PDA

View Full Version : WYSIWYG vs Creativity



Mike3791
26-02-2012, 18:18
I know tournaments require everything to be wysiwyg but this is also a hobby that revolves around models and conversions as well.. so where is the line? A lot of people like to use different Space Marine chapter specific models to represent other marine forces and that is generally considered to be ok. Does that only apply to space marines though?

Can I use daemonettes or dark eldar wyches to represent Death Cult assassins in a Cortez GK list that "counts as" Renegade Guard?

Can I use a Chaos Sorcerer Terminator Lord model to represent a Herald of Khorne w/bloodcrusher in a Daemon list that "counts as" a lone Sorcerer summoning the daemons?

I'm obviously not talking about using an Ork to represent a Fire warrior, but was wondering how people decide what the difference is between following the rules vs being creative.

wyvirn
26-02-2012, 18:37
It's an incredibly subjective argument, I can't really say without seeing the model and the intent of the player (This looks cool versus gaming the system). There really isn't a hard and fast line.

In the end, this is just a game that two people will play between themselves. If those two people can agree in the situation, great. If not, every opinion on the internet isn't worth a reroll.

Chem-Dog
26-02-2012, 18:58
The line, to me, is a very obvious one. As long as everything is easily identified on the table without having to ask what it is, you should be golden. If your version of unit X is a little on the abstract side, that's fine too BUT ensure there is no confusion. Coteaz DC Assassins represented by Daemonettes is fine, for example, right up until you decide you'll use exactly the same models to represent Heavy Bolter Servitors or different models to represent the assassins in another unit.

To cover all bases you could provide a crib-sheet with your army list that simply identifies what each unit counts as or even paint the model's type on it's base for absolute transparency but on the whole I think it's more satisfying if you can accomplish a substitution without resorting to such measures.

Be mindful also, that just because you've made these alternates and you know exactly what they all are as you've built and painted them, somebody else's brief glance may not be able to do the same. I recently had this happen to me as a player couldn't easily identify a Commissar from the squad he was in. To me it was obvious, he was the only one in the unit with Horns, a bolt pistol and a tiger-skin cape, but those subtle(!) differences passed my opponent by as otherwise the commissar looked very much the same as the rest of the 30 men he was with.

In essence, be clear and avoid anything which could confuse the opponent, whatever your flamers look like (for example) make sure they look like that through the army, because "that THAT flamer with the yellow canister is actually a Multimelta, and the one that's yellow with the black dot is actually a powerfist" will win you no friends. :)

blurrymadness
26-02-2012, 19:20
A)Try to represent all the options you're taking WYSIWYG style;
B)All non-infantry (and some infantry) conversions can be seen as gaming the system in some way; it's really a mixed bag if you'll be called on it. For example I've been converting a valkyrie using a devilfish; but if I don't go buy the $8 or whatever base for it I'm likely to receive flak. Likewise the wings are smaller so it might be immeasurably more difficult to hit it with a blast; and any opponent who does miss with said blast on that 1x2" space will potentially throw a fit. Meh.
C)Try to make the conversion obvious; as stated above

Those "conversions" you're talking of should be fine to most people; they "feel" close enough for the most part that people will get over them. There isn't really a limit other than trying to appease the opponent. It's mildly insulting that you use the example "I'm not trying to use an Ork as a firewarrior" because I know for a fact that there are "Rebel Grotz" armies that utilize Tau rules; and others that utilize IG rules. The idea behind that is that it's a "Total Conversion" army. This is much different than let's say putting orks in an actual firewarriors squad and saying they're the markerlight troops.

Hrw-Amen
26-02-2012, 19:22
As mentioned already, conversions are fine but you should (And more importantly anyone else should.) be able to identify what each model is preferably without having to ask to many questions.

Things should be equipped with the right weapon and be approximately the right size for the thing they represent and probably have a passing resemblance to that. For example, I do would not have a problem with people using ogre models as Ogrins if they were suitably equipped and painted up to fit in with the rest of the army, similarly your example of Death Cultists would be fine.

A Leman Russ with a bigger turret being called a Baneblade would be unacceptable though, however any suitable sized tank with the correct style of guns in roughly the right place would be OK to represent either.

At the end of the day I have many converted models of all sorts of things but I make an effort to make them look like what they are supposed to be, at least to me. (And so hopefully to anyone else.)

But it is supposed to be fun, a game to be enjoyed, so I think as long as your oponent is happy with what you have to represent whatever, that really is all that matters.

Denny
26-02-2012, 19:24
. . . What he said.

Quality helps. A beautifully painted and well themed unit will win more friends than the curse of the Generic Grey Marines.

The_Dark_Raven
26-02-2012, 22:04
It's indeed something that you must take with a pinch of salt when working on a force with that intent. While conversions, sculpting and 'counting as' models can really bring some forces to life and breathe some fresh fluff into a game it can also do just as much bad.

If you intent is to have some fun, be smart about it. Plot what you are going to do, find your reasoning for what you are doing. Why does my 'counts as Calgar' not have two powerfists? Well he wields a Thunderhammer instead, it represents the wargear specialty of Calgar's fists without becoming to confusing. If on the otherhand you decided to arm him with a power sword and bolt pistol with the exact same intention, it becomes a little more confusing and a little less fun...it starts to bleed into the wrong side of the fight.

That being, you couldn't afford the model, be bothered to make a similar one or simply wanted to use a strong character and decided that your captain you made from bits and bobs will do fine to represent a terminator armed special hero.

My current Ork force uses normal Warbosses armed exactly like the Ork special characters to utilize they're rules while playing games. They have different names but for all gaming purposes are the name characters, which I inform my opponents about during competitive play and whom my friends already know and fear (hur, hur) during play.

Havock
26-02-2012, 23:31
WYSIWYG isn't 'the law', it is a rule and it has a purpose. If someone adheres to the purpose but breaks the rule, it should be fine.

Daemonettes as Death Cult is easily identifiable and can't really be confused unless you use them for other stuff too (in which case it is proxying), brain damage notwithstanding I don't think anyone really mixes it up there.

"I am playing Daemonhunters, hey look a Daemonette. Oh noes, the confusion! JUDGE!"
Sergeant Dornan: -You MO-RON!

Wishing
26-02-2012, 23:42
Obviously this is simply a question of personal preference that will depend entirely on the specific model and how it fits in the army it is part of.

Can I use daemonettes or dark eldar wyches to represent Death Cult assassins in a Cortez GK list that "counts as" Renegade Guard?

- Sure, as long as they look good and make sense thematically in the context of the rest of the list (eg. it is a slaanesh cult theme). I can imagine daemonettes as being freaky looking mutant death cultists.

Can I use a Chaos Sorcerer Terminator Lord model to represent a Herald of Khorne w/bloodcrusher in a Daemon list that "counts as" a lone Sorcerer summoning the daemons?

- I personally don't like this one. A juggernaut goes on a dreadnought base and a terminator does not. Counts-as models should be about the same size as the models they represent. Also when the model has daemon rules it should be some form of daemon, not a marine. Just my personal preference.

Mike3791
27-02-2012, 00:52
Can I use a Chaos Sorcerer Terminator Lord model to represent a Herald of Khorne w/bloodcrusher in a Daemon list that "counts as" a lone Sorcerer summoning the daemons?

- I personally don't like this one. A juggernaut goes on a dreadnought base and a terminator does not. Counts-as models should be about the same size as the models they represent. Also when the model has daemon rules it should be some form of daemon, not a marine. Just my personal preference.

Ok, I was unaware that the two are different base sizes.. I agree that "counts as" models should be the same base size ;)

Inquisitor Engel
27-02-2012, 00:58
If it's not using official models for WYSIWYG, it should be consistent and obvious what things are. Don't tell me Carnifex A is a Tyrannofex, Carnifex B is a Tervigon and Carnifex C is... a Carnifex. IMHO this is why I HATE playing Orks... *grumble grumble*

enygma7
27-02-2012, 01:16
I think the OP is confusing WYSIWYG and counts as. Whilst they impact on each other they aren't really the same thing. The intent of WYSIWYG is simply that an opponent should be able to identify at a glance what a model represents and what it is armed with. The model should be equipped with the weapons visable on the model and all relevant equipment should be modelled. So if the model has a melta gun it should be equipped with one, if a character has a laser lance then one should be visable on the model.

Using counts as shouldn't be a problem as long as it preserves the idea of being able to tell at a glance what I unit is and what it is armed with. This basically comes down to making good choices for your counts as models and, as people have said, being consistent and having a clear, logical theme that when explained to your opponent makes it obvious what units are.

In a friendly environment whether your use of counts as is acceptable is up to your opponent, in a tournament it is up to the organisers. However, this is a hobby that encourages creativity so as long as it isn't highly confusing/badly implemented/modelled for advantage (i.e. counts as models should be of similar size to what they are representing) I couldn't see anyone ever objecting.

Droma
27-02-2012, 02:19
As an example in my Deathwing army all my terminators that have thunder hammers are instead modeled with the halberds from the GK sprues. They also have their stormshields though and it's consistent throughout the whole army. It's very easy for someone to remember that those are counts as thunder hammers. If I started mixing in actual thunder hammer bits it would be hard to tell apart and would no longer be WYSIWYG.

madprophet
27-02-2012, 04:36
I am a big fan of conversions and counts as. I just made Ogryns out of old Battlemasters ogres - I used the shoota arm from the Ork warboss from the AoBR boxed set but a Shoota is close enough to a Ripper Gun to not cause too much confusion

I am currently working on Rough Rider conversions to make them more "Cossack"-like. These are more look changes than actual counts as conversions. I made some rough riders out of I-Kore bikers too - they are pure counts as, though.

I am a firm believer in the Rule of Cool - if it looks good, it is good - but your opponent needs to be able to keep it straight.

Chapters Unwritten
27-02-2012, 04:46
It's an incredibly subjective argument, I can't really say without seeing the model and the intent of the player (This looks cool versus gaming the system). There really isn't a hard and fast line.

In the end, this is just a game that two people will play between themselves. If those two people can agree in the situation, great. If not, every opinion on the internet isn't worth a reroll.

While it is subjective, let's put this in perspective here: it will be very clear what is meant to represent what in most cases, and it will be even more clear when someone has done something purely out of psychosis.

TheDoctor
27-02-2012, 05:37
I know tournaments require everything to be wysiwyg but this is also a hobby that revolves around models and conversions as well.. so where is the line? A lot of people like to use different Space Marine chapter specific models to represent other marine forces and that is generally considered to be ok. Does that only apply to space marines though?

Can I use daemonettes or dark eldar wyches to represent Death Cult assassins in a Cortez GK list that "counts as" Renegade Guard?

Can I use a Chaos Sorcerer Terminator Lord model to represent a Herald of Khorne w/bloodcrusher in a Daemon list that "counts as" a lone Sorcerer summoning the daemons?

I'm obviously not talking about using an Ork to represent a Fire warrior, but was wondering how people decide what the difference is between following the rules vs being creative.

One of my friends has a Grey Knight Henchmen army.
-The Death cultists are guardsmen with kroot heads/regular human heads and either kroot rifle thingies or just dual swords
-His Crusaders are guardsmen with halberds and shields from the warriors of chaos kit.

Pretty able to be distinguished between the two, and it's pretty creative and/or cheap.

Netfreakk
27-02-2012, 22:49
Personally, if I'm doing a pick up game and I see a count as army, I'm really weary of playing against them. If it will take more effort to try to remember every little thing about them then to play, what's the point? It's not like I'm going to be consistently playing against that army. If it's between friends, then why not, since once I learn to remember which unit/weapon represents what, I'm going to be playing against that for a long time.

Angelwing
28-02-2012, 03:32
WYSIWYG isn't 'the law', it is a rule and it has a purpose. If someone adheres to the purpose but breaks the rule, it should be fine.

Daemonettes as Death Cult is easily identifiable and can't really be confused unless you use them for other stuff too (in which case it is proxying), brain damage notwithstanding I don't think anyone really mixes it up there.

"I am playing Daemonhunters, hey look a Daemonette. Oh noes, the confusion! JUDGE!"


Sergeant Dornan: -You MO-RON!


Or those daemonettes might be representing daemonhosts. :p

As always, discuss any potentially confusing models with your opponent before the game.

Chem-Dog
28-02-2012, 03:46
If it's not using official models for WYSIWYG, it should be consistent and obvious what things are. Don't tell me Carnifex A is a Tyrannofex, Carnifex B is a Tervigon and Carnifex C is... a Carnifex. IMHO this is why I HATE playing Orks... *grumble grumble*

Because....they.....use too... many proxy Carnifexes?! :confused:

JDman
28-02-2012, 03:51
Depends

In tournaments its nice when people are fairly close to what they are fielding. Lets say an IG trooper has a melta-gun, he should be armed with a melta-gun, however the look of the IG can be different. Ive seen lots of IG converted from bretonnian peasents and that is creative and fine. Also certain armies promote count-as models as being run, such as Space Marines and their special characters counting-as the ones in the book (like Vulkan counting as your captain in your home built Dancing Unicorn Space Marine Chapter). In these cases is probably just easier to say hes Vulkan, then show the rules to your opponent so they understand.

Against friends, who cares. one time me and a buddie represented two armies we didn't even have with trays and paper to get a feel for the rules. In pick up games same deal with tournies, but im sure it could be more laid back depending on who you play, the local rules lawyer probably wouldn't be a good option then.

Freakiq
28-02-2012, 11:30
If it's used to further creativity and showcase conversions it's fine.

If it's just a matter of saving money or proxying I'd be more hesitant.

Gingerwerewolf
28-02-2012, 13:20
A really good line has been drawn by Games Workshop themselves: The Warhammer World Event Guide and Rules (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=3500001&section=&aId=2200016a)

The Downloaded PDF has this to say:


Using Converted or ‘Counts As’ Models
Every hobbyist loves seeing converted miniatures, especially if it’s a whole themed army, and even more
so if they get to play against them! Here at Warhammer World, we look forward to seeing these ideas
and being inspired by them- imagination and ingenuity is a part of the hobby we want to actively
encourage. To that end, using models you’ve converted to represent rules not currently covered by a
model in the Citadel range, or an idea you’ve had is absolutely fine. They may even look nothing like
the figures we sell! These examples are from the Autumn 2010 Warhammer 40,000 Throne of Skulls.

These are great examples of the kind of armies we love to see. Both hobbyists here have really gone to
town with the conversions, but still accurately represent what they are based on. Both had reference
cards for their opponents so that they knew what represented what, as they knew it might otherwise be
confusing! We have to set some rules here, however, as we want to keep the experience positive for all
our players, and make sure there is no confusion:
 All your models should be on the appropriate base size (ie- the base supplied with the model).
 If Games Workshop produce a model for a unit entry, we expect you to use it. For example,
plastic Ork Boyz painted slightly differently cannot be used for Kommandos. Similarly, you
cannot use plastic Moria Goblins to represent Gundabad Blackshields. The exception to this is
any conversions you may have done for thematic reasons.
 All models must clearly show all the correct weapon options on them.
 Any conversions should be clearly obvious as to what they are, and be the same size as the
Citadel miniature sold.
 All models and their components must be produced by Citadel Miniatures, Forgeworld or
Warhammer Forge.
Using these rules ensures all players have great experience at our events

Wishing
28-02-2012, 14:41
It's nice to see them actively encourage conversions and such and emphasise how creativity is important for the hobby. However, the rules quoted above don’t really answer anything I think, because it always boils down to a judgment call. To take a few of the most relevant points as examples:

- If Games Workshop produce a model for a unit entry, we expect you to use it. For example,
plastic Ork Boyz painted slightly differently cannot be used for Kommandos. Similarly, you
cannot use plastic Moria Goblins to represent Gundabad Blackshields. The exception to this is
any conversions you may have done for thematic reasons.

Not very helpful guideline in my view. Read at face value, it makes the only kind of legal conversions for army options that don’t have models yet. For everything that GW produces a model for, you have to use that model. This per definition excludes all counts-as. Thematic conversions are allowed – but then it boils down to a judgment call whether a conversion is “thematic” or not.

- Any conversions should be clearly obvious as to what they are, and be the same size as the Citadel miniature sold.

“Clearly obvious” is the ultimate judgment call issue. Is using daemonettes instead of death cultists clearly obvious what they are meant to represent? In their introduction to the guidelines, they state that it is good form for players to provide a chart that shows what represents what… suggestion that those correlations weren’t clearly obvious; otherwise the chart shouldn’t really be necessary.

So yeah, the statement of being positive towards conversions is a good thing, but the rules aren’t really rules when they boil down to personal aesthetic opinion (as questions of this nature always do).

Nurgling Chieftain
28-02-2012, 18:01
For me, weapon swaps are the most confusing. Your lightning claws count as a power weapon? Your halberds count as thunderhammers? Your flamer is a meltagun? I'd rather see a "terminator with a hellblade" standing in for a bloodcrusher(!) than the halberd/thunderhammer swap on an otherwise perfectly normal assault terminator used as an example earlier in this thread. Why? Because at a glance I'm looking for what can that model do to my guys more than anything else, and the former doesn't make me have to stop and think, "no wait he's actually using a slow high-strength weapon instead of a fast low-strength weapon like he appears to be".

madprophet
29-02-2012, 05:02
So I converted 2 Ogryns out of GW/MB Battlemasters Ogres - all the conversion bitz are GW and back in the day GW called the Battlemasters game and it's miniatures Citadel. Is this Kosher according to the GW rules?:angel:

I also converted some rough riders. The grunts are 100% GW components except for the banner bearer's pole (that's made from a toothpick) and the banner (that was designed in Photoshop and printed on an adhesive label). The officer is on a GW horse (head swapped for an Elven Steed from the fantasy line). His head and left arms come from the hairy heads sprue. His right arm is from a Tallarn rough rider. His right arm carries a bolt pistol from a Chaos Marine sprue. His legs come from the Empire Command sprue. All the bits and bobs on his utility belt are from the IG sprue. His torso, however, is from a Wargames Factory Heavy Weapons officer (the fur lined coat torso). Is he Kosher?:shifty:

My Officer of the Fleet is the Lt. Varras model from the Battle for Macragge box set - He's a GW figure but not the official "officer of the fleet" - is he kosher? What about the Master of Ordinance I made out of Cadian bitz taken from the Tank Accessory sprue? Is he kosher? My female Valhallans are right out - only their arms and weapons are GW bitz. The heads and torsos are Laughing Monk and their legs and feet come from Wargames Factory's heavy weapons officers - they still look awesome.:eek:

I have the Brides of Faruq (chosen CSM for my Is'Malal chaos army) who represent the actual harem of my CSM commander who is a conversion based on the Archeron Lord of the End Times model (all GW but not the official CSM Lord on a mount) - I have him "Count As" a CSM Lord on a bike.:wtf:

I also have a sorcerer on a flying carpet - again, all GW parts.. is that okay? The army has an "Arabian Nights" theme.:evilgrin:

Would my heavy converted Guard or CSM armies pass muster under these rules?:confused:

Novafix
29-02-2012, 09:29
Because....they.....use too... many proxy Carnifexes?! :confused:

It's been known sir.

133935

not my creation btw...source: http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/52756-Looted%20Carnifex.html

Chem-Dog
29-02-2012, 09:41
It's nice to see them actively encourage conversions and such and emphasise how creativity is important for the hobby. However, the rules quoted above don’t really answer anything I think, because it always boils down to a judgment call. To take a few of the most relevant points as examples:

- If Games Workshop produce a model for a unit entry, we expect you to use it. For example,
plastic Ork Boyz painted slightly differently cannot be used for Kommandos. Similarly, you
cannot use plastic Moria Goblins to represent Gundabad Blackshields. The exception to this is
any conversions you may have done for thematic reasons.

Not very helpful guideline in my view. Read at face value, it makes the only kind of legal conversions for army options that don’t have models yet. For everything that GW produces a model for, you have to use that model. This per definition excludes all counts-as. Thematic conversions are allowed – but then it boils down to a judgment call whether a conversion is “thematic” or not.

No it's not the most legally exacting set of phrases I've ever clapped eyes on but I think the intention is quite clear.
If you've gone to some effort to make this unit specifically different enough to make it A)Distinct from other units in the army or B)Have a theme that informs the look of the unit in such a way as the appropriate GW standard model would be out of place. You're fine.
Using IG to represent your Own Bog-monster army and then having River Trolls to represent Ogryn FINE.
Using Orks to represent non specific Ork army #82748732 and having regular Boyz represent Flash Gitz, BurnaBoyz and Stormboyz. PROBLEM.
Using Lizardmen models to represet Tyranids and then using a Carnifex to represent a Carnifex.....IDUNNO. :D


- Any conversions should be clearly obvious as to what they are, and be the same size as the Citadel miniature sold.

“Clearly obvious” is the ultimate judgment call issue. Is using daemonettes instead of death cultists clearly obvious what they are meant to represent? In their introduction to the guidelines, they state that it is good form for players to provide a chart that shows what represents what… suggestion that those correlations weren’t clearly obvious; otherwise the chart shouldn’t really be necessary.

Again I think the wording is amiguous but the intention is clear enough.
Example 1: Amorphous grey blob 1 (the one with the spike on the top) is a Broadside, Amorphous grey blob 2 (which did have two spike on the top but one broke off....) is a Plasma/Melta armed Shas'O.

Example 2: Gloriously modelled Gun platform manned by a Kroot team is a Broadside, Helicopter-backpacked Kroot carrying a Meltagun and Plasmagun is a Shas'O with Plasma/Melta combo.

It's a guide to try to curb the worst excesses, lest you end up facing off against Invisible Stealthmarines (with scuplted footprints on bases), Scuba marines (boltguns on backpack poles) or are forced to witness the sanity shredding horror that is Sprueranids *shudder*.


So yeah, the statement of being positive towards conversions is a good thing, but the rules aren’t really rules when they boil down to personal aesthetic opinion (as questions of this nature always do).

But that is the crux of the question. If a judge can't see the theme in an army or the signifier on a model that shows it to be significantly different from the umpteen others it's stood next to or the umpteen others in the army WHY should you expect your opponent or anyone else to be able to see it? It's not a game of Annihilation rules Spot-the-difference.

If your Lizardman-as-IG army features a massive flock of Terradons all clumped together on a single large oval base atop a large flying stand, how many things is it likely to be? It's a Valkyrie. But what if there are three of those flocks each armed differently?
Theme's there but where the clarity? Do red claws represent MMP's? Are green eyes Miltilasers?



Would my heavy converted Guard or CSM armies pass muster under these rules?:confused:

Heavily converted doesn't mean confusing, most armies that are a take on a theme that already exists within the GW mythos tend to be quite happy leaving a flamer/Meltagun/Missile Launcher as what it is. You don't need to go far to see people using a different model to represent Khorne Berzerkers in their all-Nurgle army (or Plaguemarines in their all-khorne army).

Wishing
29-02-2012, 10:06
No it's not the most legally exacting set of phrases I've ever clapped eyes on but I think the intention is quite clear.

Agreed, and the intent is simple enough too: If you've made some effort to make something that looks cool, is appropriate for the setting, and is as unambiguous as possible, and if the judges and your opponents agree with the above, then you're fine. The point of my quoting the guidelines is simply to point out that they are not hard rules, and there is no way of being 100% certain that your converted counts-as army will be accepted, because whether it is accepted or not will depend on the subjective judgments of others, not any strictly defined rules.

Tymell
29-02-2012, 10:23
In my opinion/experience, the more thought and effort you put into it, the more people will be likely to accept it.

Many folks will have no problem with the idea of using one model to represent another. Daemonettes could be a fine basis for some wyches, or vice versa. But putting some work into customising and converting them, giving them a new twist or personal touch, that will go a long way toward convincing any sceptics. People are a lot less likely to frown and complain if they're too busy going, "Wow, those look great!"

If however you've just put an unchanged unit of daemonettes down and said, "Those are wyches", that might not work so well. I'm not saying it's horrible/sacralige/etc, just that putting some work into it makes it a lot more palatable. After all, the whole idea behind doing things differently in this game is to express yourself and add your own touches.

On a personal note, I draw a line at using one codex to represent an army which already has it's own book. Yes, I know, some people are fine with it. But I don't like it. Using Space Wolves to represent your own homebrew chapter, using Imperial Guard to represent a lost & the damned force, using pretty much any codex to represent a minor alien force you've expanded into a full race, great. But if an army has it's own book, then that's the one to use.

A lot of the guidlines GW give are good, but this one is...less so:


If Games Workshop produce a model for a unit entry, we expect you to use it. For example, plastic Ork Boyz painted slightly differently cannot be used for Kommandos. Similarly, you cannot use plastic Moria Goblins to represent Gundabad Blackshields. The exception to this is any conversions you may have done for thematic reasons.

This is an obvious case of profit >>> hobby, since it boils down to them saying "You're not allowed to use a cheaper model to represent one you should be forking out a lot more for". It doesn't matter that a good modeller could make great Kommandos out of Ork Boyz, they just don't want anyone getting away with not paying double the price for it.

DietDolphin
29-02-2012, 10:24
Since when does count-as = creativity?

Maybe I'm just getting old, but creativity would be carefully modelling and painting your whole tyranid army to fit the "Aliens" theme. Using a khorne berzerker on a juggernaut as thunderwolves is count-as, but hardly creative.

Wishing
29-02-2012, 11:03
This is an obvious case of profit >>> hobby, since it boils down to them saying "You're not allowed to use a cheaper model to represent one you should be forking out a lot more for". It doesn't matter that a good modeller could make great Kommandos out of Ork Boyz, they just don't want anyone getting away with not paying double the price for it.

I'm not so sure - the end of it which allows "thematic conversions" could be understood to mean that if you've actually modified the ork boys in some way, you can use them as commandos, you just can't take unaltered boys and say they are commandos, even though there are no WYSIWYG issues with doing so (assuming the commandos have the same weaponry as normal boys).


Since when does count-as = creativity?

Maybe I'm just getting old, but creativity would be carefully modelling and painting your whole tyranid army to fit the "Aliens" theme. Using a khorne berzerker on a juggernaut as thunderwolves is count-as, but hardly creative.

I guess there are two ways to argue it... one is that using one model to represent something entirely different is thinking creatively. I don't agree with this either though. The other is an assumption that if you're doing counts-as, you are also converting models to fit the theme, in which case the conversions are the creative part. An example might be gobbo rebellion imperial guard, with the grots converted to carry lasguns and the chimeras being converted to an orky look.

Tymell
29-02-2012, 11:15
I'm not so sure - the end of it which allows "thematic conversions" could be understood to mean that if you've actually modified the ork boys in some way, you can use them as commandos, you just can't take unaltered boys and say they are commandos, even though there are no WYSIWYG issues with doing so (assuming the commandos have the same weaponry as normal boys).

It could be read that way, but I read the opening line "If Games Workshop produce a model for a unit entry, we expect you to use it." to counter that. It sounds to me like a firm rule about only using "the official models".

Wishing
29-02-2012, 12:23
It could be read that way, but I read the opening line "If Games Workshop produce a model for a unit entry, we expect you to use it." to counter that. It sounds to me like a firm rule about only using "the official models".

True, but I think that has to be taken with a grain of salt considering the nature of GW products. Unlike in, say, Warmachine, GW games have never had a direct 1:1 connection between specific models and specific rules. There isn't only one space marine captain, for example, there is a whole range of models that can be used for this purpose, and converting your own captain from a variety of plastic marine bits wouldn't be considered improper in any way... codexes frequently display examples of models that have been turned from one thing into another thing through conversion. Hence I don't think they mean "If your army contains a Space Marine Captain, the only model legal to use is the most recently produced model by GW specifically labeled as Space Marine Captain" - I think they mean "If your army contains a Space Marine Captain, you should make sure the model is recognisable as how a Space Marine Captain usually looks, simply taking a Tactical Marine and saying 'this is my captain' is not cool."

Freakiq
29-02-2012, 13:19
True, but I think that has to be taken with a grain of salt considering the nature of GW products. Unlike in, say, Warmachine, GW games have never had a direct 1:1 connection between specific models and specific rules. There isn't only one space marine captain, for example, there is a whole range of models that can be used for this purpose, and converting your own captain from a variety of plastic marine bits wouldn't be considered improper in any way... codexes frequently display examples of models that have been turned from one thing into another thing through conversion. Hence I don't think they mean "If your army contains a Space Marine Captain, the only model legal to use is the most recently produced model by GW specifically labeled as Space Marine Captain" - I think they mean "If your army contains a Space Marine Captain, you should make sure the model is recognisable as how a Space Marine Captain usually looks, simply taking a Tactical Marine and saying 'this is my captain' is not cool."

This.

GW regularly showcase conversions such as Obliterators made from Chaos Terminators or Sternguard Veterans made from Tactical Squads.

carldooley
29-02-2012, 15:23
okay, WYSIWYG vs creativity and 'counts as'
I am building a HALO themed BA list. This (http://s956.photobucket.com/albums/ae43/carldooley/?action=view&current=warthog.jpg) is a 'counts as' Las&Plas Razorback. it is a warthog from actionclix that I modified so that it is WYSIWYG. It isn't particularly creative, because I just got a toy and slapped the correct weapons on it, yes?

On the other hand, here (http://s956.photobucket.com/albums/ae43/carldooley/?action=view&current=warthog.jpg#!oZZ2QQcurrentZZhttp%3A%2F%2Fs 956.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fae43%2Fcarldooley%2 F%3Faction%3Dview%26current%3Dkatjorge.jpg) I have 2 'counts as' Sanguinary Priests - members of Noble Team, Kat & Jorge. this is creative (under your aegis, correct?) but getting them buttonholed into WYSIWYG is a bit harder. I gave Kat a hand flamer & power weapon, while Jorge got a storm bolter and a power fist. not the best loadouts to represent them, but the best that I could use that were available to me.

Now, I suck at converting. I could have gone and used storms (as I originally intended) to make the warthogs, but it was easier for me and cheaper to get the toys (http://www.miniaturemarket.com/haloclix-reach-ac-warthog-vehicle-pack.html) and convert* them so that they are WYSIWYG.

*btw - I need 3 Cadian CCS plasma guns to convert the other 3 that I have. if you have any let me know. :shifty:
I'm willing to trade too. . . (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/432480.page)

Nurgling Chieftain
29-02-2012, 16:52
I think the "must use all GW figures and parts" is pretty much a GW-only thing. For example, I would have no problem with the Warthog example above since it's converted to have the right weapons obvious, but GW wouldn't like it. I've yet to have anybody complain about my various Reaper models converted with splinter pistols as Wyches, nor my Hasslefree slavegirls toted about on Raiders/Ravagers/Venoms. But I game with friends and a LGS, not at official GW events.

Avatar111x
29-02-2012, 20:30
This is a subject that gets my goat to a degree because I think that Counts As armies were fine when people were using them as a way to create interesting and unique looking armies. However, people have been abusing this for sometime now and certainly in the tournament sides, just throwing together several models from their collection to create the next flavour of the month army list. I can think of two options for what I consider a good approach and what I believe is the wrong way to go about it.

Option 1 - Imperial Guard Beastmen. Exactly what is sounds like. Based on the old Rogue Trader lists that had Beastmen in Imperial Guard armies, every model in this army was converted using Catachan arms and bodies with Beastmen heads and legs. It was used as an infantry Guard list and most importantly, everything was held together as part of the theme. Some people may have claimed it was silly, but it was something this player had thought through and did not do it to get a gaming advantage.

Option 2 - Blood Angels. This list was small and did not contain a single unit that was painted in either Blood Angel or successor chapters. Indeed, almost every unit was painted in as a different Chapter. It was clear the player had written a powerful list and just seen what he could throw together from his collection to represent what the list was.

I understand this is an expensive hobby and people want to get the most out of what they buy. But seeing the same army and same models being used as Blood Angels, Space Wolves and Chaos Marines over three different tournaments does make me wish this was enforced a bit more rigourously by (some) tournament organisers.

Wishing
29-02-2012, 22:15
Option 1 - Imperial Guard Beastmen. Exactly what is sounds like. Based on the old Rogue Trader lists that had Beastmen in Imperial Guard armies, every model in this army was converted using Catachan arms and bodies with Beastmen heads and legs. It was used as an infantry Guard list and most importantly, everything was held together as part of the theme. Some people may have claimed it was silly, but it was something this player had thought through and did not do it to get a gaming advantage.

This actually sounds like one of the less silly (or inappropriate) army concepts in my view, since it is based on something that used to exist in the game but has been phased out over time, squat style. It's a shame that the beastmen have to have lasguns when they used to be melee only, but hey.


Option 2 - Blood Angels. This list was small and did not contain a single unit that was painted in either Blood Angel or successor chapters. Indeed, almost every unit was painted in as a different Chapter. It was clear the player had written a powerful list and just seen what he could throw together from his collection to represent what the list was.

This sounds like a proxy list rather than a counts-as list if it was improvised in the way you describe. However, it does raise a big problem with regards to counts-as and WYSIWYG and their collision with the marine subcodex phenomenon. You state that none of the models were painted like Blood Angels, and therefore you consider it to be a counts-as army. Does an army's paint scheme really have the power to determine what army list it should be using? To me, this raises serious alarm bells, because I find it very fundamental to the hobby that fantasy games are not historical wargames, and even though you may have to use specific models for specific rules, you are free to paint those models any way you like, there is no "right" or "wrong" colour scheme. This clearly is a problem when you have multiple marine lists that are differentiated only by colour scheme and nothing else, but I have still never heard anyone being disqualified from any kind of game for having painted their models the wrong colour (eg. not painting their Blood Angels red).

Avatar111x
29-02-2012, 23:30
This sounds like a proxy list rather than a counts-as list if it was improvised in the way you describe. However, it does raise a big problem with regards to counts-as and WYSIWYG and their collision with the marine subcodex phenomenon. You state that none of the models were painted like Blood Angels, and therefore you consider it to be a counts-as army. Does an army's paint scheme really have the power to determine what army list it should be using? To me, this raises serious alarm bells, because I find it very fundamental to the hobby that fantasy games are not historical wargames, and even though you may have to use specific models for specific rules, you are free to paint those models any way you like, there is no "right" or "wrong" colour scheme. This clearly is a problem when you have multiple marine lists that are differentiated only by colour scheme and nothing else, but I have still never heard anyone being disqualified from any kind of game for having painted their models the wrong colour (eg. not painting their Blood Angels red).

A very valid point and I would never suggest that there is only one colour Blood Angels should be ... I am all for creativity in an army's composition. But I would question whether this player is actually going to get around to assembling a actual Blood Angel or successor army ... my claivoyance is a little off at the moment, so perhaps I am doing them a disservice. However, in my opinion a tournament is usually a valid aim to get an army ready for.

When I first saw the army it looked a mess, as there was no uniform chapter. Each squad and vehicle had different chapter markings - I remember seeing Black Templars and I think Ultramarines. I cannot remember the rest. I looked at the army and thought Space Marine - anyone looking at it would have said the same. Then before the games we sudden find out they are Blood Angels and clearly assembled to make advantage of a series of their more vicious rules. Oh - and there was an Ork Dreff Dredd in their masquerading as a Librarian Dreadnaught ...

Proxy has its place - I want to try before I buy and I will do such things, but in a friendly environment. This was a competitive environment and I (personally) think it detracts away from the hardworking people who put a lot of thought and care into their armies and present stuff that whilst may be a little left field, is clearly what it is with minimul explanation before the games ...

DietDolphin
01-03-2012, 02:13
okay, WYSIWYG vs creativity and 'counts as'
I am building a HALO themed BA list. This (http://s956.photobucket.com/albums/ae43/carldooley/?action=view&current=warthog.jpg) is a 'counts as' Las&Plas Razorback. it is a warthog from actionclix that I modified so that it is WYSIWYG. It isn't particularly creative, because I just got a toy and slapped the correct weapons on it, yes?

On the other hand, here (http://s956.photobucket.com/albums/ae43/carldooley/?action=view&current=warthog.jpg#!oZZ2QQcurrentZZhttp%3A%2F%2Fs 956.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fae43%2Fcarldooley%2 F%3Faction%3Dview%26current%3Dkatjorge.jpg) I have 2 'counts as' Sanguinary Priests - members of Noble Team, Kat & Jorge. this is creative (under your aegis, correct?) but getting them buttonholed into WYSIWYG is a bit harder. I gave Kat a hand flamer & power weapon, while Jorge got a storm bolter and a power fist. not the best loadouts to represent them, but the best that I could use that were available to me.

Now, I suck at converting. I could have gone and used storms (as I originally intended) to make the warthogs, but it was easier for me and cheaper to get the toys (http://www.miniaturemarket.com/haloclix-reach-ac-warthog-vehicle-pack.html) and convert* them so that they are WYSIWYG.

*btw - I need 3 Cadian CCS plasma guns to convert the other 3 that I have. if you have any let me know. :shifty:
I'm willing to trade too. . . (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/432480.page)
I'm not sure if this was directed at me, but i was the one who brought up the count-as =/= creativity debate so i'll respond...

I think both your conversion are creative (although, just like the Aliens theme, a Halo theme isn't that original in itself...) and I think they are done well. You have clearly chosen a theme and have thought about models that fit that theme. You use that warthog as it fits your theme and you have modelled the weapon to be WYSIWYG. I was getting at people who put a tonka truck on the table and call it a battlewagon with out any real reason or thought, and think they are creative and innovating.

And I think this is the same as people using GW models for a completely different unit. It's about how much thought into why they are doing it. People could just as easily Juggernauts as Bikes, yet everyone insist on using them as TWC and changing codexes, regardless of the fact that juggers are no more cavalry than they are bikes. It seems it's more for the awesome rules that actually fielding their models.

EDIT:I just wanted to clarify that I do think there can be creativity in count-as and i'm not entirely against it. But would you really praise someone as creative if they put down Thousand Sons with chainaxes and said they used the Khorne Berzerker rules, as opposed to say someone modelling up a Vindicare assassin or Marbo to look like Solid Snake?

Wishing
01-03-2012, 09:13
And I think this is the same as people using GW models for a completely different unit. It's about how much thought into why they are doing it. People could just as easily Juggernauts as Bikes, yet everyone insist on using them as TWC and changing codexes, regardless of the fact that juggers are no more cavalry than they are bikes. It seems it's more for the awesome rules that actually fielding their models.

I agree that changing codexes just because you want better rules isn't creative in any way. However, I also don't think there is anything illegitimate about wanting to use awesome rules. It's just tricky to balance the desire for rules awesomeness and the consideration of aesthetic creativity for some people, I think.



EDIT:I just wanted to clarify that I do think there can be creativity in count-as and i'm not entirely against it. But would you really praise someone as creative if they put down Thousand Sons with chainaxes and said they used the Khorne Berzerker rules, as opposed to say someone modelling up a Vindicare assassin or Marbo to look like Solid Snake?

I actually think Thousand Sons with chainaxes sounds like a cool and creative modeling project. On the other hand I don't know who Solid Snake is, though I suspect he's not part of the 40k universe and I'm not a big fan of universe-mixing, so I doubt I'd appreciate that conversion as much.

Havock
01-03-2012, 09:41
Or those daemonettes might be representing daemonhosts. :p

As always, discuss any potentially confusing models with your opponent before the game.

Could be, but you'll notice them not doing any teleporting and blood boiling :p

cynic
01-03-2012, 10:16
For the most part, people are pretty chilled out about it. As long as anything potentially contentious is discussed beforehand (ie. when looking at the opponents armylist) there should never be any probs.

DietDolphin
01-03-2012, 10:31
I actually think Thousand Sons with chainaxes sounds like a cool and creative modeling project. On the other hand I don't know who Solid Snake is, though I suspect he's not part of the 40k universe and I'm not a big fan of universe-mixing, so I doubt I'd appreciate that conversion as much.

Sorry i should have been more clear, I meant just sticking a thousand son head on a khorne berzerker and calling it a day. I think it could be done properly with care and attention to detail, which is what i feel makes it really creative. Assault TSons would be cool and I wish GW would move away from "Only Bolters" but thats a different issue...

As for Solid Snake, he's the main character from Metal Gear Solid and he is essentially a Vindicare with cigarettes and a mullet.

the Goat
01-03-2012, 16:49
Can I use daemonettes or dark eldar wyches to represent Death Cult assassins in a Cortez GK list that "counts as" Renegade Guard?

Can I use a Chaos Sorcerer Terminator Lord model to represent a Herald of Khorne w/bloodcrusher in a Daemon list that "counts as" a lone Sorcerer summoning the daemons?

using an Ork to represent a Fire warrior
All of your examples are equally dumb. I would not allow any of them.

Phaeron Setek
01-03-2012, 18:12
I try to follow WYSIWYG, but sometimes it's just not possible. In those cases I tell my oppenet pre-game who has what, and let them decide yea or nea.

For "counts as" models, however, the only two situations I accept are:
1) The unit does not have a model out for it (Newcrons scythes and such), OR
2) The models no longer have rules for them, but similar rules exist for a current unit.

One of the things I always found annoying is when GW phases out certain units, like Kasrkin, Pariahs, or... um.. the Squat race. What do the old models do? I use them as "Counts As" models (Kasrkin => Stormtroopers, Pariahs => Lychguard w/ Warscythes, Squats => Paperweights, etc.)

ForgottenLore
01-03-2012, 19:33
For "counts as" models, however, the only two situations I accept are:
1) The unit does not have a model out for it (Newcrons scythes and such),
The problem I have with a hard and fast rule like that is that someone's army can suddenly become no longer "acceptable" months or years after they built it. Are you really going to refuse to play someone next week who has space wolves on converted juggernauts after you have been playing against the EXACT SAME ARMY AND MINIATURES for the past 2 years?

If miniatures used for an army were OK to play against at one time, I don't think GW releasing new miniatures should suddenly invalidate half of someone's army just because now there are "official" figs for something.




As for Solid Snake, he's the main character from Metal Gear Solid and he is essentially a Vindicare with cigarettes and a mullet.
And a cardboard box, right? :)

Boris420
02-03-2012, 07:53
I get into this debate with my Orks. Due to AOBR boyz being so cheap I inevitably got them. However, shoota boyz are much more competitive. Even though the only difference is that my boyz have pistols, it seems taboo to use them as shoota boyz besides friendly games. This is esp. in point when I use all my boyz as "count-as" shootas instead, as in not using a single unit of sluggas where a player can get them confused if I use the same models for both types of units. I have shoota bitz but I'd rather not destroy half my Orks to arm them as WYSIWYG. It's not like I'm using grots as Nobs for crying out loud. Sorry, had to vent.

Dreadlordpaul
02-03-2012, 08:13
im converting my DE army out of my dark elves and the few times ive used it no ones had a problem

DietDolphin
02-03-2012, 09:26
And a cardboard box, right? :)

I like to think thats how the Callidus Assassin really sneaks up on targets "...the box was a ninja all along!.."

Yodhrin
02-03-2012, 17:57
Agreed, and the intent is simple enough too: If you've made some effort to make something that looks cool, is appropriate for the setting, and is as unambiguous as possible, and if the judges and your opponents agree with the above, then you're fine. The point of my quoting the guidelines is simply to point out that they are not hard rules, and there is no way of being 100% certain that your converted counts-as army will be accepted, because whether it is accepted or not will depend on the subjective judgments of others, not any strictly defined rules.

As long as it's the same size and on the same base as whatever GW model it's replacing of course. Ooops, there goes; truescale marines, knight titans, characters on scenic bases unless they came with a 40mm+ one in the box, etc etc etc.

Honestly, these rules are pish. They're clear as mud(if the rules amount to "does your opponent's subjective opinion, or the judge's if you disagree, consider your army acceptable", then they're not rules, they're A rule; opponent decides), and they exclude tons of really cool conversions or themes for no appreciable reason. What happened to "must have clear majority GW or self-sculpted components(75%+), can't be smaller or mounted on a smaller base than the model it's supposed to represent, wargear must be clearly differentiated"? No subjective nonsense meaning you risk travelling to a tournament or campaign only to find yourself excluded because of a gimpish opponent or RAW-loving judge, prevents using size to exploit LoS without needlessly limiting creativity, and prevents any malarkey regarding the Amazing Teleporting Meltagun That's Really A Missile Launcher.

Kroq9Gar
14-07-2012, 13:08
I also think the rule of cool is important. Do you play warhammer just for a game to play, or do you play it because you think it looks cool? For example, my deathwing sergeant is going to have twin thunder hammers because it looks cool, even though that can't happen in the codex (note - he will have a storm shield on his back). If someone looks at it and goes (not in a tournament) that doesn't work, he can't have that, then they aren't a great sport, and they don't understand why you've done it.

Chem-Dog
14-07-2012, 13:20
I know tournaments require everything to be wysiwyg but this is also a hobby that revolves around models and conversions as well.. so where is the line?

The line is clear for me.
If you intend to make a cool model that's easily identified as what it represents:- Kosher.
Anything that gives an advantage over the stock model, has potential to cause confusion or is otherwise unclear, should be avoided.
Once given a simple introduction to what everything in your army is, I should be able to see what is where without any difficulty.



Can I use daemonettes or dark eldar wyches to represent Death Cult assassins in a Cortez GK list that "counts as" Renegade Guard?

I'd say yes, because within the army the models represent a specific unit. If you were to use Daemonettes for some DC assassins and others for Warrior Acolytes with Powerswords with no distinction between the two (tiny alterations in colours don't count) then you're batting a sticky wicket.


Can I use a Chaos Sorcerer Terminator Lord model to represent a Herald of Khorne w/bloodcrusher in a Daemon list that "counts as" a lone Sorcerer summoning the daemons?

So long as it's made clear that this is what you're doing, yes. Make sure he's on the right sized base (with that much space he'll essentially be a mini diorama) and you're golden.

Navar
14-07-2012, 13:32
Make sure he's on the right sized base (with that much space he'll essentially be a mini diorama) and you're golden.

What size base does a herald use?

Chem-Dog
14-07-2012, 13:55
What size base does a herald use?

On a juggernaut (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1400000), it's the larger 60mm base whereas the Terminator model (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1090190) would normally be mounted on a 40mm.

I think Normal Heralds use a 25mm base the Masque certainly does, but all the other named ones are different.
Skulltaker has a 40mm base, the Bluescribes would presumably use a flying base and Epidemius is on a 60.

Navar
14-07-2012, 15:21
On a juggernaut (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1400000), it's the larger 60mm base whereas the Terminator model (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1090190) would normally be mounted on a 40mm.

I think Normal Heralds use a 25mm base the Masque certainly does, but all the other named ones are different.
Skulltaker has a 40mm base, the Bluescribes would presumably use a flying base and Epidemius is on a 60.

So a Chaos Sorcerer Terminator Lord on a 40mm base could easily represent a Herald.

RandomThoughts
14-07-2012, 22:33
Option 2 - Blood Angels. This list was small and did not contain a single unit that was painted in either Blood Angel or successor chapters. Indeed, almost every unit was painted in as a different Chapter. It was clear the player had written a powerful list and just seen what he could throw together from his collection to represent what the list was.

Okay, I probably misread your post, otherwise I'd be ranting on about the crusader army I've been thinking about, with each unit coming from a different chapter (and in one case even two combat squads), with a common crusade symbol on all left knees and left shoulder pads (in chapter colors, though, as I couldn't think of a color combo that looks good on all chapters), with a unit of Blood Angel-colored Assault Marines and probably Dark Angel colored Bikers or Terminators and perhaps some Blood Claws count-as melee scouts...

What I would like to rant on about is the fact that I prefer to use the Blood Angel codex for my Raven Guard allies, even though they are supposedly a Codex Space Marine chapter. This has a simple reason: I see RG as fast and sneaky marines with a clear love of Jump packs, so when I field a small detachment of Raven Guard, I feel like a Jump pack Captain leading some Jump pack Assault Marines with or without Land Speeder and/or Whirlwind support is exactly what I'm looking for. None of that would be possible with their normal codex.
(Matter of fact, I don't usually roll for Red Thirst, though, as that is clearly a Blood Angels thing)


A very valid point and I would never suggest that there is only one colour Blood Angels should be ... I am all for creativity in an army's composition. But I would question whether this player is actually going to get around to assembling a actual Blood Angel or successor army ... my claivoyance is a little off at the moment, so perhaps I am doing them a disservice. However, in my opinion a tournament is usually a valid aim to get an army ready for.

When I first saw the army it looked a mess, as there was no uniform chapter. Each squad and vehicle had different chapter markings - I remember seeing Black Templars and I think Ultramarines. I cannot remember the rest. I looked at the army and thought Space Marine - anyone looking at it would have said the same. Then before the games we sudden find out they are Blood Angels and clearly assembled to make advantage of a series of their more vicious rules. Oh - and there was an Ork Dreff Dredd in their masquerading as a Librarian Dreadnaught ...

Alright, that pretty much puts your first post into perspective.


I get into this debate with my Orks. Due to AOBR boyz being so cheap I inevitably got them. However, shoota boyz are much more competitive. Even though the only difference is that my boyz have pistols, it seems taboo to use them as shoota boyz besides friendly games. This is esp. in point when I use all my boyz as "count-as" shootas instead, as in not using a single unit of sluggas where a player can get them confused if I use the same models for both types of units. I have shoota bitz but I'd rather not destroy half my Orks to arm them as WYSIWYG. It's not like I'm using grots as Nobs for crying out loud. Sorry, had to vent.

But then again, that sounds actually pretty cheap. I mean, if you intend to use them as shoota boys, at least cut off the melee weapons from their second arm, use bigger guns if you already got some, do some conversion - a bunch of plastic scraps filed into form will easily make your sluggers into formidable shootas.

RandomThoughts
14-07-2012, 22:34
Option 2 - Blood Angels. This list was small and did not contain a single unit that was painted in either Blood Angel or successor chapters. Indeed, almost every unit was painted in as a different Chapter. It was clear the player had written a powerful list and just seen what he could throw together from his collection to represent what the list was.

Okay, I probably misread your post, otherwise I'd be ranting on about the crusader army I've been thinking about, with each unit coming from a different chapter (and in one case even two combat squads), with a common crusade symbol on all left knees and left shoulder pads (in chapter colors, though, as I couldn't think of a color combo that looks good on all chapters), with a unit of Blood Angel-colored Assault Marines and probably Dark Angel colored Bikers or Terminators and perhaps some Blood Claws count-as melee scouts...

What I would like to rant on about is the fact that I prefer to use the Blood Angel codex for my Raven Guard allies, even though they are supposedly a Codex Space Marine chapter. This has a simple reason: I see RG as fast and sneaky marines with a clear love of Jump packs, so when I field a small detachment of Raven Guard, I feel like a Jump pack Captain leading some Jump pack Assault Marines with or without Land Speeder and/or Whirlwind support is exactly what I'm looking for. None of that would be possible with their normal codex.
(Matter of fact, I don't usually roll for Red Thirst, though, as that is clearly a Blood Angels thing)


A very valid point and I would never suggest that there is only one colour Blood Angels should be ... I am all for creativity in an army's composition. But I would question whether this player is actually going to get around to assembling a actual Blood Angel or successor army ... my claivoyance is a little off at the moment, so perhaps I am doing them a disservice. However, in my opinion a tournament is usually a valid aim to get an army ready for.

When I first saw the army it looked a mess, as there was no uniform chapter. Each squad and vehicle had different chapter markings - I remember seeing Black Templars and I think Ultramarines. I cannot remember the rest. I looked at the army and thought Space Marine - anyone looking at it would have said the same. Then before the games we sudden find out they are Blood Angels and clearly assembled to make advantage of a series of their more vicious rules. Oh - and there was an Ork Dreff Dredd in their masquerading as a Librarian Dreadnaught ...

Alright, that pretty much puts your first post into perspective.


I get into this debate with my Orks. Due to AOBR boyz being so cheap I inevitably got them. However, shoota boyz are much more competitive. Even though the only difference is that my boyz have pistols, it seems taboo to use them as shoota boyz besides friendly games. This is esp. in point when I use all my boyz as "count-as" shootas instead, as in not using a single unit of sluggas where a player can get them confused if I use the same models for both types of units. I have shoota bitz but I'd rather not destroy half my Orks to arm them as WYSIWYG. It's not like I'm using grots as Nobs for crying out loud. Sorry, had to vent.

But then again, that sounds actually pretty cheap. I mean, if you intend to use them as shoota boys, at least cut off the melee weapons from their second arm, use bigger guns if you already got some, do some conversion - a bunch of plastic scraps filed into form will easily make your sluggers into formidable shootas.

RandomThoughts
14-07-2012, 22:40
Option 2 - Blood Angels. This list was small and did not contain a single unit that was painted in either Blood Angel or successor chapters. Indeed, almost every unit was painted in as a different Chapter. It was clear the player had written a powerful list and just seen what he could throw together from his collection to represent what the list was.

Okay, I probably misread your post, otherwise I'd be ranting on about the crusader army I've been thinking about, with each unit coming from a different chapter (and in one case even two combat squads), with a common crusade symbol on all left knees and left shoulder pads (in chapter colors, though, as I couldn't think of a color combo that looks good on all chapters), with a unit of Blood Angel-colored Assault Marines and probably Dark Angel colored Bikers or Terminators and perhaps some Blood Claws count-as melee scouts...

What I would like to rant on about is the fact that I prefer to use the Blood Angel codex for my Raven Guard allies, even though they are supposedly a Codex Space Marine chapter. This has a simple reason: I see RG as fast and sneaky marines with a clear love of Jump packs, so when I field a small detachment of Raven Guard, I feel like a Jump pack Captain leading some Jump pack Assault Marines with or without Land Speeder and/or Whirlwind support is exactly what I'm looking for. None of that would be possible with their normal codex.
(Matter of fact, I don't usually roll for Red Thirst, though, as that is clearly a Blood Angels thing)


A very valid point and I would never suggest that there is only one colour Blood Angels should be ... I am all for creativity in an army's composition. But I would question whether this player is actually going to get around to assembling a actual Blood Angel or successor army ... my claivoyance is a little off at the moment, so perhaps I am doing them a disservice. However, in my opinion a tournament is usually a valid aim to get an army ready for.

When I first saw the army it looked a mess, as there was no uniform chapter. Each squad and vehicle had different chapter markings - I remember seeing Black Templars and I think Ultramarines. I cannot remember the rest. I looked at the army and thought Space Marine - anyone looking at it would have said the same. Then before the games we sudden find out they are Blood Angels and clearly assembled to make advantage of a series of their more vicious rules. Oh - and there was an Ork Dreff Dredd in their masquerading as a Librarian Dreadnaught ...

Alright, that pretty much puts your first post into perspective.


I get into this debate with my Orks. Due to AOBR boyz being so cheap I inevitably got them. However, shoota boyz are much more competitive. Even though the only difference is that my boyz have pistols, it seems taboo to use them as shoota boyz besides friendly games. This is esp. in point when I use all my boyz as "count-as" shootas instead, as in not using a single unit of sluggas where a player can get them confused if I use the same models for both types of units. I have shoota bitz but I'd rather not destroy half my Orks to arm them as WYSIWYG. It's not like I'm using grots as Nobs for crying out loud. Sorry, had to vent.

But then again, that sounds actually pretty cheap. I mean, if you intend to use them as shoota boys, at least cut off the melee weapons from their second arm, use bigger guns if you already got some, do some conversion - a bunch of plastic scraps filed into form will easily make your sluggers into formidable shootas.

Dylius
14-07-2012, 22:55
I get into this debate with my Orks. Due to AOBR boyz being so cheap I inevitably got them. However, shoota boyz are much more competitive. Even though the only difference is that my boyz have pistols, it seems taboo to use them as shoota boyz besides friendly games. This is esp. in point when I use all my boyz as "count-as" shootas instead, as in not using a single unit of sluggas where a player can get them confused if I use the same models for both types of units. I have shoota bitz but I'd rather not destroy half my Orks to arm them as WYSIWYG. It's not like I'm using grots as Nobs for crying out loud. Sorry, had to vent.

I can sympathise with you there. It's a real pain to cut off all those arms and replace them with shootas - in fact I just gave in (though at least I can turn them into Ork buccaneers... eventually :shifty:).

Wishing
15-07-2012, 08:55
But then again, that sounds actually pretty cheap. I mean, if you intend to use them as shoota boys, at least cut off the melee weapons from their second arm, use bigger guns if you already got some, do some conversion - a bunch of plastic scraps filed into form will easily make your sluggers into formidable shootas.

I think the ork boyz example is quite interesting because it illustrates well the grey area between ideal and practice when it comes to WYSIWYG, and when it comes to hobby vs. game in general really. Since getting hold of 100 slugger boyz is so incredibly much cheaper and easier than getting 100 shooter boyz due to AoBR, I can easily understand why many players who want 100 shooter boyz would think "is WYSIWYG really worth the time and expense?"

Egaeus
15-07-2012, 10:18
I think the ork boyz example is quite interesting because it illustrates well the grey area between ideal and practice when it comes to WYSIWYG, and when it comes to hobby vs. game in general really. Since getting hold of 100 slugger boyz is so incredibly much cheaper and easier than getting 100 shooter boyz due to AoBR, I can easily understand why many players who want 100 shooter boyz would think "is WYSIWYG really worth the time and expense?"

A similar potential issue I have is that between 4th and 5th edition Spinefists on 'Nids got more expensive and worse (I could rage on about this but this is neither the time nor the place :mad:)...so I would just mix them in with my Fleshborer-armed models to bulk up the squads and saying "they all have fleshborers", removing the "wrong" models first when the unit takes wounds.

The thing is that GW changes the rules to make some models worse, and in this case the gaunts weren't cheaper nor easier to get. Heck, I remember when the Black Templars rules first came out in the Armageddon codex I saw a lot of people converting their guys to have bolt pistols and close combat weapons, not always nice looking (when they are perfectly capable of having bolter-armed squads...my bolter marines outnumber by cc marines by about 2:1 in my counts-as-Templars army). As a previous poster pointed out if you've done work to convert things before GW does a model for a unit (I built my own Whirlwhind launcher before GW came out with the current kit, before Templars lost the ability to take them :mad:) then there really isn't any significant reason to stop using said conversions (and I'll bet there would be a lot of annoyed 'Nid players if someone tried to pull this on them after they'd shelled out for Carnifexes and Hive Tyrants to convert into Tervigons...but I'm sure it would make GW happy).

OK, I'm tired and some of this seems rambling and not necessarily to the point...I guess to me is that if I can tell what it's supposed to represent and it isn't going to specifically confuse me into thinking it's something else (this can always be the tricky bit though) then it should be fine if you're playing against me. Since I'm not telepathic I probably won't be able to divine whether my opponent did it for some unscrupulous reason (is "trying to do things on the cheap" unscrupulous? I think this is highly subjective ;)) until I've played them.