Seeing as how the latest chaos codex has been pretty flavourless, im thinking of using my chaos army with the loyalist rulebook. Given that I havent taken any defilers or the like, the only think that I will lose will be the daemonic possession on my vindie.

I was thinking of using Lysander as a Perturabo clone, which will then give me hammer-happy termies

Now to the question: Would you allow me to play with an army like this, and more importantly, could I use it at a tournament?

As long as you said "I'm using the Loyalist Marine rules" at the start of the game and told me what stuff counts as (and had no problem reminding me if I forgot) I'd be happy to play you. I'd also be alright with letting you do it in a tournament I was running as long as you took the same precautions with all your opponents, and handed out your army list to them.

Yeah I could see Lysander making for an interesting Iron Warriors army.

As long as all the models/guns are WYSIWYG I don't see a problem.

Of course. The Marine Codex gives great flexibility for making the Legions - far more than that pathetic excuse for a Chaos Codex does - so go for it.

You can even have Iron Warrior arty batteries with the Thunderfire Cannon, crewed by minor Warsmiths. Use Possessed w/Wings as Vangard Vets - that sort of thing.

Hell you could even make an argument for converting Marines into 'small Oblits', and then using the Sternguard rules (differing ammo = different Oblit weapons).

BYE

i wouldnt have any problems with this, aslong as i was made aware it was a loyal army.
i dont think anyone would have a problem.

Personally I was thinking of using the new SM codex for my Iron Warrirors.

2 Masters of the Forge as Warsmiths, three thunderfire cannons, 3 dreads, 4 rhino mounted SM squads with a couple goodies and another foot squad to sit in ones deployment zone as a safety net and blamo, 2000 list.

The new SM codex definitely feels like it would much better suit Night Lords and Iron Warriors armies, possibly a couple others, than the current CSM list.



I don't think most people or events would have any problem as long as everyone knows whats going on and one doesn't try and switch between CSM abilities and loyalist units mid-game.

Amusingly, I'm setting up my coming army as non-Spiky "Traitors".

The main thing is clarity of models, so it's clear who's armed with what, who counts as what.

@Vaktathi: I'm not sure that the new SM Dex is that great for IW - they won't have access to Obliterators as the "signature" unit. But other than that, yeah, most of this stuff is cookie cutter back and forth.

See my post above Jo... oh, wait, he can't.

Silly me.



BYE

I am in favor of "counts as" armies as long as it is really clear what is what.

@ John: I forgot entirely about my oblits
As HMBC said above, i could use varnguard (sp.) as obliterators, using the different ammunition as differing weapons. Not sure how this would work out though.

Techmarines and their thunderfire cannons would work very well, I currently have several techmarines in my army so it would be cool to have them as something other than aspiring champions.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Amusingly, I'm setting up my coming army as non-Spiky "Traitors".

The main thing is clarity of models, so it's clear who's armed with what, who counts as what.

@Vaktathi: I'm not sure that the new SM Dex is that great for IW - they won't have access to Obliterators as the "signature" unit. But other than that, yeah, most of this stuff is cookie cutter back and forth.

Obliterators aren't by any means mandatory in an IW army, they are just more common in IW armies than in others. In fact most IW fluff (Storm of Iron, Dead Sky Black Sun, etc) doesn't even mention oblits, but does mention tons of heavy cannon weapons, artillery, etc.

Thundfire Cannons might make passable Obliterators too - the 3 different modes of fire could represent the morphing of different weapons.

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:Thundfire Cannons might make passable Obliterators too - the 3 different modes of fire could represent the morphing of different weapons.

Use the fantasy chaos cannon instead of the thunderfire...

As long as it's clear whats what, even if it needs you pointing it out to your opponent (Jump Packs = Assault Marines, Daeminc Wings = Veterans and so on) I can't how someone can have a problem with this...

I want to play night lords, would it be acceptable in a tournement if i used a loyalist list but night lords models?

then If I produced a live chicken at the start of every game, placed it on the table, cut it's head off and let it run around. I could put the head on top of one of my tanks or something, just to get in the spirit you know..

would anyone have a problem with this, I mean if i told my opponent i was using loyalist rules, and explained what everything was representing?

dr vompire wrote:I want to play night lords, would it be acceptable in a tournement if i used a loyalist list but night lords models?

then If I produced a live chicken at the start of every game, placed it on the table, cut it's head off and let it run around. I could put the head on top of one of my tanks or something, just to get in the spirit you know..

would anyone have a problem with this, I mean if i told my opponent i was using loyalist rules, and explained what everything was representing?

I actually think Night Lords would work better with the SM list than the CSM codex, especially with Vanguard vets for some Raptor amazingness and Shrike to counts-as a Zho Sahaal or something.

You may want to leave the chicken at home however, as your FLGS may not enjoy cleaning chicken blood.

I'm currently running my berzerkers as Black Templar and so far no one has had any problems with it.

WHFB Chaos warriors make great neophytes with just a little work and the WHFB champion of Khorne standing on a pile of skulls also makes for an awesome Emperor's Champion.

I'm thinking about running my black legion guys as loyalists too. I think with the White Scars guy that gives the whole army outflank they could make for a pretty cool army.

dr vompire wrote:I want to play night lords, would it be acceptable in a tournement if i used a loyalist list but night lords models?

then If I produced a live chicken at the start of every game, placed it on the table, cut it's head off and let it run around. I could put the head on top of one of my tanks or something, just to get in the spirit you know..

would anyone have a problem with this, I mean if i told my opponent i was using loyalist rules, and explained what everything was representing?

Well personally I would rather you use the chaos codex but I can empathize with your desire, (if its not apparrent I play Dark Angels)

Aside from that I think everythings cool.

dr vompire wrote:I want to play night lords, would it be acceptable in a tournement if i used a loyalist list but night lords models?

That would depend whether they were painted as Night Lords. If just modeled, then I'd be OK. But if everything looks exactly like CSM Night Lords, then it would be just as confusing if a full Ultramarines army played as Chaos.

If said army just consists of Night Lord Bikers and Raptors - I don't see the problem. You can do that with the new Marine Codex, and it's perfectly fluffy for the Night Lords. You can't do it with the Chaos Codex, so why use it?

BYE

I think it's a bad idea. The whole point of Chaos Marines and Renegades is that they've abandoned the selfless discipline required to know no fear, engage in combat tactics, and generally act like well-disciplined Space Marines.

They're brave, to be sure, so they have higher Leadership, but when things go pear-shaped (usually because they got stabbed in the back by their allies), it's every traitor for himself, just like any sensible mortal that fears what death will bring.

I mean, maybe you want your uncontrollable psychotic freaks to act like heroic and selfless Imperial lapdogs, just "Spiky Marines" to go with your Red, Blue, Yellow, Grey, Black, and White Marines. Go ahead.

If you want Chaos Space Marines, use that book. The rules in it will reflect the background better than using the new Space Marine book. If you want to use the Space Marine book, then that's great: just man up and paint yourself some sparkling little tin heroes to go with it!

But the rules in the Chaos Space Marine Codex are incapable of representing many of the Traitor Legions. The Loyalist Marine Codex actually works better in this regard.

The Loyalist Codex also better represents Renegade Space Marines - because they still have all the items they would have (like Razorbacks, Drop Pods, Storm Bolters etc.).

Generally the Chaos Space Marine Codex isn't really good at representing anything other than Fzorgle Princes, Oblits, Generic Daemons and really terrible Possessed.

BYE

I've seen some really tasteful twin Slaanesh lord and Khorne Berzerker armies doing the rounds lately. They make my copy of Slaves to darkness cry.

H.B.M.C.:

How do you figure they're incapable of representing many Traitor Legions? Which ones? How so?

What makes you think that Renegades would have all the bells and whistles (as well as motivation) that a Loyalist chapter would have?

The Chaos Space Marine book is great at representing all sorts of armies. The fact that a few tactically blinkered people default to Codex: Chaos Space Marines for Noobs says nothing at all about its representative power.

Nurglitch wrote:What makes you think that Renegades would have all the bells and whistles (as well as motivation) that a Loyalist chapter would have?

Night Lords are not "Renegades". They are a First Founding Legion and many of them are Heresy-era veterans. They were the first legion to field jump pack troops. If anybody's jump packers deserve to be assaulting the same turn they come in it is the Night Lords.


CSM raptors cost 215 pts for a squad of 10 w/aspiring champion.

SM assault marines cost 190 pts for a squad of 10 w/free (vet) srg.

The 2 squads are identical except the SM trade 1 pt of Ld for ATSKNF and Combat Tactics and they are 25 pts cheaper.

Case closed.

Nurglitch wrote:How do you figure they're incapable of representing many Traitor Legions? Which ones? How so?

It's not that the Chaos codex is incapable of representing Traitor Legions. It's just that the Space Marine codex is better at it. If I use C: CSM then my warsmith has a non-functional servo-arm. If I use C: SM then not only does he get his servo-arm back, but he even gets to fortify a piece of terrain for me (you know, like how you'd expect a siege master to do). How much fluffier can you get?

It works as a code fo me, I'm happy using it, I'm not playing a specific legion, I might get better deals from playing the SM codex but why? So it's easier to win? So I can better represent my 'theme'?

No the armies theme comes from what you select and how you play, if you want to do nightlords play with raptors and don't take whichever marks, don't say that to be fluffy you must use vanguards or BA's. You can make you theme using the dex provided, stop whining

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
Night Lords are not "Renegades". They are a First Founding Legion and many of them are Heresy-era veterans. They were the first legion to field jump pack troops. If anybody's jump packers deserve to be assaulting the same turn they come in it is the Night Lords.

And let's also not forget that the generic space marine bikes are significantly cheaper for the same unit, possible to take as troop choices, and can outflank too. You can make a much better Night Lords list with the new codex Space Marines than with the C:CSM book. Same goes for Iron Warriors.

I also fail to see what would be "unfluffy" about Combat Tactics. The Chaos Traitor Legions didn't get to be 10,000 years old by sticking around to get killed when things turn ugly.

Reaver83 wrote:You can make you theme using the dex provided, stop whining

GW has been kind enough to provide a variety of dexes to choose from so why not make your theme using the best dex for the job?

So how would you do Word Bearers or Alpha Legion with the new Marine Codex?

I wonder though, can I take Cassius in my Deathguard army? He's obviously dedicated to Nurgle as he's tougher than Typhus, so if I convert him up, do you think people will mind?

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:So how would you do Word Bearers or Alpha Legion with the new Marine Codex?

Not sure, I don't play either Legion.

I wonder though, can I take Cassius in my Deathguard army? He's obviously dedicated to Nurgle as he's tougher than Typhus, so if I convert him up, do you think people will mind?

BYE

As long as the entire list uses the rules from the SM codex and you aren't trying to take Cassius in an army using the CSM codex. That said, Typhus has an extra wound as well, although I do think its rather dumb for an SM chaplain to be harder to hurt than a Nurgle Daemon Prince.

H.B.M.C. wrote:So how would you do Word Bearers or Alpha Legion with the new Marine Codex?

Alpha Legion is easy. Just use scouts as cultists/operatives and sternguard as Legionnaires (cause Alpha Legion are badasses). For Word Bearers... use the Chaos codex until Codex: Inquisition comes out?

Vaktathi wrote:I do think its rather dumb for an SM chaplain to be harder to hurt than a Nurgle Daemon Prince.

But Cassius has bionics! And scars! Does the Nurgle Daemon Prince have bionics and scars? I think not. Hurr.

Alpha, Ironically, is best represented in the 4th edition loyalist codex (take the trait that lets everyone infiltrate, remove the pride in the colors one which I forget what that backfire is). I had fully intended on making a loyalist Alpha Legion (as I feel they fit better in that after reading Legion) and then they announced they were pulling out traits in the new codex =(. Crying shame.

For Alpha Legion, 5th Edition Marine Codex it is then!

As a tourney player, in a tourney, yes I would have a problem with you using the loyalist list with your chaos marine models.

Fine, call me a douchebag, but it would be confusing and I don't want to have to worry about what every little thing counts as.

Now, in a friendly game or in my LGS I couldn't care less. But yeah, in a tourney, I mind.

Somnicide wrote:As a tourney player, in a tourney, yes I would have a problem with you using the loyalist list with your chaos marine models.

Fine, call me a douchebag, but it would be confusing and I don't want to have to worry about what every little thing counts as.

wouldn't most of the equipment be identical or pretty much be auto-converted (oh, those Terminator guns are TL bolters, but they look exactly like Stormbolters too!) The marines, sergeant weapons, and heavy weapons would all pretty much be identical, as would the tanks unless someone is trying to proxy in a Defiler as something.

It's one thing if it's "This Dread with the two claws and stubby gun on its sarcophagus is a Defiler and this Dread with two DCCWs and underslung bolters is a CSM Dreadnaught." or "these terminators are terminators, but these terminators are obliterators."

It's another if it is "all the CSM are SMs, the plasma guns are - plasma guns, and the warsmith with a servo-arm and a wonkin' big artillery piece is a techmarine with a servo-harness and a thunderfire cannon."

Some people can take 'Count As' to an extreme, but I'd be fine with playing CSM as SM, as long as it's pretty obvious. In fact, that actually makes me think about doing an IW army. If it makes anyone feel better, they'll be pre-Heresy, so that way I can use the loyalist dex, and I'll theme them to not include any of the new exotic weaponry like the assault cannon or razorback. Ah, IW termies with thunderhammers and storm shields.........

Sure. Oh, and this sorcerer is a librarian. oh yeah, and my vindicators ignore dangerous terrain checks. and these guys here, painted like khorne guys are actually devastators.

And my whole army has combat squads and ATSKNF.

If you want space marines, paint space marines. If you want chaos space marines paint chaos space marines.

At the end of a tournament I have trouble remembering what is in my own list.

And this is from someone who has an Alpha Marine army which is already very heavily inspired by loyalist stuff (no spiky bits, no defiler, no obliterators).

dietrich wrote:It's one thing if it's "This Dread with the two claws and stubby gun on its sarcophagus is a Defiler and this Dread with two DCCWs and underslung bolters is a CSM Dreadnaught." or "these terminators are terminators, but these terminators are obliterators."

It's another if it is "all the CSM are SMs, the plasma guns are - plasma guns, and the warsmith with a servo-arm and a wonkin' big artillery piece is a techmarine with a servo-harness and a thunderfire cannon."

Agreed, the "counts-as" would have to be reasonable, but it shouldn't be that difficult, and other than a couple horns and some 8 pointed stars in many armies there would be no difference as long as one puts in the effort and isn't just trying to be a cheeseball.

Somnicide wrote:Sure. Oh, and this sorcerer is a librarian. oh yeah, and my vindicators ignore dangerous terrain checks. and these guys here, painted like khorne guys are actually devastators.

And my whole army has combat squads and ATSKNF.

If you want space marines, paint space marines. If you want chaos space marines paint chaos space marines.

Again, if one has a legal list, and the Counts As isn't abused (as in, Berserkers aren't used as Devestators) its fine. It's one thing to *proxy* the **** out of everything and piss people off just to be a cheese monkey, its another to use CSM models with the new list. If someone showed up with a couple Chaos dreads for normal dreads, a Thunderfire cannon, a Chaos vindicator model for a Smurf vindi, a properly kitted Havoc squad as a Devestator squad, and a Warsmith for a Master of the Forge and a Lord for a Chapter master, with basic CSM's as tac squads, I wouldn't have any problem with that. If they showed up just trying to throw whatever they had as proxies for units that they don't resemble (like Berserkers for Devestators) and just want to abuse the SC's, of course thats not fine.

A genuine WYSIWYG effort with Spiky guys instead of normal guys is I think what most of us are talking about, not just willy-nilly wholesale proxying of armies.

At the end of a tournament I have trouble remembering what is in my own list.

This is why you print it out and bring a copy with you.

Vaktathi wrote:
A genuine WYSIWYG effort with Spiky guys instead of normal guys is I think what most of us are talking about, not just willy-nilly wholesale proxying of armies.

No, actually, I don't think that is what most people are thinking of doing. I think most people are just wanting to bring their models and use the other list. By the same token, I wouldn't want someone to bring a list of all eldar models and say "these are dark eldar." Sure, you could easily count stuff as other stuff but it isn't actually a dark eldar army.

This is why you print it out and bring a copy with you.

yep. So why should I have to try and figure out what my opponent has. Like I said, in friendly games, no problem. Hell, proxy anything you want in friendly games. In tourneys I want there to be absolutely no surprises. Even if the other person is being totally legit, if something is unclear it makes it less fun.

I've alwasy wanted to do a Tyranid army using Guard - model up Guardsmen running with large blades as H-Gaunts, some big Sentinel conversions as Tyrants and 'Fexes - things like that.

No real difference between that and Malf's T.W.A.R. project.

BYE

yeah I wouldn't have really liked that either, to be honest.

Somnicide wrote:
No, actually, I don't think that is what most people are thinking of doing. I think most people are just wanting to bring their models and use the other list. By the same token, I wouldn't want someone to bring a list of all eldar models and say "these are dark eldar." Sure, you could easily count stuff as other stuff but it isn't actually a dark eldar army.

So a CSM army, with a list that uses only models that have direct and clear counterparts in a Smurf army with a legal SM list would be totally out?

It's one thing with the Eldar/Dark Eldar thing as they don't really have too many parallels, but Horns versus No horns is really that big of a difference? But a 10man CSM squad with a plasma gun, missile launcher and powerfist coulnd't "counts-as" a loyalist SM squad with the same equipment just because they have horns? An IW Warsmith model (the one with the big servo arm and mechanical claw) couldn't "counts as" a Techmarine? That's being a bit draconian methinks.

yep. So why should I have to try and figure out what my opponent has. Like I said, in friendly games, no problem. Hell, proxy anything you want in friendly games. In tourneys I want there to be absolutely no surprises. Even if the other person is being totally legit, if something is unclear it makes it less fun.

It shouldn't be that hard to clear anything up. As long as everything is WYSIWYG and you ask about anything you aren't quite sure of before the game starts I don't see why it would be any different than bringing a heavily converted army.

Meh. The OP asked what we thought about it. I have said what I think about it.

If someone is just going to use all the regular marine stuff, then why not play marines and use those models?

Anyway, we are in an area of taste, so it is gonna be each persons individual opinion on it. My opinion is that I would not like it. I would love to be able to have 2 armies with just one set of models for the convenience and money it would save, but if that is the case, then lets just play with paper models and bases.

Somnicide wrote:If someone is just going to use all the regular marine stuff, then why not play marines and use those models?

What if you are playing loyalists, but you just like the Chaos aesthetic better, so you get nothing but Chaos Marine miniatures and paint them up as... Ultramarines and even play them as Ultramarines - you just prefer the spiky versions over the 'clean' versions.

BYE

I think the best way to go is to the use the rules that best represent the type of army you want. As long as you keep WYSIWYG on the equipment, there shouldn't be any problem at all.

If someone looks at a unit of 6 guys with bolters and 4 guys with missile launchers and knows the codex being used is Codex: Space Marines, if they don't figure out that it's a devastator squad, there's something wrong with them.

Also, for cultusts and other recruits that are appropriately equiped, you'll also have access to the inquisition codexes. Storm Troopers might make perfect Alpha Legion operatives.

grickherder wrote:Also, for cultusts and other recruits that are appropriately equiped, you'll also have access to the inquisition codexes. Storm Troopers might make perfect Alpha Legion operatives.

Ah! Even better in reverse, an Inq army taking units from the new Marine Codex.

Perfect. Thanks for that idea Grick!

BYE

Somnicide wrote:If you want space marines, paint space marines. If you want chaos space marines paint chaos space marines.

But they're not CHAOS SPACE MARINES. They're SPACE MARINES with some conversions (a spike here, a pair of horns there, a few 8-pointed stars, etc). Sure, my fluff for my army maybe has them worshipping Chaos, but why should you care what fluff I make up for my SPACE MARINE army?

Somnicide wrote:If someone is just going to use all the regular marine stuff, then why not play marines and use those models?

Cause they like their marines to have horns and trims? Because using the loyalist marine models makes them feel dirty inside?

If you want space marines, paint space marines. If you want chaos space marines paint chaos space marines.

Somnicide:
So if I make up my own chapter of marines named "The Spike Lords" who love melee so much they mount spikes all over their armor for wrestling with their opponants, and paint their armor scary black and red to intimidate their opponants, you would have a problem with that?

If I decided my "Angels of Death" would have scary white skull masks and black armor, how would you catagorize that?

I am seriously asking you, not trying to prove you wrong.

Somnicide wrote:
If someone is just going to use all the regular marine stuff, then why not play marines and use those models?

As has been stated several times in the thread previous, Its because ironically the Loyalist codex represents the Iron Warriors better than the CSM one does. I want planning on actually proxying anything - That Plasma gun is still a plasma gun, that CCW is still a CCW, and that Jump Pack is still a jump pack.

So why bother using the codex you ask? Because there is so much more flexibility in the list. I no longer have parts that cost $20 that do absolutely nothing, thanks to the new list. I can create a non cookie cutter lord, and one that will better my army and further my theme to boot. Add that to the fact that marines in the the new CSM codex is useless, as anything other than Cult troops will break and die in the first turn.

So everything is still as it should be in the land of Spase Marinez, just a bit spikier. And with chevrons.

As long as you are clear from the beginning that you are using the marine dex then there shouldn't be a problem. I think wehrkind makes an excellent point that you can really just think about this like you are creating your own marine chapter and as long as nothing ridiculous or unreasonable is being used (like berserkers as devs) I think it's a good idea.

Wehrkind wrote:

If you want space marines, paint space marines. If you want chaos space marines paint chaos space marines.

Somnicide:
So if I make up my own chapter of marines named "The Spike Lords" who love melee so much they mount spikes all over their armor for wrestling with their opponants, and paint their armor scary black and red to intimidate their opponants, you would have a problem with that?

If I decided my "Angels of Death" would have scary white skull masks and black armor, how would you catagorize that?

I am seriously asking you, not trying to prove you wrong.

It would depend on how it looked. If you used Imperial armor as the base and glued spikes to it (a la Black Dragons) it wouldn't be much of a problem as long as you didn't use anything else. Once more, the OP asked what people would think. Specifically tourney players. I am specifically a tourney player. I have said what I think and it's not going to change. I will also go on the record here saying that I don't even like it when someone has an army painted like dark angels (or black templars or blood angels etc) and uses codex marines. If you want a list that can do either, then create your own successor chapter.

I have also said that in a friendly game, do whatever you want. Use tau models for space marines for all I care. I pay good money to play in tourneys and I want there to be no chance of making a mistake (oh, those guys aren't fearless? oh, they have an extra attack? oh, your sorcerer is really a librarian with totally different powers and a abilities?)

If you Angels of Death are wearing imperial armor and are just painted different then it is irrelevant, right?

edit: And HBMC doesn't even play the game (as he has said repeatedly and loudly to anyone who will listen) so I would probably not put too much stock into what he says.

@ Somnicide: Everybody is entitled to your opinion, and it takes some guts to hang in here and stick by yours when it's against the current. Kudos for that.

What I think the problem people are having, and I am too, isn't your opinion, it's the way you explain it. As a matter of taste and preference it is of course unimpeachable, but to really rely on the "I get confused in the middle of battles" excuse seems a little odd to most of us, particularly if you're an experienced tournament gamer. By now, most tournaments are Open List, which means you should be able to see your opponents army list, and now exactly what each unit is, what it has, and what each transport contains. So, based on that premise, you're essentially arguing that because a unit looks like a Chaos Marine squad, you will get confused despite being told it's space marines, you have a list that shows them as space marines, and they've fought as Space marines all game?

I'm not trying to badger you, and I can see that there are times when you might slip up, but it still seems a little unlikely to me.

I guess My other question would be: what would you do if I brought a Space Marine list to the tournament, we played, but my force was modeled and themed as Night Lords? Would you deduct my sports? Ding my paint/theme/comp/whatever? Or would you, despite being annoyed, play in good faith? I ask because while I really do understand your position (it was something GW drummed pretty heavily in 3rd and most of 4th), it does have a chilling effect on army creativity and the depth of modeling possibilities; two things that I think should be encouraged.

What about Sisters of Battle? They are all in power armor with Bolters. They use the rhino chassis on their vehicles. I just don't like it. It doesn't fit the established background.

Okay, here is an example. It is near the end of a kill point game and I know that it is going to be close and time is running out.

Across the table were two units that I could shoot at and one is painted as some kind of fearless cult marine and the other as black legion or whatever. I have a chance of breaking the black legion through shooting but not of the plague marine. It influences which unit I shoot at. It is not an intentional cheat but it still has an effect.

As to your other question, Sports has nothing to do with army design (I do not subscribe to the "sportsmanship starts with army design philosophy".) I would base that solely on the game. If it is painted well, then I would give you the appropriate scores. I would probably dock you on theme, because you are playing a night lords theme - not a loyalist theme. In the old tourneys there were well painted armies like the hello kitty armies and the marneus calgar high school football team and although they were good for a snicker, I was never happy having to play them. Your clever idea ruined the internal movie of the game for me. I like my grim darkness to be grim.

Now, that being said, that is absolutely something different than what you said, and of all the options available of a chaos list I would probably be more forgiving of either an Alpha Legion or Night Lords list using the codex space marines rules because of their background. But it would still feel wrong to me.

And I say all this having wanted to use my previous Iron Warriors as loyalists (no, really, they are Iron Marines, not Iron Warriors...) and my current Alpha Legion (which even has infiltrator models done up in loyalist colors with an alpha legion part (arm, leg, body, helmet, etc).

Once more, fine in friendly games, not in tourneys.

I'm with Somnicide.

It is an even easier discussion than this though. Taking chaos space marine models and using the new space marine codex for rules just isn't tourney legal.

Its exactly the same as a dark angel green army with sword iconography. If the models (or even the paint scheme) is associated with another codex, then that codex MUST be used.

Heavily converted space marine models that use the heads from chaos, or loyalist models with spikes attached would be just fine. But buying a box of chaos marines, glueing them together, then using the new book, is just not tourney legal.

In your group, I'm sure it would be MORE than kosher. I have used pennies as grots before, and squares of paper as rhinos. Your friends just enjoy playing the game with you.

In a store, it is "legal" too. But if you are curious, after one or two games, as a store opponent I would hope that you have done enough testing to be able to confidently buy some new models. (remember I'm ok with conversions)

So depending on where the OP gets his games in. Friends are obviously fine, strangers in a non tourney setting are usually fine for a couple games (which might be the most you play that stranger), and tourneys are a no-go.

One more way it could make a difference in game play - CSM don't have ATSKNF so if a unit of CSM is down to it's last model or two and falling back I can ignore it, if a loyalist is falling back, he can still rally and is still a scoring objective.

Shep wrote:I'm with Somnicide.

It is an even easier discussion than this though. Taking chaos space marine models and using the new space marine codex for rules just isn't tourney legal.

Its exactly the same as a dark angel green army with sword iconography. If the models (or even the paint scheme) is associated with another codex, then that codex MUST be used.

this is actually completely incorrect. Every tournament sets their own rules, and in the past the standard RTT pack had a rule about using the miniatures for the army you are playing. However, this is not the case for the current US GTs:

GW wrote:

The army must be WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get). This means that weapons, armor options, and upgrades chosen from the army list must be shown on characters and a majority of the models in a unit or squad.

Should you wish to field certain models in your army that “count as” something different in your list than the model that was originally intended you need to follow these basic rules: the models must be roughly the same size as those you are substituting them for (eg. you could not use Imperial Guard Ogryn to represent Imperial Guard Conscripts), you must be consistent throughout your army (eg. if both of your Space Marine Dreadnoughts have twin-linked heavy bolters - an option no longer allowed - you could field them both as assault cannons, but not one of them as an assault cannon and the other as twin-linked lascannons), and finally you must be very clear with your opponent prior to the game, going over anything that may cause confusion. It may be appropriate to create a “cheat sheet” for your opponent that has pictures of the units accompanied by a description of the units and it’s equipment.

Edit: link to the above: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?community=true&catId=&categoryId=300005&pIndex=3&aId=3400027&start=4

Again, as a matter of personal preference, I understand, but it's certainly not illegal in most tournaments now. I really think that GW realized that rather than have three major bike armies (Ravenwing, White Scars, and Night lords) they could really get by with two. Counts as is the law of the land.

It would depend on how it looked. If you used Imperial armor as the base and glued spikes to it (a la Black Dragons) it wouldn't be much of a problem as long as you didn't use anything else. Once more, the OP asked what people would think. Specifically tourney players. I am specifically a tourney player. I have said what I think and it's not going to change. I will also go on the record here saying that I don't even like it when someone has an army painted like dark angels (or black templars or blood angels etc) and uses codex marines. If you want a list that can do either, then create your own successor chapter.

I kind of figured that is what you would say. The fact your opponant specifically said "These are spikey loyalists" doesn't matter unless you percieve the models to be loyalists with spikes on them, as opposed to models with loyalist armor with spikes on it and possibly some naughty pictures. Got it.

For the math hammer inclined crowd:

Spikes + Skulls + Red + Winged skull = ok with loyalist rules
Spikes + skills + red + khorne thing = bad with loyalist rules

It is obviously a well thought out and internally consistant stance.

For the non-obtuse crowd how about -

spikes + skulls + chaos markings + different trim + different backpacks+ mutations = bad with loyalist rules

spikes + skulls + imperial markings + standard trim on shoulders and legs + standard backpacks = good with loyalist rules

It is obviously a well thought out and internally consistent stance.

Chaos marines no longer have mutations by RAW. Only possessed and maybe raptors, though those are optional. Marines have bionics, or did until recently, which might model some mutations better!

Loyalist terminator armor comes with different trims right in the kit, and the power armor kit comes with different marks of shoulders.

I have marines with no less than 3 different types of backpacks due to different versions of models, not counting the little pictures on the backpacks.

There are many different sorts of leg trims for loyalists, again within the standard kit.

So really it just comes down to what pictures they painted on their armor. Yay?

But many chaos marines are built with mutations, right? Also, the backpacks have ALWAYS looked different than the loyalist versions. I still have some RT era white plastic Space Marines and some early 2nd CSMs. They never looked the same. The trim is very different from CSM and SM (if you disagree, look at the 13th company which mixes bits from SM and CSM - it is quite obvious which came from which kit).

Also, we are not talking rules so RAW is irrelevant, we are talking appearance and army choice, remember?

Anyway, once more, the OP asked for people's thoughts on it, I have given mine. I stick with it. It is internally consistent.

Somnicide wrote:It would depend on how it looked. If you used Imperial armor as the base and glued spikes to it (a la Black Dragons) it wouldn't be much of a problem as long as you didn't use anything else.

You do realize that to create the CSM plastics the GW sculptors took Imperial armor as the base and glued spikes to it, don't you?

Somnicide wrote:What about Sisters of Battle? They are all in power armor with Bolters. They use the rhino chassis on their vehicles. I just don't like it. It doesn't fit the established background.

You wanna know what doesn't fit the established background? Codex: Chaos Space Marines. That's what.

He doesn't Abby... my point wizzed right past his head.
Saddly he doesn't grasp that Chaos marines are loyalist marines who drew naughty things on their armor and welded silly oversized spikes to it while sitting around bored in the warp.

The fact he is saying that SoB shouldn't have bolters, power armor or rhinos based on background established further confirms his insanity. I think he is secretly an agent of Tzeentch, executing some plan so nefarious it makes no sense to anyone else.

And Somn, the point about RAW was that modeling a guy with a tentacle makes as much difference rules wise as modeling him with 6 fingers on his right hand. Which is to say zero.

Now, if CSM with tentacles got a +1 combat resolution, or a man with 6 fingers had to roll every turn to see if he was challenged by the son of a Spanish swordmaker he murdered years prior, then you might have a minor point. It might be confusing since the aesthetic differences mattered as WYSIWYG. But it doesn't. Paint color doesn't matter either. It has specifically been stated in the 4th Ed. Marine codex that even Ultramarines can take traits, and special chapters can be strictly codex rules wise.

Edit: 6 fingers on his RIGHT hand... no one is looking for anyone with 6 fingers on their left...

Somnicide wrote:But many chaos marines are built with mutations, right? Also, the backpacks have ALWAYS looked different than the loyalist versions.

So what happens if I glue chaos backpacks on my loyalist marines!? Which codex do I use?? Or would you object to someone gluing chaos backpacks on their loyalist space marines altogether?

(if you disagree, look at the 13th company which mixes bits from SM and CSM - it is quite obvious which came from which kit)

This brings up a good point. What if my army uses a mix of bits from SM and CSM? Then which codex would I have to use? What if my guys just recently turned to Chaos and have replaced their imperial insignia with Chaos symbols but they still have functioning land speeders and loyalist backpacks? Is that not allowed? Or what if they're Alpha Legion? According to Legion Alpha Legion may actually be loyalists in disguise! How do I know if I'm using the right codex???

Uh, actually, I was saying that sisters have rhinos and bolters and power armor but shouldn't be using the space marines codex for you.

I think the fact that I am allowed to have a different opinion than you wizzed right by your head...

Anyway, I will just agree to disagree on the topic of tourney play. Once more, since somehow it wasn't clear,

It is okay to play with whatever the hell you want in a friendly game. use tyranids as orks, use imperial guard as chaos space marines, use hero clix as daemons. If you want to play in a tourney, it is my opinion that you should play the army of the models you bought.

I am sorry that you don't like your new codex. Buy a new army, trade for a new army or don't play in tourneys or expect the fact that we spend hundreds of dollars and hours on our armies and we don't think it is cute or cool or clever that you just choose to use a codex that you like better with the models you already have.

Edit: 6 fingers on his RIGHT hand... no one is looking for anyone with 6 fingers on their left...

and wehr has the post ftw with a Princess Bride quote! well played, sir!

Wehrkind wrote:Now, if CSM with tentacles got a +1 combat resolution, or a man with 6 fingers had to roll every turn to see if he was challenged by the son of a Spanish swordmaker he murdered years prior, then you might have a minor point.

Reaper totally makes a six-fingered demon prince. And I totally bought him. Awesome.

Obviously you have to send Somnicide an email with pictures of every bit of kit on every model, as well as a fully typed fluff description of no less than 3 pages, with appropriate photos of every model pre and post painting. Preferably you do this before you decide on a paint scheme, because there are EEEEEVIL colors that will mark your marines as heretics just as surely as spikes, skulls or giant wangs on their armor.

Be warned!

Oh, and if you have Sisters, you need to melt them down in a pot and recast them as Ultra Marines, unless you like red, then you have to cast them as Blood Angels. Unless they turn out spikey, then they HAVE to be Khornate warriors.

It totally makes sense.

Somnicide wrote:One more way it could make a difference in game play - CSM don't have ATSKNF so if a unit of CSM is down to it's last model or two and falling back I can ignore it, if a loyalist is falling back, he can still rally and is still a scoring objective.

Except that if your opponent has told you from the beginning that you've been playing against loyalists and assuming you've been paying attention the whole game how could you possibly think it didn't have ATSKNF when everything in the codex does. Now if there was something that didn't have it in the book and modeled a unit that did have it to look like the ones without it I could maybe see this but since that can't happen I'm kind of confused by your reason.

Come to think of it, I really need to model up a counts as Callidus assassin to look like Indigo Montoya... he could randomly appear and prompt Princess Bride quotes. Most excellent!

That would make a really amusing Inquisitor's retinue in fact.

I've been mulling over what kind of army to run with the new marine dex, and I'm thinking that Iron Warriors totally fits the bill! And they'll even be pre-heresy. The heresy referred to is the heresy known as the 4th ed chaos codex.

DEATH TO THE FALSE CODEX!!!!!!

Sigh. Once more, I was asked my opinion and I have given it. If you don't play in tourneys then it doesn't matter at all. If you do play in a tourney then you need to be aware that you might get dinged.

The fact that the question had to be asked implies that there was some concern of shenanigans. My personal rule, if I have to ask if something is cool, it probably isn't.

The snarky comment about my requirements for the game was uncalled for and unnecessary. I tend to give my opponent the benefit of the doubt on virtually everything having to do with the game. I am not really difficult to play ( I don't think so anyway and have never been told so.)

I am fine with a debate, but if you wanna get pissy and personal then it can only degrade into a flame war and no one wins those.

I get the feeling that Somnicide is just a real "by the book" kinda guy who needs all spikey marines to be Chaos Space Marines, all Thousand Sons to be blue with headcrests, and all Fzorgle Princes to be big and pink.

So I guess I only have one question for you Somnicide. Why do you hate freedom?

Abadaba-boohoo wrote:

So I guess I only have one question for you Somnicide. Why do you hate freedom?

Cause freedom leads to whining and whining leads to threads being locked.

The reason, however, that you might get dinged is that there are people like you who have exceedingly, and irrationally, precise requirements about what is ok modeling and painting for a set of rules. So irrationally precise that you don't like marines being the same color as other marines if some marines that color could use a special rule, even if you opponant says "Hey, these aren't the special marines, these are bog standard codex marines."

You are entititled to your oppinion, but that doesn't mean it is not poorly thought out, inoffensive or silly.
Really, explain how your system of deciding what rules to use does not boil down to "What does GW write on the box as the proper army list?" Then explain why it makes any difference.

Well, we are playing GW rules so it would stand to reason that I would base my decisions on "what they (GW) write on the box", right?

GW also says you can use "counts as." And they say the most important rule is "have fun".

So you are saying it does boil down to that for you. Gotcha.

Please explain why it matters, and not in the "I keep forgetting that he uses codex X, despite the fact he told me so" sense.

Also, for clarity, would you be against someone using say an Ultramarine commander set with some Black Templar bits to make a BT captain? The box doesn't say!

Somnicide wrote:Well, we are playing GW rules so it would stand to reason that I would base my decisions on "what they (GW) write on the box", right?

Yeah, and as I pointed out, GW made it clear in the GT rules that this sort of thing is allowed. If you want to state and opinion and rest, you can. You simply say "I understand that rule and the community approve, but I personally don't agree with it or like it." And then you walk away. When you debate or defend your opinion as anything other than personal preference, you open it to attack.

Edit: Guys, to be fair I think we all know what he means. He finds units that traditionally have one rule set (plague marines) used in another, different traditional ruleset confusing. that's not that weird, so mocking it with ridiculous examples isn't exactly fair or useful. I think somebody should put their big boy pants on and try to remember what army your playing, not what the army looks like, but if he's a visual learner it might be a hard habit to break.

Wehrkind wrote:Come to think of it, I really need to model up a counts as Callidus assassin to look like Indigo Montoya... he could randomly appear and prompt Princess Bride quotes. Most excellent!

That would make a really amusing Inquisitor's retinue in fact.

Only if you can spell it correctly. His name is Inigo Montoya. You misspelled his name. Prepare to die.

DAMNIT! I always misspell that. Every. Bloody. Time.

Even when I think "He is not named after a flower!" just before typing, I write "Indigo" every bloody time.

Thank you for your correction. My shame demands that I be prepared to die.

Okay, first up the main rule is have fun. Does you having fun trump me having fun?

Next up, thanks (I think) to Pol for sort of coming to my defense, although the insinuations of me being a bit slow make it a bit of a backhand comment.

Third, it is not a matter of whether I can keep track of it or not. That is irrelevant. I can do it just fine. Just like I can do with tokens, or coins or bases with A written on it for assault marines, R for raptors, D for devs or whatever. The point of the matter is that this game is WYSIWYG. A Chaos Space Marine is, in WYSIWYG a Chaos Space Marine. It is not a loyalist Space Marine with spikes.

The onus is on you to make it clear through WYSIWYG what your army is. Whether or not I can keep track of it is irrelevant. The true question is, "Should I have to keep track of it?" To which, the answer is "no" because we are playing a "what you see is what you get" game.

I know that Indy GTs allow (or used to) you to bring whatever manufacturers models you wanted as long as it was clear what it was supposed to be. In those cases most people erred on the side of caution so there would be absolutely no mistaking what it is. Again, it is not that the opponent can't, rather it is that the opponent shouldn't have to.

The original question was

Would you allow me to play with an army like this, and more importantly, could I use it at a tournament?

The answer, as I have posted several times, is Yes to both questions. In a friendly game I would not even have a little problem with it. In a tourney environment I would still play it, however there could be repercussions depending on what the army score checklist was. I don't really know how to make my thoughts any more clear.

Somnicide wrote:
At the end of a tournament I have trouble remembering what is in my own list.

You're entitled to your opinion. Given the above quote, however, I would question the weight of your opinion dealing with matters in a tournament setting.

Somnicide wrote:Okay, first up the main rule is have fun. Does you having fun trump me having fun?

The obvious answer is yes.

Your other point about "repercussions in a tournament setting depending on scoring systems" seems a little chipmunky to me. If I spend alot of time converting and painting a wonderful army following counts as and agonize over every little detail just to avoid arguments, and then you dock me sportmanship because you don't like the "counts as" rule, I'd find that just a tad bit insulting.

And that is why subjective scoring is bad.

kadun wrote:

Somnicide wrote:
At the end of a tournament I have trouble remembering what is in my own list.

You're entitled to your opinion. Given the above quote, however, I would question the weight of your opinion dealing with matters in a tournament setting.

And given your quote I doubt you play in tourneys at all :-)

Your other point about "repercussions in a tournament setting depending on scoring systems" seems a little chipmunky to me. If I spend alot of time converting and painting a wonderful army following counts as and agonize over every little detail just to avoid arguments, and then you dock me sportmanship because you don't like the "counts as" rule, I'd find that just a tad bit insulting.

And that is why subjective scoring is bad.

Nope, it isn't at all. If the questions are about, does the army look good, is it fun to play against, etc, then it will be fine. If the checklist says "is the army accurately wysiwyg" then the answer is obviously no.

Also, as I said above, I would not dock your sports unless you deserved it during play. I am pretty lenient on that because I am playing a game and will almost always have a good time. I like to think that I am very good about compartmentalizing things out. I have docked Darrian on comp before and still given him max sports scores. His list didn't fit within the comp guidelines for that league season and I docked him. He is usually a pleasure to play against and so that was noted as well. If the guidelines do not include anything about comp or the like then you are fine.

I had no idea that it was such a bad thing to actually follow the rules.

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

Somnicide wrote:But many chaos marines are built with mutations, right? Also, the backpacks have ALWAYS looked different than the loyalist versions.

So what happens if I glue chaos backpacks on my loyalist marines!? Which codex do I use?? Or would you object to someone gluing chaos backpacks on their loyalist space marines altogether?

(if you disagree, look at the 13th company which mixes bits from SM and CSM - it is quite obvious which came from which kit)

This brings up a good point. What if my army uses a mix of bits from SM and CSM? Then which codex would I have to use? What if my guys just recently turned to Chaos and have replaced their imperial insignia with Chaos symbols but they still have functioning land speeders and loyalist backpacks? Is that not allowed? Or what if they're Alpha Legion? According to Legion Alpha Legion may actually be loyalists in disguise! How do I know if I'm using the right codex???

I remember that army. It was grey and it had werewolves in it and maybe some Grey Werewolf Slayers or something. I never quite got those guys. Were they Van Helsings that were grey or just gray werewolfs that slew things?

Van Helsings aside, now that the EoT rules are invalid, if you own an army of marines with mixed Chaos and loyalist armor then you should do the honorable thing and retire them from gaming. For-Evv-Ver. It's a shame that the stubborn 13th Company players can't follow the example of all the LatD guys who quietly and peacefully gave up their right to have a GW-approved army.

Yeah, it sucks. My LaTD is no longer legal. My Ulthwe strike force is no longer legal. Them's the breaks. You pay your admission and you take the ride.

I had a hell of a fun time playing them while they were legal for tourneys and have a hell of a fun time playing them with my friends now. Would I take one to a tourney? No.

Yes, I like rules. I think everything goes much smoother when everyone plays by the same ones.

Vaktathi wrote:
Obliterators aren't by any means mandatory in an IW army, they are just more common in IW armies than in others. In fact most IW fluff (Storm of Iron, Dead Sky Black Sun, etc) doesn't even mention oblits, but does mention tons of heavy cannon weapons, artillery, etc.

Actually in Storm of Iron, the tech priest the Iron Warriors capture is turned into an obliterator.

Why not make a pre-heresy army which turned to chaos afterwards like Emperor's Children? When using the loyalist rules you could just say they're pre-heresy and when you want CSM you could just say it is a very early stagein the Horus heresy and they haven't changed their armour or mutated yet. I would probably paint up a daemon prince model exclusively for when I use the CSM rules, but I'm sure there wouldn't be any problems.

Somnicide, you are confusing WYSIWYG and Counts As. The former relates to wargear like heavy weapons and such, the latter to which models you use.
The two are not exclusive, but rather work together. Counts As allows you use whatever model you want for something, so a spikey marine can be a loyal marine. WYSIWYG demands that you are consistant about it, such that if one spikey marine has a lascannon and another had a missile launcher modeled on them, you shouldn't say they are both autocannons.

That's it.

The rules do not specify what a Marine looks like, or a Tyranid. GW specifically allows you to remodel and remake your figures to please yourself.

Really, that's it. All of your statements about "You can't use a spikey man with rules for a non spikey man because a spikey man isn't a non spikey man!" just scream "My way is the only way to have fun! My interpretation is the only one that is right!"

To answer your question about rule 1: No, one person's fun doesn't trump another's.
However, your willingness to dock someone's nicely converted counts as army because you don't like the rules they used implies that you think it is ok for your concept of fun to dominate theirs. If you really thought both people should have fun as they see fit, you would be in the "So long as they are following the rules, it's fine" camp.

I think Somnicide has a clear and cogent position, and he’s been very patient with some unfriendly digs. During 3rd edition I think I recall GW tournament rules expressing very similar opinions.

I do think, however, that it’s a position that is not entirely in keeping with GW’s more recent instructions with regard to paint scheme vs. special rules. The 4th ed codex was very clear that you could choose to play an Ultramarines army with traits if you wanted to, and that a chapter that had specific traits could also just choose to play without traits. And as was linked above, the current tournament guidelines do expressly permit Counts As, as long as you’re careful and reasonable with it. So there’s some clear precedent of this being permitted and even endorsed by GW.

For me, the big point is WYSIWYG. If the units are appropriately represented, I’m cool with it. If some berserkers with CCW + plasma pistols are standing on a hill pretending to have missile launchers and be havocs, that is really not acceptable, any more than it would be for someone to bring an unpainted army to a GT.

Actually, there is a whole section in the rulebook devoted to what each army looks like, so it actually is in the rules. You have to have that rule or people just do whatever and then the game gets bogged down or there are unpleasant surprises.

Okay, let's see...

I want my green plastic soldiers to "count as" space marines. Is that acceptable?

or,

I want my daemonettes to count as plaguebearers in my daemon army because plaguebearers are better at holding objectives - it makes sense that they would have a high toughness and feel no pain cause they are into bondage and s&m. Is that acceptable?

or,

I want tyranids to count as orks

or,

I want these guardsmen weapon teams to count as obliterators.

or,

this shoebox is a landraider

I like knowing what I am facing at a tourney at a glance. I like the rules to be plain and obvious. I think if you start making exceptions there is no end to them.

For a home game or a game store game, as I have said repeatedly I don't give a damn. Use pennies, use hero clix, use CCG cards, use strips of paper. Whatever, I don't care go and have fun (I will play you, it will be a good time).

The OP asked about tourneys. My replies have been in a tourney setting. I still stand by that. Outside of a tourney setting do whatever and have fun with it.

edit: to clarify my thoughts on "counts as"

If someone has a great genestealer cult army and runs it "counting as" IG then that is fine as long as it is not confusing. There are no current rules for a genestealer army or hybrid models. There ARE rules for CSM models.

Does that make sense on the counts as thing at least from my point of view?

That daemonette vs plaguebearer example seems ironic, given that GW has given them exactly identical rules when used in a CSM army.

Yeah, I saw that coming, but then they are identical in a CSM list as lesser daemons. I will edit so it doesn't get strawmanned

Cool. Any response on the points about the GTs allowing "counts as" and the 4th ed codex expressly authorizing you to use multiple different rules for your SM?

Well, 5th edition codex is just around the corner and from the time I spent with it at the GT I didn't see anything to make me think it was anything but cool to still use marines but take a counts as korsorro khan for instance. Basically, the moral here is to do your own successor chapter then you can make it whatever you want because you opponents will have no preconceived notions as to what chapter it is.

I clarified a bit my thoughts on "counts as" above. It all comes down to what the tourney organizers say. I am a "by the rules" kind of guy and if the rules say it is fine for Black Templars to be used as regular codex Marines then fine, that is the rule and everyone is on the same page.

I still think that since CSM models represent something that exists in the game, I would not want to see it used as Space Marines. But if the tourney rules allow it such broad representations of counts as then I will follow the rules. I have no vested interest in it either way, I would defer to the rules. The big rule is WYSIWYG. I see a CSM I should be safe in assuming it is a CSM.

If I see a genestealer hybrid (or squat, er demiurg, or slaan) then those models don't represent anything currently in the ruleset and thus don't allow me to make assumptions based on what I am seeing.

Does that make sense?

So I suppose you would object to someone using the IW Warsmith model in their CSM army (using the CSM codex) too, right? Afterall, there is no "Warsmith" in C:CSM nor is anything in the codex allowed to take a servo-arm (which the model clearly has). That would put the warsmith model in the same category as all the invalid LatD armies, and therefore no longer kosher for tournament play, would it not?

And what about someone who has a SM army built right out of the box with all the appropriate imperial markings and color scheme, but instead of buying a metal chaplain model he makes his out of plastic bits from the SM tac squad box + the "skull" helmet from the CSM box. That's not WYSIWYG either then is it? I mean, that's clearly not a chaplain model - it's a plastic SM model with a CSM head!

Sigh.

Obviously and as I have stated above I wouldn't object to an IW Warsmith model. It doesn't currently have rules, so as long as you paid for the appropriate upgrades it would be fine. I might prefer that you pay for a power fist since that is what the servoarm represents. And if we were playing a pick up non tourney game I wouldn't care less.

And to your second example you are absolutely wrong and not reading anything I wrote. It is clearly a Chaplain because it has a skull helmet and is in loyalist army and the entire model is not a berzerker painted red. It is clearly a chaplain model.

edit:
And just to save some time: Yes, I personally destroyed the rain forests, am responsible for every species that has become extinct in the last century, crucify kittens, gave the bad information about WMDs in the desert, and kick puppies - especially the cute ones.

Just leave the guy alone. I don't 100% agree with him, but I see his point, as I think most of us do.

Horse. Dead. Beat.

Somnicide wrote:

kadun wrote:

Somnicide wrote:
At the end of a tournament I have trouble remembering what is in my own list.

You're entitled to your opinion. Given the above quote, however, I would question the weight of your opinion dealing with matters in a tournament setting.

And given your quote I doubt you play in tourneys at all :-)

The merit of you opinion continues to dwindle. Based on your previous posts it seems that your opposition to the original matter stems from that fact that you don't want to give your opponent a competitive edge, "you can't remember which model is which and might make a poor decision." As I said, again based on other posts you have made (like the one I quoted) it seems that you would not be a very competent tournament player if you cannot even remember your own list (good in game memory being an important skill in competitive gaming). That being said, the opinion of a non-competitive tournament player should not be given much weight in discussing any perceived competitive advantages based on the appearance of an army.

Once again, you are entitled to your opinion. I am curious, how did my statement lead you to conclude, incorrectly, that I don't play tourneys at all?

"preconceived notions as to what chapter it is. "

That right there is your entire problem. You have a very set preconceived notion about how things should look. Those notions supercede your ability to think "I know it looks like a CSM, but my opponant just said it is an SM by its rules, so I will treat it as an SM." You set your notions about what looks like what, and can not get past that.

That is silly. It really is. It is a SciFi-Fantasy setting. Hardly anything even makes sense in how it works, much less as part of an extremely defined system. Sure, the rule book has pictures of miniatures, but it doesn't say it HAS to look like those. It in fact suggests that you try chopping up models and converting them.

Beyond even that though, why can't you look at a nicely painted or converted army and play it despite it's rules? Why does it matter if the red marines use blue rules? All of your examples above are obviously fine, with the exception of the shoe box, which is not a miniature at all.

Take this for example: I have a friend who plays Daemons, but does not like the fact that you need to take a mix of gods to get a solid list. He decided he will use bloodletters with brass flame throwers as "flamers" and something else different that I don't recall... some daemon heresy. Why would you complain about that? If you don't, you are violating your rule about not changing the rules on miniatures, but at the same time violating your fluff sensibilities as stated.

Basically, you are saying it is everyone else's problem that you can't get past your own preconceptions and assumptions, no matter what they do to help you, so you would penalize them. I am pretty certain that makes you a very poor sport, but I suppose that would depend on the form one was filling out.

Somnicide wrote:Obviously and as I have stated above I wouldn't object to an IW Warsmith model. It doesn't currently have rules, so as long as you paid for the appropriate upgrades it would be fine.

But you CAN'T pay for the appropriate upgrades if you're using the CSM codex because it doesn't have servo-arms.

I might prefer that you pay for a power fist since that is what the servoarm represents.

The servo-arm represents a servo-arm. Isn't that the whole point of WYSIWYG?

And if we were playing a pick up non tourney game I wouldn't care less.

I'm not talking about a pick up non tourney game. So again, why don't you consider the IW Warsmith model just as invalid as a LatD mutant model for tourney play?

And to your second example you are absolutely wrong and not reading anything I wrote. It is clearly a Chaplain because it has a skull helmet and is in loyalist army and the entire model is not a berzerker painted red. It is clearly a chaplain model.

Why is a CSM model in a SM army "clearly" a chaplain, but a 10-man squad of CSM models in a SM army not "clearly" a tactical squad? What percentage of the model can be CSM before it becomes not WYSIWYG?

I think the point I'm trying to make is that if you're doing a traditional CSM Legion army, then you're going to have use "counts as". There's no way around it. Your Warsmith with servo-arm is going to have to "count as" a Chaos Lord with power fist, your Alpha Legion cultists are going to have to "count as" lesser daemons, your EC Terminators with sonic blasters are going to have to "count as" terminators with combi-bolters and a Slaanesh Icon, etc. So if you're going to have to do a "counts as" army anyway, why not shop around for the codex that best fits your army concept?

Somnicide: I find your position utterly confusing - maybe I'm a bit slow. Please offer correction to the following if any of my interpretations are wrong.

1. Pre-heresy era marine armies using the marine codex, modeled exclusively with the chaos marine kits. This is unacceptable, as the marine dex should be represented by using a significant quantity of the base marine kits and have loyalist insignia.

2. If the above is not acceptable, would it be acceptable with all chaos iconography removed. This would be confusing as there is now no insignia to represent allegiance, though the base kit would still be Chaos. As such, this is still not acceptable "counts as" for use with the Marine codex.

3. Heresy era (think Istvaan) renegade army using the marine codex, based on the chaos marine kits. This one is flat out unacceptable.

4. Chaos (renegade) army using the Chaos codex, represented by the base marine kits as recent converts. Good or bad? (Red Corsairs, Mantis Warriors, Lamenters etc.) This would only be acceptable if they contained a significant proportion of chaos bits and had defaced Imperial insignia. Renegade marines made exclusively from the marine kit would be unacceptable as they do not adequately represent chaos marines.

5. Using cultists to represent summoned daemons. Cultists have no rules. Generic daemons have no models, so I think this would probably be acceptable.

Please advise.

keezus wrote:1. Pre-heresy era marine armies using the marine codex, modeled exclusively with the chaos marine kits. This is unacceptable, as the marine dex should be represented by using a significant quantity of the base marine kits and have loyalist insignia.

But you can't use most of the base marine kits because none of the legions save the Emperor's Children were allowed to wear the aquila on the breastplate. Besides I'm pretty sure Mk6 and 7 armor had not been invented yet. Therefore you would only be able to use the Mk4 armor from the DA and BT kit. But then you would have to play using DA or BT rules. But BT hadn't been invented yet. So you could only use DA rules. So the only pre-heresy army you can use is DA with the DA codex. This is fun because they have a jetbike. Yay!

As long as I can tell without too much difficulty what the weapons are and what the models are I'm fine. If your spiky SM use non-spiky SM rules, and they have all the options modeled correctly, thats okay. If you say your rhino is a land raider, that's not okay.

I am done with this topic. I have said what I have to say, my point is clear. I do well enough at tourneys to have won more than one RTT in the LA area as well as a Best Sportsman in a GT so I am obviously not an idiot nor am I a jackass.

My opinion has been asked of and given.

Vaktathi wrote:So a CSM army, with a list that uses only models that have direct and clear counterparts in a Smurf army with a legal SM list would be totally out?

If the weapons look similar to SM weapons, or are otherwise clearly distinctive, I'd be OK with it.

Polonius wrote:what would you do if I brought a Space Marine list to the tournament, we played, but my force was modeled and themed as Night Lords?

I ask because while I really do understand your position (it was something GW drummed pretty heavily in 3rd and most of 4th), it does have a chilling effect on army creativity and the depth of modeling possibilities; two things that I think should be encouraged.

If you're playing something that matches Index Astartes: Night Lords in every detail, but play it as C: SM, I'd have problems with it, just as I'd have problems with a Dark Angels army in full insignia playing as something other than Dark Angels. OTOH, if you have a "Batwings Marines" army that uses a lot of NL bitz, but is otherwise different, then that's all OK.

GW pushed WYSIWYG to kill of the stuff like: "my skeletons are Space Marines, and this skeleton with the slightly darker head is a Librarian - er, no, oops, I meant *this* skeleton... - er, I'm sorry, I meant *that* skeleton on the other side of the board...".

I do see where you're coming from, Somnicide as the line has to be drawn somewhere, and I wouldnt like to play a tournament game with bottlecaps and shampoo bottles either. However, I think that the line should be a bit further That way. -->

Say that I was to use the loyalist plastic kit, and model on spikes with greenstuff. The backstory could be that they don't like anyone invading their private space. Would this be acceptable? Is your problem:
1. That their legion/backstory etc doesnt match their codex. (No IG being tyranids, etc..)
2. That the models were not created with their unit in mind (Are those raptor models Assault troops, vangurad vets etc..)
3. That you don't want to remember what is what in tourney play, and as such everything should be kept stock.

If its 1 or 2, then I agree to a point. However if its simply 3, then I think that is defeating the purpose of the modeling hobby.

But if they were a "batwing marines" army that uses lots of nightlords bits, but is otherwise different, then thats all OK.

So you problem seems to be fluff based. Say I was to change the logo so it was smiling, and nicknamed them The Iron Skulls would that be fine for you?

Mannahnin wrote:I think Somnicide has a clear and cogent position, and he’s been very patient with some unfriendly digs.

I do think, however, that it’s a position that is not entirely in keeping with GW’s more recent instructions with regard to paint scheme vs. special rules. The 4th ed codex was very clear that you could choose to play an Ultramarines army with traits if you wanted to, and that a chapter that had specific traits could also just choose to play without traits. And as was linked above, the current tournament guidelines do expressly permit Counts As, as long as you’re careful and reasonable with it. So there’s some clear precedent of this being permitted and even endorsed by GW.

For me, the big point is WYSIWYG. If the units are appropriately represented, I’m cool with it.

I would generally agree and would also agree with the note that certain posters are being unfair in how they're addressing things to Somnicide.

I believe that the question is what level of reasonableness one might assume. Ultramarines can have Traits or not, but they would be expected to follow C: SM (whatever the heck that means), as opposed to C: CSM or C: DA. Similarly, Fists could play as with the common Fists Traits, or something else - again, it's a recommendation, but you similarly, wouldn't want or expect Fists to play as SoB or DA. And "Counts As" was intended to represent stuff that doesn't currently have clear rules in the current edition. Like Squats or Mole Mortars.

I agree with the push for WYSIWYG, because having clear weapons representation is a good thing to prevent confusion.

blinky wrote:

But if they were a "batwing marines" army that uses lots of nightlords bits, but is otherwise different, then thats all OK.

So you problem seems to be fluff based. Say I was to change the logo so it was smiling, and nicknamed them The Iron Skulls would that be fine for you?

If they were painted in parchment and iron, that would be fine.

But if you had the iconic red wings, navy armor w/ electric patterning, and so forth, simply making a minor edit to the skull in the logo, I don't think that would pass the differentiation test.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

blinky wrote:

But if they were a "batwing marines" army that uses lots of nightlords bits, but is otherwise different, then thats all OK.

So you problem seems to be fluff based. Say I was to change the logo so it was smiling, and nicknamed them The Iron Skulls would that be fine for you?

If they were painted in parchment and iron, that would be fine.

But if you had the iconic red wings, navy armor w/ electric patterning, and so forth, simply making a minor edit to the skull in the logo, I don't think that would pass the differentiation test.

I honestly don't understand how you can say that, but I'm assuming that you think DIY space marines are fine, even using different codicies and calling them "successor" chapters.

I have no problem with DIY marines being played as anything under the sun.

But once you make an army look like a duck, please do us the favor of playing it like a duck.

Why?


I say again that the best Codex for Night Lord players (all 3 of them) is the new Marine Codex.

You can get Night Lord Bikers as troops, and Raptors as Fast Attack, and a Night Lord Lord (I love how redundant that is) on a Bike to run around with them.

You just use Chaos Bikers, Raptors, and loads of Batwing Helmets and use the new Marine Codex. You get a great looking (kinda...) army that fits with the background (speedy death with bike/assault units) and actually uses a Codex that can represent it.

The only thing you don't get are Furies because:

A). GW hated them so much they took them away from Marines.
B). And they hated them even more than that, completely and utterly nerfing the hell out of them in the Daemon Codex, to the point where taking them actually reduces your IQ.

BYE

JohnHwangDD wrote:If you're playing something that matches Index Astartes: Night Lords in every detail, but play it as C: SM, I'd have problems with it, just as I'd have problems with a Dark Angels army in full insignia playing as something other than Dark Angels. OTOH, if you have a "Batwings Marines" army that uses a lot of NL bitz, but is otherwise different, then that's all OK.

This is EXACTLY the crux of the argument. Well said. Neither Somnicide, myself nor anyone else who answered the OPs question with a negative is saying anything other than this. Converted armies are beyond awesome. It's really that energy that drives enjoyment in this hobby after the first 5 years. If the OP, or anyone, came to a tourney, revealed a space marine army, that was heavily converted using many chaos bits, but had theme and originality then i approve. My good friend and gaming buddy has been building a soul drinkers army. Using loyalist rules, but with lots of chaos bits. Work was done on the models, they certainly are NOT straight out of the box. I encourage him to take that model to tourneys.

If my opponent came to a tourney with a modern paint scheme black legion army, painted just like the chaos codex. And said. This is a tac squad, this is a sternguard squad, this is my librarian, he would have a negative stigma attached to himself. Sportsmanshipis graded on a checklist. He may or may not get full marks... it depends on the checklist, a lot of the subjectivity is removed with those.

If the OP is asking if his opponents may have a negative feeling or two towrds him, then I would say... yes... some would. If he doesn't care, then there MAY not be anythign stopping him. He came, he asked, he got his answer.

As a side note. The personal attacks on Somnicide were completely uncalled for. There was such bitterness and vitriol for a person that just offered his opinion. The nerd rage seemed to have boiled over... to those that flew off the handle... I'll tell you what you have wanted to hear this whole time... "do whatever the hell you want to do... make sure you have fun at all costs..."

JohnHwangDD wrote:And "Counts As" was intended to represent stuff that doesn't currently have clear rules in the current edition. Like Squats or Mole Mortars.

Or IW Warsmiths.

JohnHwangDD wrote:But once you make an army look like a duck, please do us the favor of playing it like a duck.

But C:CSM no longer has rules for ducks, it only has rules for chickens. On the other hand, this new SM codex looks like it has rules for swans and geese. Since ducks are closer to geese (both are waterfowl) than to chickens I think I'd rather use the SM codex.

Not going to read the thread(slightly tipsy)

Always wanted to include a Basilisk or 2 in my Black Legion Army. I'm an Artillery fan for some reason but ofc no way I can do it now. So is a Basilisk converted acceptable as a Thunderfire cannon or even a whirlwind?

As for why I like Arty,Well who doesn't like indirect fire weaponry and with the loss of Defiler indirect fire where the hell am I supposed to get my fun.

Voodoo_Chile wrote:So is a Basilisk converted acceptable as a Thunderfire cannon or even a whirlwind?

If you go and convert it to have 4 cannons, then sure. If it's just a Basilisk... then no... then it'd be a Basilisk and you'd be proxy-ing the Basilisk for a Thunderfire Cannon. It's a bit different to bring an existing unit and call it something else than it would be to, say, buy a WFB Hellcannon and use that as a "Chaos' Thunderfire Cannon.

BYE