I had posted a pic of my jetbikes (converted by AshAxe) on Dakka awhile ago and it sparked a bit of debate. Unfortunately, I didn't respond in a timely manner and it disappeared. Rather than necro the thread, I thought I would start another; Does "Counts As" armies tick you off? For example, my bikes that started the debate;

http://op40k.blogspot.com/2009/10/my-celestial-lions-relic-bike-squad.html


Now, lets say the bikes were created for a Scars Heresy force (Which I am now using them for)...so no fluff rage at the lack of jetbikes . How angry would this make you as counts as TWC (To represent the damaged bikes, building up momentum..so they start slow then speed up, honor guard to represent their attacks/wounds, etc)? Or, to put it bluntly, if a player were to sit down across from you and say "I'm using the SW dex for my Heresy marines, everything is WYSIWYG except the Heresy jetbikes represent TWC"...would you rage?


Another example, this gorgeous army;

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Gorgon%27s_Genestealer_Cult



Big thumbs up from me, gorgeous with many unique ideas...however the first 5 or so times playing it would be confusing (Remembering what was what). Personally, I would gladly accept that confusion to take pics of my army fighting that beauty, what about you? When does "Counts As" go to far for you?

Counts as only really annoys me when people try to shoehorn in their powergame-y list.

I don't mind World Eaters counts as Spacewolves or anything like that.

But what WOULD annoy me is if some World Eater player said, "This Rune Priest with JotWW and ___ is actually a World Eater with powerful guns".

Stuff like that, as if they aren't even trying.

Heh, right and I understand that. There's obvious stretches in some cases just to make a power list.

Usually however (In my experience), Counts As players are using it...not so much for a crutch but for a way to represent a particular force (at a particular time) with a fun play style they enjoy.

The two armies you showed have some good effort put into them.

The counts as type armies I dont approve of are the ones that have little or no effort in trying to make them distinctive. Some guys that have a CSM army but do nothing to make special conversions and when C:SM came out, they immediately just became codex marines.

Neither of those examples bother me in the slightest. Their well done, and well painted. So long as you slowly walk me through what is what, and let me make some notes if needed, its fine.

Now if I had to play that hockey team that went to the GT many years ago, that might annoy me.

Pardon my ignorance, but TWC?

ThunderWolf Cavalry.

Counts-as goes too far if they take household items as is and say it's something that I'm supposed to kill. Disgusting.

Rico...

I would have no problem, as long as you walk me through what is what, and allow me to make a few notes (as someone said above) if needed, then I have no problem.

Its always cool fighting a unique army, it makes it so both of us have a better time.

Rico wrote:ThunderWolf Cavalry.

Counts-as goes too far if they take household items as is and say it's something that I'm supposed to kill. Disgusting.

Rico...

Like a soda bottle for a carnifex?

AgeOfEgos wrote:I had posted a pic of my jetbikes (converted by AshAxe) on Dakka awhile ago and it sparked a bit of debate. Unfortunately, I didn't respond in a timely manner and it disappeared. Rather than necro the thread, I thought I would start another; Does "Counts As" armies tick you off? For example, my bikes that started the debate;

http://op40k.blogspot.com/2009/10/my-celestial-lions-relic-bike-squad.html

As I recall, that thread got pretty "heated" very quickly, with an even split down both sides, and almost got locked. Why would you bother to bring this topic up again?

perhaps to have a cooler dicussion?

I don't see a bit of problem with your bikes. Ork players all the time count boars as bikes, etc, and it's all perfectly acceptable as far as the group I game with thinks.
What was the reason for people not to like it? As long as there's no modeling for advantage, which I don't see here, I welcome the chance to play against people that have the creative talent you show here.

carmachu wrote:perhaps to have a cooler dicussion?

I thought this was quite reasonable and likely until I looked up at the thread title and saw 'what makes you rage?'.

Huh.

Orkestra wrote:

carmachu wrote:perhaps to have a cooler dicussion?

I thought this was quite reasonable and likely until I looked up at the thread title and saw 'what makes you rage?'.

Huh.

It was tongue in cheek but I changed the title to avoid any literal reading of the topic.

Hmmm,

It would seem fine enough to me. However, I could see why you would want to take TWC for competitive reasons. Still, all that time and effort into those models seems worth it.

What I don't like are models that have 0 conversion work to show what they are supposed to be. I mean, I'm cool with a Chaos Marine Sergeant with a Powersword becoming a Chaos Lord or Sorcerer, but one with a bolter? That's pushing it in my book.

carmachu wrote:Neither of those examples bother me in the slightest. Their well done, and well painted. So long as you slowly walk me through what is what, and let me make some notes if needed, its fine.

Now if I had to play that hockey team that went to the GT many years ago, that might annoy me.

Do you have a link to that..or is that a joke?



I'm just curious about how rigid players view fluff/counts as and what triggers their tolerance (Or intolerance as it may be)...so I can make sure I avoid it when I make Counts As armies . Anymore (and perhaps because I've played so long)....whenever I start a new army the first thing I think of is how I can make it 'my' army or unique. Counts As is the logical solution in most cases. From what I get, it basically boils down to;

A) Intent (They did this because it's cool...or they did this because they will WAAC)
B) There is so much effort there, I don't care....it's great looking (Or they hardly put any effort in it because they want to WAAC)
C) Confusion (Too much stuff to remember counts as)

They are cool and all, but it annoys me that they are closer to another unit in the codex, bikers, than they are to what they are representing. It would be kinda like using an army with no tactical marines, but having all your scouts be up-armored slightly and be tactical marines. Even if they are the most beautiful scout-counts-as-tactical marines ever, it is still confusing that they are closer to scouts than tactical marines.

EDIT: and as nice as those are, they really do not scream TWC at all to me. They have storm bolters, which TWC do not have. They are jetbikes, not cavalry. And they definitely do not scream "4 attacks, strength 5, rending" to me.

ph34r wrote:They are cool and all, but it annoys me that they are closer to another unit in the codex: bikers, than they are to what they are representing. It would be kinda like using an army with no tactical marines, but having all your scouts be up-armored slightly and be tactical marines. Even if they are the most beautiful scout-counts-as-tactical marines ever, it is still confusing that they are closer to scouts than tactical marines.

I agree , they look like jet bikes , and certainly not TFC

whitedragon wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:I had posted a pic of my jetbikes (converted by AshAxe) on Dakka awhile ago and it sparked a bit of debate. Unfortunately, I didn't respond in a timely manner and it disappeared. Rather than necro the thread, I thought I would start another; Does "Counts As" armies tick you off? For example, my bikes that started the debate;

http://op40k.blogspot.com/2009/10/my-celestial-lions-relic-bike-squad.html

As I recall, that thread got pretty "heated" very quickly, with an even split down both sides, and almost got locked. Why would you bother to bring this topic up again?

I agree , people have their reasons for not liking it as TWC , you either accept them or not AoE , recreating the thread wont make it anymore favorable towards them looking like bikes instead of wolves

As long as it is extremely clear and uniform about what is what (in other words, if combined in all of my assault squads there are a total of 6 melta's, but I only have 5 and a flamer, saying that all special weapons count as a melta's) then I am fine with the proxys.

If someone wants to see whether Pariah's are useful in their Necron army and sub in a squad of SM's to count as these troops, I'm fine with that too. Especially if they are looking to drop AU $200 on a squad of 10.

If someone wants to say that the chaplain along with the rest of the assault squad has a jump pack, im ok with that.

However, if its a hodge podge of counts as (so this flamer is a plasma gun, while this flamer is a bolter, while this flamer.... etc) or this entire army made up of SM and orks is really guard or nids, or this totally mixed arms unit (think SW or Chaos Termies) has some completely different combination to what is WYSISYG, then I will have an issue.

I especially have an issue with no effort Chaos counts as SM choices that have marks of Khorne etc everywhere with Zerker heads and no effort whatsoever to make it look like any sort of a SM army. You know, the sort with ultra spiky Terminators with combi weapons trying to pretend to be storm bolters. But that is more of an aesthetic thing as I own both Chaos and SM/SW and I try and make sure that the conversions are correct etc.

Here's an article I wrote up for a laugh.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Counts_As_Space_Marines_Army_Profiles

Rico wrote:Counts-as goes too far if they take household items as is and say it's something that I'm supposed to kill. Disgusting.

That's not "Counts as", that's "Proxy". Two different animals.

By the by, would having something largish animal such as a Cold One or even larger (think maybe a Carnosaur or heck, even a Stegadon if you wanted to go all out) counting at TWC be really out of place? Something that if it was done right could look as mean as a Thunder Wolf, and reasonably scaled?

lords2001 wrote:By the by, would having something largish animal such as a Cold One or even larger (think maybe a Carnosaur or heck, even a Stegadon if you wanted to go all out) counting at TWC be really out of place? Something that if it was done right could look as mean as a Thunder Wolf, and reasonably scaled?

I would be fine with that , because atleast it wont be mistaken for bikes.

malfred wrote:Here's an article I wrote up for a laugh.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Counts_As_Space_Marines_Army_Profiles

lol, nice

Well done bikes. Amazing work.


I proxied/counts as/whatever an Ork force as Space Wolves. Ork boyz were Gray Hunters. Grots were scouts. MegaArmor Nobz were Termies. The HQ was a marine dread I had converted to be Bjorn (Bjork as I called him) and skull pass spiders as fenrisian wolves. Everything was painted.

Minimal confusion IMO and the guys I played against had no problem tracking stuff on what was what.

The LGS and folks here on the net were pretty firmly against the idea, though. Was told that if I converted all the orks to have shoulder pads that it would go much further towards being acceptable. No less potential for misidentifying stuff just wanted more conversions.

The same people thought that the guy who did the beautiful Genestealer Cult with IG models was way more acceptable. Considerably more special rules and model types in play but because the aesthetics were there, that army was good to go.

Ironically, people who get pissy about this sort of thing often don't have fully painted armies (I don't field a piece unless it's painted and based). It's all subjective IMO.

Counts As simply replaces "WYSIWYG" as the new thing for the WAAC-job power gamers to get their rage on about.

If I'm using something that is counts as, you, my opponent, get informed of it at the beginning of the game and I will be happy to remind you of it during the game.

If that is a problem (please say it is) I'll laugh at you,. play someone else and let you go pound sand.

Most of the time Im completely fine with "Counts As" armies or units... its also nice that it resembles what its counting as or even if theres just a little fluff behind it... However when you show up to a tourny with a list using many drop pods and you proceed to use tupperware and dreadnaughts as count as drop pods... thats unacceptable... thats another subject for another time (and yes... that did happen to me once... I was astonished)

Howlingmoon wrote:Counts As simply replaces "WYSIWYG" as the new thing for the WAAC-job power gamers to get their rage on about.

If I'm using something that is counts as, you, my opponent, get informed of it at the beginning of the game and I will be happy to remind you of it during the game.

If that is a problem (please say it is) I'll laugh at you,. play someone else and let you go pound sand.

Pound sand eh? I guess it takes all sorts...


But back to the point, I think the objections raised here to 'counts as' and proxying is an issue related to the scale involved. You want to use a dread as an Ironclad? Or count bikers as TWC to test them out? Or you come up with some wicked conversion that makes some sort of sense? Or count flamers as plasma? I think most people would be reasonable and allow it.

However, if you want to use gaunts as terminators with different combi weapons, then there could well be a reasonable objection. Same as if you started proxying or 'counts as' a huge chunk of your army on a regular basis. This doesn't make them a WAAC player, just that if people, including myself, spend 80% of my time wondering what the unit they are shooting at or planning to assault/be assaulted by actually is, then it makes the game a hell of a lot harder, and less fun.

anything that ruins the game.
like coke bottle drop pod. vehicles should be vehicles that they are.
but then if you have the proper bases. (like or boyz as tact squads) then its all.
Basically.

but i havent played enough games to really care about the issue.

As a side note... I've been wanting to give TWC a whirl in my (/gasp) UM painted army and was thinking of using something along the lines of a 4x4. Would that be an unreasonable counts as? I guess even more basic than that, but does running a Smurf (or CF/IF/Sallies) army using SW or another codex break "counts as" in peoples minds?

I'm not nerd-raging, but you obviously took the unit for power reasons. (You even said so in the post)

Not because you enjoy the fluff of the unit itself.

Sounds to me like you're looking for justification for your power choice, and a pat on the back. As a neutral observer, I will not.

Defiler wrote:I'm not nerd-raging, but you obviously took the unit for power reasons. (You even said so in the post)

Not because you enjoy the fluff of the unit itself.

Sounds to me like you're looking for justification for your power choice, and a pat on the back. As a neutral observer, I will not.

I didn't say for power reasons, necessarily. I think they would be fun to use (something completely different than vanilla SM units) and would be an interesting modeling project. I've seen a lot of 4x4 pics, and thought it might be fun to try my hand at something along those lines and actually use it on the tabletop without having to create a SW army from scratch.

That being said... would your answer be any different had I painted my vanilla SM guys some random color such as orange, avoiding any chapter specific iconography?

Its all about how much effort. Not prettifulness, just don't spend 30 seconds (to make) on it have it take up 5X the space it usually would and talk with your opponent first and you've put in effort for them to play you.

Gornall wrote:
I didn't say for power reasons, necessarily. I think they would be fun to use (something completely different than vanilla SM units) ...

Gornall, in his blog wrote:
Well, I've seen several posts concerning the new SW Thunderwolf Cav and considering I'm building my Lions around that dex.....and Thunderwolf Cav are so good, time to use something as a counts as.

Sounds to me like you did.

Not my blog. I'm not affiliated with the OP in anyway... just asking a related question.

Should have: Similar model 'footprint'.

Should not be: Too much of a stretch of the imagination to place the mini to it's counterpart, so that a ranged heavy weapon carrier is a ranged heavy weapon carrier, a melee command figure is a melee command figure, a caster is a caster etc.

Other than that I'm quite happy, also really enjoy cleverly sculpted counts as armies, Gorgon's is a peach.

Defiler wrote:

Gornall wrote:
I didn't say for power reasons, necessarily. I think they would be fun to use (something completely different than vanilla SM units) ...

Gornall, in his blog wrote:
Well, I've seen several posts concerning the new SW Thunderwolf Cav and considering I'm building my Lions around that dex.....and Thunderwolf Cav are so good, time to use something as a counts as.

Sounds to me like you did.

Obvious troll is obvious...

You sure do like to start trouble, don't you?

Why does it matter if he just wants to take it as competitive? hell, i know i take termicide squads in my chaos army because they are great for popping tanks, and my chaos guys are renegades too!

What makes me say 'too much' to Counts As?

This.

AgeOfEgos wrote:I had posted a pic of my jetbikes (converted by AshAxe) on Dakka awhile ago and it sparked a bit of debate. Unfortunately, I didn't respond in a timely manner and it disappeared. Rather than necro the thread, I thought I would start another; Does "Counts As" armies tick you off? For example, my bikes that started the debate;

http://op40k.blogspot.com/2009/10/my-celestial-lions-relic-bike-squad.html

Can I ask a stupid and really off-topic question.

At that link, there is a map of the 40K Milky Way. It has a blow-out to two different systems - Anti-Mar and Angelus. How did you make those pics?

carmachu wrote:Like a soda bottle for a carnifex?

Hello boys!




I hope someone gets the reference...

Sneezypanda wrote:

Defiler wrote:

Gornall wrote:
I didn't say for power reasons, necessarily. I think they would be fun to use (something completely different than vanilla SM units) ...

Gornall, in his blog wrote:
Well, I've seen several posts concerning the new SW Thunderwolf Cav and considering I'm building my Lions around that dex.....and Thunderwolf Cav are so good, time to use something as a counts as.

Sounds to me like you did.

Obvious troll is obvious...

You sure do like to start trouble, don't you?

Why does it matter if he just wants to take it as competitive? hell, i know i take termicide squads in my chaos army because they are great for popping tanks, and my chaos guys are renegades too!

Do I know you?

That's right, I don't. Because you're a nobody. Go back to 4chan you quote repeating drone.


Gornall, If that's not you in the blog - why are you responding, to responses meant for the OP?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Should have: Similar model 'footprint'.

Should not be: Too much of a stretch of the imagination to place the mini to it's counterpart, so that a ranged heavy weapon carrier is a ranged heavy weapon carrier, a melee command figure is a melee command figure, a caster is a caster etc.

For some reason, IG players have a constant desire to build really unacceptable Sentinel proxies. You can't substitute a 4x4 or a tankette for a walker, for crying out loud. Walkers are walkers, and what separates them from other vehicles is them being able to fight in close combat.

Agamemnon2 wrote:Walkers are walkers, and what separates them from other vehicles is them being able to fight in close combat.

Walk out onto the highway and tell me that cars can't win at close combat.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:Walkers are walkers, and what separates them from other vehicles is them being able to fight in close combat.

Walk out onto the highway and tell me that cars can't win at close combat.

apparently in Britain cars have to drive just slow enough so that people have time to get out of the way and decide if they are going to say "bugger it" and run home.

There are rules for tank shock. I always figure that the sentinel/buggy counts as aren't beefy enough to push through a crowd without getting themselves killed. Same reason why non-tank vehicles can't tank shock I guess?

ph34r wrote:There are rules for tank shock. I always figure that the sentinel/buggy counts as aren't beefy enough to push through a crowd without getting themselves killed. Same reason why non-tank vehicles can't tank shock I guess?

yeah i know right? a giant hulking robot with 2 big arse chainsaws for hands just screams "lets swarm around it and not retreat under ANY circumstances!!!"

I personally don't give a damn so long as it's obvious what the unit is meant to represent and has the same footprint.

Defiler wrote:Do I know you?

That's right, I don't. Because you're a nobody.

Hate to break it to you, but so are you, pal. We're all nobodies here.

So why does it matter if he does take the unit for "power reasons" or not, anyway? Why is that a bad thing?

Taking the OP's Celestail ions as an example. Their force counts as Space Wolves, no problem with this so long as the models fit the purpose described, lots of gamers are doing this at the moment. Looking at the Jetbikes I am conflicted between seeing them as 'counts as' and 'proxy'.

On the one hand they fit the purpose of TWC on the other I don't 'believe' they can act as TWC.

As to Gornall's question if you chose to take your blue marines and wanted to count them as Space Wolves then thats fine, however. I wouldn't believe they were SW and would consider the models proxies. I would say this if they were pink green yellow stone black red polka dotted or any other colour combination.

There is no law against it but when the Blood Angels dex arrives what will the Celestial Lions and their jet bikes count as then? (not having a go at the OP just using for focus)

Does any of this preclude enjoyment of the game? not really but it does start to loose its shine when blue starts counting as grey counting as black counting as green.

Mr. Burning wrote:There is no law against it but when the Blood Angels dex arrives what will the Celestial Lions and their jet bikes count as then?

The answer should be obvious: vampires riding giant vampire bats, that may/may not also sparkle.

ph34r wrote:They are cool and all, but it annoys me that they are closer to another unit in the codex, bikers, than they are to what they are representing.
EDIT: and as nice as those are, they really do not scream TWC at all to me. They have storm bolters, which TWC do not have. They are jetbikes, not cavalry. And they definitely do not scream "4 attacks, strength 5, rending" to me.

This.

You've converted a really cool jetbike squadron. But they're jetbikes. At most, they should count as bikes, or maybe Landspeeder Squadrons. Given that we all know what bikes can do, what jetbikes can do, and what landspeeders can do, and that two of these examples are actually present in the SM codex, it is quite the stretch to believe they are TWC. I would not play against them.

If you want to convert counts-as TWC, then convert some guys riding lions. Or giant monster lions. Or, you know, something that looks like a marine on a great big monster, because that's what TWC are....

Sidstyler wrote:I personally don't give a damn so long as it's obvious what the unit is meant to represent and has the same footprint.

Defiler wrote:Do I know you?

That's right, I don't. Because you're a nobody.

Hate to break it to you, but so are you, pal. We're all nobodies here.

So why does it matter if he does take the unit for "power reasons" or not, anyway? Why is that a bad thing?

thanks sidstyler, nice to know TO members back up one another!

I didn't even know that was from 4chan, looks like someone has been using 4chan more than me but anyway, i agree with the guy below me, they do resemble units that are in the current codex. Although they don't really look like other jet bikes or bikes i think more distinction could be made for them.

I wasn't really backing anyone up in particular, I would have said the same regardless.

your just supposed to go with it, geez

Defiler wrote:I'm not nerd-raging, but you obviously took the unit for power reasons. (You even said so in the post)

Not because you enjoy the fluff of the unit itself.

Sounds to me like you're looking for justification for your power choice, and a pat on the back. As a neutral observer, I will not.

Neutral observer? He didn't ask for your judgment on his reasons, just the counts as rule. A
person asking questions in a thread doesn't have to be the original poster or the original one
referenced. He read the thread, he had a question, and instead of starting a new thread
about his question he asked here.

As for the later exchanges:

"I'm nobody! Who are you?" by Emily Dickinson


I'm nobody! Who are you?
Are you nobody, too?
Then there's a pair of us — don't tell!
They'd banish us, you know.

How dreary to be somebody!
How public, like a frog
To tell your name the livelong day
To an admiring bog!

AgeOfEgos wrote:I had posted a pic of my jetbikes (converted by AshAxe) on Dakka awhile ago and it sparked a bit of debate. Unfortunately, I didn't respond in a timely manner and it disappeared. Rather than necro the thread, I thought I would start another; Does "Counts As" armies tick you off? For example, my bikes that started the debate;

http://op40k.blogspot.com/2009/10/my-celestial-lions-relic-bike-squad.html


Now, lets say the bikes were created for a Scars Heresy force (Which I am now using them for)...so no fluff rage at the lack of jetbikes . How angry would this make you as counts as TWC (To represent the damaged bikes, building up momentum..so they start slow then speed up, honor guard to represent their attacks/wounds, etc)? Or, to put it bluntly, if a player were to sit down across from you and say "I'm using the SW dex for my Heresy marines, everything is WYSIWYG except the Heresy jetbikes represent TWC"...would you rage?


Another example, this gorgeous army;

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Gorgon%27s_Genestealer_Cult



Big thumbs up from me, gorgeous with many unique ideas...however the first 5 or so times playing it would be confusing (Remembering what was what). Personally, I would gladly accept that confusion to take pics of my army fighting that beauty, what about you? When does "Counts As" go to far for you?

The first list noted-bikes only? Who cares? Only a nattering nabob would object. Like deer running from cheetah, anoyone objecting would be the mouth breathers of society and you wouldn't want to waste 2 hours of your life playing them in the first place.

I'd play the second in a heart beat in a friendly game. I would not bring that to a tourney however, as its too confusing given the limited time of tournament games.

Sidstyler wrote:Hate to break it to you, but so are you, pal. We're all nobodies here.

Speak for yourself, Mr. Who-Ever-You-Are!

Well, I like Counts as armies. I use Chaos Marines as a Counts As Mechanicus Explorator Force. Defiler counts as a Knight, standard Marines count as Mechanicus Secutors, Daemon Prince is a Magos Militant, things like that. So far no one has had any complaints and have been happy to fight them, so...

Back to the Main Thread:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Image:LongRiders
(image pinched from http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Counts_As_Space_Marines_Army_Profiles)
Now THIS is a counts as TWC. (Not that GW would let it through the door of their tournaments)

Everyone will have their own ideas of what is acceptable and what isn't. As far as I can see there tends to be four main reasons for "counts as"

1 The actual model doesn't exist, so another is used to represent them
2 A change of rules has made someones beautifuly painted army illegal, they don't want to mess up their painting so they turn to "counts as"
3 The player does not have the money to update his force or buy new models
4 A player wants to try out a new unit using counts as models before comiting to purchase them.

There are probably more but I cant think of them right now.

I don't have too much of a problem as long as either an effort has been made to at least make the model look like what it is trying to represent or that it is a similar equivilant. Also that these are clearly agreed and noted before any game, nothing is worse than playing someone who's marines keep turning from devastators to assualt marines whenever it suits them.

Fpr spme reason this thread has reminded me of the episode of Bottom where Ritchie and Eddie decide to have a game of chess using Ritchies antique board, unfortuanately Eddie has pawned most of the peices to pay for booze so they use frozen prawns as pawns, a bottle of ketchup for a rook and a Spiderman bubble bath for a Queen!

ArbitorIan wrote:

ph34r wrote:They are cool and all, but it annoys me that they are closer to another unit in the codex, bikers, than they are to what they are representing.
EDIT: and as nice as those are, they really do not scream TWC at all to me. They have storm bolters, which TWC do not have. They are jetbikes, not cavalry. And they definitely do not scream "4 attacks, strength 5, rending" to me.

This.

You've converted a really cool jetbike squadron. But they're jetbikes. At most, they should count as bikes, or maybe Landspeeder Squadrons. Given that we all know what bikes can do, what jetbikes can do, and what landspeeders can do, and that two of these examples are actually present in the SM codex, it is quite the stretch to believe they are TWC....

That's really the biggest problem with them. When you put them down on the table, people will automatically assume they are jetbikes/bikes, even if you say they represent TWC. (Especially if they are not familiar with TWC rules.) This will cause quite a few people to balk just a little bit when they get charged from 12" away and then have 20+ rending attacks in their face. It starts to feel like the old rhino shell game on the other side of the table. That's why the game is WYSIWYG in the first place, otherwise we might all be playing with tokens.

Now, obviously "counts as" and proxying make this a very grey line indeed, but it really is all up to your opponents.

Not to mention, AoE, you obviously have talent and can paint and convert with the best of them. As such, it's people like you that the rest of us look up to for modelling and painting inspiration. With your abilities, you could probably very easily create some cybernetic lions or even giant lion riders to represent the TWC, but instead you just slapped some engines on bikes and left it alone.

Maybe part of the reaction you're having here is from your "fans" thinking that you're just being lazy with your TWC "counts as".

squilverine wrote:Everyone will have their own ideas of what is acceptable and what isn't. As far as I can see there tends to be four main reasons for "counts as"

1 The actual model doesn't exist, so another is used to represent them
2 A change of rules has made someones beautifuly painted army illegal, they don't want to mess up their painting so they turn to "counts as"
3 The player does not have the money to update his force or buy new models
4 A player wants to try out a new unit using counts as models before comiting to purchase them.

There are probably more but I cant think of them right now.

I don't have too much of a problem as long as either an effort has been made to at least make the model look like what it is trying to represent or that it is a similar equivilant. Also that these are clearly agreed and noted before any game, nothing is worse than playing someone who's marines keep turning from devastators to assualt marines whenever it suits them.

Fpr spme reason this thread has reminded me of the episode of Bottom where Ritchie and Eddie decide to have a game of chess using Ritchies antique board, unfortuanately Eddie has pawned most of the peices to pay for booze so they use frozen prawns as pawns, a bottle of ketchup for a rook and a Spiderman bubble bath for a Queen!

You forgot #5 and a prime driver of the original gaming set-conversions to do something different.

I'm pretty lenient regarding "counts as" in a totally "counts as" army, but "counts as" units in armies that use other standard elements are harder. In general, I'm down with "counts as" if the counts-as model resembles nothing else in the Codex as much as it does its actual unit entry. The Heresy jetbikers would probably not pass this standard, since they look more like standard Bikers to me than TWC. That doesn't mean I wouldn't play against them, but I would probably dock points in a tournament with soft scores.

I don't think people understand the difference between the phrase counts as and a proxy model. In fact after reading this thread I would definitely say that is true.

thehod wrote:Some guys that have a CSM army but do nothing to make special conversions and when C:CSM came out, they immediately just became codex marines.

Fixed your typo.

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Do you have a link to that..or is that a joke?

Sorry no link. Cant find it at the moment, but itwas all models modeled up as a hockey team, and the bus as the transport and such. Nicely done. But Over the top in what I would consider too much counts as. It was one GT back in the early 2000's sometime. 2001? I dont recall.

malfred wrote:
Neutral observer? He didn't ask for your judgment on his reasons, just the counts as rule

The OP quite clearly asked for the opinion of the casual onlooker or opponent when faced with these stand in models, the end of the first post even saying something to the effect of "what would you say when faced with them".

Isn't it possible that motives influence the counts-as rule? Why do they have to be separate?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

carmachu wrote:Like a soda bottle for a carnifex?

Hello boys!




I hope someone gets the reference...

TSOALR. Turn signals on a landraider strip.


I think this thread is getting a bit confused between proxy(HBMC's example and 1-2 more) and Counts as- lik ethe orignial poster showed with fully painted and converted models.

I think if it's similar size and all of the actual equipment is WYSIWYG you can get away just fine (i.e. away with the Storm Bolters if they don't have them). I usually upsize a little and that shuts up any naysayers. I'm working on a Nurgle Daemon army using Orks as Plaguebearers, but each boy will have something that looks like a Plaguesword and will have tons of green stuff detail (missing limbs, one eye, one horn) and no guns. Night Goblins (Nurgle Cultists) = Nurglings easily enough, and my warboss being carried by goblins on a throne with a scroll with tallymarks and a giant sword makes an easy Epidemius.

carmachu wrote:
I think this thread is getting a bit confused between proxy(HBMC's example and 1-2 more) and Counts as- lik ethe orignial poster showed with fully painted and converted models.

Honestly, I don't see any real difference, and I'd be okay with either. I like the idea of a chunk of two-by-four with "I am a Rhino" sharpied into the top of it. Bonus points for drawing windows and a hatch on the back. I have an expensive army and am paying for the "privilege" of playing a silly little game, but that doesn't mean I expect others to have to do the same thing. Long as we all agree the proxied/counts-as/whatever occupies the same physical dimensions as what it is meant to represent, it's cool.

I'm fine with proxy and 'counts as' models, so long as they are easily identifiable as 'different' from the other stuff in the army. Going back to the OP, I would be fine with those jetbikes proxying TWC... so long as the actual jetbikes in the army looked significantly different.

Failing that, then some sort of placard will be necessary so I can readily distinguish the 'counts as TWC' bikes from the 'these actually are jetbikes.' It's only common courtesy to make sure your stuff is easily identifiable as what it is.

i have a count as unit, a squad of twenty plague zombies that count as spinegaunts in my tyranid army. they get led around by a zoanthrope brood that uses their psycic powers to keep the squad of dead boies walking around. ive never used their spinefists (its jsut the cheapest weapon a gaunt can have....)

would any of you have a problem with this?

To me personally a masterful execution of the proposed theme is all the reason I need.

BrookM wrote:To me personally a masterful execution of the proposed theme is all the reason I need.

+1

I'm all for counts-as. I've played my exodite eldar as codex eldar, space wolves, and dark eldar. I think the rules for each provides a nice flavor that adds to the theme of the army and it's different unique incarnations. I've never had issues with my opponents nay-saying me and if they talk about me behind my back, at least they don't have a problem playing my counts-as army. The club I'm a member of has made it clear that I should use codex eldar for tournaments, which I don't have a problem doing.

As for proxies, I'd have a problem playing empty bases, beer bottle caps, empty soda bottles, and blank 2x4's unless models were left at home and we were allowed to add to our forces by contributing said beer bottle caps and soda bottles after they were consumed. That being said, I'm the first to remember that it's a game and if you don't have the boot, car, dog, moneybag, iron, or thimble to play, find something that's about the same size and shape and let's get rolling dice.

Frazzled wrote:

squilverine wrote:Everyone will have their own ideas of what is acceptable and what isn't. As far as I can see there tends to be four main reasons for "counts as"

1 The actual model doesn't exist, so another is used to represent them
2 A change of rules has made someones beautifuly painted army illegal, they don't want to mess up their painting so they turn to "counts as"
3 The player does not have the money to update his force or buy new models
4 A player wants to try out a new unit using counts as models before comiting to purchase them.

There are probably more but I cant think of them right now.

I don't have too much of a problem as long as either an effort has been made to at least make the model look like what it is trying to represent or that it is a similar equivilant. Also that these are clearly agreed and noted before any game, nothing is worse than playing someone who's marines keep turning from devastators to assualt marines whenever it suits them.

Fpr spme reason this thread has reminded me of the episode of Bottom where Ritchie and Eddie decide to have a game of chess using Ritchies antique board, unfortuanately Eddie has pawned most of the peices to pay for booze so they use frozen prawns as pawns, a bottle of ketchup for a rook and a Spiderman bubble bath for a Queen!

You forgot #5 and a prime driver of the original gaming set-conversions to do something different.

Thats very true. And I think with either army, if you want to play your friends with it, it should be completely fine. However if I showed up at a tournament to throw down the objections raised above regarding the bikes, and the confusing nature of the GS army as well, would be valid.

I have used proxies with friends to test stuff out, but I shouldn't expect someone to accept anything I decide to count as if it doesn't bear a close representation to the actual model at hand, or some rather cool thematic similarity. For example - if someone really wanted to create jungle space wolves, and have fenrisian wolves as cold ones, and TWC as Carnosaurs or Stegadons or some such thing, and they did it right with the models well done, even if not painted? Awesome, I would be totally cool with that, and I think that most players, even at tournaments, would be as well - everything would be identifiable, distinct and cool. If they decided that riding on top of a 4x4 would be ok? Not nearly as awesome, nor as thematic, nor as identifiable - possible issues. Thats the issues with the jetbikes here.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Can I ask a stupid and really off-topic question.

At that link, there is a map of the 40K Milky Way. It has a blow-out to two different systems - Anti-Mar and Angelus. How did you make those pics?

No problem, I did that with the following:

Celestia for the planets (Just get a good shot of a planet, screenshot and use Photoshop to crop)
http://www.shatters.net/celestia/

Random Google search for the deep space backgrounds

Photoshop to overlay each


I also made icons to show planet control, etc etc...but that's for when we roll the campaign out . On a completely different note, I can't applaud Celestia enough. If you have children (Or you're a star geek)...that's a definite download. My kids love it, surfing the Milky Way with a mouse .


WhiteDragon: I'm actually working on a mechanical lion idea . The Heresy bikes are now being used to represent the Scars command squad accompanying Khan under siege at Terra (Damaged and in disrepair, so they speed up slowly, etc). I'll be bringing that force to Adepticon this year, along with the Primarch. I hope I don't have issues! I hope being able to say "Everything is WYSIWYG in my army, except THESE ARE TWC! " will disperse any confusion. I'm also considering making a laminated sheet to track wounds in the unit so my opponent can see at a glance who is wounded in each unit...dunno yet though.

On the original subject, I can understand those whom are less forgiving for Counts As even if I'm more of the 'everything goes' type. The only restraint I really have is they fail to point out before the game what is what. Other than that, if it makes you happy playing World Eater Space Wolves....hell it's just a pile of rules made for cool models. With the sudden flood of companies making bit components (and alternate models)...I see Counts As as the future.

Regardless, it's obviously a continuum and not a straight line. Wherever you fit on that continuum, it will be subjective to opinion..not unlike the others. What I'm more interested in (and why I started this thread)...was a common set of criteria players judge counts as armies with.

Defiler wrote:

malfred wrote:
Neutral observer? He didn't ask for your judgment on his reasons, just the counts as rule

The OP quite clearly asked for the opinion of the casual onlooker or opponent when faced with these stand in models, the end of the first post even saying something to the effect of "what would you say when faced with them".

Isn't it possible that motives influence the counts-as rule? Why do they have to be separate?

Sorry, I was just pointing out that the tone of your post was rude, including the tone
of your follow up posts defending your opinion.

Hollismason wrote:I don't think people understand the difference between the phrase counts as and a proxy model. In fact after reading this thread I would definitely say that is true.

Psst.
Proxy models can be "counts as", and vice versa.

Good use of Counts-As: http://forums.eternityofwar.com/showthread.php?t=6034

Bad use of Counts-As: Thunder-Trygon Cavalry

bhsman wrote:Bad use of Counts-As: Thunder-Trygon Cavalry

That classifies as an awesome use of Counts-As.

The genestealer army is an army i would LOVE to play against, it has so much character. The jetbikes are also real nice
However, an army of bad painted Blue Marins (playing on the stereotypes), proxyed into for example Eldar, is too far. Way too far.

To tell the truth, I have a generic chapter of space marines that I use with whatever space marine codex I feel like playing at any given time.
I just let my opponent know what rule book I'll be using for them and we're good to go.
The army is WYSIWYG as far as weapons and upgrades go, but other than that, they're green and yellow with a Griffon on the shoulder pad.

i like them and would have no issues going up against them.
i can see an issue since they are very similar to an existing unit in the dex but if you pointed it out at the beginning of the game, which you clearly would have to, then it would be a non-issue in my eyes.

both of those forces are outstanding.

of course i have to throw in the obligatory internet "id smash them with a hammer" and "id punch you in the face if i had to play against them" responses.

IMHO the "Counts as" should at least match the background of the army thats being played the Celestial Lions bikes look awesome and because he was using as a "Counts as" Space Wolves force was entirely Kosher as thunderwolf cavalry

Orks use Boars yes thats fine....because they fit the character of the army.Now a CSM army that used Optimus Prime as a Warhound Titan with Plasma Blastgun and Vulcan Megabolter id have a problem and ask them to remove it WYSIWYG only goes so far and many players take the mickey.....

I reckon as long as it looks good then by all means use it and it works.

I also play against people that proxy models for other things as they contemplate buying something new for their army. To me, an Ork trukk can fill in for a rhino or a Leman Russ for a land raider. I'll do this in a friendly game or three against someone not sure if they want to fork out the cash from a limited budget for something unless they are sure they will use it enough to justify the purchase.

IMO, if you have spend a 100 hours converting an army themed army, that looks amazing and has no tagged on rules, just whats in a codex then that is not just fine but interesting

its also the only way to field some forces with lots of fluff but no rules like:
genestealer cult
mechanicus explorer fleets
xeno inquisitor
planet living elder
squats

on the using a SM codex to field a CSM army its a bit iffy but if its theme based instead of power play based then i would be fine with it, such as:
pre heresy world eater army using a blood angels codex
aplha legion using IG codex with converted storm troopers as CSM but with no rule change


I think the most important part is who you're playing against, if they are getting angry at stuff like the ones i've posted, they are d-bags and i would not want to play with them.

Those bikes do not remind me any way, shape, or form of Thunder Wolf Calvary. I have to say the lack of a ridden beast is what does it in. The "ork" army presents similar issues. They're beautiful, but confusing. Also, Leman Russ tanks are not large enough to be a stand in for battlewagons.

I'll keep it simple the more awesome a unit looks the more likly you'll let it "count as".

This is just my opinion, and I'll probably get blasted for it, but, oh well.

My personal opinion is that "counts as" is the stupidest thing GW has ever done.
Now, I understand that the only way to use some armies(derived from a fluff perspective) is to use them as a counts as, which I don't normally see a problem with.
However, my opinion is that if you want to play Space Wolves(or any other army that has a codex, for that matter), then just play that army. In a one off game I would probably let someone proxy one army for another, but not in a tournament. And, most likely would only play against it once. The OP's army comes to mind as my example. For a Celestial Lions SM army using SW rules, I would expect to see an army converted and painted as Lion themed SW...i.e in the case of TWC, I would expect to see SM riding Lions, or some type of Cyber Lion, and not a bike/jetbike. Note, I am not singling out the OP, just using his example as mine.

I also understand that some of us(myself included) are under a severely limited budget, and can't afford to be swapping armies very often. I just always try to make sure I'm going to enjoy the army that I choose. In the days before "counts as", if you wanted to play something different, you just had to suck it up and face the fact that you didn't have any special rules for your army.

Anyways, that's just my opinion.

Lord Alaric wrote:...In the days before "counts as", if you wanted to play something different, you just had to suck it up and face the fact that you didn't have any special rules for your army.....

Or you had the option to just play with people who were cool with counts as without it being Chapter Approved or what-not.

To each their own, I suppose.

I'm a pretty casual wargamer myself. All I really need to know is what special rules your army is using, and which units they apply to. So long as I know that and can tell your units apart easily, I'm cool with it.

In a tournament, I would not be surprised to see the judges be much tighter on things, though.

AgeOfEgos wrote:Does "Counts As" armies tick you off?

if a player were to sit down across from you and say "I'm using the SW dex for my Heresy marines, everything is WYSIWYG except the Heresy jetbikes represent TWC"...would you rage?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Gorgon%27s_Genestealer_Cult

I'm generally good with Counts As, and do a fair amount of this myself.

SW are an extreme variant, and not a suitable basis for "Heresy" marines - C: CSM or C: BT are. And those bikes look absolutely nothing like Cavalry models - they look like Jetbikes! If playing a WS army, I could see you playing as C: DA Ravenwing or C: SM, but not Woofs. Quite frankly, this is going too far beyond reasonableness. If someone made some lame story about how their WS army played as SW, just so they can field "uber" TWC, I'd be OK to play against it in casual play, but I'd ride them all game about it and also in the AAR. This is pretty much a a poster child example of "bad" counts as.

The Genestealer Orks are good counts as.

The difference is that good counts as armies are simple, and don't have strong precedents for how they "should" be played. If using something with roots, don't stray so far afield.

As always YMMV.

Agamemnon2 wrote:For some reason, IG players have a constant desire to build really unacceptable Sentinel proxies. You can't substitute a 4x4 or a tankette for a walker, for crying out loud. Walkers are walkers, and what separates them from other vehicles is them being able to fight in close combat.

Maybe that's because there was a tutorial put out by GW for converting up small tanks to be used as sentinels.

How is a sentinel supposed to fight in close combat any better than a tank anyways? It just has legs. At least tanks are less liable to tip over.

When Missile Launchers are Missile Launchers, I am happy.

When Missile Launchers are Lascannons, I am happy.

When Missile Launchers are Lascannons, Missile Launchers and perhaps the odd Auto Cannon, I am not happy.

As for conversions, depends on the effort put in. In the post above, it mentions 4x4 Buggies etc being built in place of Sentinels. No problem here, as to convert one up takes a lot of time and patience not to mention skill, and I don't mind. What the lose in height, they gain in the other dimensions, keeping TLOS fair. But, when a Bloodletter plonked on a Woodelf horse represents a Bloodcrusher, I'd object, as the size of the model is drastically different from the original, giving you an advantage in TLOS.

Want to convert up Motobikes for Rough Riders, or perhaps some kind of Sevitor Centaur for them, no problem. For a single game, I don't mind say, Space Marine bikes standing whilst you assess the unit in a few games. But after 2 or 3, I'd really expect you to be procuring the unit being proxied, be it converted or off the peg.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:When Missile Launchers are Missile Launchers, I am happy.

When Missile Launchers are Lascannons, I am happy.

When Missile Launchers are Lascannons, Missile Launchers and perhaps the odd Auto Cannon, I am not happy.

Yeah, when proxying, you must absolutely have CONSISTENCY that reduces a multitude of other sins.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:For a single game, I don't mind say, Space Marine bikes standing whilst you assess the unit in a few games. But after 2 or 3, I'd really expect you to be procuring the unit being proxied, be it converted or off the peg.

Listen to this man, for he is wise.

Edit: Screwed up the quoting bbcode again

chaplaingrabthar wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:When Missile Launchers are Missile Launchers, I am happy.

When Missile Launchers are Lascannons, I am happy.

When Missile Launchers are Lascannons, Missile Launchers and perhaps the odd Auto Cannon, I am not happy.

Yeah, when proxying, you must absolutely have CONSISTENCY that reduces a multitude of other sins.

I agree completly. If a freind of mine tells me that every scout is a marine, thats fine. If I get told that only those 3 scut over there are, but the other scouts are not, even though one of the scouts is a chaos marine with a plasma gun because he didn't have another sniper... that's not fine at all.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:For a single game, I don't mind say, Space Marine bikes standing whilst you assess the unit in a few games. But after 2 or 3, I'd really expect you to be procuring the unit being proxied, be it converted or off the peg.

Listen to this man, for he is wise.

That is my exact policy. Remember that your opponents should be your friends as well, because it is a fun based hobby. For example: My choas buddy had a metal daemon prince which was painted black and assembled out of the box for 3 years of gaming. When the new 'dex came, it suddenly grew wings, and the mark of slaanesh. This was ok with me, but after 3 games, I asked him to do WYSIWYG. He said he'd like to, but he couldn't make wings that look good. I said ok, took the model, bought some dragon wings, and did it myself, because it's more fun for me to play against the real thing. It's that kind of act which will strengthen your gaming group, and prevent unnecessary squabble.

In house games, I don't really care. We all know eachother's armies, lists, and codi fairly well. But on the rare occasion that I go to an FLGS to play, I expect a unit to at least be equipped with a weapon of said class if it's going to be proxxied. A bolt pistol does -not- work as a proxy for a Storm Bolter. A Flamethrower looks nothing like a Lascannon, and those Scything Talons on your Tyrant fail to pass as a Barbed Strangler.

Bottom line is: If you're using proxies, at least make an effort to use a model with the same class of weapon.

I think equipment is larger than the models themselves most of the time. If someone says an army is an "ork army", then even if the models are skeletons or genestealer cultists or whatever you can assume that they're orks (except in a few cases; grots, possibly nobs, vehicles, that sort of thing).

On the other hand, if you can't tell what a weapon is supposed to be, you don't know if the model is supposed to be a shoota boy, a loota, or a tankbusta. If you don't know what armor the player is trying to represent you don't know if the model is supposed to be a mega armored nob or an eavy armored nob (or an ard boy, which does relate back to the model used itself).

metallifan wrote:In house games, I don't really care. We all know eachother's armies, lists, and codi fairly well. But on the rare occasion that I go to an FLGS to play, I expect a unit to at least be equipped with a weapon of said class if it's going to be proxxied. A bolt pistol does -not- work as a proxy for a Storm Bolter. A Flamethrower looks nothing like a Lascannon, and those Scything Talons on your Tyrant fail to pass as a Barbed Strangler.

Bottom line is: If you're using proxies, at least make an effort to use a model with the same class of weapon.

Kind of agreeing here. Certainly, at a home game anything goes. But with the Store thing, I think I'd be a bit more forgiving than yourself, if only because I wouldn't necessarily know how things normally go in that Store. Scything Talons as a Barbed Strangler is a good example here. Might be perfectly fine in the Store all the time, might be a proxy-limit, might be an absolute no-no. But I think in a new location (be it a club or someones house) I'd be a bit more forgiving than my usual standards. Not saying your wrong or owt, just discussing.

Of course. But it's just my personal preferance. If you're saying that unit X has a plasma pistol, then he should at least be holding a pistol of some kind. Likewise, a Termie with an assault cannon won't pass for a x2 Lightning Claws proxy.

Basically, keep it sensible. No that Rhino isn't a Land Raider, and I'm not going to count it as one when I'm rolling damage against it. I'm not counting that Wraithlord as an Avatar either. Etc...

WYSIWYG isn't strict with me, but I expect some limit from folks when they use 'counts-as'

I draw the line at 'coke can counts as drop pod'

A good rule methinks

metallifan wrote:Of course. But it's just my personal preferance. If you're saying that unit X has a plasma pistol, then he should at least be holding a pistol of some kind. Likewise, a Termie with an assault cannon won't pass for a x2 Lightning Claws proxy.

Basically, keep it sensible. No that Rhino isn't a Land Raider, and I'm not going to count it as one when I'm rolling damage against it. I'm not counting that Wraithlord as an Avatar either. Etc...

WYSIWYG isn't strict with me, but I expect some limit from folks when they use 'counts-as'

From the sound of it, you are pretty strict by any stretch of the imagination.

A Wraithlord can't count as an Avatar? Really? What other unit, in the entirety of WH40k, could possibly work as well?
The added fact that a Wraithlord is considerably larger, and puts your opponent at a pretty serious disadvantage overall, makes up for any shortcomings the model might otherwise have.

If I were to follow what guidelines you have set, there really is very little option for 'counts as' at all. If someone is straight up proxying a large portion of their army, I find your guidelines downright silly TBTH.

Not trying to poke at you or anything, but limiting proxies, by something as specific as their weapons, limits a players options from many (same size model roughly, definitely same size base) to almost none. If someone has a marine with a plasma pistol, why would they even be testing the unit in the first place? There are very few units that transfer as well as SM, and I would consider it a bit silly to make a Khorne army (for instance), if I already had 3 SM forces already.

My limits are very simple.

- Same size base. No exceptions
- Roughly the same size model, or a clear understanding that the models are considered larger than they actually are. (Grots are considered the same size as Orks for instance.)
- Consistency throughout, no mixing and matching for extra confusion. One unit type can only be used to represent one other unit type. Ork boys cannot be assault marines AND tactical marines.
- If all else fails, simply add sticky notes, I am not going to game like this in a competitive setting regardless. Sticky notes make everything easier, no questions there.

anyone have a problem with my deffwing? mega armor nobz as terminators, using the dark angels codex.

Not really. It's a coherent force, all their weapons are adequately represented, and plus - Orkses knockin' off Marine Boyz? Genius

Mega-armor Nobz as Terminators makes perfect sense to me.

Wrexasaur wrote:Mega-armor Nobz as Terminators makes perfect sense to me.

Didn't go over well when I field Ork Wolves and did the same thing at the LGS.

studderingdave wrote:anyone have a problem with my deffwing? mega armor nobz as terminators, using the dark angels codex.

I would play that in a heartbeat dude, terrific looking force.

To speak to the others about proxy/weapons, I can understand the worry about confusion. Remembering a missile launcher is a melta gun here, while it's a flamer here would get tiresome.

I would play that army - why? Because its simple to work out what is what - all Mega Armored Nobs are terminators, and weapons seem reasonably WYSIWYG - and its coherent, and easily identifiable.

studderingdave wrote:anyone have a problem with my deffwing? mega armor nobz as terminators, using the dark angels codex.

That's sweet. Write it up for an army profile, tout de suite!

studderingdave wrote:anyone have a problem with my deffwing? mega armor nobz as terminators, using the dark angels codex.

No problems. Everything is clear and obvious.

OTOH, if there were an Mega-Ork variant, and your Terminators were actually Bikes, then there would be a lot more of a problem.

I do NOT see any problem with count-as.

Because if they act in the same function, and appear to act in the same function, I see no restriction.


I mean seriously guys, haven't you heard from my man Gav Thorpe?

Rules are just RULES!!!!!!


(Sarcasm. LOL).

I'm trying to take all of this in, but it's confusing. Are you suggesting that it isn't OK to play with a roll of quarters, 3 legos, and a cardboard cutout of Peter Pan to represent your HQ? That's pretty uptight, but I guess everyone has to have their standards.

My preferences:

- pennies = boyz (sluggas)
- nickels = Nobs
- dimes = burnas
- quarter face up = warboss
- paper cutout = big mek
- face down playing card = battle wagon
- face up playing card = trukk
- bobblehead = ruins
- candy bar = difficult terrain
- thumb tacks = dangerous terrain

It's straightforward and easy to understand. Sometimes if I forget to bring one of my rolls of pennies, I just ask for change at the store after buying a drink. Sure, it's an expensive hobby, and could set you back 6 or 7 bucks in an apocalypse battle, but to me, money is no object.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

The difference is that good counts as armies are simple, and don't have strong precedents for how they "should" be played. If using something with roots, don't stray so far afield.

As always YMMV.

I can sincerely appreciate that and respect your position. To be frank, I toyed with making my Heresy army (Not the bikes picture by the way, I've altered the army quite a bit) from the Vanilla dex. Mostly I considered that option in fear that I would ruin someone's fun at Adepticon due to confusion. However, the more I thought about it the less worried I became as my army is pretty easy to understand. Outside of two counts as, everything is WYSIWYG.

Now, why I chose the SW codex is due to a few reasons. First, some of the major conversion/center pieces of my army (Not the bikes pictured) needed a home befitting their fluff. The vanilla SM dex really didn't afford those options. Second, I strongly dislike the play style of the vanilla dex as I prefer to be aggressive with tactical squads and get out of rhinos...which again the SW dex provided. Mostly however, it was the ability of the SW codex to capture the theme of my army at the siege of Terra with the conversions I'll be bringing.

Now, I suppose I'll see how bad that hurts my scoring. I'm a pretty laid back guy when playing (Hell I prefer taking photos and writing a story for the game more than playing it)...so if my soft scores get hit at the Con...well then I guess I'll know . Regardless of my scoring I've enjoyed making the army and am quite proud of the final product...which is almost complete! Again though, I completely respect your position John and hold no animosity for your disagreement. Mileage does vary!

I've been following this thread, and I have a question for the participants.

I play Death Guard. Right now, they are painted as Pre-Heresy and played as a Chaos army (regular marines, no spikes). I use Techmarines as Obliterators for two reasons:

1) They're 10 bucks cheaper
2) They fit in with the theme

I've heard some people tell me that it's too confusing, but most just say they really like the idea and it fits the theme. What are your thoughts on it? Am I wrong to do so? Am I wrong to expect that when I say to my opponent "these dudes here are Obliterators", he understands it?

Secondly, I am expanding the army now to be able to play them as Space Wolves. The main reason is that it gives me a competitive army while minimizing the amount of models I have to buy (17 models turns my current army into a 1750 SW army). I will be using bikes as Thunderwulf Cavalry. They will all be armed properly (all with Storm Shields, one with TH/SS). My Wolf Lord will also be on a bike, with all his equipment modeled properly (WC/SS). They will all be painted in the pre-Heresy Death Guard colours

I had one GW staffer tell me that this was "cheating" and if I wanted to play Space Wolves, they should BE Space Wolves, not just my Death Guard with some new models thrown in. He also complained that "the Death Guard wouldn't act like Space Wolves if they were still around". Barring that he may have just been trying to drum up a new army sale, is there anything wrong with what I plan to do? I get that I may have to explain to people that "no, this isn't a bike, it's Thunderwulf Cavalry" but most of my gaming group understands that I don't like the way Space Wolves look, just like I don't like the Spikey Marine look of Chaos. Plus I really love the Death Guard story.

I think your preheresy Death Guard are fine. There's a theme to it, they look appropriate, your "counts as" Oblits aren't too much of a stretch...etc.

However, I have issues with using them as Space Wolves. I would play you, but I would think that it is a little lame to use them as omni-marines, just as using say...Black Templars as Space Wolves would be lame too. Or Salamanders.

When your opponent looks at your army, he should have a reasonable expectation of what he is facing.

Zoned wrote:I think your preheresy Death Guard are fine. There's a theme to it, they look appropriate, your "counts as" Oblits aren't too much of a stretch...etc.

However, I have issues with using them as Space Wolves. I would play you, but I would think that it is a little lame to use them as omni-marines, just as using say...Black Templars as Space Wolves would be lame too. Or Salamanders.

When your opponent looks at your army, he should have a reasonable expectation of what he is facing.

So if someone wants to play a different Marine army, they have to re-buy all the basics?

Bunker wrote:So if someone wants to play a different Marine army, they have to re-buy all the basics?

In the coming years, I'm going to be tearing apart my SM army to rebuild as a 3-in-1 Marine army that will be able to play as Vanilla, Blood Angels, and Marked Chaos. I'll be scavenging some parts to supplement it with a second 2-in-1 Templars army that will double as MoCU Chaos (Heresy-era tactics). Both armies will have bitz-specific, WYSIWYG models for each flavor I play as to minimize confusion. I'm just waiting for the BA Codex and upgrade release to finalize the BA elements.

Bunker wrote:I've been following this thread, and I have a question for the participants.

I play Death Guard. Right now, they are painted as Pre-Heresy and played as a Chaos army (regular marines, no spikes). I use Techmarines as Obliterators for two reasons:

1) They're 10 bucks cheaper
2) They fit in with the theme

I've heard some people tell me that it's too confusing, but most just say they really like the idea and it fits the theme. What are your thoughts on it? Am I wrong to do so? Am I wrong to expect that when I say to my opponent "these dudes here are Obliterators", he understands it?

Secondly, I am expanding the army now to be able to play them as Space Wolves. The main reason is that it gives me a competitive army while minimizing the amount of models I have to buy (17 models turns my current army into a 1750 SW army). I will be using bikes as Thunderwulf Cavalry. They will all be armed properly (all with Storm Shields, one with TH/SS). My Wolf Lord will also be on a bike, with all his equipment modeled properly (WC/SS). They will all be painted in the pre-Heresy Death Guard colours

I had one GW staffer tell me that this was "cheating" and if I wanted to play Space Wolves, they should BE Space Wolves, not just my Death Guard with some new models thrown in. He also complained that "the Death Guard wouldn't act like Space Wolves if they were still around". Barring that he may have just been trying to drum up a new army sale, is there anything wrong with what I plan to do? I get that I may have to explain to people that "no, this isn't a bike, it's Thunderwulf Cavalry" but most of my gaming group understands that I don't like the way Space Wolves look, just like I don't like the Spikey Marine look of Chaos. Plus I really love the Death Guard story.

Honestly, many of your ideas are too far into the "cut corners rather than create a creative counts-as" zone. Are your tech marines converted at all? If so how much? I don't know if techmarines were around at all pre-heresy for one. That would mean a power fist, and every servo arm ending in an obliterator gun. If you did that converting it should be good. Stock techmarines would just seem a bit lazy.

Sorry, but bikes -> thunderwolf cavalry just wouldn't fly for me. Bikes are a unit in the book, using bikes as thunderwolf cavalry would qualify for "proxy" rather than "counts as". If you really want to do a full army of bikes as thunderwolves, you would have to seriously bulk them out for the toughness: straight up 5, multiple wounds, multiple attacks, rending, strength 5. I would expect to see armor plates, giant chainsaws/rotary blades or something in front for the rending and bike attacks... just something. A bike is +1 toughness. How come yours also provide t5 for instant death, multiple wounds, attacks, strength, and rending?

It's times like this that I remember the golden rule: EVERYTHING in the game requires your opponent's consent. Because they don't have to play you.

I'm happy to play against a counts-as army (even prefer it to the bog-standard armies). I'm happy to play against a proxy army, if things are clear. I've in the past been so hard up for a game that I've played against people with notebook paper signs taped to armless metal marines indentifying what weapons they're carrying. I didn't have to play that game, but I wanted to. So I did.

If you want to play a proxy army, be fun to play against. That's pretty much the only thing that matters. If you are too confusing (or too obnoxious, or too lazy, or too sloppy) that your opponents don't want to play you, they won't consent to your army. Different opponents like different things, so no one-size-fits-all rule will ever cover what makes someone fun to play against. But if we're all old and mature enough to look at the Daemonette plastics, we're old and mature enough to figure out what it takes to make another player's game fun. So make sure the other player is having fun. Then do what you want.*

*This doesn't apply to tournaments of course, but then I'd like to think we're all mature enough to understand that for tournaments the only rule that really matters is the rule set by whomever is organizing it.

ph34r wrote:Sorry, but bikes -> thunderwolf cavalry just wouldn't fly for me. Bikes are a unit in the book, using bikes as thunderwolf cavalry would qualify for "proxy" rather than "counts as". If you really want to do a full army of bikes as thunderwolves, you would have to seriously bulk them out for the toughness: straight up 5, multiple wounds, multiple attacks, rending, strength 5. I would expect to see armor plates, giant chainsaws/rotary blades or something in front for the rending and bike attacks... just something. A bike is +1 toughness. How come yours also provide t5 for instant death, multiple wounds, attacks, strength, and rending?

Is it really so hard to just say, "I don't want to play you"?

There are a lot of reasons someone couldn't do what you 'require', and leaving it at a simple pass on gaming, should easily suffice.

More than a few people have expressed basically the sentiment that you are, and what it comes down to, is YOU wanting to playing the exact models that are being used; irregardless of the fact that a specific model may not even exist in any fashion.

If you feel like custom building someone else's army, try not to do it right before you are going to game with them.

I support people gaming on a budget if at all possible. The difference between a scratch-built Killa Kan (which could easily look 10x more awesome than 'standard' sculpts) and a coke can goes and awful long way though... and being surprised at tournament settings not allowing your precious custom army, is your problem really. No reason for a tournament to affect other peoples gaming experience, with your decisions.

With Friendly gaming though, there is usually little problem when it actually comes to finding a game.

I would expect my friends to put in more effort than "these bikes are thunderwolves". Basically I don't care what your counts-as is, as long as A. it is not confusing/same model as another option "my scout army is all scouts that count as tactical marines", or "my librarians are all chaplains", or "my bikes are all thunderwolves", B. you at least try to model the appropriate powers and options for units "these bikes are thunderwolves" vs "these bikes that i have up-armored and up-weaponed are thunderwolves".

If you are just using your bikes to proxy thunderwolves while you make some real conversions or buy actual wolves, fine. But just saying "I didn't want to get the actual models so I used a different unit instead of them" is boring, and if you are going to just go with the cheapest options for everything you might as well have your sternguard be basic marines with no changes, your veteran guardsmen and storm troopers looking exactly the same as your basic guardsmen, and using basic orks as nobz.

Using figures from one figure range to "count as" another figure range entirely is probably where I would draw the line. If you wanted your Space Marines to "count as" Imperial Guard, I'd walk away from the table.

On the other hand, if you took time to convert and detail things properly, such as converting Eldar to be Dark Eldar or Squats to be Imperial Guard, I'd probably be willing to play against you. As long as you didn't just throw down a unit of Guardians and say they "count as" Wyches.

Taking animals, making mounts out of them, and calling them "bikes" in your Space Marine army probably wouldn't bother me.

Breotan wrote:Taking animals, making mounts out of them, and calling them "bikes" in your Space Marine army probably wouldn't bother me.

Yeah, that would be awesome, unless the codex also had seperate rules for "animal mounted space marines", which is basically what the magic bikes poster wants to do.

studderingdave wrote:anyone have a problem with my deffwing? mega armor nobz as terminators, using the dark angels codex.

Me likey all that paint scheme scares me like an old horse seeing a glue factory.

ph34r wrote:

Honestly, many of your ideas are too far into the "cut corners rather than create a creative counts-as" zone. Are your tech marines converted at all? If so how much? I don't know if techmarines were around at all pre-heresy for one. That would mean a power fist, and every servo arm ending in an obliterator gun. If you did that converting it should be good. Stock techmarines would just seem a bit lazy.

Sorry, but bikes -> thunderwolf cavalry just wouldn't fly for me. Bikes are a unit in the book, using bikes as thunderwolf cavalry would qualify for "proxy" rather than "counts as". If you really want to do a full army of bikes as thunderwolves, you would have to seriously bulk them out for the toughness: straight up 5, multiple wounds, multiple attacks, rending, strength 5. I would expect to see armor plates, giant chainsaws/rotary blades or something in front for the rending and bike attacks... just something. A bike is +1 toughness. How come yours also provide t5 for instant death, multiple wounds, attacks, strength, and rending?

So other than "I just don't like it" and "I think you're just trying to cut corners" (super insulting by the by, thanks), you don't have a real reason why you think I'm doing something wrong?

I'll keep my "magic" Thunderwulf bikes, thanks for the reply.

Bunker wrote:I've been following this thread, and I have a question for the participants.

I play Death Guard. Right now, they are painted as Pre-Heresy and played as a Chaos army (regular marines, no spikes). I use Techmarines as Obliterators for two reasons:

1) They're 10 bucks cheaper
2) They fit in with the theme

I've heard some people tell me that it's too confusing, but most just say they really like the idea and it fits the theme. What are your thoughts on it? Am I wrong to do so? Am I wrong to expect that when I say to my opponent "these dudes here are Obliterators", he understands it?

Secondly, I am expanding the army now to be able to play them as Space Wolves. The main reason is that it gives me a competitive army while minimizing the amount of models I have to buy (17 models turns my current army into a 1750 SW army). I will be using bikes as Thunderwulf Cavalry. They will all be armed properly (all with Storm Shields, one with TH/SS). My Wolf Lord will also be on a bike, with all his equipment modeled properly (WC/SS). They will all be painted in the pre-Heresy Death Guard colours

I had one GW staffer tell me that this was "cheating" and if I wanted to play Space Wolves, they should BE Space Wolves, not just my Death Guard with some new models thrown in. He also complained that "the Death Guard wouldn't act like Space Wolves if they were still around". Barring that he may have just been trying to drum up a new army sale, is there anything wrong with what I plan to do? I get that I may have to explain to people that "no, this isn't a bike, it's Thunderwulf Cavalry" but most of my gaming group understands that I don't like the way Space Wolves look, just like I don't like the Spikey Marine look of Chaos. Plus I really love the Death Guard story.

This is a good example of bad counts as, due to:
1.pre-heresy death guard in no way resemble space wolves war style (a pre-heresy world eater army would be fine as it would fight wars in a similar way to space wolve
2.just using standard bikes to represent thunderwolves is proxy, making bigger, badder ass bikes would be counts as (a good example of counts as cavalry would be using lizards for a death world rough riders or cyber hounds for a forge world rough riders)
3.techmarines with conversions would count as oblits, but not if it was just techmarines. (a good example would be making a massive tau battle suit by using a hammerhead, there is one in the dakka gallery as long as it covers the same area and is WYSIWYG in the weapons department the its ok or great depending on the conversion)
4.you are using the same model to represent two different things, bike equals bike or TWC


A counts as army should be a corerent force with a theme, such as the orks as deathwing in an earlier post, or the robot orks count as necron on the dakka blog, or in a classic WD there was a army of death world air support, that used heavily converted landspeeders with WYSIWYG weapons to represent tanks and judge dredd hoverboards as rough rider mounts. Its all about effort and you seem to have/will be putting none into this army

BluntmanDC wrote:

This is a good example of bad counts as, due to:
1.pre-heresy death guard in no way resemble space wolves war style (a pre-heresy world eater army would be fine as it would fight wars in a similar way to space wolve
2.just using standard bikes to represent thunderwolves is proxy, making bigger, badder ass bikes would be counts as (a good example of counts as cavalry would be using lizards for a death world rough riders or cyber hounds for a forge world rough riders)
3.techmarines with conversions would count as oblits, but not if it was just techmarines.
4.you are using the same model to represent two different things, bike equals bike or TWC


A counts as army should be a corerent force with a theme, such as the orks as deathwing in an earlier post, or the robot orks count as necron on the dakka blog, or in a classic WD there was a army of death world air support, that used heavily converted landspeeders with WYSIWYG weapons to represent tanks and judge dredd hoverboards as rough rider mounts. Its all about effort and you seem to have/will be putting none into army

This is a great example of not bothering to read or check referenced models.

1) fair enough, another "not really a reason to be upset" reply
2) they AREN'T standard bikes, they will have all of the necessary wargear to be armed properly.
3) straight up techmarines have the same weapons modeled as the current oblits are allowed to have. Melta, plasma, flamer. Also, as I stated, I'm trying to make them look as Codex-chapter like as possible, thus no conversions
4) and again, no I'm not. I have no intention of using Swiftclaws. None at all

Sheesh, read the post next time, wouldya?

Trying to not be too insulting, I have to ask:

Do most of you guys ranting and raving about counts-as have trouble finding a game? I couldn't imagine most of you getting games easily if you complained on the table like you do here.

Bunker wrote:
This is a great example of not bothering to read or check referenced models.

1) fair enough, another "not really a reason to be upset" reply
2) they AREN'T standard bikes, they will have all of the necessary wargear to be armed properly.
3) straight up techmarines have the same weapons modeled as the current oblits are allowed to have. Melta, plasma, flamer. Also, as I stated, I'm trying to make them look as Codex-chapter like as possible, thus no conversions
4) and again, no I'm not. I have no intention of using Swiftclaws. None at all

Sheesh, read the post next time, wouldya?

Trying to not be too insulting, I have to ask:

Do most of you guys ranting and raving about counts-as have trouble finding a game? I couldn't imagine most of you getting games easily if you complained on the table like you do here.

I read your post, you said your wolf lord was on a bike (that was point 4), you said nothing of converting your bikes, just the wepons. We all get games cos most people like to play people who bring armies not a random collection of models, warhammer and warhammer 40k is a community based game, what you have described as an 'counts-as army' is just you saying 'my army is a bit hard to play with this list so i'll pick another' its disrespectful to other gamers.

Carnuss wrote:I'm trying to take all of this in, but it's confusing. Are you suggesting that it isn't OK to play with a roll of quarters, 3 legos, and a cardboard cutout of Peter Pan to represent your HQ? That's pretty uptight, but I guess everyone has to have their standards.

My preferences:

- pennies = boyz (sluggas)
- nickels = Nobs
- dimes = burnas
- quarter face up = warboss
- paper cutout = big mek
- face down playing card = battle wagon
- face up playing card = trukk
- bobblehead = ruins
- candy bar = difficult terrain
- thumb tacks = dangerous terrain

It's straightforward and easy to understand. Sometimes if I forget to bring one of my rolls of pennies, I just ask for change at the store after buying a drink. Sure, it's an expensive hobby, and could set you back 6 or 7 bucks in an apocalypse battle, but to me, money is no object.

*sigh*

Thats not a counts as army. Thats a straight folward proxy army, whichis something completely different.'

And while easy to follow, wouldnt fly with me, and I'm, easy going. Most, if not all, of the items arent even the right size base wise. PLaying card for a battlewagon or a trukk? Even the old ork trukks are bigger than a playing cards

Bunker, while still a bit subjective, there do appear to be some consistent and (at least to me) understandable points to the recent criticisms of your Death Guard / SW / Counts As. I don’t think characterizing people’s opinions as “ranting and raving” contributes usefully to the dialogue.

1. From what you describe, apart from the weapons swap, on the bikes you’re using a straight model substitution of another unit available in the same army. This can engender confusion, and can give opponents the impression that you’re doing it just to save work and money. This does little to endear the models to your opponent. Bikes and TWC have very different stats and roles. If the reason for the Counts As is because the TWC are unavailable, and/or because you don’t like those models, actually converting the bikes themselves to be bigger, badder, buffer and more Choppy will make the Counts As more obvious and intuitive for your opponents, and will generally make them happier with it.
2. With the techmarines, have you also modeled on Lascannons/Plasmacannons/multimeltas? The regular servo-harness does come with special weapons, but they’re not (IIRC) twin-linked, nor do they include any of the heavy weapons that oblits customarily use. Again, an actual conversion to the stock model to make it more obvious that its capabilities are those of an Obliterator, possibly also including putting it on a 40mm base like an Oblit, will make the Counts As more intuitive and clear, and show your opponent that you’re making an effort to add something cool to the game- not just save money with an unrepresentative model.
3. I also was a bit curious about the Wolf Lord on a Bike. If he’s actually another Counts-As TWC rider, and there are no actual bikes in the army, that’s not so bad. If he’s really on a bike, then it’s definitely bad

I totally understand the appeal of doing what you’re doing. My main army was a Dark Angels army and now mostly play them as Fallen, using the CSM codex. But I did paint up Obliterators, not just convert my old Techmarine and do more like him, though that would have been considerably cheaper. That’s a personal choice, but I decided that I preferred to not test my opponents’ tolerance.

Speaking more generally, I think Age of Egos has the best approach on this. When you utilize Counts As, you really should come at it from the assumption that this is something with significant potential to confuse or annoy an opponent, and so it’s best to err on the side of caution in making things as clear as possible.

When opponents see a substitution which is because an old unit was invalidated by GW, or appears to be because the owner wanted to convert a cool or unique model, it elicits their sympathy and enthusiasm. The Counts-As player is making use of an old unit or adding something cool to the game. When an opponent sees a substitution which appears to be simply to save the owner money or effort, which is not as clear as it could be, it may elicit annoyance. As in that case it can feel like the owner is prioritizing their money and convenience over the quality of the shared game experience.

This is the perfect exaple of what a counts-as army should be like:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/271328.page

Bunker wrote:


2) they AREN'T standard bikes, they will have all of the necessary wargear to be armed properly.

except for the key piece of eargear, the core of the model... Being Calvary which allows a 12" assault and other different rules. Why is it so hard to have a unit of bikes for when you use an armylist that uses bikes and a themed unit of cavalry for when you use them as Space wolves? If you are going to be an EVERYMARINE list, at least you could do is make appropriately converted models for the unique codex-specific units that have the actual wargear, not just the wargear you feel like modeling and ignoring that which you do not.

3) straight up techmarines have the same weapons modeled as the current oblits are allowed to have. Melta, plasma, flamer. Also, as I stated, I'm trying to make them look as Codex-chapter like as possible, thus no conversions

That seems like a bit of a cop out. many models are more than straight wargear and weapons. What is the difference between a Kommando and a Slugga boy? I guarantee opponents expect modeled distinction regardless of weapons and would be upset to see Kommandos with special rules being indistinguishable from a generic ork. Obliterators have weapons a Tech marine cannot have as well as tech marines have weapons Obliterators do not have. Giving a tech marine all the weapon options and only using 1 per game isn't WYSIWYG. I can't make a Warboss with a Big Choppa and PK in Mega armor and say he can 'count' as a Megaboss or a heavy armored choppa boss and he is WYSIWYG because he has the weapon options even though they are illegal and redudant.

And there is a significant difference between a 2+/5i+ terminator armor of an Oblit and a 2+ artificer armor of a tech marine. This is a straight up proxy not even an attempt of 'counts as'

Sheesh, read the post next time, wouldya?

Trying to not be too insulting, I have to ask:

yes you were. Classic defense of people who don't like don't like critisisim and want to invalidate the critisizm by destroying the people doing the critisizing. "no one cares what they think because they are a miniroty of players or such a jerk they are invalid"

Do most of you guys ranting and raving about counts-as have trouble finding a game? I couldn't imagine most of you getting games easily if you complained on the table like you do here.

You have clearly said your motivation is avoiding the work and expendature of modeling and being able to use the latest 'competitive' list.

If I was going to add SW to my EVERYMARINE army, I could probably use 90% of my existing models as valid units with no problem, and I would make the minimal effort to appropriately model the codex specific units like TWC instead of just slapping bikes around. A Bike is no more Calvary than a Bike is a Jetpack. How many TWC do you plan to run? Modeling 5 or so cavalry models is going to destroy your army and break the bank? Its not like you are a white scars army so bikes are not a core feature of your army... The minimal effort shows a lot of respect to opponents and people pick up on that. Telling someone "this obliterator is a techmarine and you are a friendless a-hole for not agreeing with me." isn't respect.

These examples are 'PROXIES'. And most people allow Proxies when agreed to before hand with the understanding that they are a temporary thing. Don't show up to play a real game with Proxies and claim 'counts as' because as someone mentioned, apparently lots of people don't seem to understand the definition of the term.

Modquisition on:
Politeness people, lets all remember Dakka rule #1.

A Bike is no more Calvary than a Bike is a Jetpack.

Actually if you didn't have bikers in your army, that sounds kind of cool-jetbike equipped white scar CC toops as jump marines. I kind of like that.

AgeOfEgos wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:The difference is that good counts as armies are simple, and don't have strong precedents for how they "should" be played. If using something with roots, don't stray so far afield.

As always YMMV.

I can sincerely appreciate that and respect your position.

Outside of two counts as, everything is WYSIWYG.

The vanilla SM dex really didn't afford those options. Second, I strongly dislike the play style of the vanilla dex as I prefer to be aggressive with tactical squads and get out of rhinos...which again the SW dex provided. Mostly however, it was the ability of the SW codex to capture the theme of my army at the siege of Terra with the conversions I'll be bringing.

Again though, I completely respect your position John and hold no animosity for your disagreement. Mileage does vary!

I'm not against you at all, and I hope that's clear, too.

It's some nice modeling, but it just doesn't scream "cavalry" when I look at those jetbikes. I could see them standing in as Attack Bikes or even regular bikes. Or Characters on Bikes. But making the leap to cavalry just isn't intuitive. If they were a Marine on some sort of walker platform, preferably quadrupedal, but even bipedal would work, I'd be far more charitable in my assessment. To me, it seems like an apples / oranges thing.

I have similar distaste for the vanilla SM book, and I understand that you're doing a WS army at the Siege of Terra, but you never considered CSM rules for your Heresy-era army?

Anyhow, I completely respect you and the work you're doing. I just don't think that WS Jetbikes are well-represented by SW Thunderwolf Cavalry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bunker wrote:This is a great example of not bothering to read or check referenced models.

Where are the pictures of the models in question?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BluntmanDC wrote:This is the perfect exaple of what a counts-as army should be like:

Those Orkrons are great. Clear, simple conversions.

BrookM wrote:To me personally a masterful execution of the proposed theme is all the reason I need.

Well with that quote in mind, i hereby would like to show off my armies,
first up is my Khrave and Barghesi army.

Yes it all counts as Orks and yes every single model is converted, and no this was not a cheaper option than doing just normal Orks, infact the whole army costs well over £500!!!! I have no idea how much 3000 points of Orks would cost but i guess alot less.
So as a prove master (ha) of making converted armies (google Rise of the Humanids to see my other converted counts as army) I would like to throw my opion into the ring. It really dicks me off when i face off against people who use coke cans as russ's and such and what kills me even more if to have that player lord it over me coz their mighty pritstick titan kills half my mobs in one turn (yeah that happened once). If your going to do a counts as army then do it for the right reasons i.e, cos there are no models or rules for your xeno race or cos G.W havent got round to doing the ab mech army yet. If your doing cos you want your army to win 8 out 10 of games instead of your usaul 7 out of ten then your just missing the point of counts as. This should be a fun hobby of painting and modeling or just playing for fun. If you need to be a power gamer your in the wrong hobby and you should stick to chess or something. Oh dear i'm rambling on (this is why i just read and not post!)
Anyway i hope people like looking at my army again! And i look forward to all the prasie ! (he he he!)

Also i think the post about using coins was a joke, i hope it was. Cos if i ever played you expect to be a few quid shorter at the end of the game!

I once played a guy who (fairly unapologetically) used quarters to fill out a SM squad. Oh, and Necron Warriors too. Although I guess those are technically MEqs, unlike the two bits.

This was at a GW Grand Tournament. Seriously.

I could have complained to the staff, but I decided to take the high road, bite my tongue and just get through the game. And as proof that karma doesn't really exist, I ended up losing to the guy. *facepalm*

gorgon wrote:I once played a guy who (fairly unapologetically) used quarters to fill out a SM squad. Oh, and Necron Warriors too. Although I guess those are technically MEqs, unlike the two bits.

This was at a GW Grand Tournament. Seriously.

I could have complained to the staff, but I decided to take the high road, bite my tongue and just get through the game. And as proof that karma doesn't really exist, I ended up losing to the guy. *facepalm*

It's hard not to get a cover save when you're < 1/16" tall...

Bunker wrote:So other than "I just don't like it" and "I think you're just trying to cut corners" (super insulting by the by, thanks), you don't have a real reason why you think I'm doing something wrong?

I'll keep my "magic" Thunderwulf bikes, thanks for the reply.

You're conveniently forgetting the most important ones: you have no justification for why your bikes get +1str +1T +1W +3 attacks and rending, and your bikes are already a unit in the same codex.
I see how you have ignored my saying this in every way possible, including many examples, and feel like you are just looking for pats on the back. Sorry, none here.
In conclusion
1. it looks like you are trying to cut corners, either way
2. you haven't even tried to say how you might convert your bikes to justify massive stat increases worthy of an elephant sized wolf that can tear tanks apart and take a lascannon to the face
3. bikes are already a unit in your codex.
In conclusion, I don't like your idea. This is not one of my reasons for why it is wrong, I don't like it because I think it is wrong.

Right now it seems like you are just hearing what you want to hear: that "the evil internet person is oppressing my creative genius just because he's a jerk". I don't like your ideas because the models already have the rules and don't match the rules you want to use them for. I mean come on, would you just say "yeah, sounds legit" to someone that brought an army of deff koptas (weapons options converted only) as nob bikerz, or warriors (weapons options converted only) as carnifexes, or guardians as howling banshees, in a non "okay, nice proxies" way?

And from a fluff perspective,

Lexicanum wrote:Mortarion ensured that his men were well-equipped and highly-trained. He also ensured that they could fight in almost any kind of atmosphere, and placed little emphasis on specialised units using jump packs or bikes.

To be honest you really picked the very worst pre-heresy legion to try to justify super-bikers, any way you go about it . The death guard used less bikers than any other legion, I see no reason why they would have uber-magic-bikers.

ph34r wrote:To be honest you really picked the very worst pre-heresy legion to try to justify super-bikers, any way you go about it . The death guard used less bikers than any other legion, I see no reason why they would have uber-magic-bikers.

Seriously... If someone was trying to stick within the pre-heresy fluff of that legion, it would make even *MORE* sense to have some form of converted cavalry based upon the home-planet's atmosphere or even the Necromacy origins of that legion. Being valid fluff and being a unique model people would be instantly more prone to understand that marine on a nasty-looking skeleton beast is a TWC while the same marine on a regular bike would be a biker.

Maybe if the codex in Question was like Orks where they have legacy Cyboar models, and Cyboar rules in 3rd edition and no current or valid rules to draw upon would people be more prone for a simple 'counts as' cavalry to bike or vice versa. Often COUNTS AS are the best fit for a model in a list, In this example, a model on a bike is best fit as the bike unit which is very available.

This thread reminds me of the rule that you shouldn't probably play anyone you wouldn't willingly go have a burger and a soda with before or after the game. If there's that much of a schism in your interp or "the right way to play", neither of you is likely to have much fun.

privateer4hire wrote:This thread reminds me of the rule that you shouldn't probably play anyone you wouldn't willingly go have a burger and a soda with before or after the game. If there's that much of a schism in your interp or "the right way to play", neither of you is likely to have much fun.

So, it makes me a dick for preferring not to play against a proxy army? I love the orkcrons and deffwing armies that have been posted in here, in fact most of the ideas are really good, but just because I say "No, bikers are actually bikers, not wolves. Look, in your codex, 'swiftclaw bikers'. They have rules." I am a bad person?

ph34r wrote:

privateer4hire wrote:This thread reminds me of the rule that you shouldn't probably play anyone you wouldn't willingly go have a burger and a soda with before or after the game. If there's that much of a schism in your interp or "the right way to play", neither of you is likely to have much fun.

So, it makes me a dick for preferring not to play against a proxy army? I love the orkcrons and deffwing armies that have been posted in here, in fact most of the ideas are really good, but just because I say "No, bikers are actually bikers, not wolves. Look, in your codex, 'swiftclaw bikers'. They have rules." I am a bad person?

Out of curiousity... what if the army on the table has no by-rules bikes? That is, what if all the bikes on the field are 'counts as' or 'proxy' Thunderwolf Cav? Or, for that matter, vice-versa?

Could you guys take it to PM? I'm concerned the thread is going to get shut down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm not against you at all, and I hope that's clear, too.

It's some nice modeling, but it just doesn't scream "cavalry" when I look at those jetbikes. I could see them standing in as Attack Bikes or even regular bikes. Or Characters on Bikes. But making the leap to cavalry just isn't intuitive. If they were a Marine on some sort of walker platform, preferably quadrupedal, but even bipedal would work, I'd be far more charitable in my assessment. To me, it seems like an apples / oranges thing.

I have similar distaste for the vanilla SM book, and I understand that you're doing a WS army at the Siege of Terra, but you never considered CSM rules for your Heresy-era army?

Anyhow, I completely respect you and the work you're doing. I just don't think that WS Jetbikes are well-represented by SW Thunderwolf Cavalry.

Well make this the most agreeable disagreement I've had on Dakka then .

I considered the Chaos dex (as others)....but was concerned on my center pieces/major conversions... fitting the bill so to speak.

Vulcan wrote:

ph34r wrote:

privateer4hire wrote:This thread reminds me of the rule that you shouldn't probably play anyone you wouldn't willingly go have a burger and a soda with before or after the game. If there's that much of a schism in your interp or "the right way to play", neither of you is likely to have much fun.

So, it makes me a dick for preferring not to play against a proxy army? I love the orkcrons and deffwing armies that have been posted in here, in fact most of the ideas are really good, but just because I say "No, bikers are actually bikers, not wolves. Look, in your codex, 'swiftclaw bikers'. They have rules." I am a bad person?

Out of curiousity... what if the army on the table has no by-rules bikes? That is, what if all the bikes on the field are 'counts as' or 'proxy' Thunderwolf Cav? Or, for that matter, vice-versa?

it would be better, as people have already posted its 'all the lascannons are missle launchers' but not 'this guys lascannon is a missle launcher, this guys lascannon is a...etc'. The main problem most of the commentators have with the death guard example is that it makes no sense as a death guard (pre or post heresy), if he want to play a SW list pick an army that fits their play style. The use of bikes as TWC is not good if they are just standard bikes, the example of using a giant chem beast like the decaying necromunda rat as a mount would make more sence for the death guard. if it was a white scars army using SW then a bike would make sense as long as its a big, armoured, blade ladden bike. i feel the key to a counts as army are:

a good theme/fluff
represent the stat lines
WYSIWYG when it comes to weapons

ph34r wrote:

privateer4hire wrote:This thread reminds me of the rule that you shouldn't probably play anyone you wouldn't willingly go have a burger and a soda with before or after the game. If there's that much of a schism in your interp or "the right way to play", neither of you is likely to have much fun.

So, it makes me a dick for preferring not to play against a proxy army? I love the orkcrons and deffwing armies that have been posted in here, in fact most of the ideas are really good, but just because I say "No, bikers are actually bikers, not wolves. Look, in your codex, 'swiftclaw bikers'. They have rules." I am a bad person?

I think you are taking his sentiment the wrong way, personally. I feel along the same lines as him.

The primary reason I enjoy playing WH40k is that there is a rather large community to game with, and I can choose to game with different people, according the the way that we enjoy playing the game. In other words, I play games so that I can socialize mainly. Beers and toy soldiers is a great way to have a good time IMHO. If someone has a force that you feel does not meet your 'standards' of gameplay, there should be no problem telling them that, in a polite fashion.

I would play against primer armies forever TBH, I am not particularly good at painting myself. I also understand that to game in many groups, people will be much less inclined to actually want to play me, if I decided to focus only on the modeling part of the game, and not so much the painting.

YMMV is very important in all of this.

Not everyone games in the same way, nor has similar expectations when they choose to play. To many, strict 'counts as' rules, simply defeats the main purpose of it in the first place; which I consider to be creativity. I like to see wild armies, and would choose to play against nothing but outlandish forces if I had the chance. This mainly comes down to my taste in miniatures, while I enjoy the GW model lines for the most part, I simply don't enjoy the spectacle of most armies. Basically requiring people to put in enourmous amounts of hours, just to satisfy my taste in gaming, has never really been a very effective way for me to find games. Especially when my playable WH40k army takes a backseat investment wise, to my other projects.

BluntmanDC wrote:The use of bikes as TWC is not good if they are just standard bikes, the example of using a giant chem beast like the decaying necromunda rat as a mount would make more sence for the death guard.

Dear lord, that sounds outrageously awesome... LINK ME TO PICS. I DEMAND IT!!!

Wrexasaur wrote:

BluntmanDC wrote:The use of bikes as TWC is not good if they are just standard bikes, the example of using a giant chem beast like the decaying necromunda rat as a mount would make more sence for the death guard.

Dear lord, that sounds outrageously awesome... LINK ME TO PICS. I DEMAND IT!!!

I think the model in question is the Mordheim Thing in the Woods - google it if you want pics.

By memory, it's roughly 3" long, so it'd actually be a very good choice for a Cavalry mount for a Death Guard model.

Same with a converted Juggernaut. Or Rhinox. Or Carnifex / Trygon. Something *BIG*.

Oh, I was wondering if anyone had seen pics, or had actually made that conversion.

Wait... Carnifex riders? That... does sound pretty freaking awesome.

Vulcan wrote:

ph34r wrote:

privateer4hire wrote:This thread reminds me of the rule that you shouldn't probably play anyone you wouldn't willingly go have a burger and a soda with before or after the game. If there's that much of a schism in your interp or "the right way to play", neither of you is likely to have much fun.

So, it makes me a dick for preferring not to play against a proxy army? I love the orkcrons and deffwing armies that have been posted in here, in fact most of the ideas are really good, but just because I say "No, bikers are actually bikers, not wolves. Look, in your codex, 'swiftclaw bikers'. They have rules." I am a bad person?

Out of curiousity... what if the army on the table has no by-rules bikes? That is, what if all the bikes on the field are 'counts as' or 'proxy' Thunderwolf Cav? Or, for that matter, vice-versa?

It would be better, but I would still hope that the person would try to represent the units capabilities in modeling.

BluntmanDC wrote:it would be better, as people have already posted its 'all the lascannons are missle launchers' but not 'this guys lascannon is a missle launcher, this guys lascannon is a...etc'. The main problem most of the commentators have with the death guard example is that it makes no sense as a death guard (pre or post heresy), if he want to play a SW list pick an army that fits their play style. The use of bikes as TWC is not good if they are just standard bikes, the example of using a giant chem beast like the decaying necromunda rat as a mount would make more sence for the death guard. if it was a white scars army using SW then a bike would make sense as long as its a big, armoured, blade ladden bike. i feel the key to a counts as army are:

a good theme/fluff
represent the stat lines
WYSIWYG when it comes to weapons

This is exactly what I am saying, do those 3 things and you're good to go.

I think some posters are limiting themselves and due to successful branding from GW are unable to think outside the box. The big question on count as is: are you playing for the fluff, the rules, the miniatures? If you are in the fluff thing somebody putting down a bunch of orks in his IG army as stormtroopers might give you the shivers but from a rule wise PoV it´s no big deal. There is no right way to play as long as you are having fun.

So who is GW/random guy to say (other than in GW tournaments and stores ofc) which codex and miniatures should I use. If you are playing in a friendly environment and want to use necrons with the BA codex why should some scream bloody murder at the sight of you army as long as said army is consistent with itself? Why not play a mix of Gumdam models and IG infantry under the nid codex, again as long as figure A is used as unit 1 and only unit 1?. I´ll admit that anybody can refuse to play anytime he wants but the attitude of some dismissing others out of hand with some post is kind of snobbish.

I play Eldar because I like the way the codex was designed but out of 120+ figures I only have a shadowseer, Maugan Ra, a box of Sscorpions, a box of converted SGuardians and 4 gravtanks. Can you refuse to play me? Of course! and I wont be offended... well perhaps a little bit depending how you word your refusal but to say that using a Tamiya tank with some weapon swaps as my Chimera is lazy because I did not rivet it to the 150% it´s offensive because I made sure that there is an internal consistency in my army units with similar figures for the same unit, colors, etc and kind of missing the point written in the page number 2 of the rulebook.

To illustrate this, an example of my 40k count as IG and Eldar armies even if the photo is a little bit blurry.



From left to right: Tamiya LRBT, Tamiya Chimera,
AC HWT (GW, Urban War and bits), IG (Warzone pus bits), Harlequin (Infinity), FDragon (Warzone), Wraithlord (Infinity), Sscorpion (GW), DA (Warzone)
PCS with count as plasma gunner (Warzone and GW plus bits), Warlock and Farseer (Warzone), HB (Urban War) Storm Guardian (GW plus bits)

You might like it or not, can play me or not, but those are the armies I wanted to build and play and as far as I´m concerned if you are playing like I do I won´t care about your count as.

M.

ph34r wrote:

privateer4hire wrote:This thread reminds me of the rule that you shouldn't probably play anyone you wouldn't willingly go have a burger and a soda with before or after the game. If there's that much of a schism in your interp or "the right way to play", neither of you is likely to have much fun.

So, it makes me a dick for preferring not to play against a proxy army? I love the orkcrons and deffwing armies that have been posted in here, in fact most of the ideas are really good, but just because I say "No, bikers are actually bikers, not wolves. Look, in your codex, 'swiftclaw bikers'. They have rules." I am a bad person?

????

I basically said that if me and another player don't get along well enough to talk about whatever and maybe grab a soda and otherwise socialize normally, then we may not be civil enough to understand each other's heresy views of how you should play with little plastic/lead soldiers.

If an opponent has you seething by the time he's halfway through deployment because you don't like---- a comment he made, clothes he's wearing, his choice to field WarZone guys as IG, preference of soft drink, fill-in-the-blank---you probably ain't gonna have a fun game with one another.

If my counts as makes somebody mad, pretty sure we're going to disagree more readilly on LOS, casualty allocation, and/or interp of one or more rules.

It has nothing to do with the person. It's not that I won't like you if you proxy your army, it's that I would not feel inclined to play against someone who has made your choices in modeling that I view as not fluffy, not modeled. If I've come to play a game of 40k I will choose to play it against someone that has put some thought/effort into their army, over someone that is basically proxying.

Basically, if you seemed like a great guy and your models were painted awesome etc sure I'd play you. However if you are just a random guy, and there are other random guys, I'll just play against one whose army doesn't feel proxied to me. If I were rating you in a tournament, I would rate your modeling low due to your units not matching what you want their rules to be.

'my army is a bit hard to play with this list so i'll pick another' its disrespectful to other gamers.

Disrespectful? How is it disrespectful, explain it to me.

So long as you can tell what everything is "supposed" to be who gives a crap, honestly?

When people use Rhinos as Dark Eldar raiders. Consistently. That's when I'm reaching my limit.

ph34r wrote:

privateer4hire wrote:This thread reminds me of the rule that you shouldn't probably play anyone you wouldn't willingly go have a burger and a soda with before or after the game. If there's that much of a schism in your interp or "the right way to play", neither of you is likely to have much fun.

So, it makes me a dick for preferring not to play against a proxy army? I love the orkcrons and deffwing armies that have been posted in here, in fact most of the ideas are really good, but just because I say "No, bikers are actually bikers, not wolves. Look, in your codex, 'swiftclaw bikers'. They have rules." I am a bad person?

Yes.

If someone is a bad person in your eyes for wanting to play against people who model their units in a manner that is unambiguous and WYSIWYG, your world view must be grim indeed.

ph34r wrote:If someone is a bad person in your eyes for wanting to play against people who model their units in a manner that is unambiguous and WYSIWYG, your world view must be grim indeed.

You asked and then respond with insults, but that supports my earlier view of you.
Quite the opposite. I am not hung up on whether a squad of jetbikes represent bikes or wolves. As long as no other unit represents something else big deal. Shut up and play.

You take that as an insult? Let me explain for you, perhaps I was the one being ambiguous. To rephrase: if you get that upset by someone having a different preference level of what is "normal" when playing 40k, then I believe you to be greatly overreacting and therefore suggest that if non-issues cause you to judge someone's character so harshly then I would think you might react severely to actual issues. Of course, this is going under the assumption that someone's modeling "standards" is not a big deal, maybe it is for you and I am incorrect for assuming such.

Hopefully your misinterpreting of and/or my confusingly phrasing my post does not "confirm" me as a bad person in your view that you have developed.

I would advise you to remember that it is not "your way or the highway". Your tolerance of counts-as obviously goes one minor degree above mine, in that you don't care if bikers (or whatever model X) are not modeled to match the unit Y that the unit is using the rules of, even if there is a unit Z with the same model as unit X. Everyone is different in this regard, and there are people that would consider it completely normal to play with paper cutouts, pennies, soda cans, etc. Would you be happy being chastised by these players for insisting that they use models? I would think not, and condemning someone as a "bad person" for such a trivial matter is quite frankly absurd. I know that you are a Dakka [MOD], but even still I would recommend you read up on Dakka Rule #1.

ph34r wrote:You take that as an insult? Let me explain for you, perhaps I was the one being ambiguous. To rephrase: if you get that upset by someone having a different preference level of what is "normal" when playing 40k, then I believe you to be greatly overreacting and therefore suggest that if non-issues cause you to judge someone's character so harshly then I would think you might react severely to actual issues. Of course, this is going under the assumption that someone's modeling "standards" is not a big deal, maybe it is for you and I am incorrect for assuming such.

Hopefully your misinterpreting of and/or my confusingly phrasing my post does not "confirm" me as a bad person in your view that you have developed.

I would advise you to remember that it is not "your way or the highway". Your tolerance of counts-as obviously goes one minor degree above mine, in that you don't care if bikers (or whatever model X) are not modeled to match the unit Y that the unit is using the rules of, even if there is a unit Z with the same model as unit X. Everyone is different in this regard, and there are people that would consider it completely normal to play with paper cutouts, pennies, soda cans, etc. Would you be happy being chastised by these players for insisting that they use models? I would think not, and condemning someone as a "bad person" for such a trivial matter is quite frankly absurd. I know that you are a Dakka [MOD], but even still I would recommend you read up on Dakka Rule #1.

And let met make it clear to you. You asked a question, which you shouldn't have because you didn't know the answer to it. I responded to YOUR question. If you're that hung about playing a game that you can't see past a squad of bikes counting as something else then thats your issue, not mine. Its a game, act like it.

Alright. If you think that someone is a dick and a bad person for feeling slightly differently than you about how a game is represented, then that is an issue, I'm not gonna candy coat that. In addition you are wrong in all your points. Don't worry, you were not confusing, just wrong.
There was no reason that I should not have asked that question, the knowledge that someone can develop such a dislike for someone else over a slight difference in game playing is eye opening. You have shown me that all you need to do to be the most giant douche on the planet is to judge someone a bad person for Playing Toy Soldiers Slightly Differently.

I will gladly bear my "feels slightly different about modeling and WYSIWIG" with pride as long as I am eclipsed by the supernova of ridiculousness that is "people that believe differently than me are bad and also dicks". Seriously, nothing can redeem the level of dumb that you have dropped on this thread.

ph34r wrote:Alright. If you think that someone is a dick and a bad person for feeling slightly differently than you about how a game is represented, then that is an issue, I'm not gonna candy coat that. In addition you are wrong in all your points. Don't worry, you were not confusing, just wrong.
There was no reason that I should not have asked that question, the knowledge that someone can develop such a dislike for someone else over a slight difference in game playing is eye opening. You have shown me that all you need to do to be the most giant douche on the planet is to judge someone a bad person for Playing Toy Soldiers Slightly Differently.

I will gladly bear my "feels slightly different about modeling and WYSIWIG" with pride as long as I am eclipsed by the supernova of ridiculousness that is "people that believe differently than me are bad and also dicks". Seriously, nothing can redeem the level of dumb that you have dropped on this thread.

All that from responding to your own question. Amazing.

Also reported.

All that from responding to someone responding to my rhetorical question. Amazing, yes it is.
Also your lack of actual discussion/debating being made up with "you are wrong and bad" is annoying.
In the end even if I cannot take the "resisting flame bait/trolling" award, I can take the moral high ground in knowing that I do not judge people as terrible over the internet for minor modeling disagreements.

I'm locking this thread. And wish I had a funny, drunken way of doing it.