular gaming group, describe your philosophy fully and how you intend to self regulate to remain true to image - if necessary quote the text to back up your claims. Finally be prepared to change back to the new CSM codex regardless of its effect if there is a reasonable option for an IW army; afterall that is the reason why you are not using the current CSM codex.

[agurus1]

My comments in green!!!

The location of the fluff does not matter at all. So I'll just ignore that part.

Ah but to me it does matter, specifically, I don't like the fluff or the army choices in C:CSM. I far more prefer the fluff in the Iron Warriors novels, and so seek to find an army that to my mind emulates that better.

If you make a fluffy IW army using codex SW, you will be able to field an almost identical army using codex CSM. So that eliminates the character of the army. And if you mean Special Characters, then it's a little different. But in that case there are not really anything that can be done. Because you can manipulate the fluff to make any special character sound fluffy.

I don't think I could make an identical IW army with C:CSM. that book has no Tech Marines, no Dread HQ (if I wanted to go for one of Honsu's rivals) and also the extra HQ slots mean I could build Honsou's group of fellow characters if I wanted for larger point levels, like Grendel or the Daemon bodyguard. The basic marines in C:SW are good for IW and Blood Claws for newer Marines, or Legion sized Squads. Also Wolf Guard are a great unit for Chosen that actually feel the part when you are building the unit.

So that breaks your statement down to "In my experience however the Chaos Codex has weak rules".

I can't argue with that, it does feel weak and colorless over all. I have tried a few practice games with C:CSM and they were bland and predictable (even my victories) and can understand why so many original Chaos fans have shelved their armies. To me, C:SW helps alleviate that lack of luster that I want from my IW.

The fundamental reason for using codex SW is an advantage in the rules.

As it should because that is what the SWs are. But the IWs are not space vikings and something the 3.5 codex did not change.

Funny, for me SW don't feel like Space Vikings, I get that is what their Iconography represents them as, but generally I get much more of a feel for what the old legions acted like from their rules. The are a force of nature, and as good on attack as they are in defence (counter attack), prefer close quarters fire fights and close combat, and generally rely on heroes to help fight the big stuff, all of this I feel works well with IW. Also I never understood why CSM stopped using Drop Pods. I mean I have never used them and probably never will, but I just don't get why they gave them up in the Codex's when in the fluff they still use them.

Again your statements are breaking down to "I'm using codex SW because it gives me the most advantages on the table".

I'm sure the SW codex would give me more advantages on the table than C:CSM depending on how I chose to field it. As it is, I know that the list I will end up with is a far cry from the favorite WAAC internet lists but to each his own. I feel that SW represent IW better imho than C:CSM. Perhaps you can tell me where I am wrong here?

Ask yourself "If I choose a codex because it gives me the best chances of winning" are you not making a WAAC like discision??? There are different levels of WAAC. Just because you might limit it to choice of codex. Don't try and hide it with "It's more fluffy" because it's not. It's a discision made with winning being the only factor.

The problem is that you seem to approach this situation with the focus on me being intent on winning. If that were true, I would be fine sticking to my Guard. I am not a tournament player, I don't plan on using the army in anything but friendly games. I feel that SW are better suited to my ideals of IW than C:CSM. That is an opinion that differ's with yours, but I don't see it as any less valid.

perhaps it would be better if I said I played SW painted as IW? lol

[Grimtuff]

No you can't. SW give you access to tech marines, something that IW would have something similar, and the Chaos Codex doesn't have, nor can it replicate.

FWIW so does the standard SM codex, which if we're going the IW counts as route then this is the better choice. Iron Priests don't have access to the simply more fluffly "bolster defences" rule that SM Techmarines possess. You can make a very good "count as" list ironically using Lysander and his Imperial Fists chapter tactics.

Using the SW list as IW with a bunch of weak justifications just smacks of WAACing, esp. when there are more suitable lists out there. There was a player round here that did (and still does IMO) this with many of his count as lists. He had a Mechanicus-robot-thing list that began as a counts as (old codex) Necron list. When he found out Necrons were a bit rubbish he skipped over to the (comparatively) more powerful Chaos Daemons, with a bunch of mental gymnastics to justify such a list. Whilst he is a nice person and not really a TFG by any stretch, the choices of lists and the justifications behind them to try and get them to fit are just excuses to use the "best list EVAR!" with his rather cool army concepts.
Same goes for his current project of Pre Heresy Thousand Sons as Grey Knights. I'll just leave that last one there for all to digest.

[agurus1]

don't want to derail the thread with fluff talk, but aren't the Imperial Fists supposed to be the best fortification builders of all the legions, while Iron Warriors were the best siege masters? the fortifications bonus seems to lend itself better to the former to me. Also IW don't use things like Thunderfire cannons, special ammunition, vanguards, storm shields, or librarians.

[Grimtuff]

don't want to derail the thread with fluff talk, but aren't the Imperial Fists supposed to be the best fortification builders of all the legions, while Iron Warriors were the best siege masters? the fortifications bonus seems to lend itself better to the former to me. Also IW don't use things like Thunderfire cannons, special ammunition, vanguards, storm shields, or librarians.

You don't have to use any of those things, just like you don't have to use TWC in the SW list, though I'm sure you'll find a way (). As for the last one, if we're going the "fluff from SOI" route, then the Iron Warrior Sorcerer Kelmaur disagrees with you.

[agurus1]

Ah yes! forgot that sorcerer, but was I right about the IF vs IW? I know there is a quote about them somewhere where a IF (was it Dorn?) said something about a bet that IF could build fortresses that even the IW couldn't tear down?

as for TWC, I found it hard enough to convert 3 Obliterators for when I was trying out C:CSM to fit in with my "Gothic" scale power armoured marines, I shudder at the thought of all of the gaps I would have to somehow fill on a bunch of TWC terminators!

[Grimtuff]

Ah yes! forgot that sorcerer, but was I right about the IF vs IW? I know there is a quote about them somewhere where a IF (was it Dorn?) said something about a bet that IF could build fortresses that even the IW couldn't tear down?

Both are siege specialists. IW are just as competent, even moreso than the IF at building defences. See the background on "The Iron Cage" to see IW's defence prowess in action.

[totgeboren]

I don't really understand in what way the SW codex of all lists would represent the IW better than the CSM codex?
The only thing you get is Iron Priests, whom I assume would count as Techmarines? In that case, the standard SM codex would be better, seeing as how you get more and better Techamrines in that book.
On the other hand, you lose out on lots of chaos stuff like Berzerkers and Obliterators.

Many IW players use the Oblits as their Techmarines, as do I who play Word Bearers.

These by Insane Psychopath work well enough.
As do these by Darkseer.
And I don't think my 'Techmarines' found at the bottom of this post look too shabby either.

[Stonerhino]

So unless you know something personal about this poster, that he/she is a cheat or WAAC, you cannot simply dismiss parts of a decision because you consider them irrelevant; you need to be able to prove that the poster actually considers them irrelevant.

The only thing I dismissed was the location of the fluff. But I would really love to hear your justification for how the fluff in codex CSM has any bearing on the total fluff present for an the army.

Otherwise as I said what fluff that in a codex is only a very small portion of the fluff for many armies.

Ah but to me it does matter, specifically, I don't like the fluff or the army choices in C:CSM. I far more prefer the fluff in the Iron Warriors novels, and so seek to find an army that to my mind emulates that better.

And what's stopping you from using the fluff from the novels, or IA, or old codices??? Or is the fluff in the codex simply somethng you can point at so you don't have to just say "The army choices"???

I don't think I could make an identical IW army with C:CSM. that book has no Tech Marines, no Dread HQ (if I wanted to go for one of Honsu's rivals) and also the extra HQ slots mean I could build Honsou's group of fellow characters if I wanted for larger point levels, like Grendel or the Daemon bodyguard. The basic marines in C:SW are good for IW and Blood Claws for newer Marines, or Legion sized Squads. Also Wolf Guard are a great unit for Chosen that actually feel the part when you are building the unit.

Lets see if I can address these in order:

No Tech Marines: If only there was some something in codex CSM that had the stats of an Aspiring Chmpion, that could have a powerfist. That I could convert to count as an tech marine who has joined a squad??? Oh wait NM.

No Dread HQ: If only there was a Dreadnaught like unit in Codex CSM. *It's not like in standard games there is really a difference in game terms between an HQ and Elite. Even though I would give this to you if you didn't say "The extra HQ slots" right after it*.

The extra HQ slots: I heard how every IW player felt this way when SWs had to take an HQ for every 750 points in their army. And basically it just translates to "I want more".

The basic marines in C:SW are good for IW: Yes because Chaos Space Marines are not Grey Hunters without counter attack, acute sences and more options. For the same price.

And you know who make really good counts-as Chosen... The entry for Chosen in codex CSM.

@agurus1: I know I'm picking on you a little and it's nothing personal. It's the same as when the other poster posted what he would use in a World Eaters army from codex SW. When you really break it down it's not fluff issues. It's simply justifications to use a codex that you feel is a better codex. Which is fine. Just don't hide behind "It's fluffy".

[Crimson Reaver]

I wouldn't have any issue with playing a proxy force, because although there is a power disparity between the armies currently available, it is certainly much closer than 2nd Edition for example, which is where I started off. You always have the chance to win and if you defeat the newest, shiniest thing on the block, it feels pretty good. Personally I haven't jumped from one list to another over the course of owning an army, I tend to sell up and move to another project if I want a change of scene.

I think a lot of this argument has to do with context. When facing people you don't know (like at a store or tournament), you can't realistically assert whether they are proxying for fluff reasons or WAAC reasons. You only get a sense of that once they become a known quantity. If you keep playing the same person at the store and you see that they go all out to win games, display unsporting behaviour and jump between proxy lists at an alarming rate, the fact that they use proxies is symptomatic of the fact that they're probably not a great opponent to play against. However if they keep chopping and changing their lists, experiment a lot and seem a decent sort of person even if they pound your army into the dirt more often than not, you are far less inclined to mind.

Also, if someone creates a proxy list and puts some effort into modelling and painting the army, I'm far more inclined to enjoy coming up against said player because I like playing against well painted and conceptualised armies. In short, as long as someone isn't being obnoxious about what they're doing, that's fine if I'm playing in public.

In friendly games with friends, as long as they give me a bit of warning that they're trying something new, no big deal. The rule of cool very much applies, if the Blood Angels 1st Company gets represented by using Deathwing rules, as long as the list is legal (or any houserules have also been agreed in advance) then again I'm fine with that.

At the end of it, I have my own preferred playstyle (only use painted models, WYSIWYG as far as possible, no special characters as much as possible and themed lists) but as long as my opponent is a decent person and I have fun with the game, then I'll overlook the fact that their army is a bit silly by my own yardstick.

[Bubble Ghost]

When you really break it down it's not fluff issues. It's simply justifications to use a codex that you feel is a better codex. Which is fine. Just don't hide behind "It's fluffy".

It depends whether you think it's "fluffy" to have an even game or not. You're handicapping yourself by picking a Chaos army, it's that simple. Your units will be uniformly overpriced and mostly pretty rubbish, essentially unable to put up much of a fight against an equivalently sized Space Marine army - and that's pretty un"fluffy", no? The Chosen, whom you mention, are a particularly sick joke - Devastator prices which even Devstators no longer pay for heavy weapons they can only have one of, character prices for close combat weapons when they only have one attack, the same points cost as Wolf Guard who have more, better special rules, cheaper equipment and an extra attack to use with their cheaper melee upgrades... It really is ridiculous.

I'm a Chaos player and I use nothing but the Chaos book, I'm far too British to do otherwise - using a different book just doesn't feel like cricket. But I recognise that this is my own personal choice, and I can completely sympathise with those who proxy it. I honestly think that when you take into account comparison to other armies, you really can make a "fluffier" Chaos army using recent loyalist books than you can with the Chaos one. (or at least, SOME Chaos armies can be made better with a loyalist book, not all). There's a difference between doing it because you want to win, and doing it because you want a fair fight. The latter IS "fluffy."

All that said: there's undeniably an element of envy to it, as well. There's a fine line between genuinely wanting something that makes sense and just rooting for "your team" to be more awesome, as a quick look through the Chaos threads on this board will attest. But still, I don't think you can just declare that everybody who uses proxy Chaos is dishonest.

I think if I were to do it, I would suggest to my opponent before the game that I trade ATSKNF for an extra point of Ld, to complete the feel, at my opponent's discretion.

[Egaeus]

Right not sure how this links with my comment, but here goes

I thought that the "some" was implied. I interpreted your original response as "GW doesn't make a balanced game, they make a game to sell miniatures and having an imbalance creates a drive to the latest and greatest". So there is an inherent idea that "new is better" and the perception that those people who make use of this are somehow unscrupulous. But since it's common knowledge that this is the case, why is there a stigma? Why is there this perceived requirement that people have to use "substandard" rules if they don't want to, heavily influenced by the color they've chosen to paint their toy soldiers? At this point I'm just reiterating the OP's question.

Any my answer has been that if GW didn't push "bigger and better" and simply did "different" then people could codex-hop to their heart's content and there shouldn't be any stigma since any particular book could still offer something unique in style and substance without making older books worse by comparison.

If you are a hardcore competitive player you are never going to change for equality, only for competitive edge. Otherwise you are not being a hardcore competitive player. Its human nature.

And of course not everyone is a hardcore competitive and WAAC player (I separate them because I think they are two distinct things). And I think this reinforces my arguments perfectly:

It depends whether you think it's "fluffy" to have an even game or not. You're handicapping yourself by picking a Chaos army, it's that simple. Your units will be uniformly overpriced and mostly pretty rubbish, essentially unable to put up much of a fight against an equivalently sized Space Marine army - and that's pretty un"fluffy", no? The Chosen, whom you mention, are a particularly sick joke - Devastator prices which even Devstators no longer pay for heavy weapons they can only have one of, character prices for close combat weapons when they only have one attack, the same points cost as Wolf Guard who have more, better special rules, cheaper equipment and an extra attack to use with their cheaper melee upgrades... It really is ridiculous.

So it's not just my opinion.