24779
Post by: Eilif
What are people's feeling about codex hopping? In trying to avoid Proxy/counts as arguments, so for the sake of this thread I'm specifically refering to Space Marine (edit: and Chaos Space Marine) armies where the army is mostly WYSIWYG and the owner uses codicies other than what is reflected in the army's paintjob. DA as wolves, Ultras as BA, etc, etc.
I've got a fully painted BA army from way-back, and I recognize that codex creep has made them pretty powerfull these days. However, I've no problem at all with folks using the BA codex with their marine armies, regardless of color as long as they are all (or nearly all) WYSIWYG. Why should they be penalized because their army of choice hasn't been uber'fied recently?
38415
Post by: tantan628
As long as it is mostly WSYWIG at least then fine I say, just no 'that marine represents a necron lord' or anything like that.
11
Post by: ph34r
As long as it is WYSIWYG.
This means codex hopping to GK is impossible, and codex hopping to armies with non-codex astartes units is hard.
35356
Post by: Cannibal
Technicaly I think that's even encouraged in the rules themselves, so long as everything is clear and wysiwyg. The BA codex, for example, isn't just for Blood Angels. It also covers all their successor chapters (It even has some successor chapter characters that can be used with BA characters).
You could just say "These are the Blood Angels. If you where wondering why they look like Ultramarines, it is because all space marines wish they could be Ultramarines, so they painted themselves to look just like them"
On the same note, many people use the BA codex to represent pre heresy World Eaters. Totaly acceptable.
Edit: spelling
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
If I ever got back into 40k I would make an army that was a cross between Space Wolves and Blood Angles so that I could use either codex.
31545
Post by: AlexHolker
Eilif wrote:Why should they be penalized because their army of choice hasn't been uber'fied recently?
Because waiting for replacements for thirteen year old metal basic troops and an 8 year old codex makes me unsympathetic to anyone whose army gets twice as many plastic kits as everyone else, whose codex is less than three years old, and still whines about being left behind.
35865
Post by: Cottonjaw
Because I play Tau. My codex is old, my rules don't work like they used to, my rapid fire range isn't 15" anymore because of a change in wording, my units are overcosted compared to yours and my transport moves the same speed as yours but costs 2.5 times as much.
And I can't just say "Oh well now they're space wolves" so why should you be able to?
105
Post by: Sarigar
A couple of reasons that I've seen locally:
-The armies end up not being WYSIWYG. Each codex has some unique pieces in them and rather than properly model the army, you end up with proxies. Personally, I'm not a fan of having 7 out of 15 Missile Launchers being proxied or playing stump the chump with which model has an Inferno Pistol.
-In conjunction to the above, it seems to create a lot of unfinished armies. As an opponent, I'm now facing off against a half painted or unpainted mass of models and left to figure out what is what as well as proxying issues.
-As these armies are not cheap, I fully appreciate folks wanting to try out armies before investing hundreds of dollars into a new army. However, there is also a lot of 'flavor of the month' players who are trying to win with whatever the latest and greatest seems to be. So, rather than getting good with an army, they hop from codex to codex, use multiple proxies and have a half/unpainted army and tell their opponent how uber their army is. Then, they get beat and suddenly they're off to the next uber 'flavor of the month' codex. Or, if they do happen to win, you have to listen to just how uber their army is as they shove their army into a shoebox.
-All in all, this is not a lot of fun to play against.
Of note, there is some parody mixed in and names have been avoided to protect the innocent(offenders).
35865
Post by: Cottonjaw
Sarigar wrote:Of note, there is some parody mixed in and names have been avoided to protect the innocent(offenders).
So the guilty!? hahaha
Totally agree. The worst part about it is the flavor of the monthness. Have some damn pride. Paint your models and be proud of them for what they are. I understand it's just a game and it's just little plastic spacemen, but show a little loyalty to the side you picked.
A space marine captain is not an emperors champion is not slap a jump pack on it and now its a blood angel. Play what you paint, and for the love of god paint.
My favorite new line to say, with the recent GK release is, "Well at least these marines are the right color" when staring at the grey plastic nightmare layed before me.
Black primer I refer to as "Black Crusade"
and of course the classic "Shouldn't your white scars be on bikes?" to marines primed white.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I think people who codex hop believe they can find a winning formula in uber lists rather than by learning how to play their own codex better.
Whilst there is a power discrepancy between codexes, I don't think the margin between the best and worst SM books is more than 10%.
A player who knows his army inside out may be better able to compensate for such a margin, especially when playing in "all comer" environments.
34906
Post by: Pacific
Sarigar wrote:
-In conjunction to the above, it seems to create a lot of unfinished armies. As an opponent, I'm now facing off against a half painted or unpainted mass of models and left to figure out what is what as well as proxying issues.
.
This is the only problem I have with it really. Only a couple of guys I know whose marines became SW, and then became BA. Unpainted and even partially unassembled armies in both cases. I dunno, I mean it's not like I have a real problem with it in principle (in the same way I don't really mind playing unpainted armies). But, given the choice (and I will always say this) I much prefer playing an army that looks like it has had more than 10 minutes effort put into it, rather than models being unceremoniously dumped into CC ("hey, just because you don't care about your own models, doesn't mean I don't care about mine" as they get shovelled into base to base contact..) and blu-tacked arms with proxied weapons falling off.
I think like anything, if people can see you have put the effort in (with WYSIWYG) and realise that the onus is on them to make sure their opponent is aware of what is what, then people wouldn't have a problem with it. But, so often (at least from my experience) people who codex hop just don't make that effort.
958
Post by: mikhaila
Playing with a buddy in a basement? Up to your opponent and you.
Doing a test of a new list before you buy it a couple of times, up to your opponent and you.
In a tournament? Forget it. Your opponent may be nice enough not to complain to your face, but he's going to have more trouble following the game. I don't allow them in my tournaments.
And please note that I make a big distinction between list swapping, proxy, and 'counts as'.
If someone has a nicely painted and converted army, where a good amount of work has been put into the modeling and painting to portray a theme, then it usually gets a thumbs up. An IG army using grots and some orky bits is fine. Pre-Heresy chaos lists that use a SW or BA codex build are another example. I think Goatboy has one he did up on BOLS or his website. I've seen a couple genestealer cults using IG rules, and a 'space vermin' army modeled from Eldar and Skaven bits, run as Eldar.
I generally ask the question: Was this concieved as a modeling and painting project, or was it just an army someone already owned and wants to use new rules?
24779
Post by: Eilif
Interesting points all around.
As to unpainted figs, that's a whole separate ballgame. I only play painted units and tend to avoid playing against unpainted armies.
However, it seems that alot of folks have experineced codex hoppers who completely fail in the painting/modeling department. Even though that's a separate issue, I can definitely see how someone who was mostly focused on the game and not modeling might be more apt to codex hop and less likely to have a painted army.
For my purposes, as long as it's painted and mostly WYSIWYG, I don't care which rules you use.
If it's not painted and not close to WYSIWYG, you can read whatever codex you want, because I won't be playing you.
26459
Post by: The Night Stalker
Ugh my FLGS has a few people like this and TBH it just sucks all of the fun out of the game, watching as your opponent dumps his mishmash of second hand vanilla SM's onto the table then proceeds to declare that they are going to be playing SW, BA, or GK. I dont tolerate this kind of crap, when I field my armies I make sure everything is WYSIWYG. I absolutely despise flavor of the month players, specially when there is a new SM based release since those types of players will just slap together what ever power armored models and SM vehicles they have and the outlandish proxies begin.
33968
Post by: Tomb King
I dont do flavor of the month but I do jump around to different army every week. i have 6 40k armies and I play wysiwg for all of them so I dont know if it is quite the same as what you all are saying as only 2 are SM's and that is blood angels, and my CSM.
I switch armies to mix it up because we usually have the same crowd at most tournaments and if I play the same army every-time so it tends to get a little redundant.
I know what you all are talking about though I have seen the million proxies in one army and it does kind of take away from the game. I am an easy going player though and will probably always allow it unless I think the guy is a TFG.
3802
Post by: chromedog
Because dilettantism is the mark of the amateur.
Pick something and stick to it. You'll never get better at something unless you persevere with it.
Unless you are a kitten, or teenager, in which case, hopping from one thing to another like a flea with ADHD is normal (still annoying, but sadly normal).
Still, I pick my armies by their look, not their rules, and have been known to use units purely because of how badass they look (regardless of whether such badass-ness translates to the tabletop).
5111
Post by: MikeMcSomething
Cottonjaw wrote:Sarigar wrote:Of note, there is some parody mixed in and names have been avoided to protect the innocent(offenders).
So the guilty!? hahaha
Totally agree. The worst part about it is the flavor of the monthness. Have some damn pride. Paint your models and be proud of them for what they are. I understand it's just a game and it's just little plastic spacemen, but show a little loyalty to the side you picked.
A space marine captain is not an emperors champion is not slap a jump pack on it and now its a blood angel. Play what you paint, and for the love of god paint.
My favorite new line to say, with the recent GK release is, "Well at least these marines are the right color" when staring at the grey plastic nightmare layed before me.
Black primer I refer to as "Black Crusade"
and of course the classic "Shouldn't your white scars be on bikes?" to marines primed white.
What's with all these people feeling like they deserve a Purple Heart because they stuck with a miserable army?
The idea of assigning some sort of moral judgement to someone playing a new army when it comes out is absurd.
And really, if I've got the option of playing a rattlecan primer-colored army, or something that looks like it was fingerpainted by a 7-year old (read: the majority of FLGS armies) I'm really not going to split hairs. You don't get an "A" for effort.
And if you're trying to pass judgement on someone at an FLGS by making stupid puns (probably with the associated fake chuckle) you're TFG, and you don't realize it.
33968
Post by: Tomb King
chromedog wrote:Because dilettantism is the mark of the amateur.
Pick something and stick to it. You'll never get better at something unless you persevere with it.
Unless you are a kitten, or teenager, in which case, hopping from one thing to another like a flea with ADHD is normal (still annoying, but sadly normal).
Still, I pick my armies by their look, not their rules, and have been known to use units purely because of how badass they look (regardless of whether such badass-ness translates to the tabletop).
lol two of my newest armies are tau and necrons. Im not even interested in the GK spam. I switch armies also for the challenge. I have almost stopped playing with my CSM entirely because they are too easy to win with imho.
3802
Post by: chromedog
My armies are:
SM
DH (now GK).
IG
Eldar
I've had the SM and Eldar the longest. SM have always been made using the 'Ultramarines" list/codex (for upgrade safety. I lost fewer options this way when things changed). Eldar have only ever used the "core" list (even if I do have enough units to do most of the variants).
The DH/GK have been going since the 3rd ed codex came out (I had 5 GKT from RT days that were 'allied' to my SM in 2nd ed). I've been playing and losing with them for years. Now it's time for some payback.
15115
Post by: Brother SRM
Because there's a perception that the newest army is "better" and that people hopping from book to book are just doing it to win. It also means their fluff/paintscheme will also be pretty diluted.
13664
Post by: Illumini
mikhaila wrote:or was it just an army someone already owned and wants to use new rules?
And as long as the army is WYSIWYG, that is wrong why? Because somebody got more enjoyment out of their army without buying a new one that consists of many of the same models?
I found myself with three space marine armies when I got a bunch of space wolves from a friend. I quickly realized how incredibly silly it was to buy several of the same unit just to paint them in different colors, so I now have one space marine army that can be them all. (not including GK or CSM). It has a coherent paint scheme, it is fully WYSIWYG and it even has some fluff, but it is built to take advantage of the fact that there are 5 different rulesets for the same miniatures, so I guess that means I wouldn't be able to play it at your tourney?
chromedog wrote:Because dilettantism is the mark of the amateur.
Pick something and stick to it. You'll never get better at something unless you persevere with it.
So why do you have more than one army?
Change is a good thing in warhammer. Most people have a group of people they play more than others, it is boring for your opponents if you always play the same list and the same codex. I love it when my gaming partners test new armies and codexes.
MikeMcSomething wrote:And if you're trying to pass judgement on someone at an FLGS by making stupid puns (probably with the associated fake chuckle) you're TFG, and you don't realize it.
+1
3802
Post by: chromedog
Because I like the models in 4 different armies. I've belonged to 7 different clubs over the years, and all of them had ONE major army that everyone had, so I started an army that none of them had, or used one that I already had that none of them had - because marines on marines every single game was more tedious than watching most anime OR lord of the rings. Playing with the same army models ALL the time gets boring. Playing with the same army models as blood angels one week then space wolves the next and spiky-rar! marines the next is just as boring.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Eilif wrote:What are people's feeling about codex hopping? In trying to avoid Proxy/counts as arguments, so for the sake of this thread I'm specifically refering to Space Marine (edit: and Chaos Space Marine) armies where the army is mostly WYSIWYG and the owner uses codicies other than what is reflected in the army's paintjob. DA as wolves, Ultras as BA, etc, etc.
I've got a fully painted BA army from way-back, and I recognize that codex creep has made them pretty powerfull these days. However, I've no problem at all with folks using the BA codex with their marine armies, regardless of color as long as they are all (or nearly all) WYSIWYG. Why should they be penalized because their army of choice hasn't been uber'fied recently?
I have absolutely no problem with it. I've known multiple players with DIY armies and those would occasionally change. Often players would change with a new codex, or just to do something different. My Valhallans have been Steel legion, guard, armored company, drop troops, and renegade chaos as part of my beloved LATD.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Really don't like people codex-hopping just so they have use what they think are the best rules. It's just a sign of someone being desperate to win games rather than make an army. This is why I'm suspicious of some unpainted Marine armies in particular - "It's Ultramarines this week, oh now they're Space Wolves, now they're Blood Angels, can I use them as Grey Knights today? I just got their new codex and want to teleport my blood angels land raider" You should be able to identify almost all armies just by looking at them, unless it's some rare case of someone running a Squats counts-as IG list in which case you'll need an explanation as what Codex you are using and what models represent what. I think it's the younger players doing more of this sort of thing, because there's the somewhat childish need to see winning as the be-all and end-all of everything and they are also the ones more easily suckered each month by GW's crude advertising with bright colours and saying "this is the BEST and you need this to WIN" on all their latest releases. Yawn.
18698
Post by: kronk
I started with Black Templars. Almost of my Space Marines are painted as Black Templars (With a small, but growing Crimson Fist army). After playing them for 2 years, I needed a break and switched to Codex Space Marines for a few months. I even added a few parts to my army that Black Templars don't get: Whirlwinds, Land Raider Redeemer, namely. I painted them as Templars.
I even added 2 super heavies and an IG "Plasma Flinger" Lemun Russ, all painted as Templars, for Apoc games.
I don't consider myself a Flavor of the Month guy. Just an 'I'm bored with Templars right now but don't want to drop $600 on another army" guy. However, does that make me better than a "Flavor of the Month" guy? No. Does that make a guy that would refuse to play his Templars as anything but Templars better than me? No.
If someone wants to play their space wolves as Blood Angels, I would give it a go. Especially if it was a friend. I'd need to be very clear on what was what, but I would ask that they make reasonable substitutions. "This wolf rider is a scout and this wolf rider is a Land Speeder" would not work for me. But that would be the same for any proxy situation. Get it close, please. That's all I really ask.
Just my 2 cents.
40133
Post by: jacetms87
I think at the end of the day it is just a game. An incredibly fun one, but just a game. People will choose to play it differently at times. One way is not superior or inferior to any other way. An elitist attitude because you have paint on your army men is not founded well. Just as an elitist attitude because you are playing the newest army is not founded well. Play this game for you and have fun with it.
In casual games as long as it is clearly determined before hand what is the harm really? In a tournament setting it is different. People have come to play a game competitively agreeing to a set of rules before hand. All should conform to these rules, as that were agreed to.
Play the game so that you have fun with it. What ever that may be. If you insist on only playing painted armies ect. That is your decision. Conversely if someone wants to say that their space wolves are blood angels that is theirs.
6872
Post by: sourclams
It's a game.
If the 'codex hopper' is using the same, horribly multicolored and half-assembled, headless Marines with crappy counts-as weapon loadouts for BA that they did for SW and CSM, and now are attempting to use them for GK, then that's one thing.
If the 'codex hopper' is literally buying themselves a new army every 6 months for an outlay of hundreds of dollars every time, then your only valid gripe is playing against a guy willing to spend more money on the hobby than you are.
32973
Post by: Retrias
sourclams wrote:It's a game.
If the 'codex hopper' is using the same, horribly multicolored and half-assembled, headless Marines with crappy counts-as weapon loadouts for BA that they did for SW and CSM, and now are attempting to use them for GK, then that's one thing.
If the 'codex hopper' is literally buying themselves a new army every 6 months for an outlay of hundreds of dollars every time, then your only valid gripe is playing against a guy willing to spend more money on the hobby than you are.
this sums my atitude about it , and of course you have to justify the codex hopping
space marine to space marine, but if one day someone said to me that their farseer model is mephiston....
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
Cottonjaw wrote:Because I play Tau. My codex is old, my rules don't work like they used to, my rapid fire range isn't 15" anymore because of a change in wording, my units are overcosted compared to yours and my transport moves the same speed as yours but costs 2.5 times as much.
And I can't just say "Oh well now they're space wolves" so why should you be able to?
Yeah no kidding. Eldar and Dark Eldar are pretty similar, right, you gonna let me use my Eldar as Dark Eldar? How about my Tau? They both have skimmers, that should be allowed too. And necrons, yeah, why not. In fact, why care about models at all right? Its not part of the hobby or anything, they are just markers for use with the rules. Maybe I should just start using little wooden mannequin dollies instead of actual models. That way I can play them as Grey Knights/Blood Angels/Space Wolves/Black Templars/Dark Angels/Ultramarines/Eldar/Tau/Necrons/Dark Eldar/Orks/Fantasy Empire/Fantasy Ogres/Fantasy Skaven, etc. etc. etc.
The minis, their paint scheme, and their interaction with the rules are important aspects of the hobby. You aren't just playing a game, you're re-enacting battles that might occur in a fantasy setting that took years of thought (and plagiarism!) to create. Space Wolves and Blood Angels don't oprerate and fight the same way. There is a reason they look different, there is a reason they have different rules. Its more than just a difference in paint scheme, etc. You're doing the fluff a disservice every time you codex hop. I'm a bit more forgiving if its a custom chapter, I mean, really they can be whatever the hell you want, but I have a limit to how far I can suspend disbelief.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
I use my marines to hop around between different armies all the time, and you know why? Because I like to play different armies once in a while-I bought space marines, I can use them as any chapter I want. I play WYSIWYG and don't have proxies, at most one or two, and I shouldn't be told "You can't play Space Wolves because all of your marines are painted Black and Red." I think the complaints stem from people who find it easier to whine than to just accept how people want to play. It's a game for God's sake. Accept the fact that some of us play for fun and can use whatever codex we want as long as the pieces are uniformly appropriate and who gives a rat's @$$ about the color of the models. Make sure the weapons on the model are appropriate and you shouldn't have any trouble. Anyone who gives you a hard time isn't a worthwhile opponent. And yes, I've run tournaments and followed what I just said-there were no complaints from anybody.
664
Post by: Grimtuff
Cottonjaw wrote:Because I play Tau. My codex is old, my rules don't work like they used to, my rapid fire range isn't 15" anymore because of a change in wording, my units are overcosted compared to yours and my transport moves the same speed as yours but costs 2.5 times as much.
And I can't just say "Oh well now they're space wolves" so why should you be able to?
Your Rapid Fire range has never been 15". RF has always been 12" for every weapon with that rule since 3rd ed.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Also, saying "Because I play X race and I don't have as many model choices as you, you can't use multiple books that all use the same/similar models." People claiming this need to grow up and quit whining. Buy a small Space Marine army, buy a couple of codeces and make your own chapter that could include multiple sects that use rules from various books. My custom chapter is painted/detailed so that it can function as Black Templar OR Blood Angels, and of course any chapter can pretty much be substituted as Vanilla Marines. Do this in addition to your Tau or whatever other army. I also have Daemons AND Eldar. It's legit. Grow up and deal with it.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
timetowaste85 wrote:Buy a small Space Marine army, buy a couple of codeces and make your own chapter that could include multiple sects that use rules from various books. My custom chapter is painted/detailed so that it can function as Black Templar OR Blood Angels, and of course any chapter can pretty much be substituted as Vanilla Marines.
Just strikes me as being a bit cheesy to make your own chapter (which not enough people do IMO) and then swap between a couple of codexes for different games. What's the style and background of the army, shouldn't they align consistently with one codex as their guide? Otherwise it comes off as tailoring the choice in codex to the opponent you would be facing. "I'm space wolves today to fight orks but next week will go vanilla for my fight against chaos". Smells of WAAC.
26459
Post by: The Night Stalker
chaos0xomega wrote:Cottonjaw wrote:Because I play Tau. My codex is old, my rules don't work like they used to, my rapid fire range isn't 15" anymore because of a change in wording, my units are overcosted compared to yours and my transport moves the same speed as yours but costs 2.5 times as much.
And I can't just say "Oh well now they're space wolves" so why should you be able to?
Yeah no kidding. Eldar and Dark Eldar are pretty similar, right, you gonna let me use my Eldar as Dark Eldar? How about my Tau? They both have skimmers, that should be allowed too. And necrons, yeah, why not. In fact, why care about models at all right? Its not part of the hobby or anything, they are just markers for use with the rules. Maybe I should just start using little wooden mannequin dollies instead of actual models. That way I can play them as Grey Knights/Blood Angels/Space Wolves/Black Templars/Dark Angels/Ultramarines/Eldar/Tau/Necrons/Dark Eldar/Orks/Fantasy Empire/Fantasy Ogres/Fantasy Skaven, etc. etc. etc.
The minis, their paint scheme, and their interaction with the rules are important aspects of the hobby. You aren't just playing a game, you're re-enacting battles that might occur in a fantasy setting that took years of thought (and plagiarism!) to create. Space Wolves and Blood Angels don't oprerate and fight the same way. There is a reason they look different, there is a reason they have different rules. Its more than just a difference in paint scheme, etc. You're doing the fluff a disservice every time you codex hop. I'm a bit more forgiving if its a custom chapter, I mean, really they can be whatever the hell you want, but I have a limit to how far I can suspend disbelief.
QFT
I would respect a painstankenly converted/well painted WYSIWYG army being used as a codex army, hell I support cusomization and custom chapters, creativity is one of the most important aspects of this hobby. However this is rarely the case and most of the time what happens after a release is a bunch of hideous looking SM's are put in front of you and used as whatever brand new army has just been released without any thought or creativity put into it. It happened at my FLGS with BA and now its going to happen with GK and it pisses me off to no end.
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
timetowaste85 wrote:I use my marines to hop around between different armies all the time, and you know why? Because I like to play different armies once in a while-I bought space marines, I can use them as any chapter I want. I play WYSIWYG and don't have proxies, at most one or two, and I shouldn't be told "You can't play Space Wolves because all of your marines are painted Black and Red." I think the complaints stem from people who find it easier to whine than to just accept how people want to play. It's a game for God's sake. Accept the fact that some of us play for fun and can use whatever codex we want as long as the pieces are uniformly appropriate and who gives a rat's @$$ about the color of the models. Make sure the weapons on the model are appropriate and you shouldn't have any trouble. Anyone who gives you a hard time isn't a worthwhile opponent. And yes, I've run tournaments and followed what I just said-there were no complaints from anybody.
See, some people find more than just the game to be fun. What you find fun does not fully match up with what I find fun. I find playing fluffy well thought out and suitably modeled armies fun. Your fun is ruining my fun. Likewise, by saying 'complaints stem from people who find it easier to whine than to just accept how people want to play' is to be more than a bit hypocritical. You are in effect complaining about others because you yourself don't accept how other people want to play.
If you like playing different armies once in a while, thats fine. If you're going to do it regularly, would it kill ya to buy new minis and model them appropriately like the rest of us? There's no reason not to do that anyway. Read the fluff, its not uncommon for multiple chapters to end up fighting side by side in the same warzone, why not play that way on the tabletop if you love jumping around so much?
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Just strikes me as being a bit cheesy to make your own chapter (which not enough people do IMO) and then swap between a couple of codexes for different games. What's the style and background of the army, shouldn't they align consistently with one codex as their guide? Otherwise it comes off as tailoring the choice in codex to the opponent you would be facing. "I'm space wolves today to fight orks but next week will go vanilla for my fight against chaos". Smells of WAAC. This is not WAAC if I made a chapter to justify being able to switch between 2 regular chapters so I don't get bored with it. I don't list tailor, neither my friends nor I tell which army we are playing so we just play whichever one we want since we all have 3+ armies. I justify it with the idea that I don't want to pay for 2 full different space marine armies so I play WYSIWYG but with a color scheme that could work for both chapters, because unless you missed it GW models are expensive, and I buy models that can work for either army as well as the special unique characters/models that are army specific. If there was list tailoring, I could understand this complaint. As there is no list-tailoring to face specific armies, I would like to dismiss your argument towards me (other players may take advantage of this and are in the wrong, but I do no such thing). -edit-Wow, that was a lot of commas all at once. Oh well chaos0xomega wrote:timetowaste85 wrote:I use my marines to hop around between different armies all the time, and you know why? Because I like to play different armies once in a while-I bought space marines, I can use them as any chapter I want. I play WYSIWYG and don't have proxies, at most one or two, and I shouldn't be told "You can't play Space Wolves because all of your marines are painted Black and Red." I think the complaints stem from people who find it easier to whine than to just accept how people want to play. It's a game for God's sake. Accept the fact that some of us play for fun and can use whatever codex we want as long as the pieces are uniformly appropriate and who gives a rat's @$$ about the color of the models. Make sure the weapons on the model are appropriate and you shouldn't have any trouble. Anyone who gives you a hard time isn't a worthwhile opponent. And yes, I've run tournaments and followed what I just said-there were no complaints from anybody. See, some people find more than just the game to be fun. What you find fun does not fully match up with what I find fun. I find playing fluffy well thought out and suitably modeled armies fun. Your fun is ruining my fun. Likewise, by saying 'complaints stem from people who find it easier to whine than to just accept how people want to play' is to be more than a bit hypocritical. You are in effect complaining about others because you yourself don't accept how other people want to play.  ? And this is a completely ridiculous statement-you're telling me I have to limit how I play my army so that YOU have fun, which isn't fun for me because I get bored just playing one style. I offered an option so that you can make more opportunities for yourself so you don't feel limited. But I refuse to play a game against someone who whines and cries that my army doesn't perfectly match my paint scheme. If you want to sit on your high-holy-horse and say that I don't deserve to have fun unless I follow your rules, then take a moment to realize how foolish that sounds. If you want to complain that you don't have as many options as marine players, feel free-but don't tell us we have to conform to your play style. That's just beyond ignorant. And yes, I do get outraged by people telling other players that because said first player has a limited army, player two must ALSO play a limited army. It's pure foolishness and I don't find myself hypocritical at all. You're seeking to limit players and I seek to give more options. Who is offering something better to the larger community?
221
Post by: Frazzled
chaos0xomega wrote:Cottonjaw wrote:Because I play Tau. My codex is old, my rules don't work like they used to, my rapid fire range isn't 15" anymore because of a change in wording, my units are overcosted compared to yours and my transport moves the same speed as yours but costs 2.5 times as much.
And I can't just say "Oh well now they're space wolves" so why should you be able to?
Yeah no kidding. Eldar and Dark Eldar are pretty similar, right, you gonna let me use my Eldar as Dark Eldar? How about my Tau? They both have skimmers, that should be allowed too. And necrons, yeah, why not. In fact, why care about models at all right? Its not part of the hobby or anything, they are just markers for use with the rules. Maybe I should just start using little wooden mannequin dollies instead of actual models. That way I can play them as Grey Knights/Blood Angels/Space Wolves/Black Templars/Dark Angels/Ultramarines/Eldar/Tau/Necrons/Dark Eldar/Orks/Fantasy Empire/Fantasy Ogres/Fantasy Skaven, etc. etc. etc.
The minis, their paint scheme, and their interaction with the rules are important aspects of the hobby. You aren't just playing a game, you're re-enacting battles that might occur in a fantasy setting that took years of thought (and plagiarism!) to create. Space Wolves and Blood Angels don't oprerate and fight the same way. There is a reason they look different, there is a reason they have different rules. Its more than just a difference in paint scheme, etc. You're doing the fluff a disservice every time you codex hop. I'm a bit more forgiving if its a custom chapter, I mean, really they can be whatever the hell you want, but I have a limit to how far I can suspend disbelief.
Wo about a 9 on the tension scale there Vern.
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
timetowaste85 wrote:Just strikes me as being a bit cheesy to make your own chapter (which not enough people do IMO) and then swap between a couple of codexes for different games. What's the style and background of the army, shouldn't they align consistently with one codex as their guide? Otherwise it comes off as tailoring the choice in codex to the opponent you would be facing. "I'm space wolves today to fight orks but next week will go vanilla for my fight against chaos". Smells of WAAC.
This is not WAAC if I made a chapter to justify being able to switch between 2 regular chapters so I don't get bored with it. I don't list tailor, neither my friends nor I tell which army we are playing so we just play whichever one we want since we all have 3+ armies. I justify it with the idea that I don't want to pay for 2 full different space marine armies so I play WYSIWYG but with a color scheme that could work for both chapters, because unless you missed it GW models are expensive, and I buy models that can work for either army as well as the special unique characters/models that are army specific. If there was list tailoring, I could understand this complaint. As there is no list-tailoring to face specific armies, I would like to dismiss your argument towards me (other players may take advantage of this and are in the wrong, but I do no such thing).
-edit-Wow, that was a lot of commas all at once. Oh well
chaos0xomega wrote:timetowaste85 wrote:I use my marines to hop around between different armies all the time, and you know why? Because I like to play different armies once in a while-I bought space marines, I can use them as any chapter I want. I play WYSIWYG and don't have proxies, at most one or two, and I shouldn't be told "You can't play Space Wolves because all of your marines are painted Black and Red." I think the complaints stem from people who find it easier to whine than to just accept how people want to play. It's a game for God's sake. Accept the fact that some of us play for fun and can use whatever codex we want as long as the pieces are uniformly appropriate and who gives a rat's @$$ about the color of the models. Make sure the weapons on the model are appropriate and you shouldn't have any trouble. Anyone who gives you a hard time isn't a worthwhile opponent. And yes, I've run tournaments and followed what I just said-there were no complaints from anybody.
See, some people find more than just the game to be fun. What you find fun does not fully match up with what I find fun. I find playing fluffy well thought out and suitably modeled armies fun. Your fun is ruining my fun. Likewise, by saying 'complaints stem from people who find it easier to whine than to just accept how people want to play' is to be more than a bit hypocritical. You are in effect complaining about others because you yourself don't accept how other people want to play.
?
And this is a completely ridiculous statement-you're telling me I have to limit how I play my army so that YOU have fun, which isn't fun for me because I get bored just playing one style. I offered an option so that you can make more opportunities for yourself so you don't feel limited. But I refuse to play a game against someone who whines and cries that my army doesn't perfectly match my paint scheme. If you want to sit on your high-holy-horse and say that I don't deserve to have fun unless I follow your rules, then take a moment to realize how foolish that sounds. If you want to complain that you don't have as many options as marine players, feel free-but don't tell us we have to conform to your play style. That's just beyond ignorant. And yes, I do get outraged by people telling other players that because said first player has a limited army, player two must ALSO play a limited army. It's pure foolishness and I don't find myself hypocritical at all. You're seeking to limit players and I seek to give more options. Who is offering something better to the larger community?
I think you missed the point of my argument, I was not TELLING you how to play your army, nor was I telling you to conform to my rules. The point was to illustrate the fallacy in your logic, which you have more than further reinforced with this post. Furthermore, your 'solution' to the problem is selfish and near-sighted. Rather than trying to seek a compromise, you in effect demand that I conform to your own way of playing the game (isn't that of what you're accuisng me of? hmm...) I don't WANT to play space marines. By playing space marines and following suit with your pattern of behavior, all I am doing is helping further degrade the game into "Space Marine 40k".
All I did was offer an opinion. You are the one telling others how to play, and then assaulting them verbally for refusing to conform.
Frazzled wrote:
Wo about a 9 on the tension scale there Vern.
Errr... thank you? I'm not sure I understand what this means/refers to.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
@ Chaos0xomega:
My problem with your argument stems from you saying "your fun is ruining my fun" and that I "don't accept how other people want to play." By all means, play how you want-but don't tell me I can't switch out armies while sharing matching models just because they don't conform to your standards. "Buy a Space Marine army and do what you want with it" was my way of saying 'here's your option to do the same thing as I do.' You can also do the same with Eldar, as far as I'm concerned-if you can make an Eldar theme fit within the new Dark Eldar codex or with the minis, such as a biker army, then go wild-who has the right to tell you not to mix and match Eldar if you can make it work (this is just another example, not an attack on your previous eldar->dark eldar->tau skimmer comment).
My fun is painting (which got me into the game) and playing games with my friends, not being told "you're ruining my fun by jumping around codeces." If players like I ruin your fun, then don't play space marine players. And your statement was not an "opinion" any more than mine was-it was an attack because I don't agree with you and your vision of the game: don't make me out to be the 'bad guy' here-I don't appreciate it.
And no, I do not find it at hypocritical that I am complaining about someone telling me how to play or what I'm allowed to play-I voiced my displeasure about people complaining about switching codeces-which I believe is fair and valid on my part since it is something my friends and I all do. I have the same right to enjoy my army as you do; what I don't need is somebody telling me that I can't enjoy my army because it offends them. Nor am I telling people how to play: I'm telling them not to tell me how to, and if they want to complain about my choices and options in the game, I offered a solution to their problems.
To conclude, and I hope neither you or anyone else has a problem with this statement, every player has the right to play THEIR army the way THEY want. No opponent should ever curtail other players style of play or interest in an army or models that offer a broad range of options. Everyone has the right to play the models they buy how they want, as long as it conforms to the general rules set by the game.
24779
Post by: Eilif
Looks like some folks are getting offended. Remember that the title of the thread is "What's Wrong...". Right from the title I encouraged folks to state their dislike for a practice, and that will inevitably lead to strong expressions of preferences and personal standards. Not everyone is going to agree, and some opinions about playing 40k will be mutually exclusive. That's ok.
If anyone finds such opions and expressions offensive, I encourage them to look elsewhere.
3806
Post by: Grot 6
I play a basic 1000 pt army from time to time. Thing is though, you buy the stuff and don't be TFG about it. If they stick, I'll buy a couple of more units, play a few games, and keep them. If not, they hit the bricks.
I hate the eldar because of a tag teaming I took way back when with a couple of TFG's when I first was serious into playing an Ork Horde army. After the fact, found out that the Eldar were not as hot stuff as I was led onto, and from then on, had a serious case of the !@#$ when they show up. I make it a point to mob up on them and wipe the units out as bloody as possible. I wouldn't dare try to pull using an Ork as a Eldar, necron, Tau, etc. An Ork is an ork, a TAu is a Tau.
I hate seeing guys come to the table with thier obliged one painted model, and the unit with no arms/ name. Then to have the brass to say something toolish like, this guy is so and so, he's special...
Worst thing that people do when they codex flop is to try to baffle you with Bullgak, or dazzle you with demons. THEN they want to go on and on about how oh so special thier stupid pet tricks are. It reminds me of the smerk attitude of one of those tools on TV spouting off about thier favorite card monster, or something equally as lame.
Its a wargame, some have something others have another, you play the game you're army is dealt.
Don't mind a good game, hate a !@#$ attitude.
8932
Post by: Lanrak
Hi all.
The reason GW release thier shiney new minatures with a marketing pamphlet , er I mean codex.
Is to 'inspire' thier core demoghraphic to buy new minatures.
So all those people NOT buying the new minatures after GW has totaly destabilised the 40k game system to give you 'AWSOMEKOOLNEWRULZ' .
Are not concidered to be part of GWs primary demoghraphic.(Impessionable children and collectors who think the rules are not that important.)
You pay your money and get the most out of you purchases you can.
Some prefer to painstakinly create a depth of background and character for thier army.
Others use thier minatures in as many ways as possible.
No right or wrong, just different.
(In the wider wargaming hobby , gamers can create a characterful army , AND use the same minatures with differnt rule sets!)
TTFN
6356
Post by: Ghidorah
Tomb King wrote:I have almost stopped playing with my CSM entirely because they are too easy to win with...
Do you typically play against 9 year olds? How you win, let alone easily and often, with Chaos Marines is beyond me. It's my experience with the new codex that they suck. Terribly.
King Ghidorah
34906
Post by: Pacific
I wish you would change your signature Ghidorah, I don't think I've ever actually read the text of your comments!
26459
Post by: The Night Stalker
Ghidorah wrote:Tomb King wrote:I have almost stopped playing with my CSM entirely because they are too easy to win with...
Do you typically play against 9 year olds? How you win, let alone easily and often, with Chaos Marines is beyond me. It's my experience with the new codex that they suck. Terribly.
King Ghidorah
I wouldn't say that they are one of the worst codexes out there but they are definetly not anywhere near the best. I hope the dex gets a makeover after Tau/Necrons/Sisters, because with every new release the chaos dex looks more and more ancient.
29519
Post by: Arclaw
Not a fan, really...
My worst experience was when I was getting back into 40k (5th ed) after a long break (from 3rd ed). We were doing some homebrew kill-team type thing with about 5 people, mostly my brothers uni mates, with quick games and experience/wargear purchase for characters, etc.
In the first game, I found myself up against some white-primed eldar guardians. "OK" I say to myself, "I know eldar, 5+ saves, catapults, etc". Pick 'em off in close combat, hahah.
It was only when I got my first marine to assault that he rolled a 3+ save and I realised something wasn't right. "They're grey hunters" he says. What the hell? "Space Wolves" he tells my confounded self (I used to play IG and Salamanders back in 3rd Ed, never gave Space Wolves more than a cursory glace, silly non-codex chapters with their flashy thingamajigs and what have you). Ok, I think, At least it's a fair match, marine on marine... When he pulls out his attack dice I was thinking "thats too many". "Oh Space Wolves marines have pistols and close combat weapons" he says...
Was a bit of a wipeout. Ok, so I should have known more about the space wolves, but at the start I assumed that Grey Hunters were some kind of Aspect Warrior I'd forgotten about
I'm a bit more savvy these days, but WYSIWYG is worth it's weight in gold, especially if you're swapping Eldar for new shiny codex Space Wolves! Some things aren't so bad... I don't mind a plasma gun being a melta gun, as long as I know about it first!
On top of all that, I, like many, feel an alegiance to the armies I play- Why? Because of fluff, style, whatever. It really adds to the game If you're both passionate about your forces, rather than clinically swapping and proxying to the most recently updated, powerful force. To me, this is just as important as having paint on the model. It takes something away from the game (well, it's a bit of a downer anyway) when an army you have patiently collected for years and and have much love for is annihilated by someone proxying the lastest best mehrines or what-have-you. If the game was about who has the most optimal codex, we'd all collect the same army, which isn't the point of this game. (Anyway, as an aside, this year's adepticon top 16 shows that variety in army choice is still very much possible competitively, despite the codex creep)
On the other hand, I have no problem with people collecting and painting up the newly released armies... "Bandwagoning" as some people call it. Hell, I was tempted enough by the dark eldar. It's just the wanton proxying that can be so frustrating sometimes, especially if you've put the effort to make your own army WYSIWYG!
14386
Post by: Grey Knight Luke
In the end I don't care what people are doing as long as everything is followable (WYSIWYG).
I don't like it because I want my local shops to get better and better. I firmly believe that the best players are people who have played LOTS of games with their current army and list. I think codex hopping greatly reduces the ability of a player to understand the nuances of their list because they are now essentially playing a different army. If its a one off game to quell boredom, whatever, but flavor of the month usually winds up tasting like poo poo in the end.
31962
Post by: lucasbuffalo
I am a huge fan of WYSIWYG. In any game (other than with very new players who are barely getting models) it's a must in my opinion for clarity. Minor proxying is acceptable to me (as long as they are clearly defined and there's no "Oh, some of those flamers are actually flamers, some are other special weapons" and things of the sort) but I prefer WYSIWYG.
On the note about codex hopping... I get bored easily. I eventually want to own every 40k army (as crazy as that sounds) and actively trade off magic cards, video games, etc. My motto is, if I get every single new thing when it comes out, eventually I'll have them all  .
I'm the guy who had a lvl 80 of every character type on World of Warcraft (while raiding with my main) and who really enjoys variety. I don't think the desire to mix it up with something new is a bad thing, but I'll be caught in the Emperor's wrath before you see me plop down an unconverted Dark Eldar Archon and tell my opponent "It's a Grey Knight... deal with it."
24267
Post by: akaean
I feel as though some people are being too harsh on unpainted models. I've had my Eldar for a while and I still need to get around to painting some of my tanks. Everything is WYSIWYG, but I just enjoy painting infantry more then Tanks. So all of my Infantry are all painted up and whatnot, but I have several grey tanks floating about. I do think that Marine codex flopping is rather annoying however. I have a codex, and I have models which correspond to it. Its sort of mind boggling that the regularly updated Space Marines decide that their book "isn't good enough" anymore and need to jump ship to Space Wolves or Blood Angels at the drop of a hat. And its not like the Space Marine Codex is particularly lacking in builds and units which can potentially be effective. Players who decide that they are bored with their army, and want to use a different codex (especially because they precieve it stronger then their own) just strike me as annoying. But then again, I'm fairly biased. I generally dislike Marines period. I think that the premis that they are "super elite" soldiers is sort of lost when there are 5 seperate loyalist marine codexes (wtf??)- 6 if you count GK. When every other army in the game is shoe holed into a single codex. I understand that Marines are the poster boys, but everybody playing t4 3+ armor save with a few additional (and usually rediculous) special rules is just lame. Remember kids, friends don't let friends play MEQ
27151
Post by: streamdragon
Cottonjaw wrote:Totally agree. The worst part about it is the flavor of the monthness. Have some damn pride. Paint your models and be proud of them for what they are. I understand it's just a game and it's just little plastic spacemen, but show a little loyalty to the side you picked.
I know, right!? I'm loyal to a fault to that shoe, and I won't play Monopoly if some one else tries to take it!
Seriously, it's a game. Whether I have say "Today, these space marines will be playing the role of Generic Space Marines instead of Salamanders" or buy two entire armies, does it really matter if we have a good game? The game itself should matter.
Cottonjaw wrote:
Play what you paint, and for the love of god paint.
No.
1986
Post by: thehod
It depends on if the army is WYSIWYG. I have seen some beautiful armies that the players have taken their time and money to built the army right and not just calling them angry marines one week and furry marines the next.
15579
Post by: Fearspect
I activily encourage people that are going with marines of any flavour to select a custom paint scheme so that they can freely switch between any of the codices. The only rule I enforce nearly always is WYSIWYG, so all they have to do to 'switch up' their Vanilla SM to Spacewolves is nothing, to BA, buy a couple models specifically with Infernius pistols, and leave them out if running normal assault marines, etc.
I have no understanding why this is an issue other than WYSIWYG, which is completely fair to enforce anytime. I think any of those marine players should only have to invest in one set of magnetized rhinos/razorbacks.
14640
Post by: SonofTerra
You can't always assume someone is codex hopping because they want to win at all costs. Personally i own the SM and SW codex and (even though i haven't played in years) i plan on playing using both codexes when i finish painting my toy soldiers. Some people, like me, choose to play SM or switch to SM's for the soul reason that they do get new shiny things all the time. The game CAN be about having fun, and for lots of us having fun means trying new things. As long as everything is WYSIWYG (no chainsword weilding. tactical marines) than i see absolutely no problems with it
On the other hand i do understand the frustration from some players because as a former Eldar player i had the options for Ulthwe, regular, Alaotic etc. etc. with the old codexes
8248
Post by: imweasel
I don't care about paint scheme.
I just care about wysiwyg.
If it's wysiwyg, then it's all good.
18176
Post by: Guitardian
I woudn't do it because I am used to playing an armies that were not the top of the moment (2nd ed. orks and marines, 4th ed IG, 5th ed. Eldar - wow wrong places at wrong times, huh?), and I am used to everyone I game with using the amies that they have.
My Eldar have supposedly become obsolete but when I even play any more, I still use them because I think they are cool. I think the new codex > old codex thing is true, it is not just the whining or paranoia of bad players, and I also feel than this just makes the game difficult, but never impossible.
I wouldn't want to play against someone who just custom picks whatever the best rules of the moment to use at their convenience for the same kind of reason that I don't suddenly become a packers fan because they had a good year and beat the Bears. Fortunately I don't have to, but I would be annoyed by some armies having access to numerous variations and options, and game-breaking advantages depending on the latest book release while others do not have this ability. This is why I don't like playing against anything from forge-world books either. Maybe when the craftworlds get as many variant tanks and such in their own giant hardcover book series as the Imperium I would feel differently, but for now, if your Ultramarine is a Blood Angel, then my Wraithlord may as well be a Dreadknight. I wouldn't want to play that kind of game, we may as well save some money and everybody just use bottle caps and cigarette boxes fighting over a table of soda cans.
40509
Post by: G00fySmiley
my boyz aren't picky.. field your vanilla or blood angels against me as gray wolves, a game is a game, still gonna be fun, space marines are still space marines and my orks just want a good fight so the mroe op and overwhelming the odds are against them the harder they have to fight which makes them happy
remember orks never lose cause if they die it don't count!
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
I'd have to say that my problem is not with people buying a new army for each new codex, nor is it with people who make their own chapter, and then choose to play them as various different chapters, as long as it continues to make sense. This means being close to WYSIWYG, and if you have counts as models, they need to make sense, they can't just be 'oh this guy with a bolter really has a melta gun.' Saying that a bike Marine is really a TWC is fine, as long as it's consistent. I'm even ok with big proxies like cardboard box Storm Ravens, beer can drop pods if they're just temporary things in place while the person tries to find out whether a new expensive model will work for him or not.
The problem I have is people who have had the same grey AOBR/standard Tac Marines for months and months with the wrong guns (this missile launcher is a melta gun! oh wait, now it's a bolter! now it's a chainsword!) and have gone from being Ultramarines to Space Wolves to Blood Angels and are now showing up as Grey Knights.
12478
Post by: Gornall
timetowaste85 wrote:I use my marines to hop around between different armies all the time, and you know why? Because I like to play different armies once in a while-I bought space marines, I can use them as any chapter I want. I play WYSIWYG and don't have proxies, at most one or two, and I shouldn't be told "You can't play Space Wolves because all of your marines are painted Black and Red." I think the complaints stem from people who find it easier to whine than to just accept how people want to play. It's a game for God's sake. Accept the fact that some of us play for fun and can use whatever codex we want as long as the pieces are uniformly appropriate and who gives a rat's @$$ about the color of the models. Make sure the weapons on the model are appropriate and you shouldn't have any trouble. Anyone who gives you a hard time isn't a worthwhile opponent. And yes, I've run tournaments and followed what I just said-there were no complaints from anybody.
This. I switch between the BA and SM books with my painted wysiwyg Smurf army from time to time. Some weeks I enjoy playing a fast vehicle gunline and some weeks I enjoy a more vanilla force. I am not going to lay out hundreds of dollars to repurchase tacticals, assault marines, rhinos and tons of other models I already own and have painted blue... just so I can paint them red.
207
Post by: Balance
In general, assuming the army is WYSIWYG, I have no problem with someone hopping between variants IF it's not done maliciously. If it's done to get the most effective counter to my army, that's a problem.
Then again, if I say I'm playing X and opponent fields Y, my only real option is to say, "Wait, I'll play Z instead!" which is ultimately doing the same thing!
18176
Post by: Guitardian
Really this kind of "problem" can only exist among the variant SM chapters, as are the only armies that use the same figures with different books. Blood Angels use Space Marines figures for everything but their unique BA/SW only things. It's the power armor. If I played SM and just wanted an easier game, sure I would just use the BA Codex. Suddenly my devastators are cheaper and my assault squads are troops and all my vehicles are faster and my dreadnought can teleport and my LR can deep strike and so on. Neat! Why not? No faction in the game other than Marine variants in their standard issue power armor (all 5-7 of them depending on if you consider GK or CSM too) even has this option. That is why I think it is unfair.
More to the point though, I think it says something about the player and the type of game. It is a WAAC competative thing to do. Some players like to play that kind of game. Fine with me. I don't though. When I play with my toys I like to play with MY toys.
So be it, drag out the greys and soda cans and stuff too while you're at it. If I want a truly competative game I will play chess. If I want to play with cool toys I will use the cool toys I have because I have them because I like my cool toys, and I will not worry that a different toy might be better than my toy, since my toy is cool, otherwise I wouldn't have wanted it.
If anyone doesn't think it is a competative/WAAC choice, please try to find a single SW or BA collection being used with C:SM rules and I will stand corrected.
6872
Post by: sourclams
Guitardian wrote: More to the point though, I think it says something about the player and the type of game. It is a WAAC competative thing to do.
Playing different armies with WYSIWYG models is not a WAAC thing to do. I don't know why WAAC even enters into this. I've used my Chaos Marines to proxy-- WYSIWYG of course-- CSM, SW, and BA. Proxying different armies can come around because you want to play the new shinydex, you want a change of pace from your "old" army, or because you simply get sick of doing the same thing all the time and hop around between newer and older codices. I've seen and done all 3.
That's not Win-At-All-Costs. It's arguably not even competitive as jumping onto the 'new thing' by definition means that you've got less time invested in it and aren't as familiar with the army or the build--you could easily be taking a step down in how 'competitively' you can play.
WAAC seems to be the rallying cry of the WAAC player, as if the first person to scream it at the other guy suddenly holds the moral high ground and their inevitable loss (with the same 4ed army that they've been doggedly adhering to for the last 5 years) is now invalid because they somehow got chipmunked by a new codex again (and never mind that they've lost to the same new codices for the last 5 books running).
18176
Post by: Guitardian
Perhaps "at all costs" is a bit harsh, I concede that. However, it does seem to be one of those costs of "all costs" to be playing the absolutely most up to date fresh version of power armor that you can get, at the risk of having everyone know you are shamelessly jumping on the latest cheesewagon for a win.
Again, I don't hear of anyone using BA as C:SM, or use the C:CSM codex for their BA, just the other way around. I have played against a guy who brought his unpainted, sometimes half constructed power armors, sometimes even with a weapon to our weekly league games. Over the course of a year the guy never really got much done investing in his power armor, but that was the span of time when SW suddenly became cool and sure enough, now those are all SW feet charging at me. Then BA was released in a couple months and he tried that too, until he found they were not as good for his play style - which amounted to "take all of the best stuff and go roll dice" - so he wasn't slaughtering as much at the weekly league games, so he went back to SW. What is that if it isn't a part of those "all costs"? It definitely wasn't a shift to make the game any more fun for anyone, or experiment around modelling wolf bits and pieces, just for his win-loss ratio.
15579
Post by: Fearspect
Guitardian wrote:Really this kind of "problem" can only exist among the variant SM chapters, as are the only armies that use the same figures with different books. Blood Angels use Space Marines figures for everything but their unique BA/SW only things. It's the power armor. If I played SM and just wanted an easier game, sure I would just use the BA Codex. Suddenly my devastators are cheaper and my assault squads are troops and all my vehicles are faster and my dreadnought can teleport and my LR can deep strike and so on. Neat! Why not? No faction in the game other than Marine variants in their standard issue power armor (all 5-7 of them depending on if you consider GK or CSM too) even has this option. That is why I think it is unfair.
More to the point though, I think it says something about the player and the type of game. It is a WAAC competative thing to do. Some players like to play that kind of game. Fine with me. I don't though. When I play with my toys I like to play with MY toys.
So be it, drag out the greys and soda cans and stuff too while you're at it. If I want a truly competative game I will play chess. If I want to play with cool toys I will use the cool toys I have because I have them because I like my cool toys, and I will not worry that a different toy might be better than my toy, since my toy is cool, otherwise I wouldn't have wanted it.
If anyone doesn't think it is a competative/WAAC choice, please try to find a single SW or BA collection being used with C:SM rules and I will stand corrected.
1) You have a fundamental misunderstanding of 40k if you truly believe that Blood Angels are strictly better than Space Marines.
2) I am glad you are around to let people know they are having fun wrong, what would we do without people like you?
34634
Post by: cgage00
I play test armies before I buy them. But I don't codex hop. I want to have a loyal marine army.
11856
Post by: Arschbombe
Guitardian wrote: Again, I don't see anyone using BA as C:SM but plenty of people do the opposite from what I have read.
You don't see that now, but in 2008 when C: SM was the new kid, there were plenty of BA armies using that codex. Over on B&C they developed a sort of custom mix codex that had three levels of mixing the shiny new C: SM with the pdf BA codex.
12478
Post by: Gornall
One of the reasons I would use the BA dex is to use the Stormraven model... Tell me how that is a competitive choice...
13664
Post by: Illumini
Almost everybody that have whined in this thread have whined over one of the following:
1- It's unpainted forever (and/or unbuilt etc)
2- It's not WYSIWYG
3- People only do it to win
4- I can't play and need to shout loudly that my opponents all win because they play a new codex.
4b - WAAA, I don't play space marines, and when I can't do it, nobody can.
Read what the OP posted in the first post:
so for the sake of this thread I'm specifically refering to Space Marine (edit: and Chaos Space Marine) armies where the army is mostly WYSIWYG and the owner uses codicies other than what is reflected in the army's paintjob. DA as wolves, Ultras as BA, etc, etc.
He is talking about WYSIWYG armies and painted armies. The guys most of the whiners in this thread describe are just general poor opponents, and should not be confused with "regular guys" that take advantage of multiple rulesets for the same figures to open up much more possibilities with their models.
As for nr 4+4b, suck it up, learn to play and stop whining.
Guitardian wrote:Again, I don't see anyone using BA as C:SM but plenty of people do the opposite from what I have read.
I jump back and forth. If I want to play with bikes, I go C: SM, if I want to go dreadnought-heavy, I can go C: SM or C: BA, if I want to play shooty mech, I go BA, if I want to play gunline, I play BT etc.
Guitardian wrote:It is a WAAC competative thing to do.
WAAC /= competitive.
Competitive players are the best opponents IMO. They usually give exciting games, know the rules, are usually good sports and they are usually graceful in both defeat and when they win.
WAAC players is another beast, poor sports, shady or outright cheating moves etc.
Please don't use those terms about the same thing.
31962
Post by: lucasbuffalo
Guitardian wrote:Perhaps "at all costs" is a bit harsh, I concede that. However, it does seem to be one of those costs of "all costs" to be playing the absolutely most up to date fresh version of power armor that you can get, at the risk of having everyone know you are shamelessly jumping on the latest cheesewagon for a win.
Again, I don't hear of anyone using BA as C:SM, or use the C:CSM codex for their BA, just the other way around. I have played against a guy who brought his unpainted, sometimes half constructed power armors, sometimes even with a weapon to our weekly league games. Over the course of a year the guy never really got much done investing in his power armor, but that was the span of time when SW suddenly became cool and sure enough, now those are all SW feet charging at me. Then BA was released in a couple months and he tried that too, until he found they were not as good for his play style - which amounted to "take all of the best stuff and go roll dice" - so he wasn't slaughtering as much at the weekly league games, so he went back to SW. What is that if it isn't a part of those "all costs"? It definitely wasn't a shift to make the game any more fun for anyone, or experiment around modelling wolf bits and pieces, just for his win-loss ratio.
So one guy you played against was slightly noobish and tried to hop on bandwagons but wasn't successful.
AKA: He's not the best player, so he went back to one army and stuck with it as he was better at it than the other one he tried?...
I'm really not sure what your complaint is.
Are you saying because he bought one army he should be doomed to use it and only it ever? It's a game of plastic men, he didn't buy the SW a ring and ask their father's permission.
Trying something new is not WAAC.
Not liking something new and going back to what you enjoy/are good at isn't WAAC.
It's called playing a game and seeing what you like.
This is like saying I picked Ryu in Street Fighter the first time I played, so now I'm never allowed to pick Ken. Automatically Appended Next Post: Guitardian wrote: were not as good for his play style - which amounted to "take all of the best stuff and go roll dice"
I assume when building an army list you prefer to choose only the worst units available?
105
Post by: Sarigar
I think the reason for some variation to the OP question is because some of us don't see his exact situation, but are seeing something similar. I don't see fully painted, WYSIWYG armies and codex hopping. I do see half/unpainted armies with proxies in this codex hopping situation. With the release of the GK codex, I forcast I will soon be facinng off against a bunch of proxied GK models and yet be another case of figuring out what I'm playing against.
If I actually saw what the OP is asking, I wouldn't care. However, what he is asking is what I think is the exception rather than the rule.
10280
Post by: fuegan17
I don't mind people codex hopping at all, gives me the chance to wreck the new codex or adapt and then wreck it.  has to be WYSIWYG gear at least though, proxies are so confusing to me.
So many people ridin' on their high horses in here, I'm assuming most of the fluffy people don't attend tournaments, and then by all means just refuse to play the game with people who codex hop. Or even play them and sit there making grumbling noises the whole time to make 'em feel bad. Again getting mad at people who play how they want to within all legality is just like people that complain about how people could like music they don't like, oh the horror of someone with a different taste!! You don't like it, we get it. Don't berate or degrade people who do it.
As for tournament play, WYSIWYG is all that matters.
24374
Post by: hemlighest
I'm painting my SM army in a special color scheme, that is no where near BA, but I intend to use the BA rules, since I'm told they are the SM codex of choice if you want a CC army, which I do.
37325
Post by: Adam LongWalker
Illumini Quoted:
WAAC /= competitive.
To me this is the following:
"Competitive person with an Attitude = WAAC"
As I have stated before it is "those" kinds of people that ruin the game for all of us.
There is nothing wrong in being competitive. Losing games and learning the reason why you lost is the main way of perfecting your game play skills.
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
Adam LongWalker wrote: There is nothing wrong in being competitive.
You'd never know that when reading gak like Dakka, though.
6872
Post by: sourclams
Adam LongWalker wrote: Illumini Quoted:
WAAC /= competitive.
To me this is the following:
"Competitive person with an Attitude = WAAC"
You can be ' WAAC TFG' and not actually be "competitive".
I have definitely played against people for whom not winning induces seizures and brain anneurisms, but I would not consider those people competitive, as in, winning is a skill set that requires practice and continuous revision and fine tuning. Those people only exhibit competitive behavior, as in, not winning results in a stroke-out and throwing of models.
31037
Post by: Obsidian Raven
I had a friend who started a marine army, and he codex hops. He also cheats like a melon-fether. for example, he was the first person i ever played. I didnt have an army at that point, so i played his orks. He played BA. he had a list 50 points over than mine (and the points limit, 500pts), he took Sanguinary preists as squad leaders (which he told me was legal, and i didnt know any better) and he rushed me into rolling for CC, making me unintentionally skip my shooting phase, then telling me i cant shoot becuase i skipped the phase. etc. etc.
Due to this guys behavior, i am now throughly against codex hoping. IMO, people like this shouldnt play. I almost dropped the game entirely because of this first game. The only thing that kept me on was the prospect of converting.
6872
Post by: sourclams
What about that scenario you detailed can possibly be attributable to codex hopping?
3197
Post by: MagickalMemories
I proxy.
I "Counts as."
I codex hop.
I have no shame in it.
My group has no issue with any of it. We're all friends and realize that we're in it for the FUN of the game and the SOCIALIZATION. We're not elitists who act like it's the end of the hobby if your army isn't perfectly WYSIWYG.
I proxy & "count as" because it's silly to spend more money than I already have on a models I'm not going to use, but a few times.
As for Codex hopping... It's not the "desperate to win" thing, as some have accused. I don't mind losing, provided the game's fun. Rather, it's the "OMGTHATLOOKSSOFUN!" factor.
It's silly to me that some people feel the need to deride and degrade others for not meeting their standards of what's acceptable in a game of mandollies.
Eric
Eric
31037
Post by: Obsidian Raven
sourclams wrote:What about that scenario you detailed can possibly be attributable to codex hopping?
well, the general attitude is the same between the codex hoppers i know, hes just the most extreme case
Edit: it strikes me now that i should have mentioned that in my initial post....
40741
Post by: Worglock
Obsidian Raven wrote:I had a friend who started a marine army, and he codex hops. He also cheats like a melon-fether. for example, he was the first person i ever played. I didnt have an army at that point, so i played his orks. He played BA. he had a list 50 points over than mine (and the points limit, 500pts), he took Sanguinary preists as squad leaders (which he told me was legal, and i didnt know any better) and he rushed me into rolling for CC, making me unintentionally skip my shooting phase, then telling me i cant shoot becuase i skipped the phase. etc. etc.
Due to this guys behavior, i am now throughly against codex hoping. IMO, people like this shouldnt play. I almost dropped the game entirely because of this first game. The only thing that kept me on was the prospect of converting.
Sounds like you need better friends. Automatically Appended Next Post: MagickalMemories wrote:I proxy.
I "Counts as."
I codex hop.
I have no shame in it.
My group has no issue with any of it. We're all friends and realize that we're in it for the FUN of the game and the SOCIALIZATION. We're not elitists who act like it's the end of the hobby if your army isn't perfectly WYSIWYG.
I proxy & "count as" because it's silly to spend more money than I already have on a models I'm not going to use, but a few times.
As for Codex hopping... It's not the "desperate to win" thing, as some have accused. I don't mind losing, provided the game's fun. Rather, it's the "OMGTHATLOOKSSOFUN!" factor.
It's silly to me that some people feel the need to deride and degrade others for not meeting their standards of what's acceptable in a game of mandollies.
Eric
Eric
Kind of like when people on Dakka derided and degraded someone (and possibly advocated assault against) for not wanting to play against a codex they see as bad and not fun.
or maybe that was "different".
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
I would say remember the lovely page Hitler Ate Sugar. TFG donkey-caves tend to be codex hoppers, just as they tend to play certain armies. However, bear in mind that just because those TFG donkey-caves are codex hoppers and play internet lists does not mean all codex hoppers are TFG donkey-caves, just like not all Space WOlf, IG, Grey Knight or Blood Angel players are TFGs. Some are, some aren't, wait till you play the person before you judge them.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
Worglock wrote:
Kind of like when people on Dakka derided and degraded someone (and possibly advocated assault against) for not wanting to play against a codex they see as bad and not fun.
or maybe that was "different".
Remember, anyone who plays 'different' than you deserves to be derided and degraded. Insulting those you disagree with gives you the moral highground.
The key point some people seem to be missing is the "My group has no issue with any of it." Opponents consent goes a long way and when the group consents, then all is good... And respecting that not all people/groups/clubs/stores/events play the game the same way as you do and asking permission instead of demanding compliance goes a long way. The only way to be accepted 100% of the time is meeting the highest standard... a Fully painted WYSIWYG army.
Just because one person consents, doesn't mean it makes it fair to use proxies against everyone in all situations. Many proxies and counts as are VERY abusive and burdensome to opponents and you shouldn't force a burden on an unwilling opponent especially in a competitive environment where every mental CPU cycle wasted on deciphering your models is something your opponent can spend on the game itself.
Good everymarine armies work great and are accepted. Bad ones work terribly and are hated. Rule of cool reigns supreme. The thing is you can play an everymarine army without using codexes or unfair counts as. All it means is you may have one or two codex specific units per codex and a few extra models.
6872
Post by: sourclams
Obsidian Raven wrote:sourclams wrote:What about that scenario you detailed can possibly be attributable to codex hopping?
well, the general attitude is the same between the codex hoppers i know, hes just the most extreme case
You showed me nothing in your post that equated 'codex hopping' to being a cheating, douchebag dick.
21993
Post by: Walls
The real problems are
a) Constant switching. Say you play someone at your LGS who gets into marines. Sure their weapons are WYSIWYG. But, one week they are space wolves, the next Blood Angels, back to space wolves, then to vanilla marines, then grey knights, then space wolves, then dark angels... you will be finding you have to ask EVERY GODDAMN GAME what is what. "Oh, gak... I thought those were tactical marines, not grey hunters! I wouldn't have charged grey hunters. Goddammit!"
b) The wannabe bs comments of "But it makes more sense, it fits to the fluff better" Guys like Goatboy on BoLS are notorious and basically hated now because of it. I am sorry, but blood angels do NOT represent Khorne chaos marines better. Neither do Space Wolves. Your Word Bearers shouldn't be using Space Wolf rules. No, Thousand Sons are not better suited with GK rules. ANYONE AT ALL doing this is doing it 100% for rules and not at all for fluff. Fluff only matters in the context of the model. Rules are changed to abuse them. Don't kid the world that you're some fluff monkey when you clearly aren't.
I just have to agree with a lot of the posters. If you can do it, why can't my Tau use Dark Eldar rules? Why can't my eldar use guard rules? Hell, why even play with models? You COULD just put green army men on bases if you are just gonna switch every week anyhow. I can't tell if they are space wolves or blood angels or gk or deathwing any better then I can when you are switching constantly.
42039
Post by: Underachiever
timetowaste85 wrote: I play WYSIWYG and don't have proxies, at most one or two.
Sorry but i laughed at that. I totally understand why people do it. And if your trying something out and its just a fun game with a mate you know well then have at it. But it's annoying to play against that's the underlying problem there 'is' always proxy as the player can not have the new big shiny that made him switch in the first place and it's the unique therefore it's always proxies.
I dont care if you pain Ultramarines Blue Pink or have orange grots. As long as it's lovingly done and is meant to be what was intended. Theres a massive difference about how your armies look which are 'counts as' armies and 'proxy' armies which are hard to look at and understand whats what. Again just personal but i really don't like playing unpainted grey masses.
6872
Post by: sourclams
Walls wrote:The real problems are
a) Constant switching. Say you play someone at your LGS who gets into marines. Sure their weapons are WYSIWYG. But, one week they are space wolves, the next Blood Angels, back to space wolves, then to vanilla marines, then grey knights, then space wolves, then dark angels... you will be finding you have to ask EVERY GODDAMN GAME what is what. "Oh, gak... I thought those were tactical marines, not grey hunters! I wouldn't have charged grey hunters. Goddammit!"
You can't keep track of what army you're fighting with WYSIWYG models? I fail to see how that's the other guy's fault. I've played against WYSIWYG Grey Hunters painted in Salamanders colors and never once have I thought I was up against Vulkan.
b) The wannabe bs comments of "But it makes more sense, it fits to the fluff better" Guys like Goatboy on BoLS are notorious and basically hated now because of it. I am sorry, but blood angels do NOT represent Khorne chaos marines better. Neither do Space Wolves. Your Word Bearers shouldn't be using Space Wolf rules. No, Thousand Sons are not better suited with GK rules. ANYONE AT ALL doing this is doing it 100% for rules and not at all for fluff. Fluff only matters in the context of the model. Rules are changed to abuse them. Don't kid the world that you're some fluff monkey when you clearly aren't.
Totally subjective comment.
I just have to agree with a lot of the posters. If you can do it, why can't my Tau use Dark Eldar rules? Why can't my eldar use guard rules? Hell, why even play with models? You COULD just put green army men on bases if you are just gonna switch every week anyhow. I can't tell if they are space wolves or blood angels or gk or deathwing any better then I can when you are switching constantly.
Why no Tau for DE? Because they're not WYSIWYG. Eldar can't use Guard rules because the wargear is not WYSIWYG. Nids can't be Marines for the same reason. Pink Space Marines modeled with bolter, chainsword, and bp have no problem bouncing between Space Wolves and Chaos Marines. Sorry you don't like it, but ultimately your beef is with a guy who stuck with a generic template that GW continuously rewards.
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
I have issue with your point of b, it's not entierly true. It's nice to have fluff with rules as well as models. Guardsmen are expendible and thus are T3 with a 5+ armor save. They wouldn't be the same if they were T10 with a 2++. If I can better represent the fluff of a certain set of models with a different rule set, I think I should be allowed to do so. As long as I'm internally consistent and it makes sense, I don't see a problem.
I also think your problem isn't with proxying, but with people who don't use the models ordained for a specific purpouse. If I want to play Blood Angels, but play them not with Blood Angels models, but with different, WYSIWYG models in a manner that makes sense with the fluff, what's wrong with that?
21993
Post by: Walls
Pink Space Marines with Bolter, Chainsword and Bolt Pistol can't be tactical space marines then... but people always use tactical space marines as Grey Hunters.
It's not just gear. There are a ton of rules each army has different. That forms your strategy. If you can't remember what the hell is what because that army was blood angels yesterday and space wolves last friday and the wednesday before was dark angels... that's your opponents fault, not yours.
Why can't eldar be guard? Just say their guns are Str 3 rapid fire. You're saying your marine has counter charge and acute senses one day and red thirst the next. No real difference.
My problem isn't with someone using tactical marines and making a space wolf army. It makes sense as you should NOT have to buy metal models just to make a unit when you can make them in plastic. HOWEVER, my problem is those armies are never just that one. In the context of this thread and the OPs post, we are talking about constant hopping to whatever book will work better that day. So, inherently, it's not the gear change that's the sore spot, it's the rules changes. Not knowing wtf they are is just as bad as not knowing what the gun they have is.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
sourclams wrote:Why no Tau for DE? Because they're not WYSIWYG. Eldar can't use Guard rules because the wargear is not WYSIWYG. Nids can't be Marines for the same reason. Pink Space Marines modeled with bolter, chainsword, and bp have no problem bouncing between Space Wolves and Chaos Marines. Sorry you don't like it, but ultimately your beef is with a guy who stuck with a generic template that GW continuously rewards.
But when your Pink space marines modeled with bolter, chainsword, and BP bounce from spacewolves to Chaos Marines, then you better have all the chaos space marine codex specific units. Your terminators are not obliterators just because they have a 2+ save, and your scouts are not daemons because they both kinda are sneaky and lightly armored, your plain marines don't have FNP as they are not plague marines, and your space marine dred is not a daemonprince because they are both 'big'.
The issue is people feel anything in power armor clearly can be anything else in power armor and claim they are WYSIWYG even when the weapons are wrong and the special rules of the unit are not represented in any way when they clearly can be.
5111
Post by: MikeMcSomething
80% of these posts are "Yeah I get beaten by marines alot, and that makes me label them *cheesy*, so by some failed property of association, I am now against codex hopping"
8248
Post by: imweasel
Walls wrote:Pink Space Marines with Bolter, Chainsword and Bolt Pistol can't be tactical space marines then... but people always use tactical space marines as Grey Hunters.
It's not just gear. There are a ton of rules each army has different. That forms your strategy. If you can't remember what the hell is what because that army was blood angels yesterday and space wolves last friday and the wednesday before was dark angels... that's your opponents fault, not yours.
Why can't eldar be guard? Just say their guns are Str 3 rapid fire. You're saying your marine has counter charge and acute senses one day and red thirst the next. No real difference.
My problem isn't with someone using tactical marines and making a space wolf army. It makes sense as you should NOT have to buy metal models just to make a unit when you can make them in plastic. HOWEVER, my problem is those armies are never just that one. In the context of this thread and the OPs post, we are talking about constant hopping to whatever book will work better that day. So, inherently, it's not the gear change that's the sore spot, it's the rules changes. Not knowing wtf they are is just as bad as not knowing what the gun they have is.
So let me get this straight. If it's wysiwyg but not painted correctly, you can't tell the difference?
Sounds like you either like to tailor your lists or you shouldn't leave your padded room.
36240
Post by: Khorne Flakes
Cottonjaw wrote:Because I play Tau. My codex is old, my rules don't work like they used to, my rapid fire range isn't 15" anymore because of a change in wording, my units are overcosted compared to yours and my transport moves the same speed as yours but costs 2.5 times as much.
And I can't just say "Oh well now they're space wolves" so why should you be able to?
I know this is a little off topic but cottonjaw yes your codex is pretty old but I wouldnt be complaining the cron codex is WAY older thatn yours. and so what if their codex is coming out in june were talking now.
So youre mad because youve been getting crappy rail gun roles wtf? dont complain about overpriced units crons are inflated, grey knights are a bit too if you think about it.tau is simple anyways just get rail guns and shoot 'wow!'
21993
Post by: Walls
Codex hopping it NOT wysiwyg. It's such a misleading term. It's not just gear you see, it's an army. AGAIN it is not the bolt pistol I care about. It's the ruleset. Angels, Wolves, Dark Angels, Marines, Grey Knights, Chaos Marines, etc... all have different rules. You CANNOT tell by looking at codex hopping armies what those rules are.
And again, my other point was I have a problem because no one is willing to admit they do it for power and game winning. The reason I am seeing is "Well, a marine is a marine, so why not?" That's not the truth.
Let's get the argument tighter.
Eldar vs Dark Eldar. Is that just fine then? Can I use my Eldar as Dark Eldar? An shuriken pistol is a shuriken pistol, no?
This really IS one of those arguments that no one wins and goes in circles for endless years until the thread is shut down. Marine players won't really give a reason other then "It's WYSIWYG, it's not our fault marines are like that." Those against codex hopping have their argument and never in history has anyone's mind been changed. Regardless, I still have not seen a single good argument as to why it's ok for marines, but not anyone else.
8248
Post by: imweasel
Walls wrote:Codex hopping it NOT wysiwyg. It's such a misleading term. It's not just gear you see, it's an army. AGAIN it is not the bolt pistol I care about. It's the ruleset. Angels, Wolves, Dark Angels, Marines, Grey Knights, Chaos Marines, etc... all have different rules. You CANNOT tell by looking at codex hopping armies what those rules are.
And again, my other point was I have a problem because no one is willing to admit they do it for power and game winning. The reason I am seeing is "Well, a marine is a marine, so why not?" That's not the truth.
Let's get the argument tighter.
Eldar vs Dark Eldar. Is that just fine then? Can I use my Eldar as Dark Eldar? An shuriken pistol is a shuriken pistol, no?
This really IS one of those arguments that no one wins and goes in circles for endless years until the thread is shut down. Marine players won't really give a reason other then "It's WYSIWYG, it's not our fault marines are like that." Those against codex hopping have their argument and never in history has anyone's mind been changed. Regardless, I still have not seen a single good argument as to why it's ok for marines, but not anyone else.
You do know that 'counts as' is in the brb? I know folks that used IG grenade launchers as melta weapons.
If you are so easily distracted that you can't remember at the beginning of the game that the green marines in front of you are grey hunters, you have more issues with 40k than anyone else I have ever met.
Your argument is approaching straw man and sounds like you can't adapt to anything in 40k.
42039
Post by: Underachiever
imweasel wrote:Walls wrote:Codex hopping it NOT wysiwyg. It's such a misleading term. It's not just gear you see, it's an army. AGAIN it is not the bolt pistol I care about. It's the ruleset. Angels, Wolves, Dark Angels, Marines, Grey Knights, Chaos Marines, etc... all have different rules. You CANNOT tell by looking at codex hopping armies what those rules are.
And again, my other point was I have a problem because no one is willing to admit they do it for power and game winning. The reason I am seeing is "Well, a marine is a marine, so why not?" That's not the truth.
Let's get the argument tighter.
Eldar vs Dark Eldar. Is that just fine then? Can I use my Eldar as Dark Eldar? An shuriken pistol is a shuriken pistol, no?
This really IS one of those arguments that no one wins and goes in circles for endless years until the thread is shut down. Marine players won't really give a reason other then "It's WYSIWYG, it's not our fault marines are like that." Those against codex hopping have their argument and never in history has anyone's mind been changed. Regardless, I still have not seen a single good argument as to why it's ok for marines, but not anyone else.
You do know that 'counts as' is in the brb? I know folks that used IG grenade launchers as melta weapons.
If you are so easily distracted that you can't remember at the beginning of the game that the green marines in front of you are grey hunters, you have more issues with 40k than anyone else I have ever met.
Your argument is approaching straw man and sounds like you can't adapt to anything in 40k.
Count As armies are totally something else - this is where spirit of the game is abused. Count As is a fluff thing, it's there so we can express a theme etc. Not something where a melta is a grenade launcher or the other way around. Meltas look a certain way, they should look that way or either change every single one to a single profile shape in your army. And this isnt even a money issue there is plenty magnet tutorials or plug and play tutorial out there where you can get flexible units for list changes. You dont have to buy a new squad. But not caring enough to even bother. 'yeah it's umm a melta' Dont cut it.
21993
Post by: Walls
Yeah, not sure where I've ever actually said that it's ok to use a Grenade Launcher as a melta gun. Sounds like a typical WAAC player argument... you know, the guys using chaos marines but space wolf rules, but also used chaos marine rules back in 3rd.
So, really... I can use Eldar but give them IG lasguns and vox casters. They'd be WYSIWYG then. The bodies obviously don't matter, the weapons do? If you can't remember that the lasgun toting eldar with vox casters are guard, then I guess you have problems.
9230
Post by: Trasvi
The issue I have with codex hopping is players who have Marines clearly painted/modeled in one army's theme, who play it differently between weeks, or even games on the same day. Colour scheme is a big part of WYSIWYG with certain armies - whilst it's perfectly reasonable to play some green marines as Space Wolves, playing space wolf grey marines as Codex: Green Marines can be more than momentarily confusing.
It gets even more confusing when today, you play them as Green Marines, tomorrow they're space wolves, the next day they're green marines again, and you keep doing that frequently forever. I have no problem if you spend a few weeks trying to decide if your (non-codex-colour-themed) army gets played as BA or SW. But if you literally never decide, and switch it up depending on your mood, I'm pretty likely to get confused.
And if you decide one day that your Space Wolves army, modelled in all its glory with wolf symbolism and regalia, is going to suddenly become a Blood Angels army, thats a little rude. If I wanted to switch from a Tau army to Blood Angels, i'd start a brand new army, not just say 'these dudes count as Death Company'. Just because your models are slightly more similar does not make it any more ok.
Confusion is the main thing, for me. You can claim all you want that 'if you explain at the start of the game, its ok', but really, if you look down at the table and see wolves your first thought is 'SPACE WOLVES', even if moments later you think, 'o wait, attack bikes'. Counts-as armies, in my opinion, are acceptable if A) You're literally trying it out for a handful of games before buying the real deal, or B) You have spent a lot of time and effort merging your theme and models together. Grey Marines pretending to be red marines does not cut it, in my opinion.
827
Post by: Cruentus
Walls wrote:
So, really... I can use Eldar but give them IG lasguns and vox casters. They'd be WYSIWYG then. The bodies obviously don't matter, the weapons do? If you can't remember that the lasgun toting eldar with vox casters are guard, then I guess you have problems.
My guardians are from 2nd edition and already have lasguns. I guess I'm good to go!
8248
Post by: imweasel
Underachiever wrote:Count As armies are totally something else - this is where spirit of the game is abused. Count As is a fluff thing, it's there so we can express a theme etc. Not something where a melta is a grenade launcher or the other way around. Meltas look a certain way, they should look that way or either change every single one to a single profile shape in your army. And this isnt even a money issue there is plenty magnet tutorials or plug and play tutorial out there where you can get flexible units for list changes. You dont have to buy a new squad. But not caring enough to even bother. 'yeah it's umm a melta' Dont cut it.
So you are honestly going to make someone buy 50 gazillion IG CCS boxes so they can get enough melta guns in their list?
Talk about a WAAC attitude there...
42039
Post by: Underachiever
imweasel wrote:Underachiever wrote:Count As armies are totally something else - this is where spirit of the game is abused. Count As is a fluff thing, it's there so we can express a theme etc. Not something where a melta is a grenade launcher or the other way around. Meltas look a certain way, they should look that way or either change every single one to a single profile shape in your army. And this isnt even a money issue there is plenty magnet tutorials or plug and play tutorial out there where you can get flexible units for list changes. You dont have to buy a new squad. But not caring enough to even bother. 'yeah it's umm a melta' Dont cut it.
So you are honestly going to make someone buy 50 gazillion IG CCS boxes so they can get enough melta guns in their list?
Talk about a WAAC attitude there...
nope i expect them to use some forethought and convert them up. and you could you know think about having a balanced list rather than melta spamming to WAAC lists, what you using for your 3 Valks Shoe boxes?
8248
Post by: imweasel
Walls wrote:Yeah, not sure where I've ever actually said that it's ok to use a Grenade Launcher as a melta gun. Sounds like a typical WAAC player argument... you know, the guys using chaos marines but space wolf rules, but also used chaos marine rules back in 3rd.
So, really... I can use Eldar but give them IG lasguns and vox casters. They'd be WYSIWYG then. The bodies obviously don't matter, the weapons do? If you can't remember that the lasgun toting eldar with vox casters are guard, then I guess you have problems.
You apparently don't understand 'counts as'. I have no problem with you using eldar bodies and giving them IG equipment. It's called 'kit bashing'. Perhaps you don't like IG models. That's fine.
Now, in my example, if some of the grenade launchers are actually one weapon and some are another, then that's an issue.
I swear some of you 'anti' folks are WAAC players yourself in the fact you just can't adapt. Stay in your padded rooms. It's to dangerous for you guys in a game store.
8311
Post by: Target
imweasel wrote:Underachiever wrote:Count As armies are totally something else - this is where spirit of the game is abused. Count As is a fluff thing, it's there so we can express a theme etc. Not something where a melta is a grenade launcher or the other way around. Meltas look a certain way, they should look that way or either change every single one to a single profile shape in your army. And this isnt even a money issue there is plenty magnet tutorials or plug and play tutorial out there where you can get flexible units for list changes. You dont have to buy a new squad. But not caring enough to even bother. 'yeah it's umm a melta' Dont cut it.
So you are honestly going to make someone buy 50 gazillion IG CCS boxes so they can get enough melta guns in their list?
Talk about a WAAC attitude there...
How is that in any way a "win at all costs" attitude? This has nothing to do with winning games..
And I agree, grenade launchers are not meltas. It's lazy, and it's confusing. I've played ork players who do the "oh no, this boys shoota was a rokkit, and this big shoota is x". It's confusing as hell for your opponent, and takes away from the overall enjoyment.
I don't expect you to buy "50 gazillion boxes". Mostly because: you don't need to. Most IG armies, even spammy, run 20. you can buy a box of 5 for less than 10 dollars from GAMES WORKSHOP. You could convert some as well from flamers, etc. There's a million tutorials. Put some effort into your army is all most people ask.
8248
Post by: imweasel
Underachiever wrote:nope i expect them to use some forethought and convert them up. and you could you know think about having a balanced list rather than melta spamming to WAAC lists, what you using for your 3 Valks Shoe boxes?
Convert them up? My god!!!
That would be so...confusing. Wouldn't it? I mean it won't look exaclty like an IG melta gun. How in the world would you guys be able to tell the difference if it's not an IG melta gun on an IG model?
Heaven forbid if it's not painted in the way you would expect it to be painted, because that would be to confusing as well.
Of course, none of the space wolf players you play against field thunder cav, because you know, there are no thunder cav models.
What a great way to get a WAAC attitude in there... Automatically Appended Next Post: targetawg wrote:How is that in any way a "win at all costs" attitude? This has nothing to do with winning games..
Sure it does. You guys can't handle it, so you simply call it 'cheese'.
targetawg wrote:And I agree, grenade launchers are not meltas. It's lazy, and it's confusing. I've played ork players who do the "oh no, this boys shoota was a rokkit, and this big shoota is x". It's confusing as hell for your opponent, and takes away from the overall enjoyment.
If it's wysisyg, then I don't see an issue.
targetawg wrote:I don't expect you to buy "50 gazillion boxes". Mostly because: you don't need to. Most IG armies, even spammy, run 20. you can buy a box of 5 for less than 10 dollars from GAMES WORKSHOP. You could convert some as well from flamers, etc. There's a million tutorials. Put some effort into your army is all most people ask.
You surely can't expect to use a GW melta gun that was obviously scaled to be put on a space marine on an IG model? *GASP*
The HORROR!!! It would be so confusing?!?!?!
Convert them from flamers? THAT WOULD BE TO CONFUSING!?!?!
I mean surely, if a paint scheme would trip you up, then no doubt any kit bashing, converting would surely do the same?
Come on! We are only talking money and it's not even yours!!!
42039
Post by: Underachiever
imweasel wrote:Underachiever wrote:nope i expect them to use some forethought and convert them up. and you could you know think about having a balanced list rather than melta spamming to WAAC lists, what you using for your 3 Valks Shoe boxes?
Convert them up? My god!!!
That would be so...confusing. Wouldn't it? I mean it won't look exaclty like an IG melta gun. How in the world would you guys be able to tell the difference if it's not an IG melta gun on an IG model?
Heaven forbid if it's not painted in the way you would expect it to be painted, because that would be to confusing as well.
Of course, none of the space wolf players you play against field thunder cav, because you know, there are no thunder cav models.
What a great way to get a WAAC attitude in there...
sigh... ok you found me out i'm a power monger that claims victories by pointing out WYSIWYG errors! and why would converting them be such a hardship. you think i'm asking you to create the next David.
8248
Post by: imweasel
Underachiever wrote:sigh... ok you found me out i'm a power monger that claims victories by pointing out WYSIWYG errors! and why would converting them be such a hardship. you think i'm asking you to create the next David.
Because if someone has painted a space marine army in a cool purple and black with gold trim, you literally have no idea what type of marine you are playing against even with an army list in your hand provided by your opponent.
And because of that, those players are the WAAC players just because you state that it's confusing to you.
I see no way you could honestly argue that kit bashing would not be just as confusing.
Padded room. Stay. In. It's very scary in a game store.
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
If I have a theme, it's clear at the beginning what it is, it really shouldn't be a problem. If you need a justification, the grenade launchers are shooting meltabombs, and thus count as meltaguns. I personally think that's a very fair piece of fluff to use in order to save some cash, and make my life a bit easier. Similarly, I often decide my Veterans have 'assault lasguns' that count as shotguns, once again to make my life easier.
As long as I'm consistent in telling you what's what, I really don't understand how you can have a problem remembering.
8248
Post by: imweasel
ChrisWWII wrote:If I have a theme, it's clear at the beginning what it is, it really shouldn't be a problem. If you need a justification, the grenade launchers are shooting meltabombs, and thus count as meltaguns. I personally think that's a very fair piece of fluff to use in order to save some cash, and make my life a bit easier. Similarly, I often decide my Veterans have 'assault lasguns' that count as shotguns, once again to make my life easier.
As long as I'm consistent in telling you what's what, I really don't understand how you can have a problem remembering.
I would be absolutely fine with that as long as all the lasguns in your army are shotguns. This is not for friendly play but from a tournament view point.
Friendly play, I almost could care less.
6872
Post by: sourclams
ChrisWWII wrote:I
As long as I'm consistent in telling you what's what, I really don't understand how you can have a problem remembering.
Your understanding is not necessary for them to HAVE APROBLEM WITH YOUR GAAAAME!!1
42039
Post by: Underachiever
imweasel wrote:Underachiever wrote:sigh... ok you found me out i'm a power monger that claims victories by pointing out WYSIWYG errors! and why would converting them be such a hardship. you think i'm asking you to create the next David.
Because if someone has painted a space marine army in a cool purple and black with gold trim, you literally have no idea what type of marine you are playing against even with an army list in your hand provided by your opponent.
And because of that, those players are the WAAC players just because you state that it's confusing to you.
I see no way you could honestly argue that kit bashing would not be just as confusing.
Padded room. Stay. In. It's very scary in a game store.
Well not to be baited again... i think we will just have to disagree on some points and i think your mixing some thing others said with mine. I said it was lazy more than confusing.
8311
Post by: Target
imweasel wrote:Underachiever wrote:nope i expect them to use some forethought and convert them up. and you could you know think about having a balanced list rather than melta spamming to WAAC lists, what you using for your 3 Valks Shoe boxes?
Convert them up? My god!!!
That would be so...confusing. Wouldn't it? I mean it won't look exaclty like an IG melta gun. How in the world would you guys be able to tell the difference if it's not an IG melta gun on an IG model?
Heaven forbid if it's not painted in the way you would expect it to be painted, because that would be to confusing as well.
Of course, none of the space wolf players you play against field thunder cav, because you know, there are no thunder cav models.
What a great way to get a WAAC attitude in there...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
targetawg wrote:How is that in any way a "win at all costs" attitude? This has nothing to do with winning games..
Sure it does. You guys can't handle it, so you simply call it 'cheese'.
targetawg wrote:And I agree, grenade launchers are not meltas. It's lazy, and it's confusing. I've played ork players who do the "oh no, this boys shoota was a rokkit, and this big shoota is x". It's confusing as hell for your opponent, and takes away from the overall enjoyment.
If it's wysisyg, then I don't see an issue.
targetawg wrote:I don't expect you to buy "50 gazillion boxes". Mostly because: you don't need to. Most IG armies, even spammy, run 20. you can buy a box of 5 for less than 10 dollars from GAMES WORKSHOP. You could convert some as well from flamers, etc. There's a million tutorials. Put some effort into your army is all most people ask.
You surely can't expect to use a GW melta gun that was obviously scaled to be put on a space marine on an IG model? *GASP*
The HORROR!!! It would be so confusing?!?!?!
Convert them from flamers? THAT WOULD BE TO CONFUSING!?!?!
I mean surely, if a paint scheme would trip you up, then no doubt any kit bashing, converting would surely do the same?
Come on! We are only talking money and it's not even yours!!!
1) I didn't call it cheesy, try to not put words in peoples mouths. What I find disrespectful, like you seem to find the term "cheesy" (which I didn't even use) is how you cavalierly sling around " WAAC" as a brand to invoke some sort of moral superiority on your part over the person you're speaking to.
2) A grenade launcher as a meltagun, as in my example, is not wyswig. Wysiwyg is defined as "What you see is what you get". If I see a grenade launcher, but get a melta, its not Wysiwig.
3) A meltagun of slightly different scale is not confusing. It's still a meltagun, drop the condescending attitude, it's rude.
4) Converting something from flamers, is not confusing. It's a clear conversion that you don't look at it and go "oh, that is XXXXX weapon that is used elsewhere in your army". If I see a grenade launcher, I expect a grenade launcher. If I see some sort of weird energy looking conversion, I know it's something else.
5) When did I ever mention anything about a paint scheme? (Hint: I didn't).
You should put more effort into not being rude and condescending, it detracts from a discussion a great deal, and to be honest, makes it appear that you're just trolling for a response.
3197
Post by: MagickalMemories
Worglock wrote:
Kind of like when people on Dakka derided and degraded someone (and possibly advocated assault against) for not wanting to play against a codex they see as bad and not fun.
or maybe that was "different".
Could you be a little more vague? You see, I have an idea what you're talking about, and I'd really like not to.
; )
I don't know what issue you're referring to or if you're trying to subtly refer to me in some context regarding it.
Eric
7942
Post by: nkelsch
imweasel wrote:
You do know that 'counts as' is in the brb? I know folks that used IG grenade launchers as melta weapons.
Your argument is approaching straw man and sounds like you can't adapt to anything in 40k.
Your example is a proxy and not counts as.
How are people out of one side of their face hole saying they are fully wysiwyg and then claiming proxies are counts as?
A grenade launcher is not counts as melts weapon. A unique weapon that has no clear weapon profile that could function close to a melts weapon is a count as melts weapon. Grenade launchers are grenade launchers, and claiming you have to buy 50 boxes to be wysiwyg is a straw man argument because we are all perfectly aware here that it is reasonably easy to get bits from cut up plastic sprues or thirdnparty weapons that make count as replacements.
So making up why it is justified to not model doesn't make proxies into valid counts as or wysiwyg. They are still proxies. This is why every marine armies fail. Because they claim they are wysiwyg but except when they are not.
26459
Post by: The Night Stalker
It all boils down to consent, if you feel your opponent is taking advantage of you by throwing down the same ugly tac marines and using GK rules one week then BA then SW then something else, don't play that person. For instance there is a TFG who frequents the FLGS I play in who does this kind of thing constantly, he bought a handfull of second hand SM models that all look like gak, then uses them as BA,SW, GK and recently some horrid fandex from 1d4chan, however I never play this person, its simply a burden to put up with all the proxies and other nonsense. Believe me there are alot of other people out there who dont pull this kind of crap.
8248
Post by: imweasel
nkelsch wrote:So making up why it is justified to not model doesn't make proxies into valid counts as or wysiwyg. They are still proxies. This is why every marine armies fail. Because they claim they are wysiwyg but except when they are not.
Arguments here have been based on paint scheme. Codex hopping 'is not wysiwyg'.
Zerks can't be grey hunters because 'it's to confusing'. Zerks can wysiwyg grey hunters. Zerks can wysiwyg BA assault marines.
I guess that's 'fail' on the wysiwyg for space marines, eh?
Also from you definition, all counts as/kit bashing would be a proxy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
targetawg wrote:What I find disrespectful, like you seem to find the term "cheesy" (which I didn't even use) is how you cavalierly sling around "WAAC" as a brand to invoke some sort of moral superiority on your part over the person you're speaking to.
No more so than the guy you were trying to defend.
targetawg wrote:2) A grenade launcher as a meltagun, as in my example, is not wyswig. Wysiwyg is defined as "What you see is what you get". If I see a grenade launcher, but get a melta, its not Wysiwig.
Counts as. Look it up.
targetawg wrote:3) A meltagun of slightly different scale is not confusing. It's still a meltagun, drop the condescending attitude, it's rude.
No more condescending than someone actually stating that a paint scheme would confuse them.
targetawg wrote:4) Converting something from flamers, is not confusing. It's a clear conversion that you don't look at it and go "oh, that is XXXXX weapon that is used elsewhere in your army". If I see a grenade launcher, I expect a grenade launcher. If I see some sort of weird energy looking conversion, I know it's something else.
Oh really? What exactly else would that be? Isn't that...confusing? Which is the whole basis of the argument of codex hopping?
targetawg wrote:5) When did I ever mention anything about a paint scheme? (Hint: I didn't).
My whole argument is if it's wysiwyg, then what's the problem. Folks start pulling rabbits out of their hats trying to state that (for whatever reason) codex hopping is 'confusing'.
targetawg wrote:You should put more effort into not being rude and condescending, it detracts from a discussion a great deal, and to be honest, makes it appear that you're just trolling for a response.
Try not to look down your nose at folks and we can call it even.
40741
Post by: Worglock
MagickalMemories wrote:Worglock wrote:
Kind of like when people on Dakka derided and degraded someone (and possibly advocated assault against) for not wanting to play against a codex they see as bad and not fun.
or maybe that was "different".
Could you be a little more vague? You see, I have an idea what you're talking about, and I'd really like not to.
; )
I don't know what issue you're referring to or if you're trying to subtly refer to me in some context regarding it.
Eric
I wasn't referring to you specifically. You comment was in the right place at the wrong time for an "uncomfortable forum moment."
30773
Post by: warhawkstriker
Personally I see no problem with codex hopping, as long as its in friendly games. When it comes to tournaments where any sort of prize is involved then id say play the army you have.
And I will be the first to admit that there are times where I am a total WAAC player, but when it comes to playing a game that I have invested money into there is a certain point where I say sorry, I don't have the money to buy every model that I want to use, but here is a model that has the same base size and similar load out and is easily distinguishable from the rest. And I will let anyone else do the same, and even get away with more of it, because I remember the day when my entire army was nothing more than slips of paper on my pool table, rushing the imperial guard models that through the "encouragement" of their commissar are now fighting like grey knights.
I got really lucky to come into a large collection of second hand marines, and am still in the process of stripping them and converting the paint to salamanders, because I like their rules and love the fluff. However I still maintain my love of Space Wolves and will play them from time to time. If you are upset that Wolf Lord is green and doesnt have his storm sheild and frost blade on the model, then I'm sorry, go play someone who does because I prefer playing the game second, and talking about the amazing story behind the armies I play.
I feel that the argument boils down to the opinions of hardcore and casual players. And also between those who can afford to buy every model for their army, and those who buy the ones they need. A good example of this is my friend whom I gave the Necron army I received through the same deal that got me my marines. There was a decent amount of models there, but they were mostly warriors and flayed ones. I'd never make him shell out the 60 some dollars to buy the 15 dollar wraithes he wants to use.
....I feel like I'm rambling now so I'll just let you all interject your opinions.
13664
Post by: Illumini
Claiming a grenade launcher as a meltagun is not WYSIWYG or counts-as, it is proxy. Pull that in a tourney and you can't really be upset if someone calls you on it.
I can see why people might have issues with codex hoppers, there have been some silly statements from both parties in this thread.
I guess I'm very lucky, where I play, the codex hoppers all have WYSIWYG (and not the imweasel kind) armies, and the other guys aren't grumpy neckbeard whiners.
3197
Post by: MagickalMemories
Worglock wrote:MagickalMemories wrote:Worglock wrote:
Kind of like when people on Dakka derided and degraded someone (and possibly advocated assault against) for not wanting to play against a codex they see as bad and not fun.
or maybe that was "different".
Could you be a little more vague? You see, I have an idea what you're talking about, and I'd really like not to.
; )
I don't know what issue you're referring to or if you're trying to subtly refer to me in some context regarding it.
Eric
I wasn't referring to you specifically. You comment was in the right place at the wrong time for an "uncomfortable forum moment."
Good, because I was at a total loss for recollection. LOL
I agree with your comment. Regardless of the circumstance, people should not deride and degrade people (and especially not advocate violence against!) someone for thinking differently.
They should just be shunned for that. ; )
Eric
7942
Post by: nkelsch
imweasel wrote:targetawg wrote:2) A grenade launcher as a meltagun, as in my example, is not wyswig. Wysiwyg is defined as "What you see is what you get". If I see a grenade launcher, but get a melta, its not Wysiwig.
Counts as. Look it up.
Please provide the definition you are using. Counts as are universally accepted event at WYSIWYG events. Proxies are not. Grenade launcher as a melta would never be accepted at a tourney or WYSIWYG events so it is not counts as.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
The worst part of codex hopping is that you will not have as much time to understand the nuance and ability of your army and thus provide much less of a challenge when I play you.
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
nkelsch wrote:
Please provide the definition you are using. Counts as are universally accepted event at WYSIWYG events. Proxies are not. Grenade launcher as a melta would never be accepted at a tourney or WYSIWYG events so it is not counts as.
If I say that in my fluff, my army uses grenade launchers shooting meltabombs for antitank purpouses, and thus I use the melta gun rules to represent this, the grenade launcher would be a very nice 'count as' melta bomb launcher thingy. As long as its consistent, e.g. ALL grenade launchers are really melta bomb launchers, or there is some very obvious difference between a regular grenade launcher, and a melta bomb launcher, there shouldn't be a problem.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Meh, in most of the Marine codices, there are many common units. It's not as simple as Tau = Eldar, Eldar = Tau. Even Eldar > Dark Eldar doesn't really work because DE and Eldar transports are radically different.
There's no difference in vehicle footprint between Chaos Rhinos, SW Rhinos, BA Rhinos, and Vanilla Rhinos. There's no difference between a Tactical Marine, a Chaos Marine, a Grey Hunter (most people don't have bolter, BP, and CCW all modeled. The mini looks too crowded), etc. Rules wise there are differences, however. Same with Dreads between the named codices aside from equipment differences.
They all can get Vindicators, Predators, Rhinos, some type of Tactical-ish Marine, Psykers (libby vs. sorceror vs. rune priest), vanilla HQs (Lords vs. Captains etc). There are so many similarities that "codex hopping" really shouldn't create any confusion since you're playing against more or less the same thing anyway.
That said, if your guys are painted in a scheme that doesn't match the codex, you need to tell your opponent what you're doing. A BA Razorback doesn't look much different than a SW Razorback, but it's "fast" and that's huge. Just one example.
13664
Post by: Illumini
ChrisWWII wrote:nkelsch wrote:
Please provide the definition you are using. Counts as are universally accepted event at WYSIWYG events. Proxies are not. Grenade launcher as a melta would never be accepted at a tourney or WYSIWYG events so it is not counts as.
If I say that in my fluff, my army uses grenade launchers shooting meltabombs for antitank purpouses, and thus I use the melta gun rules to represent this, the grenade launcher would be a very nice 'count as' melta bomb launcher thingy. As long as its consistent, e.g. ALL grenade launchers are really melta bomb launchers, or there is some very obvious difference between a regular grenade launcher, and a melta bomb launcher, there shouldn't be a problem.
Still lazy, still proxy (unless you actually make this: "melta bomb launcher" with "some very obvious differences" - then it is counts-as)
Same with your "assault lasguns" - also lazy, also proxy. Do some converting with them, f.ex. double short barrels or something, and BOOOM, you've got counts-as
Nothing wrong with proxing a bit from time to time against your friends to test out units or wargear (just ask in advance), but don't just keep proxying forever and then hide behind "counts-as" when people complain.
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
And what if the melta bomb launcher or assault lasgun is physically identical to the more common grenade launcher or lasgun (which is kind of the entire point)? As long as I make it clear what's going on, I don't see how you could have a problem.
It's like with psychic powers, how do you model choices like that? Or how do you model a wolf tooth necklace and other tiny things? Sometimes you either can't model it, or a decent modelling of it is beyond your skill to do. Sure, I can greenstuff a wolf tooth necklace onto a model, but it'd look like crap. Not everyone is a god like modeller or converter, and I'm more than willing to cut slack for both a better looking game, and a more fun one.
Sometimes, pure undiluted WYSIWYG has to give in favor of simplicity and easiness, and as long as the fluff makes sense, and the distinctions are clear, I see no problem with saying 'my veterans have assault lasguns, aka shotguns' or 'these grenade launchers shoot melta bombs, and count as melta guns for all intents and purpouses', and have never played someone who grew frustrated with such things.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
ChrisWWII wrote:nkelsch wrote:
Please provide the definition you are using. Counts as are universally accepted event at WYSIWYG events. Proxies are not. Grenade launcher as a melta would never be accepted at a tourney or WYSIWYG events so it is not counts as.
If I say that in my fluff, my army uses grenade launchers shooting meltabombs for antitank purpouses, and thus I use the melta gun rules to represent this, the grenade launcher would be a very nice 'count as' melta bomb launcher thingy. As long as its consistent, e.g. ALL grenade launchers are really melta bomb launchers, or there is some very obvious difference between a regular grenade launcher, and a melta bomb launcher, there shouldn't be a problem.
That is a Proxy and would not be WYSIWYG and not be allowed at events that allow COUNTS AS.
Your fluff is irrelevant, and your conversion fails the rule of cool as it is a lazy proxy, not an inventive conversion.
The issue is COUNTS AS are allowed pretty much everywhere. In friendly games where opponent consent to your proxies, there isn't a problem. In a competitive environment your proxies are not welcome. Calling them count as or demanding people accept them as counts as is like going to a restaurant that requires a necktie to be sat at a table and you take off your smelly sock and tie it around your neck and claim 'it is tied around my neck, I am legal right?'
Is it really so hard to accept you are using proxies and that people dislike them and there are times and places where proxies are not acceptable? This is the core of the everymarine issue because people use PROXIES and claim counts as marines and then say they are tourney legal and WYSIWYG when they are in no way even close.Everymarine armies can be done correctly, but many people don't even make an attempt so they fail the 'rule of cool' and become avoided.
Sometimes, pure undiluted WYSIWYG has to give in favor of simplicity and easiness, and as long as the fluff makes sense, and the distinctions are clear, I see no problem with saying 'my veterans have assault lasguns, aka shotguns' or 'these grenade launchers shoot melta bombs, and count as melta guns for all intents and purpouses', and have never played someone who grew frustrated with such things.
Your fluff is a lazy excuse for not wanting to attempt to model. Your distinctions are not clear because it has to be explained and possibly re-explained. If you ask to use PROXIES and get opponents consent in friendly play, sure no problem. If you Demand to use PROXIES hiding behind a misunderstanding of counts as at a competitive event where WYSIWYG is expected, then no dice. I am unsure why this is hard to comprehend. If you make some effort, opponents respect it. Lazy proxies are seen for what they are... and asking permission is respectful and usually gets you through most friendly games.
Maybe all my ork rokkit launchers shoot frag rounds that are now str 5 assault 3 result... I wonder how that will go over?
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
As far as proxying versus count as, I'd say there is no real difference other than intent. A count as is something intended to be permanent, be it a melta bomb grenade launcher, assault lasguns, or a converted Carnifex being a Tervigon. A proxy is something temporary, be it a grenade launcher being a melta gun, a lasgun being a shotgun, or a cardboard box being a land raider.
I mean, look at this example. In both cases Empire Steam Tanks are being used in place of Chimeras in an IG army...however one player is proxying, and another is count as-ing.
Proxy: 'Hey, I'm playing IG, so these Empire Steam tanks represent Chimeras till I replace them.'
Count As: 'Hey, I'm playing IG with a steam punk theme, so these Empire steam tanks are Chimeras.'
The only difference is intent, anything can switch between a proxy and count as in a moments notice.
Edit:
a) Mind turning down the personal attacks?
b) I'd expect to explain what msot things are in my army on a regular basis, not eveyone is familiar with the difference between a Leman Russ and a Vanquisher, or the difference between a Veteran squad and a PIS, and I expect to have to explain and re-explain even with an army that is fully WYSIWYG armies.
Hell, I have to sit down and listen whenever I play Eldar or Tau thanks to each tank having a host of different upgrades I'm unfamiliar with, even if the model is fully WYSIWYG. Just because it's modelled doesn't mean I automatically understand that the little bit glued on to the bottom represents star engines, or whatever.
Just because something has to be explained or re-explained doesn't make it a bad count as model, it happens even with fully WYSIWYG models. I'd be more annoyed with you if you placed a Falcon on the table, never mentioned what its upgrades are to me, then sprang it on me half way through the game that, 'Yeah, it has holofields. That's what this little attenae thing is!' Than if you had place a bare Falcon and immediately listed off what upgrades it had.
As for your rokkit launchers, sounds good to me. As long as you have some way of differentiating between frag rokits, and regular rokkits.
18424
Post by: Imperial Monkey
It's simple. Anyone here that is saying "you can't win with X army with the new codex...so I'll proxy them as Y army" or anything to that degree is completely missing the point of the hobby. An army is weaker with its rules than another army. SO WHAT?!? That just makes it more of a challenge, stick with the army, think up a new strategy, go on a forum and get some advice.... and changing army between games depending on your opponent is just not sporting, and you will ruin the game for all that you play. The fun is in the challenge of sticking out a game despite being at a disadvantage from the offset. Montgomery didn't bitch and moan after losing repeatedly in North Africa before El Alamain. He didn't say to his men "We're losing so today, lets fight as Russians, then we can win. All don your woolly hats" He just tried a different tactic (this is highly generalised for any keen historians that may be offended by it) However, I don't see any harm in someone testing a new army out, especially as with new releases the prices are extortionate...let your opponent know though! In the end, I'd rather fight a tough game with a guy that has as good a time as I do while using proxied minis than I would fighting someone that bemoaned their armies rules all game. After all hobbies are meant to be fun, are they not?
8690
Post by: Orkimedes
I wouldn't play a habitual codex hopper, that's me though. Peace.
27872
Post by: Samus_aran115
I absolutely despise codex hoppers. I have a couple friends who do it, and it makes me angry every time.
I have a friend who's switched from.... Necrons, to Tau, to VM to blood angels, to GK, all in the span of less than a year. He uses marines for literally everything, no matter how non-wysiwyg it is.
I've played two codexes, and nothing else for the same time period. Just stick with one or two.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
ChrisWWII wrote:As far as proxying versus count as, I'd say there is no real difference other than intent. A count as is something intended to be permanent, be it a melta bomb grenade launcher, assault lasguns, or a converted Carnifex being a Tervigon. A proxy is something temporary, be it a grenade launcher being a melta gun, a lasgun being a shotgun, or a cardboard box being a land raider.
No, A Proxy is something that has clear and distinct rules and you are using it as something else with clear and distinct rules. Your intent and period of time is irrelevant.
Using a Bike as a TWC is a Proxy as Space wolves have clear rules for Bikes and the person just wants to use the TWC rules.
Using A Grenade Launcher as a Melta gun is a Proxy because we have very clear rules for grenade launchers and the best fit rule-wize is the grenade launcher.
Now 'counts as' is when you have conversions, models, or other things that don't have clear rules at all or in your codex and you do what the 'best fit' is. A GOOD counts as will usually be very clear to someone who is aware of the codex as it is the closest approximation.
Using A bunch of Space Marines on Dinosaurs as TWC. They are very very similar because they are clearly cavalry and would be equipped the same.
Using a Cyboar as a biker in an ork army. Orks lack Cavalry rules, but the ork biker rules are the best fit for the conversion.
Using I guard soldiers with fire pyrotechnics (like Necromunda gangers) as a heavy weapon flamer or Melta. It is clear the guy uses fire-based attacks, there are no rules for ganger psykers so he is a counts as.
Using a genestealer cult models with ork rules and making Patriarchs nobz with PK. Represents the closest thing possible for a genestealer patriarch's claws and woundbase and armor.
Those are COUNTS AS. And those usually FLY in events and are universally accepted. Saying your grenade launcher is a Melta is NEVER going to be valid and always be a proxy. Proxies you should ask for permission, is that really so unreasonable? Call a spade a spade.
This is the problem bad everymarine armies come up agains. Bikers as TWC. Assault marines as Sanguinary Guard. TH/ SS terminators as Grey Knights. Basically any model with a similar armorsave becomes proxied because they claim 'all my thunderhammers are now NFW!' and they feel it is a tourney legal counts as and opponents should blanket accept it and opponents do not deserve the respect of admitting it is a proxy.
A good everymarine army is good. When I see them it is great to experience. Most of them fail because there are codex specific units that need unique modeling that cannot be easily hopped into without resorting to proxies which defeats the purpose. If you are going to use Non WYSIWYG Proxies, and your opponent is cool, then so be it. THen he should also feel free to proxy his Tau as dark eldar. Just don't show up at adepticon and throw around how your army is WYSIWYG and a valid 'counts as' and you are tourney legal.
25990
Post by: Chongara
Grrr! I just can't stand it when people have fun the wrong way.
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
I see we have a fundamental disagreement about the nature of proxying versus count as. As I've explained, I view the differenc merely being one of intent. If my grenade launcher is a melta for this game cause I don't have a melta it's a proxy, but if my grenade launcher is permanantly a melta because I like the idea of launching melta bombs better, than it's a count as.
Your view is very different from mine, and it's unlikely arguing about it will produce anything other than clutter and rehash in the thread, and that's something no one wants.
As far as codex hopping, I see it as the same thing, a matter of intent. If a person jumps at all the new codexes because he loves all the new fluff/models/rules, but doesn't have the time or moeny to invest in large armies for everything, and cuts his costs by using the same minis to represent different things, than more power to him! As long as he's a good sport and a fun game, I'm not going to complain about his 'codex hopping'.
On the other hand, if you have someone hopping codexes because Blood Angels are better than Space Wolves, and Grey Knights are even better than Angels, and only switching for purpouses of winning, then I'll get suspicious. If and only if, they turn out to be annoying TFGs will I refuse to play them or anything else similar.
Like almost everything in life, these issues are complicated, and need flexible solutions rather than dogmatic ones.
12478
Post by: Gornall
I use grenade launchers as meltaguns on my SM biker army because I built it back in "Great GW Meltagun Shortage of 2009". I argue that is "Counts As". Also... Said bike army is blue... So I hope that does not confuse anyone.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
Gornall wrote:I use grenade launchers as meltaguns on my SM biker army because I built it back in "Great GW Meltagun Shortage of 2009". I argue that is "Counts As". Also... Said bike army is blue... So I hope that does not confuse anyone.
But it isn't counts as! It is a Proxy. GW went into depth in their warhammer world tourney rules (which don't seem to be on the internet anymore, FOUND IT!) on what they feel a counts as and a proxy is and they are distinct.
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m240024a_Warhammer_World_-_Rules_of_Engagement.pdf
COUNTS AS
The 'Counts as' rule allows you to apply the rules for existing units to older or scratch built models that do not have rules of their own. This is to allow you to make full use of your collection or the army choices within or rule books; it's not an excuse to change your army as a way of fine tuning your force.
If the model has current rules, and you are not using them, you are PROXYING. If the model has no rules, then you are 'count as'. At no time is using a legal codex item as another legal codex item in the spirit or letter of 'counts as' and they basically are calling players on it within their own publication.
I am not sure why people are so resistant to just admit they are using proxies and asking permission. As if calling it counts as tricks people into playing games with them under the premise of not needing opponents consent and then half way through they find out you were using proxies all along. (which is what happens with everymarine armies all the time when that generic marine unit all of a sudden has furious charge or FNP or some other rule because it is being used as an unclear similar but not equal unit.)
12478
Post by: Gornall
Its a counts as because it is consistent throughout the army and cannot be confused with any wargear that marines can legally field. If it was plasma guns or storm bolters standing in for meltas then I could see it being a problem.
6356
Post by: Ghidorah
nkelsch wrote:
Please provide the definition you are using. Counts as are universally accepted event at WYSIWYG events. Proxies are not. Grenade launcher as a melta would never be accepted at a tourney or WYSIWYG events so it is not counts as.
prox·y
/ˈprɒksi/ Show Spelled[prok-see] Show IPA
–noun, plural prox·ies.
1.
the agency, function, or power of a person authorized to act as the deputy or substitute for another.
2.
the person so authorized; substitute; agent.
So, since this word is used used to represent a model, rather than a person, you can read it as, "1. A model authorized to substitute for another." or, "2. a model so authorized; substitute."
That definition, literally used, means that a model, or part thereof, that is used to substitute for another model or part thereof, counts as that model or part thereof for this game. I argue that 'proxy' and 'counts as' are the same thing. Semantics. Either way, my opinion is such that you can use the rules for whichever army you want, so long as the models are WYSIWYG.
If you're one of my buddies and we're playing a game, I don't really give a shinypants wtf you use in your army. If you're just some asspickle trying to use a Dark Eldar codex with your Lizardman army, I'll tell you that you can go suck a bag of ****.
King Ghidorah
7942
Post by: nkelsch
Ghidorah wrote: I argue that 'proxy' and 'counts as' are the same thing. Semantics.
They are not the same thing. 'Counts as' has a very specific meaning within the GW world and is an exception that makes it distinct from 'proxies' which are usually avoided, not allowed at WYSIWYG events and require opponents permission.
34597
Post by: Lord_Osma
I call this unit Lazeron the Lightning cloak. He is my "count as" for Mephiston. I spent the time an effort to make this model, for 2 reasons 1) I hate metal models 2) I made my own BA chapter and this character is my version of an established character using his rules. It is modeled fairly similarly and is equipped the same as the character is is counting as. My BA chapter is painted a shade of red and never is played as any army other than BA. Would this be a legal "count as"? This is my Commander Dante. He exists because I am cheep. He is made to be equipped and look like a model I do not want to pay for. Would he be a proxy, or a count as? He will always be Dante and he is not a model that exists anywhere else in my army. His jump pack is a chaos marine jump pack because I dislike the look of the bulky SM jump packs.
42039
Post by: Underachiever
ChrisWWII wrote:
Proxy: 'Hey, I'm playing IG, so these Empire Steam tanks represent Chimeras till I replace them.'
Count As: 'Hey, I'm playing IG with a steam punk theme, so these Empire steam tanks are Chimeras.'
The only difference is intent, anything can switch between a proxy and count as in a moments notice.
alright this is a pretty good example.
heres where i see it tho both are ture.
However the Count As player will theme the 'whole' army with effort to the smallest detail into the realm of steampunk. The proxy player has a standard units with his steam tank stand in, and most likely other such anomalies. There is a massive chasm between these 2 players. Again proxy with the intent of replacing them in time is fine, on a level of playing with friends. Not so against more competitive scenes. I think thats kinda of the crux of it.
12478
Post by: Gornall
Show me the legal codex rules for grenade launchers on SM bikes and I will admit that I am proxying... by your own definition that subsitution meets the criteria for counts as.
42039
Post by: Underachiever
I call this unit Lazeron the Lightning cloak. He is my "count as" for Mephiston. I spent the time an effort to make this model, for 2 reasons
1) I hate metal models
2) I made my own BA chapter and this character is my version of an established character using his rules. It is modeled fairly similarly and is equipped the same as the character is is counting as.
My BA chapter is painted a shade of red and never is played as any army other than BA. Would this be a legal "count as"?
This is my Commander Dante. He exists because I am cheep. He is made to be equipped and look like a model I do not want to pay for. Would he be a proxy, or a count as? He will always be Dante and he is not a model that exists anywhere else in my army. His jump pack is a chaos marine jump pack because I dislike the look of the bulky SM jump packs.
yes both these are Count As - not a problem. These are simply conversions.
I've done the same with my plague marines.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/360447.page
207
Post by: Balance
Lord_Osma wrote:
This is my Commander Dante. He exists because I am cheep. He is made to be equipped and look like a model I do not want to pay for. Would he be a proxy, or a count as? He will always be Dante and he is not a model that exists anywhere else in my army. His jump pack is a chaos marine jump pack because I dislike the look of the bulky SM jump packs.
Doesn't bother me, although he's giving me kind of a weird "Baroque Cyberman from Dr. Who" vibe...
12478
Post by: Gornall
Funny enough... That mephiston figure would make a great Counts As for Sicarius...
34597
Post by: Lord_Osma
@ Balance: lol, thanks I think.
@ Underachiever. Love the plague marines.
@both Thanks for giving opinions on my models. After reading this thread I became somewhat concerned.
Personally I really try for WYSIWYG. Especially as far as weapons and units being what they are.
I'm also a big fan of conversions. The melta grenade launchers keep being brought up so I wanted to add that if they were modeled using some melta bomb bits and some conversions, even little ones I think it would be okay if it's what your army is about, but grenade launchers as is I can understand why people may have issues. Especially in a tournament setting.
That aside I like the idea.
40741
Post by: Worglock
Samus_aran115 wrote:I absolutely despise codex hoppers. I have a couple friends who do it, and it makes me angry every time.
I have a friend who's switched from.... Necrons, to Tau, to VM to blood angels, to GK, all in the span of less than a year. He uses marines for literally everything, no matter how non-wysiwyg it is.
I've played two codexes, and nothing else for the same time period. Just stick with one or two.
Don't play the kid?
24992
Post by: AnGeLsOfDeAtH
I dont necessarily hate codex hoppers but what i do hate is those who only do it so they can win. They dont ever buy the new models and just use counts as. I personally think a army built to actually model what there supposed to be just kind of makes the game a little better. Theres a reason why i have played only dark angels and grey knights for the last 3ish years i think they look great on the field. I dipped into other armys like nids and what not but i had the models.
13664
Post by: Illumini
Gornall wrote:Show me the legal codex rules for grenade launchers on SM bikes and I will admit that I am proxying... by your own definition that subsitution meets the criteria for counts as.
Scout bikes have grenade launchers, bike captain can take a grenade launcher and a bike.
Also, it is no point arguing the semantics of this. Rule of cool is in effect. If you are just lazy+cheap, it shines through. You know it is proxy, your opponent knows it is proxy etc. Even if you are cheap, you can still put some effort into it. Make some changes to those grenade launchers so they don't look like grenade launchers anymore. (or just buy the cheap metal meltaguns from GW - there is no meltagun-shortage anymore)
nkelsch wrote:... Those are COUNTS AS. And those usually FLY in events and are universally accepted. Saying your grenade launcher is a Melta is NEVER going to be valid and always be a proxy. Proxies you should ask for permission, is that really so unreasonable? Call a spade a spade.
This is the problem bad everymarine armies come up agains. Bikers as TWC. Assault marines as Sanguinary Guard. TH/SS terminators as Grey Knights. Basically any model with a similar armorsave becomes proxied because they claim 'all my thunderhammers are now NFW!' and they feel it is a tourney legal counts as and opponents should blanket accept it and opponents do not deserve the respect of admitting it is a proxy.
A good everymarine army is good. When I see them it is great to experience. Most of them fail because there are codex specific units that need unique modeling that cannot be easily hopped into without resorting to proxies which defeats the purpose. If you are going to use Non WYSIWYG Proxies, and your opponent is cool, then so be it. THen he should also feel free to proxy his Tau as dark eldar. Just don't show up at adepticon and throw around how your army is WYSIWYG and a valid 'counts as' and you are tourney legal.
nkelsch speaks the truth
6356
Post by: Ghidorah
Underachiever wrote:ChrisWWII wrote:
Proxy: 'Hey, I'm playing IG, so these Empire Steam tanks represent Chimeras till I replace them.'
Count As: 'Hey, I'm playing IG with a steam punk theme, so these Empire steam tanks are Chimeras.'
The only difference is intent, anything can switch between a proxy and count as in a moments notice.
alright this is a pretty good example.
Not really. You could just as easily say the above examples like this:
Count As: 'Hey, I'm playing IG, so these Empire Steam tanks represent Chimeras till I replace them.'
Proxy: 'Hey, I'm playing IG with a steam punk theme, so these Empire steam tanks are Chimeras.'
Simply adding a few more words (w/ a steam punk theme) does not change the facts of the example. The fact is, the player is using steam tanks to represent chimeras.
He/she is proxying steam tanks that count as chimeras. They are not chimeras. For the purposes of this game, they do COUNT AS chimeras. Ergo, he is PROXYing steam tanks as chimeras.
Same. Damned. Thing.
nkelsch wrote:They are not the same thing.
They are exactly the same thing. Neither are WYSIWYG, both are something representing something else that they clearly are not. Same thing, different terms. Like 'argument' and 'debate'.
King Ghidorah
26430
Post by: McNs
chaos0xomega wrote:Cottonjaw wrote:Because I play Tau. My codex is old, my rules don't work like they used to, my rapid fire range isn't 15" anymore because of a change in wording, my units are overcosted compared to yours and my transport moves the same speed as yours but costs 2.5 times as much.
And I can't just say "Oh well now they're space wolves" so why should you be able to?
Yeah no kidding. Eldar and Dark Eldar are pretty similar, right, you gonna let me use my Eldar as Dark Eldar? How about my Tau? They both have skimmers, that should be allowed too. And necrons, yeah, why not. In fact, why care about models at all right? Its not part of the hobby or anything, they are just markers for use with the rules. Maybe I should just start using little wooden mannequin dollies instead of actual models. That way I can play them as Grey Knights/Blood Angels/Space Wolves/Black Templars/Dark Angels/Ultramarines/Eldar/Tau/Necrons/Dark Eldar/Orks/Fantasy Empire/Fantasy Ogres/Fantasy Skaven, etc. etc. etc.
The minis, their paint scheme, and their interaction with the rules are important aspects of the hobby. You aren't just playing a game, you're re-enacting battles that might occur in a fantasy setting that took years of thought (and plagiarism!) to create. Space Wolves and Blood Angels don't oprerate and fight the same way. There is a reason they look different, there is a reason they have different rules. Its more than just a difference in paint scheme, etc. You're doing the fluff a disservice every time you codex hop. I'm a bit more forgiving if its a custom chapter, I mean, really they can be whatever the hell you want, but I have a limit to how far I can suspend disbelief.
Oh God, its not just a game??!?! All those lives in that fantasy universe that I've ruined... Oh God, I can't live with the guilt...
And really, you're going to through GW's fluff up as a defense for your beliefs? Oh noes, my Blood Angles are painted blue this week.. How will the Necrons know to fist-bump them?
6872
Post by: sourclams
Clearly your fun is worse than his Fun. His fun is Fun-Brand Fun, and it's the Funnest Fun that anyone could have while still having Fun.
33990
Post by: cyrax777
Hell I use regular rhinos and land raiders for my chaos SM as i dont like the spikey bits. Alot of my dudes are from AOBR. There wargear is wysiwyg just they dont have spikey shoulder pads. I am not going to purchase a ton of dudes when the only diffrence is looks spikes vs nonspikes. You can look at my army see the guys and go oh thats a marine with a melta. "so yeah some people do run plain marines as chaos.
3197
Post by: MagickalMemories
Chongara wrote:Grrr! I just can't stand it when people have fun the wrong way.
Excuse me.
I hope you don't mind if I...
...hmm...
There we go! Sigged!
Eric
21993
Post by: Walls
nkelsch wrote:ChrisWWII wrote:As far as proxying versus count as, I'd say there is no real difference other than intent. A count as is something intended to be permanent, be it a melta bomb grenade launcher, assault lasguns, or a converted Carnifex being a Tervigon. A proxy is something temporary, be it a grenade launcher being a melta gun, a lasgun being a shotgun, or a cardboard box being a land raider.
No, A Proxy is something that has clear and distinct rules and you are using it as something else with clear and distinct rules. Your intent and period of time is irrelevant.
Using a Bike as a TWC is a Proxy as Space wolves have clear rules for Bikes and the person just wants to use the TWC rules.
Using A Grenade Launcher as a Melta gun is a Proxy because we have very clear rules for grenade launchers and the best fit rule-wize is the grenade launcher.
Now 'counts as' is when you have conversions, models, or other things that don't have clear rules at all or in your codex and you do what the 'best fit' is. A GOOD counts as will usually be very clear to someone who is aware of the codex as it is the closest approximation.
Using A bunch of Space Marines on Dinosaurs as TWC. They are very very similar because they are clearly cavalry and would be equipped the same.
Using a Cyboar as a biker in an ork army. Orks lack Cavalry rules, but the ork biker rules are the best fit for the conversion.
Using I guard soldiers with fire pyrotechnics (like Necromunda gangers) as a heavy weapon flamer or Melta. It is clear the guy uses fire-based attacks, there are no rules for ganger psykers so he is a counts as.
Using a genestealer cult models with ork rules and making Patriarchs nobz with PK. Represents the closest thing possible for a genestealer patriarch's claws and woundbase and armor.
Those are COUNTS AS. And those usually FLY in events and are universally accepted. Saying your grenade launcher is a Melta is NEVER going to be valid and always be a proxy. Proxies you should ask for permission, is that really so unreasonable? Call a spade a spade.
This is the problem bad everymarine armies come up agains. Bikers as TWC. Assault marines as Sanguinary Guard. TH/ SS terminators as Grey Knights. Basically any model with a similar armorsave becomes proxied because they claim 'all my thunderhammers are now NFW!' and they feel it is a tourney legal counts as and opponents should blanket accept it and opponents do not deserve the respect of admitting it is a proxy.
A good everymarine army is good. When I see them it is great to experience. Most of them fail because there are codex specific units that need unique modeling that cannot be easily hopped into without resorting to proxies which defeats the purpose. If you are going to use Non WYSIWYG Proxies, and your opponent is cool, then so be it. THen he should also feel free to proxy his Tau as dark eldar. Just don't show up at adepticon and throw around how your army is WYSIWYG and a valid 'counts as' and you are tourney legal.
There are clear cut Space Wolf models. There are clear cut Grey Knight models. There are even Blood Angel bitz for their armies. Are you saying, then, that codex hopping from or to Space Wolves is just as bad as using bikes for TWC?
24779
Post by: Eilif
Been following this thread for a while now and enjoying the discussion. Special thanks to nkelsch for defining "counts as" and proxying. In the internet world of "this word means this to you and something else to me" it's nice to have actual working definitions within which to frame arguments.
I think I've been guilty of mixing them up before, but I'll try not to from now on.
nkelsch wrote:But it isn't counts as! It is a Proxy. GW went into depth in their warhammer world tourney rules (which don't seem to be on the internet anymore, FOUND IT!) on what they feel a counts as and a proxy is and they are distinct.
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m240024a_Warhammer_World_-_Rules_of_Engagement.pdf
COUNTS AS
The 'Counts as' rule allows you to apply the rules for existing units to older or scratch built models that do not have rules of their own. This is to allow you to make full use of your collection or the army choices within or rule books; it's not an excuse to change your army as a way of fine tuning your force.
If the model has current rules, and you are not using them, you are PROXYING. If the model has no rules, then you are 'count as'. At no time is using a legal codex item as another legal codex item in the spirit or letter of 'counts as' and they basically are calling players on it within their own publication.
3720
Post by: brettz123
Cottonjaw wrote:Because I play Tau. My codex is old, my rules don't work like they used to, my rapid fire range isn't 15" anymore because of a change in wording, my units are overcosted compared to yours and my transport moves the same speed as yours but costs 2.5 times as much.
And I can't just say "Oh well now they're space wolves" so why should you be able to?
Because the rules and the models allow them too would be the obvious answer.
26459
Post by: The Night Stalker
All of this bickering won't sway anybody, if people are going to proxy they will probably stand by their reasoning, weather its beacause they haven't bought the model yet, or it resembles that obnoxious GL/meltagun argument.
it all really comes down to opponents consent, if your mate allows proxies, great. However not everyone else does as it makes remembering all of your enemies proxies very tedious.
34597
Post by: Lord_Osma
@ cyrax777 that sounds fine long as the equipment is correct. The main issue here would be if the week after they suddenly were SW or BA.
12478
Post by: Gornall
Basically... Until GW specifies exactly what codex specific colors of Marines must use, this "discussion" is moot. People (like me) will use whatever codex they want for their blue/green/grey/red Marines and other people will look down on them for it. Feel free to not play against my WYSIWG Smurf army (without GL bikes) using BA rules in a friendly game. That is your choice. Just don't be suprised if a TO says that there is no rule against blue BAs...
30915
Post by: Coyotebreaks
S'all good with me, if its for experiments. As long as models are assembled 98% WYSIWYG I don't care. If someone runs a marine codex with eldar models every week I would get a bit peeved. But that never happens my circles.
But as said above proxying weapons and what not in a freindly environment in fine with me. I still have to use proxy las cannons and plasma guns as rockets becuase I have not yet aquiared all the roackets I need. But I am working to wards it and my oponents understand this. And my proxys are the same every week. No ones ever complained.
15579
Post by: Fearspect
sourclams wrote:Clearly your fun is worse than his Fun. His fun is Fun-Brand Fun, and it's the Funnest Fun that anyone could have while still having Fun.
Is Fun-Brand Fun trolling people at the FLGS with imperfect WYSIWYG armies?
I forget, what does the, 'F' in FLGS stand for again?
2515
Post by: augustus5
chromedog wrote:Because dilettantism is the mark of the amateur.
Pick something and stick to it. You'll never get better at something unless you persevere with it.
Unless you are a kitten, or teenager, in which case, hopping from one thing to another like a flea with ADHD is normal (still annoying, but sadly normal).
Still, I pick my armies by their look, not their rules, and have been known to use units purely because of how badass they look (regardless of whether such badass-ness translates to the tabletop).
/clap?
11060
Post by: Phototoxin
What's wrong? It fosters powergaming. What should happen is that everyone gets WS4 BS4 S4 T4 and a 3+ armor save. Then we can just paint what ever models we want and they will all not have to 'count as' sphezz mharines
12478
Post by: Gornall
Assuming WYSIWYG... how is using a blue army with the BA dex any different than using the same blue army with Vulkan or Lysander or Shrike from week to week. Doesn't that confuse people?
21993
Post by: Walls
Yes. Yes it does.
But those people codex hopping are using Lysander as a space wolf later on.
40509
Post by: G00fySmiley
Gornall wrote:Basically... Until GW specifies exactly what codex specific colors of Marines must use, this "discussion" is moot. People (like me) will use whatever codex they want for their blue/green/grey/red Marines and other people will look down on them for it. Feel free to not play against my WYSIWG Smurf army (without GL bikes) using BA rules in a friendly game. That is your choice. Just don't be suprised if a TO says that there is no rule against blue BAs...
yea i don't know what codex i wanna play with the marines i do have... but i plan to paint them as gloss gold/black (its basically like a gloss black with a goldish reflection but not from a glitter effect, cool color imo) base with a dark gunmetal for weapons / highlights on armor and either a crimson red or electric green trim.. what codex woudl that be? do i care, no because it will look cool and after i paint em i'll decide how to play em. it'll all be wysiwyg but it might be wolves, it might be chaos or i might even try inquisition ... and i'll probably try a few matches with different codexes to see what i like playing and go twith that ... btu the paint job isn't going to change, the one i painted to see how it'd come out with looks awsome (half trim green half red still debating on that part) and once i have my ork army done and all the models i need for 2500 points i wanna field a group of marined lookign like that
12478
Post by: Gornall
Walls wrote:Yes. Yes it does.
But those people codex hopping are using Lysander as a space wolf later on.
I might not understand what you wrote here, but what is the difference as long as the gear is WYSIWYG?
7942
Post by: nkelsch
Gornall wrote:Walls wrote:Yes. Yes it does.
But those people codex hopping are using Lysander as a space wolf later on.
I might not understand what you wrote here, but what is the difference as long as the gear is WYSIWYG?
Are they really WYSIWYG or am I being told Assault marines with Power armor and chainswords are really Sanguinary Guard with artificer armor and 2-handed power weapons and deathmasks?
Some people define almost any model in power armor as WYSIWYG for any other model in power armor when they really are not.
21499
Post by: Mr. Burning
nkelsch wrote:Gornall wrote:Walls wrote:Yes. Yes it does.
But those people codex hopping are using Lysander as a space wolf later on.
I might not understand what you wrote here, but what is the difference as long as the gear is WYSIWYG?
Are they really WYSIWYG or am I being told Assault marines with Power armor and chainswords are really Sanguinary Guard with artificer armor and 2-handed power weapons and deathmasks?
Some people define almost any model in power armor as WYSIWYG for any other model in power armor when they really are not.
If it is clear what a model is representing then there shouldn't be any issues. Sure, its not an ideal situation but not everyone can afford to purchase 10 or so variant marine armies even though GW keeps producing 'THIS IS BESTEST EVAR' codexes and minis to go with them.
Hell, GW cannot even stick to WYSIWYG, take a look at Catachans and Cadians, they have the same body armour and armour save, how?
I should mention that due to preference I have stuck with a Khorne/Nurgle CSM army, an IG army and A Ragnar/Ulrik based SW army over the last 15-20 years but it's fine to buy a new codex and adapt your armies to suit.
Isn't it just a game?
12478
Post by: Gornall
I am assuming true WYSIWYG... Bad proxies are another issue. Using your Sang guard example assume that the weapons are straight off the SG sprue and the armor is at least kitbashed to look ornate. I do not see how that could cause a reasonable problem gamewise.
21499
Post by: Mr. Burning
Gornall wrote:I am assuming true WYSIWYG... Bad proxies are another issue. Using your Sang guard example assume that the weapons are straight off the SG sprue and the armor is at least kitbashed to look ornate. I do not see how that could cause a reasonable gamer a problem gamewise.
Fixed that.
33968
Post by: Tomb King
Basic thing in this thread:
Codex hopping is fine in my opinion as long as I know what I am playing. I could care less. Have fun with it and mix it up.
If you have a problem with that then by all means take your TFG attitude elsewhere.
I think its funny the people that have so many issues with what other players are actually the ones with the issues. Though shalt not be so quick to judge! Put away the attitude and have fun. Its a game!
40509
Post by: G00fySmiley
its a game.. its about fun... you can take a lolipop stick and glue it to a lego person glued to a coin or large washer instead of a base and personaly ii's be like ok its a soldier with a gun, if you tell me its a malta of a flamer then of its a melta or a flamer... but i might be having fun the wrong way too.
show me a pretty painted army and i'll happily play it, show me a jumbled mass of homemade parts badly glued together and as long as your story stays stright on which unit has which gun / weapon then i'll juts as happily play you , its abotu playign the game to me, not sweating if the model is the right fit (thats imo you are free to have your own opinion)
and to me if your lego men glued to coins fielding popsicle sticks can be wolves oen day, blood angels th next... hell make em dark eldar or tau for all i care, lets just play
7942
Post by: nkelsch
Gornall wrote:I am assuming true WYSIWYG... Bad proxies are another issue. Using your Sang guard example assume that the weapons are straight off the SG sprue and the armor is at least kitbashed to look ornate. I do not see how that could cause a reasonable problem gamewise.
Yeah, I don't think anyone ever has a problem with true WYSIWYG.
I think the issue is from players who feel entitled to play anywhere and everywhere with PROXIES and refuse to even entertain asking for opponents consent. This is why they purposfully twist things around by claiming WYSIWYG or COUNTS AS when they are no where close because they know everyone accepts those but people often shy away from PROXIES.
I think most people are not anti-proxy or anti-everymarine but they are anti-selfish gamer. If someone is unwilling to admit they are proxying and even give the courtesy to admit it and ask for opponents consent, it is a red flag of things to come. A little respect and asking for consent goes a long way as not everyone wants to play with proxies, and they are not always TFG or mentally deficient or whatever preemptive insult people use when they don't get their way.
I can only really think of a few extra units or models you would need for a fully WYSIWYG everymarine army anyways and often people are unwilling to even go that far. Except for having some COUNTS AS TWC, Ornate Jumpackers for sangguard/deathcompany and Orante footsloggers for berserkers/deathcompany/plaugemarines/ SW... most everything else is stock marines or vehicles that can be magnetized. You might need some oblits and some unique stuff for grey knights as well as they are different enough from terminators, but at most I would say the core marine models and the extraneous units probably make up a grand total of two full force orgs worth of models. I think 2 armies worth of models is cheap entry for playing half the codexes out there.
If someone wrote a good article about Everymarines and the best path to making the minimal units but still representing the unique gears, I bet it would be a great resource... Basically a 'model' force org for how to be WYSIWYG and still have a DIY everymarine.
Creativity and respecting opponents goes a long way... Throwing temper tantrums about how you can't afford models and how everyone but you is unreasonable doesn't.
3197
Post by: MagickalMemories
@nkelsch
I agree with you often in other threads. I've been 100% opposite you in this one, though, until your last post.
I think you're dead-on right with it.
Just because I think people who say they won't play against proxied armies/models or who complain about it should just get over it and have fun, doesn't mean there's no responsibility on the past of the proxying player (IMO).
"Hey. I'm collecting this army a little at a time. I don't have all the models I need to get it specifically how I think I want it. I've got some proxies. They're pretty obvious, and I'll be happy to explain them and point them out at any time you want so that you don't get thrown off. That cool?"
It's not a hard thing to say and takes all of 10 seconds.
Eric
12478
Post by: Gornall
@Nklesch: No real arguments with anything you said. I just think there should be no problem with any codex a Marine player uses from week to week as long as everything is truly WYSIWYG.
36397
Post by: Defeatmyarmy
Almost my entire DOA army is chaos and everything has been converted to have proper gear. Aspiring champions do not have TH or SS options for raptors so it is pretty obvious that my chaos marines count as regular marines. Using a Chaos Thousand Sons sorceror for my Librarian, etc.
42258
Post by: Anonymoose
I play an ig list but use models from many ranges eg. kroot, fire warriors, harlequins, orks. Is this bad, would you not play against it?
if you would play against it then why not let someone use normal marines for a B.A army? I personally have nothing wrong with
this as long as theye are at least mostly painted
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
Ummm....it probably would be to be honest. It sounds very confusing, and very very weird. Unless:
a) You have DAMN good fluff for why those factions are working together.
b) You're working on getting an IG Army, but have not had time to buy the models yet.
I'd play you....but one of those 2 above better be true, becuase I will be getting annoyed very quickly.
38312
Post by: Warflake
I think at the end of the day if there codex hopping then there not really learning tactics and what have you. So really there gonna try there hardest to field what there idea of the new best thing and throw that down but have no idea how to use it. IMO that shouldn't be a problem because 9 out of 10 times there going to lose because they havent put the time in. That's why I wouldnt have a problem with it personally. I mean me personally I got into my army for the fluff and the general style but if they want to dip there toes in different ponds I dont see the problem. Because I think they will eventually realise what army they feel comfortable with and if they don't as I said before they'll never have any tactics and they can try to boost there stats as much as possible but someone with even a little more experience with there army has a better chance. And I'd also like to add that they never get the joy of finishing an army in there colours which I find satisfying.
24779
Post by: Eilif
Anonymoose wrote:I play an ig list but use models from many ranges eg. kroot, fire warriors, harlequins, orks. Is this bad, would you not play against it?
if you would play against it then why not let someone use normal marines for a B.A army? I personally have nothing wrong with
this as long as theye are at least mostly painted
Interesting first post...
I'd play against it.
Once.
After that, I'd probably avoid it or suggest that we play smaller games with just one of your factions.
I'm pretty flexible, and could proably see Kroot and Fire Warriors incorporated into an IG force, and I'd be fine with other brands of human troopers (EM4, Wargames factory, etc) if there was some consistency with the proxying of weapons as IG. However,I'd probably draw the line at Harlequin's and orks. I'd rather play an army of mixed factions where each faction was using it's real rules (kind of old school RT'ish) than play a mixed army where all the units are pretending to be something they aren't.
I don't play that often, but when I do, it's as much for the specatcle of painted armis as it is for the 40k game. This may come across as a bit harsh, but from my point of view the example you cite is not an army, it's a random collection of figs and that's just not fun to play against.
26459
Post by: The Night Stalker
Anonymoose wrote:I play an ig list but use models from many ranges eg. kroot, fire warriors, harlequins, orks. Is this bad, would you not play against it?
if you would play against it then why not let someone use normal marines for a B.A army? I personally have nothing wrong with
this as long as theye are at least mostly painted
Wait, What???
42258
Post by: Anonymoose
Firstly, it is a mercenary group who protect a trade world so have all the races from the trade world plus an original army of humans.
secondly, I didn't mean to write harlequins I meant to say Eldar. Sorry for confusion.
The army is painted to a uniform so they do not look completely random and are all completely done. The kroot are either 1 or 2 to a squad as trackers. Fw's and eldar are made mostly out of guardsman bits only using heads, hands and sometimes legs of their own. I use ork stormboys as rough riders and have my only sentinel as a scout with missiles using the deff copter model.
the army actually does look like an army and is not just a random collection of models. They all have correct basing and weapons so it isnt hard to distinguish them. I would actually much rather
prefer to play in a rogue trader sort of army but my gaming group reckons it would be over powered.
Does that Clarify things? sorry if it doesn't.
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
It does, but it still makes no sense. The only two of those factions who would allow themselves to be bribed into serving the Imperium are the Kroot and the Orks, and even then if the Imperium caught them, they'd be in trouble very quikcly.
There is absolutely no way Eldar or Tau would be caught serving UNDER the Imperium, and no reason why humans would be in Tau or Eldar armor. You still need damn good fluff before I'd consider it.
42039
Post by: Underachiever
ChrisWWII wrote:It does, but it still makes no sense. The only two of those factions who would allow themselves to be bribed into serving the Imperium are the Kroot and the Orks, and even then if the Imperium caught them, they'd be in trouble very quikcly.
There is absolutely no way Eldar or Tau would be caught serving UNDER the Imperium, and no reason why humans would be in Tau or Eldar armor. You still need damn good fluff before I'd consider it.
there's a few stories about Imperial Guard defecting to Tau. So i guess that would cover them atleast - but being as there is no rules for a human in a tau army - They'd be allies if anything, they are simply not allowed.
42258
Post by: Anonymoose
It is mainly human based with a few tau and eldar that were left behind after campaigns of said armies or deserted or left their planets looking for another form of adventure.
Orks are mercenaries and kroot are trackers as well as mercs. This army is fighting for a trade world a trade world which revolted against the Imperium.
21993
Post by: Walls
Humans have defected to Tau. One would assume Tau would be willing to do the same.
There are LOTS of mercenary Eldar in the fluff.
His idea isn't that crazy.
24779
Post by: Eilif
Anonymoose wrote:
The army is painted to a uniform so they do not look completely random and are all completely done.
I'll play almost anything if painted uniformly. Let's see some pics.
38312
Post by: Warflake
+1 for pics. Very interested .
3197
Post by: MagickalMemories
Anonymoose wrote:Firstly, it is a mercenary group who protect a trade world so have all the races from the trade world plus an original army of humans.
secondly, I didn't mean to write harlequins I meant to say Eldar. Sorry for confusion.
The army is painted to a uniform so they do not look completely random and are all completely done. The kroot are either 1 or 2 to a squad as trackers. Fw's and eldar are made mostly out of guardsman bits only using heads, hands and sometimes legs of their own. I use ork stormboys as rough riders and have my only sentinel as a scout with missiles using the deff copter model.
the army actually does look like an army and is not just a random collection of models. They all have correct basing and weapons so it isnt hard to distinguish them. I would actually much rather
prefer to play in a rogue trader sort of army but my gaming group reckons it would be over powered.
Does that Clarify things? sorry if it doesn't.
Dude! That sounds cool.
The only problem I'd have would be if you were trying to play each unit with it's rules from it's own codex. As long as everything was "counts as" something in ONE codex, I'd be absolutely fine with it.
@ ChrisWWII
It absolutely makes sense. Give the guy a break:
1) There are examples in the fluff of Orks working as Mercs already. Nothing new there.
2) Tau could easily be helping this world, and it could easily be explained away that they were sent to help because the Tau ruling council (whatever it's called) believe that doing so would advance the "greater good."
3) Eldar do things for their own reasons. They've worked alongside other races in the past. You read the Eisenhorn series? Nuff said.
4) Kroot are Mercs by nature. Settled.
He didn't use the word "bribed." You did.
He's being creative in describing/representing his army and, provided everything is WYSIWYG regarding gear (and uses ONE codex), nobody has a REASONABLE reason to give him crap about it.
Eric
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
I never complained about Kroot and Orks, I know those are used as mercenaries. When i first read it, he seemed to be saying that the Tau and Eldar were serving under Imperial rule on a regular basis. That doesn't seem very fluffly to me.
I know I was the one who used the word bribed, because, come on, that's what mercenaries are. I may just be a stickler for this, but I never liked eclectic collections of models serving as one codex. I get the idea of Kroot armies, count as Orks, or something, but even now, I don't like the idea of just an eclectic group of minis somehow gathered under one codex. To me, if you want to use eclectice models like that set up a friendly game with someone before hand, and actually use the right codexes. I'd be MORE than happy to fight against an allied human-Eldar-Tau force with Ork and Kroot mercenaries. More than happy, provided I know what's going on before hand.
My problem is, and remains that I don't see how these will all fit under one codex.
8311
Post by: Target
anonymoose wrote:I play an ig list but use models from many ranges eg. kroot, fire warriors, harlequins, orks. Is this bad, would you not play against it?
if you would play against it then why not let someone use normal marines for a B.A army? I personally have nothing wrong with
this as long as theye are at least mostly painted
ChrisWWII wrote:Ummm....it probably would be to be honest. It sounds very confusing, and very very weird. Unless:
a) You have DAMN good fluff for why those factions are working together.
b) You're working on getting an IG Army, but have not had time to buy the models yet.
I'd play you....but one of those 2 above better be true, becuase I will be getting annoyed very quickly.
Wait wait wait. You have a problem with his proxying (which by your definition earlier is the same as counts as), but you still think it's fine for you to use grenade launchers as melta guns and lasguns as shotguns? Both are just arbitrary lines drawn in the proverbial sand, and yours is no more correct than his. I think you may not get why people object to your grenade launcher proxy for a meltagun...it's because it's confusing. Even if you tell us initially "grenade laucnhers are meltaguns" just like he told you what his guys are...it's still confusing, and when you glance at a unit with grenade launchers you instinctively think "no big deal, my land raider is safe". And then it's not, because remember, I told you grenade launchers are melta guns.
He justified his with fluff just like you did, and to be honest, it was of more effort/substance than just saying "these grenade launchers fire melta grenades".
Also, on a separate note, I'm noticing from reading that some debate seems to be over whether this is just "okay" or not, and I have to agree with nkelcsch on that you should at least give your opponent the courtesy of asking if they mind. Second, this is somewhat "setting dependent". Providing you ask me if I mind soda cans being drop pods, grenade launchers being meltaguns, lasguns being shotguns, bikes being TWC, a steam tank as a chimera, we can proxy at the shop all day long for you to test something before you buy it. However, if I pay 50-100 dollars to go to a GT or even local tournament that requires wysiwyg and see that attempted, I wouldn't be too happy, and I can't say I've ever attended an event where it's even been attempted, let alone allowed.
24779
Post by: Eilif
MagickalMemories wrote:Dude! That sounds cool.
The only problem I'd have would be if you were trying to play each unit with it's rules from it's own codex. As long as everything was "counts as" something in ONE codex, I'd be absolutely fine with it.
That's a totally valid point of view.
I, on the otherhand, would almost rather he take the rules from each codex. It doesn't sound like he's combining codicies to any major tactical advantage and it might be way easier (though I'd want to see pics of the conversions to make final judgement) to know what you were up against if each unit was statted for what it looks like.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
Anonymoose wrote:I use ork stormboys as rough riders and have my only sentinel as a scout with missiles using the deff copter model.
the army actually does look like an army and is not just a random collection of models.
I am sorry, I would have to see pictures... because it sounds awful and exactly like a random collection of models. Jumpacks as cavalry? Jetbikes as walkers? Models that have absolutely nothing to do with the unit it is representing? Sounds confusing and burdensome to your opponent who has to constantly check his decoder ring to know what he is playing against.
Especially since orks have a very logical cavalry option in boarboyz in their lore and same with light walkers... Hell, even looted imperial stuff makes more sense. I would even say a deffkopta makes a better rough rider than a stormboy does. I have seen some neat conversions of deffkoptas into leg-based walkers which could have a lance or weapon on the front.
I have seen great Orks to Iguard counts as and they were done with care and made sense... I am not full of hope based upon your descriptions and they sound like proxies and exactly like a collection of random models.
25139
Post by: micahaphone
What's wrong with it? Let me paint you a little picture: You're a busy guy, so you can only reliably get in some games around one weekend of every month. You show up to the game store, and you play a game or two against your friend's latest army. Sure, his army is unpainted, but it's brand new, and he wants to try it out, and you want to try fighting it. You have fun, and you spend your free time during the rest of the month changing you list and painting new models to prepare to face his new army again next month, eagerly anticipating your rematch, where you can use what you learned in battle the first time. When another month finally comes around, and you go to the store, ready to face his army from last month, which he will surely have fine-tuned and gained experience with, you find that he has a brand new army, once again unpainted, ready for another battle. He has already sold off last month's army, and you're sure he will do the same this time. Now doesn't this seem like a frustrating situation?
21993
Post by: Walls
Or worse... and more usual... same unpainted army with new rules.
9230
Post by: Trasvi
For me, the difference between Proxy and Counts-As is effort.
In my mind, proxy-ing is: using models (or coke cans) you hae to represent models you don't have, because you either haven't bought them yet, or are not intending on buying them.
Counts as is: using a converted army, or army painted to a specific colour scheme, to represent another army.
Most people I see using counts-as are doing so with good intentions. They are generally well-converted, have a decent storyline, or well painted. A tau auxiliary force with IG models used as fire warriors? Great, when these auxiliaries have Tau sept symbols and are painted to match the crisis suits. I have no problem with a good counts-as army.
Proxied models have different degrees also. There is:
1) Trying out a new army build, just to see if it works; you might want to see if a 3-melta vet squad is good but only have 2 meltas and a plasma. Proxy the plasma dude as a melta dude for a few games to try it out. But once you've tried it out and decided thats what you want, you should probably buy another melta.
2) Trying out an entirely new unit that isn't released yet/you haven't finished buying/painting. Don't have a squad of Sanguinary Guard? Swell, use some Swooping Hawks, or Necrons, whatever floats your boat. But again, replace them as soon as you can.
3) Trying out a new army. Like number 2, but replace it even quicker. This seems to be what the fuss is about in this thread.
For those people defending codex hopping... would it be ok if i put my Tau on the table and said 'ok, i'm using the space wolf rules here'. Why is this any different than putting blood angels down and pretending they are space wolves?
If you really want to codex hop, just use some vanilla marine models and paint them in a non codex scheme...
39828
Post by: mekbadzappa
I am a purest in all senses and that is what has been beaten into my head for 40k, WYSIWYG is the only word in my vocab for units, but counts as, as long as its not hanice, or otherworldly is ok, just for certain things, no proxying vanilla marines for gk sms because as far as I'm concerned you have no passion for the dex your playing with, at least buy the models. I saw a pitiful excuse for a proxy and counts as army today and I was apaled. The use of vanilla csms as khorne berserkers, chaos fantasy cav for wolf riders and gold fish boxes for defilers. Come on people this is insanity. Also possessed as wolf guard, and csms for sw long fangs. I may have been playing for only a short period, but I am working for an army that is on the board, not imagined into existence with crappy fillers.
25220
Post by: WarOne
mekbadzappa wrote:I am a purest in all senses and that is what has been beaten into my head for 40k, WYSIWYG is the only word in my vocab for units, but counts as, as long as its not hanice, or otherworldly is ok, just for certain things, no proxying vanilla marines for gk sms because as far as I'm concerned you have no passion for the dex your playing with, at least buy the models. I saw a pitiful excuse for a proxy and counts as army today and I was aa
If some attempt is made, I let it pass.
For instance, a player buying GK weapons and heraldy to equip to Termies and vanilla GKs deserves some consideration (along with if they actually painted silver!).
12478
Post by: Gornall
If a guy buys a new army each week or month or whatever that is his business (and money). If the armies are WYSIWYG then I dont see the problem other than having to adjust your tactics to deal with new threats. If your problem is that the armies are never painted, then that is a seperate issue/thread.
For those people defending codex hopping... would it be ok if i put my Tau on the table and said 'ok, i'm using the space wolf rules here'. Why is this any different than putting blood angels down and pretending they are space wolves?
If you really want to codex hop, just use some vanilla marine models and paint them in a non codex scheme...
The difference is WYSIWYG. If it isnt WYSIWYG then it is proxying and thats up to your opponent. When paint scheme is part of WYSIWYG then I will concede that Red SW is the same thing as Tau SW.
Actually... Tau are commies who are Reds.... Hmmm
39828
Post by: mekbadzappa
fixed my post, I'm on my phone, its buggy.
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
targetawg wrote:
Wait wait wait. You have a problem with his proxying (which by your definition earlier is the same as counts as), but you still think it's fine for you to use grenade launchers as melta guns and lasguns as shotguns? Both are just arbitrary lines drawn in the proverbial sand, and yours is no more correct than his. I think you may not get why people object to your grenade launcher proxy for a meltagun...it's because it's confusing. Even if you tell us initially "grenade laucnhers are meltaguns" just like he told you what his guys are...it's still confusing, and when you glance at a unit with grenade launchers you instinctively think "no big deal, my land raider is safe". And then it's not, because remember, I told you grenade launchers are melta guns.
Yes. Yes I do have a problem. And they are just arbitrary lines in the sand, and I agree with you on that. My arbitrary line in the sand is passed when someone throws an eclectic group of models down onto the table, and then expects you to remember that his entire army is proxied in some way. I stand by what I said, that I do not like this idea, and I am waiting for damn good fluff or pictures to appear before I say I'm ok with it.
I would also repoint out that I never said that proxying = counts as, I jsut said that the difference was in INTENT, not any strange rules about the model having rules or whatnot. He would be count as-ing, as he intends this army to be permanent. If it was only temporary while he buys more models, THEN its count as.
As to the final point, I still hold that only an idiot would be unable to remember somethng simple like 'all the grenade launchers all melta guns' or 'those lasguns are shotguns'. It's different when it's an entire army of having to remember 'Ok, the jetpacks are calvary...the Orks are stormtroopers...the Tau are.... WTF are the Tau again?'. At least it's different according to my arbitrary line in the sand.
He justified his with fluff just like you did, and to be honest, it was of more effort/substance than just saying "these grenade launchers fire melta grenades".
In your opinion.
3197
Post by: MagickalMemories
micahaphone wrote:What's wrong with it? Let me paint you a little picture:
You're a busy guy, so you can only reliably get in some games around one weekend of every month. You show up to the game store, and you play a game or two against your friend's latest army. Sure, his army is unpainted, but it's brand new, and he wants to try it out, and you want to try fighting it. You have fun, and you spend your free time during the rest of the month changing you list and painting new models to prepare to face his new army again next month, eagerly anticipating your rematch, where you can use what you learned in battle the first time. When another month finally comes around, and you go to the store, ready to face his army from last month, which he will surely have fine-tuned and gained experience with, you find that he has a brand new army, once again unpainted, ready for another battle. He has already sold off last month's army, and you're sure he will do the same this time. Now doesn't this seem like a frustrating situation?
No.
Not at all.
My friend is spending his money in a manner that pleases him.
I am, in fact, elated for him that he's found another army that he thinks he will like, apparently, more than the last one.
It seems to me - and I apologize in advance for the "loaded" terms I'm about to use. I mean NO insult by them but cannot think of better terms to describe this as accurately - that there are gamers out there with obviously elitist leanings who see to think less of people who don't game the right way.
" I spent all this time painting my army and tweaking my list, so you should do that, too."
Why? Why should I have to do things I don't want to to enhance your experience? Don't want to play against an unpainted army? Fine. Don't. At the same time, however, you shouldn't attempt to belittle the person whose army is unpainted. Perhaps they simply do not enjoy painting? The games are expensive enough that many people can't afford the official models, much less afford $5 a piece to have them painted.
This game is a social game. It's about getting together with one or more other people and having fun. If you (generic "you") can't have fun playing the game because the other guy's using gray and silver toys, instead of painted, colored ones, then I genuinely feel bad for you. I can have just as much fun against a 100% proxied army as I can against a 100% Golden Demon winning pro-painted one. For me, it's all about the individual I'm playing against and how much fun he is to socialize with.
Please, keep in mind that I'm strictly referring to "friendly" games. TO's have their own rules and, as such, they should be obeyed.
Regarding your underlined text above:
Honestly, this makes it sound like you're angry that you built a list to face off against one force, but are upset that he didn't bring it.
Eric Automatically Appended Next Post: mekbadzappa wrote:I am a purest in all senses and that is what has been beaten into my head for 40k, WYSIWYG is the only word in my vocab for units, but counts as, as long as its not hanice, or otherworldly is ok, just for certain things, no proxying vanilla marines for gk sms because as far as I'm concerned you have no passion for the dex your playing with, at least buy the models. I saw a pitiful excuse for a proxy and counts as army today and I was apaled. The use of vanilla csms as khorne berserkers, chaos fantasy cav for wolf riders and gold fish boxes for defilers. Come on people this is insanity. Also possessed as wolf guard, and csms for sw long fangs. I may have been playing for only a short period, but I am working for an army that is on the board, not imagined into existence with crappy fillers.
The true question for me, though, is...
Were the two people playing the game having fun??
It seems to me that too often, in our haste to condemn others for not having fun the same way we do, we forget that their fun (in this case, at least) does not impact -or, at least, doesn't NEED TO impact- our own ability to do so.
Eric
30915
Post by: Coyotebreaks
Eilif wrote:Anonymoose wrote:I play an ig list but use models from many ranges eg. kroot, fire warriors, harlequins, orks. Is this bad, would you not play against it?
if you would play against it then why not let someone use normal marines for a B.A army? I personally have nothing wrong with
this as long as theye are at least mostly painted
Interesting first post...
I'd play against it.
Once.
After that, I'd probably avoid it or suggest that we play smaller games with just one of your factions.
I'm pretty flexible, and could proably see Kroot and Fire Warriors incorporated into an IG force, and I'd be fine with other brands of human troopers (EM4, Wargames factory, etc) if there was some consistency with the proxying of weapons as IG. However,I'd probably draw the line at Harlequin's and orks. I'd rather play an army of mixed factions where each faction was using it's real rules (kind of old school RT'ish) than play a mixed army where all the units are pretending to be something they aren't.
I don't play that often, but when I do, it's as much for the specatcle of painted armis as it is for the 40k game. This may come across as a bit harsh, but from my point of view the example you cite is not an army, it's a random collection of figs and that's just not fun to play against.
I find this insteresting, not having a dig but I find it strange that fluff not being 100% right is enough to not want a to play. I would have thought that different takes on how the 40k universe is can make for an interesting game. I mean yes the way it is written some forces might not team up with others but in another universe they might. but in game terms it has no real bearing if they are using a lagit codex. I can't see how it is going to get in the way of a game. I mean its allready a fictional universe why not expand on that? or just imigine the models are correct if it doesnt sit right for you.
as I say each to their own I just find that an intersting sentinment.
I for example don't like the official fluff and instead have my own idea of how the 40k universe looks and feels, but my thoughts on it are personal and are never raised when i'm playing the game, when thats happeing its all about playing the game really. focusing on movment and tactics etc.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
MagickalMemories wrote:It seems to me - and I apologize in advance for the "loaded" terms I'm about to use. I mean NO insult by them but cannot think of better terms to describe this as accurately - that there are gamers out there with obviously elitist leanings who see to think less of people who don't game the right way.
"I spent all this time painting my army and tweaking my list, so you should do that, too."
Why? Why should I have to do things I don't want to to enhance your experience? Don't want to play against an unpainted army? Fine. Don't.
I totally agree and that is a very mature way to handle it... just accept people want different things and find someone else to play, but in my experience that is not how it goes down... Instead of accepting some people would rather find an opponent who painted their models, the person who declines the game is usually viciously attacked in a slew of insults, namecalling, demands about gamers rights and excuses on how much more valuable their personal time is than yours which justifies playing them.
People get really pissed when you don't want to play them. And it usually starts by preemptive insults like 'I feel sorry for people who are not mentally adept to handle proxies... maybe if they were smarter, they could game at our high level as we can game against anything.'
I find Proxies highly distracting and game impacting, and often because the player who is using the proxies has just as much trouble if not more than me distinguishing or remembering. I don't like policing my opponent for 2 hours because the can't keep things straight. I find unpainted models incredibly boring as I enjoy talking 'shop' with my opponent when it comes to learning modeling/painting techniques. I usually choose to game with like-minded gamers and go to events which have what I am looking for and have no problem if people who enjoy unpainted/proxies play that way...
Just don't call me names when I choose to sit at the paint table for 2 hours instead of playing you, just accept people enjoy different things.
I also dislike how "friendly" is code for no standards... I mean who can ever disagree with 'friendly' games because if you disagree you are unfriendly right? A friendly game is when both players agree and have a good time. I don't suggest anyone should do something they don't enjoy to make one person happy in the name of appeasing the 'friendly' gamers (which sometimes are anything but friendly)
24779
Post by: Eilif
Coyotebreaks wrote:Eilif wrote:
I'm pretty flexible, and could proably see Kroot and Fire Warriors incorporated into an IG force, and I'd be fine with other brands of human troopers (EM4, Wargames factory, etc) if there was some consistency with the proxying of weapons as IG. However,I'd probably draw the line at Harlequin's and orks. I'd rather play an army of mixed factions where each faction was using it's real rules (kind of old school RT'ish) than play a mixed army where all the units are pretending to be something they aren't.
I don't play that often, but when I do, it's as much for the specatcle of painted armis as it is for the 40k game. This may come across as a bit harsh, but from my point of view the example you cite is not an army, it's a random collection of figs and that's just not fun to play against.
I find this insteresting, not having a dig but I find it strange that fluff not being 100% right is enough to not want a to play....
...I would have thought that different takes on how the 40k universe is can make for an interesting game...
...in game terms it has no real bearing if they are using a lagit codex. I can't see how it is going to get in the way of a game...
...as I say each to their own I just find that an intersting sentinment.
I for example don't like the official fluff ....
As to your points -divyed up above for summary- I think we agree more than you realize.
I do tend to like stay within at least the wider bounds of 40k fluff, but if you will notice, I do say that I'd actually prefer to play against a mixed army if it used the stats of the models (despite it requiring the mixing of codicies) as it would have a fun RT'ish feeling to it.
My issue with Annonymoose's army was that at a certain point it becomes very difficult to keep track of all the proxies involved (unless they are all at least armed with WYSIWYG weaopns) and that it would perhaps be easier and more fun just to use the actual stats for the figures rather than trying to shoehorn them into a single codex. This would of course get you in trouble with those who find codex mixing unacceptable, but those folks will already be displeased to see such a random -despite his offered fluff justification, it really seems random to me- collection of miniatures on the table. Thus, codex mixing seems a good solution to me as games are almost always more fun when you can see clearly what forces your opponent is fielding.
Still, it's all a fairly moot point as Annonymoose has not posted any pics of this army and as such we have no way to judge just how WYSIWYG and uniformly painted/converted it is or isn't.
3197
Post by: MagickalMemories
nkelsch wrote:MagickalMemories wrote:It seems to me - and I apologize in advance for the "loaded" terms I'm about to use. I mean NO insult by them but cannot think of better terms to describe this as accurately - that there are gamers out there with obviously elitist leanings who see to think less of people who don't game the right way.
"I spent all this time painting my army and tweaking my list, so you should do that, too."
Why? Why should I have to do things I don't want to to enhance your experience? Don't want to play against an unpainted army? Fine. Don't.
I totally agree and that is a very mature way to handle it... just accept people want different things and find someone else to play, but in my experience that is not how it goes down... Instead of accepting some people would rather find an opponent who painted their models, the person who declines the game is usually viciously attacked in a slew of insults, namecalling, demands about gamers rights and excuses on how much more valuable their personal time is than yours which justifies playing them.
People get really pissed when you don't want to play them. And it usually starts by preemptive insults like 'I feel sorry for people who are not mentally adept to handle proxies... maybe if they were smarter, they could game at our high level as we can game against anything.'
I find Proxies highly distracting and game impacting, and often because the player who is using the proxies has just as much trouble if not more than me distinguishing or remembering. I don't like policing my opponent for 2 hours because the can't keep things straight. I find unpainted models incredibly boring as I enjoy talking 'shop' with my opponent when it comes to learning modeling/painting techniques. I usually choose to game with like-minded gamers and go to events which have what I am looking for and have no problem if people who enjoy unpainted/proxies play that way...
Just don't call me names when I choose to sit at the paint table for 2 hours instead of playing you, just accept people enjoy different things.
I also dislike how "friendly" is code for no standards... I mean who can ever disagree with 'friendly' games because if you disagree you are unfriendly right? A friendly game is when both players agree and have a good time. I don't suggest anyone should do something they don't enjoy to make one person happy in the name of appeasing the 'friendly' gamers (which sometimes are anything but friendly)
See, your example is where i switch gears entirely.
While I DO believe it's unfortunate that you'd choose not to play him for any of those reasons (the tau as IG in merc force, unpainted, etc), it's totally withing your rights (obviously) to do so. Anyone who pulled the crap you're talking about would see me turn on them immediately.
Then again, anyone who's familiar with me understands my "live and let live" type of leanings and won't be surprised by it.
I disagree about proxies being distracting, but I definitely agree that they're something that can be confusing. In fact, our group's been dealing with that since the GK codex has come out... While the one guy is waiting for his GK's to arrive from the painter, he's proxying a LOT of stuff. The only things not being proxied are halberd termies, Storm Ravens and vehicles. He's doing it sensibly (Falchions are L. Claws, P-Fists are D. Hammers, etc), but we do all still find ourselves "double checking" regularly.
FWIW, for me, "friendly" is definitely a game where both players agree and have a good time (handling rules disputes amicably, being willing to make concessions to each other, etc.) and definitely not one in which you use the term to bully the other side into giving you what you want. Friendly should govern your OWN actions in a friendly game and not your expectations of your opponent.
Note that, in the previous point, "your" was generic and not directed at any one person.
Eric
12478
Post by: Gornall
It is funny how this topic has morphed from the idea of codex hopping to proxying and unpainted armies.
3197
Post by: MagickalMemories
Not really.
It all kind of goes hand in hand, really.
People who complain tend to have a lot to complain about.
Gamers who complain about things like codex hopping tend to have the same complaints... and verbalize them.
It's a kind of natural progression, in actuality.
Eric
8311
Post by: Target
ChrisWWII wrote:
As to the final point, I still hold that only an idiot would be unable to remember somethng simple like 'all the grenade launchers all melta guns' or 'those lasguns are shotguns'. It's different when it's an entire army of having to remember 'Ok, the jetpacks are calvary...the Orks are stormtroopers...the Tau are....WTF are the Tau again?'. At least it's different according to my arbitrary line in the sand.
Try not to sling insults just because someone doesn't like your idea. It's only different in your opinion as you said. Meaning that you should accept that other people have different viewpoints. If you then accept that other people have different viewpoints, you should be able to understand why people don't like your idea (because they don't draw the line in the sand at the same place as you, or him).
If you expect people to respect your views, you need to respect theirs.
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
I'm not insulting anyone. I'm just making the general statement that anyone can not remember that grenade launchers = melta guns is an idiot. I'm fairly sure most people would agree that one proxy/count as explained at the very start of the game, should be a thing most gamers are expected to remember. I mean, everyone remember what a melta gun looks like, it's not too hard to remember one detail.
I accepted long ago that the differences here are deeply ingrained, and argument should cease. You were the one who brought it back to the forefront by calling me a hypocrite for disliking the Tau-Eldar-IG-Ork mixed force.
8311
Post by: Target
ChrisWWII wrote:I'm not insulting anyone. I'm just making the general statement that anyone can not remember that grenade launchers = melta guns is an idiot. I'm fairly sure most people would agree that one proxy/count as explained at the very start of the game, should be a thing most gamers are expected to remember. I mean, everyone remember what a melta gun looks like, it's not too hard to remember one detail.
I accepted long ago that the differences here are deeply ingrained, and argument should cease. You were the one who brought it back to the forefront by calling me a hypocrite for disliking the Tau-Eldar-IG-Ork mixed force.
Because you spent several pages discussing how your case was different, and acceptable, and anyone who could not remember your "counts as" was an idiot. Yet once a fellow gamer came up with a situation, albeit a bit more extreme, of doing counts as, you had a problem with it. I did not call you a hypocrite, however, I will say your stance on the issue is quite hypocritical. (Theres a difference, I don't define you as a hypocrite, but I think their is a fair amount of hypocrisy in that stance on this one issue).
Why are gamers expected to remember it? I don't think they are expected to remember anything other than meltagun = meltagun, because that is the rules of the game system you are both playing, it's your common ground. Anything else is something you expect them to remember, which is quite a different thing, and is something you should be willing to ask prior to a game, and also willing to graciously accept a "no thanks" if it bothers the person. And if I'm remembering correctly, it wasn't just meltaguns, wasn't it lasguns = shotguns as well? Essentially none of your models are armed with the "correct" (according to gw) weapons.
As I said in an earlier post, if this was something in a friendly shop game, or you wanted to use it while you converted, or some other extenuating/temporary circumstance, I'd be fine with it. But if you tried to take this to a paid event with rules, I think therein lies the problem. Expecting the TO/tournament system to change/allow your army because you don't want to convert is unreasonable, in my opinion. I took this as your intent when you discussed your army, that you planned on "this is my army, this is how it is, and I'm not converting" and you expected it to be okay at tournaments and the like.
25139
Post by: micahaphone
MagickalMemories wrote:micahaphone wrote:What's wrong with it? Let me paint you a little picture:
You're a busy guy, so you can only reliably get in some games around one weekend of every month. You show up to the game store, and you play a game or two against your friend's latest army. Sure, his army is unpainted, but it's brand new, and he wants to try it out, and you want to try fighting it. You have fun, and you spend your free time during the rest of the month changing you list and painting new models to prepare to face his new army again next month, eagerly anticipating your rematch, where you can use what you learned in battle the first time. When another month finally comes around, and you go to the store, ready to face his army from last month, which he will surely have fine-tuned and gained experience with, you find that he has a brand new army, once again unpainted, ready for another battle. He has already sold off last month's army, and you're sure he will do the same this time. Now doesn't this seem like a frustrating situation?
No.
Not at all.
My friend is spending his money in a manner that pleases him.
I am, in fact, elated for him that he's found another army that he thinks he will like, apparently, more than the last one.
It seems to me - and I apologize in advance for the "loaded" terms I'm about to use. I mean NO insult by them but cannot think of better terms to describe this as accurately - that there are gamers out there with obviously elitist leanings who see to think less of people who don't game the right way.
" I spent all this time painting my army and tweaking my list, so you should do that, too."
Why? Why should I have to do things I don't want to to enhance your experience? Don't want to play against an unpainted army? Fine. Don't. At the same time, however, you shouldn't attempt to belittle the person whose army is unpainted. Perhaps they simply do not enjoy painting? The games are expensive enough that many people can't afford the official models, much less afford $5 a piece to have them painted.
This game is a social game. It's about getting together with one or more other people and having fun. If you (generic "you") can't have fun playing the game because the other guy's using gray and silver toys, instead of painted, colored ones, then I genuinely feel bad for you. I can have just as much fun against a 100% proxied army as I can against a 100% Golden Demon winning pro-painted one. For me, it's all about the individual I'm playing against and how much fun he is to socialize with.
Please, keep in mind that I'm strictly referring to "friendly" games. TO's have their own rules and, as such, they should be obeyed.
Regarding your underlined text above:
Honestly, this makes it sound like you're angry that you built a list to face off against one force, but are upset that he didn't bring it.
Eric
I see what you're getting at Eric, but perhaps I should remove the "list tailoring" part out of the analogy. After you've done battle against a particular army, aren't you excited to try again later? Do you think of ways that the battles could have gone differently, how you could have changed your tactics better, eagerly expecting to continue the learning curve of facing a new foe, as he gets more used to the force and you get more used to fighting it? By all means, it's their money and they can do with it what they want to, but I guess I'm trying to express disappointment that you don't get to fight the same army again.
32016
Post by: hemingway
As far as the meltaguns thing goes, why not just model a melta nozzle and stick it on the end of the shotgun? Seems to me you could equip your whole force with melta in a couple hours and save yourself the trouble of dicking your opponent around.
I'm sort of in agreement with the trend of the thread: a little is okay, but don't overdo it.
Think about it your claim, ChrisWWII, that only an idiot would forget grenade launchers = meltaguns. Ok, on the surface, that sounds fair, as an isolated thing to remember.
Would you also agree that only an idiot can't count to six? Or can't subtract 3 from 4?
How many times have we forgotten what turn it is? Or how many wounds a model has? Are we all idiots for this? The fact is, there's a tonne of content and rules and numbers to remember in this game, and while a lot of it becomes ingrained (my SM hits your ork on a....) it's still very easy to overlook things.
So when you ask your opponent to remember another set of information that he otherwise wouldn't in order to play you, you're asking him for a favour, and he's doing you one. And there's a word for someone who consistently asks for favours.
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
I am not intending to spend several pages describing why my situation is different. My position remains and stays that it's an arbitrary line of the sand, and mine is far from diferent from others, clearly. You did not use the word hypocrite, but you might as well have, your argument implies it completely.
I actually never use grenade launchers as melta guns, it was just an idea that popped into my mind at one point about how to get more melta guns for my vets, but in the end I picked up enough melta guns to properly outfit my Vets, and the situation was averted, I only brought it up for this situation as it seemed appropriate. Similarly to that, none of my models are officially armed with shotguns, but riddle me this...what would your propose for a way to create quick, easily visible shotguns which are going to be very visually similar to lasguns anyway? If you ask 10 different people, you'll get 10 different answers.
I am proud to say that my entire army at this point is WYSIWYG, to a certain extent. The Pask model isn't riding in my Vanquisher, but a guy with a peaked cap, fancy shoulder pads and a sword is. The Creed model isn't in my army, but a guy with a big fancy hat and sword with two pistols is, I have one guy with a weird energy looking weapon standing in for a plasma gun, and my Veteran Sergeants have shotguns converted from flamers. Whether or not you consider those WYSIWYG is up to you, but I call my army 100% WYSIWYG.
It may be that I never play tournaments, but if I brought my current army to a tournament I would expect my shotguns, Pask, Creed etc. to be acceptable models. To my mind, giving a Veteran a fancily painted grenade launcher and calling it a melta gun, is just as fair as taking a model, sticking a cape and fancy hat on him and calling him Creed. It's visually distinctive enough for you to tell that something is different, and every player I have ever faced only need telling once that 'weird energy gun is plasma, guy with fancy hat is Creed, guy with fancy hat in tank is Pask, and fancy grenade launcher is melta gun'. I would worry if someone was unable to remember such things
As to hemingway, yes only an idiot can't count to 6, and only an idiot can't subtract 3 from 4, but that's why we place markers to remind ourselves of the turn and wounds. I don't field blank bases and expect people to remember what's what. I have a model carrying a gun that is visually distinctive from the rest of the army, and I informed my opponent at the beginning of the game what the model was carrying. I expect that to be enough to remember that the grenade launcher model is clearly something else.
39828
Post by: mekbadzappa
I guess i was being a little too critical in my post, i do use units to replace characters, i have a sgt with a heavy bolter from a chimera as my harker replacement, but if it resembles a unit of the same stature, i think thats ok, similar in form and such and carrying similar weapons. I bet were all guilty of stuff like this.
40741
Post by: Worglock
I see Codex hopping as what the bad players do to try and win to validate themselves. Usually they fail at it, because (most of the time) even Mat HerpaDerpaDoo Ward can't create an army so good that bads become good.
and then they sell the army and try again.
8311
Post by: Target
ChrisWWII wrote:I am not intending to spend several pages describing why my situation is different. My position remains and stays that it's an arbitrary line of the sand, and mine is far from diferent from others, clearly. You did not use the word hypocrite, but you might as well have, your argument implies it completely.
I actually never use grenade launchers as melta guns, it was just an idea that popped into my mind at one point about how to get more melta guns for my vets, but in the end I picked up enough melta guns to properly outfit my Vets, and the situation was averted, I only brought it up for this situation as it seemed appropriate. Similarly to that, none of my models are officially armed with shotguns, but riddle me this...what would your propose for a way to create quick, easily visible shotguns which are going to be very visually similar to lasguns anyway? If you ask 10 different people, you'll get 10 different answers.
I am proud to say that my entire army at this point is WYSIWYG, to a certain extent. The Pask model isn't riding in my Vanquisher, but a guy with a peaked cap, fancy shoulder pads and a sword is. The Creed model isn't in my army, but a guy with a big fancy hat and sword with two pistols is, I have one guy with a weird energy looking weapon standing in for a plasma gun, and my Veteran Sergeants have shotguns converted from flamers. Whether or not you consider those WYSIWYG is up to you, but I call my army 100% WYSIWYG.
It may be that I never play tournaments, but if I brought my current army to a tournament I would expect my shotguns, Pask, Creed etc. to be acceptable models. To my mind, giving a Veteran a fancily painted grenade launcher and calling it a melta gun, is just as fair as taking a model, sticking a cape and fancy hat on him and calling him Creed. It's visually distinctive enough for you to tell that something is different, and every player I have ever faced only need telling once that 'weird energy gun is plasma, guy with fancy hat is Creed, guy with fancy hat in tank is Pask, and fancy grenade launcher is melta gun'. I would worry if someone was unable to remember such things
As to hemingway, yes only an idiot can't count to 6, and only an idiot can't subtract 3 from 4, but that's why we place markers to remind ourselves of the turn and wounds. I don't field blank bases and expect people to remember what's what. I have a model carrying a gun that is visually distinctive from the rest of the army, and I informed my opponent at the beginning of the game what the model was carrying. I expect that to be enough to remember that the grenade launcher model is clearly something else.
So you've been arguing that you use grenade launchers as meltaguns and lasguns as shotguns for...no reason? That's pointless. You yourself decided it wasn't appropriate and eventually converted the models, which is what everyone said to do all along, and that if the player was intending/going to, it was okay.
Of course no one has a problem with your shotguns, pask, creed, etc., we never did have a problem with it apparently, we had a problem with the made up story you've been slinging this whole time. If you convert a weapon, it's no longer the original, if it's no longer the original, then it's much easier to remember. I don't see a hacked up flamer that's clearly been heavily altered and go "oh, flamer, don't think twice". I see a hacked up converted flamer and ask "hey, are those shotguns you made out of flamers?". The players didn't need reminding of what something was because it was clearly an odd energy weapon, and they didn't have anything else associated with it. Try running all nonconverted ones like you SAID YOU DID THIS ENTIRE POINTLESS PIECE OF THE DISCUSSION and maybe you'd get some confusion.
And of course my argument implied you were a hypocrite, I flat out said that you were being hypocritical. Except that you weren't, because you made your entire previous stance up apparently. No wonder you felt so "wronged".
You give me a headache.
5111
Post by: MikeMcSomething
How many of the grognards in this thread actually play against people outside their playgroup of 3-4 friends anyway? In almost a decade of wargaming I haven't ever seen a guy getting an impromptu fluff-quiz before someone will decide to play him in a game ever, but I've seen people get turned down for games from outside their playgroup more often than I can count, and it's never due to the unknown quality of the army someone might pull out of their box, it's usually some combination of the fact that most wargamers aren't the most sociable people and the fact that you need to set aside the better part of an afternoon just to get a decent game in.
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
It is more than acceptable to use a hypothetical situation to prove a point. I don't understand why you feel so angered that I made up an example of what could potentially be used. That is most definitely not pointless. Thought experiments and hypothetical situations are an important part of debate, and I stand by what I said, even though I don't even use grenade launcher melta guns.
It wasn't that I decided to convert the models in the end, it was just buying more command squad packs than I'd originally planned, leaving me with more melta than I thought I had.
40741
Post by: Worglock
MikeMcSomething wrote:How many of the grognards in this thread actually play against people outside their playgroup of 3-4 friends anyway? In almost a decade of wargaming I haven't ever seen a guy getting an impromptu fluff-quiz before someone will decide to play him in a game ever, but I've seen people get turned down for games from outside their playgroup more often than I can count, and it's never due to the unknown quality of the army someone might pull out of their box, it's usually some combination of the fact that most wargamers aren't the most sociable people and the fact that you need to set aside the better part of an afternoon just to get a decent game in.
I used to at the request of my local store staff. I stopped after far too many bad games against bad gamers. I'll help anyone with painting and modeling stuff. A game though? That's highly unlikely.
31306
Post by: Brother Gyoken
Cottonjaw wrote:My favorite new line to say, with the recent GK release is, "Well at least these marines are the right color" when staring at the grey plastic nightmare layed before me.
Black primer I refer to as "Black Crusade"
and of course the classic "Shouldn't your white scars be on bikes?" to marines primed white.
You sound like an absolute joy to play with.
14386
Post by: Grey Knight Luke
MikeMcSomething wrote:How many of the grognards in this thread actually play against people outside their playgroup of 3-4 friends anyway? In almost a decade of wargaming I haven't ever seen a guy getting an impromptu fluff-quiz before someone will decide to play him in a game ever, but I've seen people get turned down for games from outside their playgroup more often than I can count, and it's never due to the unknown quality of the army someone might pull out of their box, it's usually some combination of the fact that most wargamers aren't the most sociable people and the fact that you need to set aside the better part of an afternoon just to get a decent game in.
Well Colorado doesn't seem to have that problem. When you have a limited amount of stores and a limited amount of regular players, playing who you can get is just the way it goes. And no there isn't a fluff quiz, but peoples' armies do spawn discussion on fluff. In my experience, the people who don't paint or take pride in their armies are usually a whole lot less fun to play against. Not always the case, but usually.
34906
Post by: Pacific
Grey Knight Luke wrote:MikeMcSomething wrote:How many of the grognards in this thread actually play against people outside their playgroup of 3-4 friends anyway? In almost a decade of wargaming I haven't ever seen a guy getting an impromptu fluff-quiz before someone will decide to play him in a game ever, but I've seen people get turned down for games from outside their playgroup more often than I can count, and it's never due to the unknown quality of the army someone might pull out of their box, it's usually some combination of the fact that most wargamers aren't the most sociable people and the fact that you need to set aside the better part of an afternoon just to get a decent game in.
Well Colorado doesn't seem to have that problem. When you have a limited amount of stores and a limited amount of regular players, playing who you can get is just the way it goes. And no there isn't a fluff quiz, but peoples' armies do spawn discussion on fluff. In my experience, the people who don't paint or take pride in their armies are usually a whole lot less fun to play against. Not always the case, but usually.
1) I agree with you, and feel the same way.
2) what's a grognard?
8248
Post by: imweasel
Eilif wrote:Been following this thread for a while now and enjoying the discussion. Special thanks to nkelsch for defining "counts as" and proxying. In the internet world of "this word means this to you and something else to me" it's nice to have actual working definitions within which to frame arguments.
I think I've been guilty of mixing them up before, but I'll try not to from now on.
nkelsch wrote:But it isn't counts as! It is a Proxy. GW went into depth in their warhammer world tourney rules (which don't seem to be on the internet anymore, FOUND IT!) on what they feel a counts as and a proxy is and they are distinct.
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m240024a_Warhammer_World_-_Rules_of_Engagement.pdf
COUNTS AS
The 'Counts as' rule allows you to apply the rules for existing units to older or scratch built models that do not have rules of their own. This is to allow you to make full use of your collection or the army choices within or rule books; it's not an excuse to change your army as a way of fine tuning your force.
If the model has current rules, and you are not using them, you are PROXYING. If the model has no rules, then you are 'count as'. At no time is using a legal codex item as another legal codex item in the spirit or letter of 'counts as' and they basically are calling players on it within their own publication.
That's the rules for a tournament. not general rules. I have no idea when that was printed, but to me it doesn't seem to take the place of counts as/ wysiwyg rules in the brb. Not in the slightest.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
imweasel wrote:
That's the rules for a tournament. not general rules. I have no idea when that was printed, but to me it doesn't seem to take the place of counts as/wysiwyg rules in the brb. Not in the slightest.
Show me the definition of COUNTS AS from the BRB I asked pages ago...
There is only one definition of "counts as" as it pertains to GW games, and this is it.
All it means is people are using PROXIES and are not meeting WYSIWYG and are not using valid COUNTS AS. If your group is cool with proxies, where's the beef? You can't redefine the terms to make your PROXIES = WYSIWYG and then acceptable without opponents consent or in all events.
12478
Post by: Gornall
There is a Counts As definition in the BRB but I dont have a copy on me. Once I get home I will try to post it.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
Gornall wrote:There is a Counts As definition in the BRB but I dont have a copy on me. Once I get home I will try to post it.
Oh you me the WYSIWYG Definition?
‘What You See Is What You Get’
Character models in particular tend to have a lot
of options as to what weapons and wargear they
can use – given in the army list of their Codex.
The rule is that such equipment must be visually
represented on the model so your opponents can
clearly see what they are facing. This concept is
often referred to as WYSIWYG, which stands for
‘what you see is what you get’.
Of course, many gamers enjoy trying out different
combinations of wargear in different battles.
So, for example, a player might decide that for his
next game a model’s power sword will simply
count as a close combat weapon, but he will also
equip the model with melta bombs. While some
tournaments may be more strict about this kind
of thing, most opponents are happy to
accommodate a small degree of one thing
counting as another, so long as you explain
exactly who has what at the start of the game.
That doesn't allow you to do it, it still requires opponents permission and it is a 'Proxy'. This doesn't define 'counts as' the way GW uses it, it also doesn't make your proxies game legal or tourney legal as they require opponents consent.
8248
Post by: imweasel
nkelsch wrote:imweasel wrote:
That's the rules for a tournament. not general rules. I have no idea when that was printed, but to me it doesn't seem to take the place of counts as/wysiwyg rules in the brb. Not in the slightest.
Show me the definition of COUNTS AS from the BRB I asked pages ago...
There is only one definition of "counts as" as it pertains to GW games, and this is it.
All it means is people are using PROXIES and are not meeting WYSIWYG and are not using valid COUNTS AS. If your group is cool with proxies, where's the beef? You can't redefine the terms to make your PROXIES = WYSIWYG and then acceptable without opponents consent or in all events.
Try page 47 in the brb where they actually discuss WYSIWYG. According to you there is no such thing as 'mods/counts as' as everything would qualify as a 'proxie'.
One quote:
"So, for example, a player might decide that for his
next game a model's power sword will simply
count as a close combat weapon, but he will also
equip the model with melta bombs."
I know this is just so confusing, just take the rose colored blinders off and read a bit...
12478
Post by: Gornall
I guess I was mistaken about there being a more detailed definition of Counts As in the BRB. However, the WYSIWYG definition is not a slam dunk either as "visually represented" does not mean "the exact bits and paint scheme as in White Dwarf." Once again I think the argument about proxies and Counts As is NOT the situation being discussed in the OP and should be taken to another thread.
8248
Post by: imweasel
Gornall wrote:I guess I was mistaken about there being a more detailed definition of Counts As in the BRB. However, the WYSIWYG definition is not a slam dunk either as "visually represented" does not mean "the exact bits and paint scheme as in White Dwarf." Once again I think the argument about proxies and Counts As is NOT the situation being discussed in the OP and should be taken to another thread.
It's the same premise. Whether it's the shape or color of the model should make little difference.
Folks that are complaining about 'confusion' should just stay home in a padded room...
11856
Post by: Arschbombe
Gornall wrote:It is funny how this topic has morphed from the idea of codex hopping to proxying and unpainted armies.
Seems like a logical development to me. Codex-hopping is the disease. Proxying and unpainted armies are the symptoms. Hoppers don't stick with an army long enough to collect all the right models or paint them all up if they do before they're on to the next cool thing. Hoppers don't take a break from 40k to build up their new army. They continue to play with whatever they have to hand so we see tables of unpainted and mismatched models. The argument about it is just a variation on all the arguments we have about how to properly play 40k. Some people have different standards than others. A good analogy is driving cars. Everyone thinks they're a good driver and they drive the right way. Anyone driving slower is an idiot and anyone driving faster is a lunatic.
14386
Post by: Grey Knight Luke
Arschbombe wrote:Gornall wrote:It is funny how this topic has morphed from the idea of codex hopping to proxying and unpainted armies.
Seems like a logical development to me. Codex-hopping is the disease. Proxying and unpainted armies are the symptoms. Hoppers don't stick with an army long enough to collect all the right models or paint them all up if they do before they're on to the next cool thing. Hoppers don't take a break from 40k to build up their new army. They continue to play with whatever they have to hand so we see tables of unpainted and mismatched models. The argument about it is just a variation on all the arguments we have about how to properly play 40k. Some people have different standards than others. A good analogy is driving cars. Everyone thinks they're a good driver and they drive the right way. Anyone driving slower is an idiot and anyone driving faster is a lunatic.
The difference is that no one will ever complain about an incredibly painted, WYSIWYG, converted army. Honestly no one complains as long as people TRY! The hobby portion of this game (unless you are competing at high levels) is all about effort. Little Timmy does his best to get his ultramarines painted, and yes he didnt base his models, the paint is on thick, the details are just one color, they arent impressive, but there are 3 colors on there and HE is proud of them; imo that is the important part and I doubt anyone would be upset at this. Effort, Effort, Effort.
11856
Post by: Arschbombe
Grey Knight Luke wrote:
The difference is that no one will ever complain about an incredibly painted, WYSIWYG, converted army.
Yes, they will when it's done for the "wrong" reasons. See Goatboy's Space Word Wolf Bearers as an example. A nice looking army, modeled well, totally overshadowed by his choice of codex to use.
Honestly no one complains as long as people TRY! The hobby portion of this game (unless you are competing at high levels) is all about effort. Little Timmy does his best to get his ultramarines painted, and yes he didnt base his models, the paint is on thick, the details are just one color, they arent impressive, but there are 3 colors on there and HE is proud of them; imo that is the important part and I doubt anyone would be upset at this. Effort, Effort, Effort.
What you're really saying is you want little Timmy to embrace the group's values. You want him to conform to the standards your group holds. That's why you're satisfied with his demonstration of effort and not skill. His painting of his army shows he accepts the group's standards. All groups work this way. It's not unique to 40k.
14386
Post by: Grey Knight Luke
Honestly no one complains as long as people TRY! The hobby portion of this game (unless you are competing at high levels) is all about effort. Little Timmy does his best to get his ultramarines painted, and yes he didnt base his models, the paint is on thick, the details are just one color, they arent impressive, but there are 3 colors on there and HE is proud of them; imo that is the important part and I doubt anyone would be upset at this. Effort, Effort, Effort.
What you're really saying is you want little Timmy to embrace the group's values. You want him to conform to the standards your group holds. That's why you're satisfied with his demonstration of effort and not skill. His painting of his army shows he accepts the group's standards. All groups work this way. It's not unique to 40k.
Well ya. But that is what we are talking about here right? Codex hopping has a negative connotation because it doesn't meet 40k culture. Thats this whole threads rhetoric, enculturation. I was just giving an example to show at base level what the general 40k value is for painting. its effort.
3197
Post by: MagickalMemories
Grey Knight Luke wrote:
Honestly no one complains as long as people TRY! The hobby portion of this game (unless you are competing at high levels) is all about effort. Little Timmy does his best to get his ultramarines painted, and yes he didnt base his models, the paint is on thick, the details are just one color, they arent impressive, but there are 3 colors on there and HE is proud of them; imo that is the important part and I doubt anyone would be upset at this. Effort, Effort, Effort.
What you're really saying is you want little Timmy to embrace the group's values. You want him to conform to the standards your group holds. That's why you're satisfied with his demonstration of effort and not skill. His painting of his army shows he accepts the group's standards. All groups work this way. It's not unique to 40k.
Well ya. But that is what we are talking about here right? Codex hopping has a negative connotation because it doesn't meet 40k culture. Thats this whole threads rhetoric, enculturation. I was just giving an example to show at base level what the general 40k value is for painting. its effort.
Boloney.
What exactly is " 40K culture," and who gets to decide what it is? You? Your group? My group? The internet?
Fact is that there is no " 40K culture" that is universal. What is normal in my group is, very obviously, not normal in some groups I've encountered via Dakka.
The culture of my gaming group and the St. Louis, MO area isn't going to be the same as yours. So, who's right? How do you decide in a manner that's fair to all?
Please, don't try to pass of your personal preferences and prejudices as some sort of *culture* or standard that is expected of everyone who plays 40K. There is not such thing.
Eric
12478
Post by: Gornall
From the OP wrote:What are people's feeling about codex hopping? In trying to avoid Proxy/counts as arguments, so for the sake of this thread I'm specifically refering to Space Marine (edit: and Chaos Space Marine) armies where the army is mostly WYSIWYG and the owner uses codicies other than what is reflected in the army's paintjob. DA as wolves, Ultras as BA, etc, etc.
I've got a fully painted BA army from way-back, and I recognize that codex creep has made them pretty powerfull these days. However, I've no problem at all with folks using the BA codex with their marine armies, regardless of color as long as they are all (or nearly all) WYSIWYG. Why should they be penalized because their army of choice hasn't been uber'fied recently?
Just thought everyone should read the OP again.
Arschbombe wrote:Seems like a logical development to me. Codex-hopping is the disease. Proxying and unpainted armies are the symptoms. Hoppers don't stick with an army long enough to collect all the right models or paint them all up if they do before they're on to the next cool thing. Hoppers don't take a break from 40k to build up their new army. They continue to play with whatever they have to hand so we see tables of unpainted and mismatched models.
Do you paint your minis with such a broad brush?
33327
Post by: sarpedons-right-hand
My bro and I are having a combat patrol mash up this weekend and will be using proxy for four or five of the army's that we don't have the mini's to represent on the tabletop. Agreed that this is different to rocking up to your FLGS or GW with a large army of Eldar only to deploy them as IG, but really at home with a few of your mates, where is the harm?
42223
Post by: htj
For me, 40K is as much about the visual experience as it is the game. I like to watch the representation of battle spread before me. This is all the better on a fully painted board, with fully painted scenery and fully painted miniatures. If I weren't so lazy, I could live up to these standards myself. Naturally, I will enjoy the game more if the armies are WYSIWYG, it all adds to the verisimilitude.
The key words in the above paragraph are: FOR ME. This is a personal preference. One of the other gamers in our small group of friends where we play is very much on the gamer end of things. He plays for the competition and the game of it. He's not one of the mythical WAAC players, in fact a victory for him is greater if it uses widely accepted to be bad units and army lists. To him, the miniatures are a necessary evil, and he would gladly play with tokens on graph paper. Nevertheless, he makes the effort to build and paint his minis out of respect for the game and his friends. Likewise, I maked the effort to try and create lists and tactics that will challenge him. I'm not very good at this.
So, what? So 40K is a social hobby. Like all social endeavours, especially competitive ones, a little give and take is required. Use counts as and proxying to try out new codices, sure, but don't constantly do it if it's clearly causing tension in your gaming group. Likewise, don't get in a huff because somebody wants to try something new without commiting to a significant investment of money and time.
It's not just your game. It's your opponent's too. If we can all try to act like this, the hobby would be a much better place.
34906
Post by: Pacific
Gornall wrote:
Arschbombe wrote:Seems like a logical development to me. Codex-hopping is the disease. Proxying and unpainted armies are the symptoms. Hoppers don't stick with an army long enough to collect all the right models or paint them all up if they do before they're on to the next cool thing. Hoppers don't take a break from 40k to build up their new army. They continue to play with whatever they have to hand so we see tables of unpainted and mismatched models.
Do you paint your minis with such a broad brush?
Although by definition 'hopping' implies that someone isn't taking the time to try and represent the models correctly. The word itself has a negative connotation - if I have 'hopped' from one codex to the next, the chances are I haven't been on the ground for long enough to make even a half decent job out of them, before I hop merrily on my way towards the next codex.
Personally I have nothing at all against people who do it, but I think context is everything. If I'm playing in a small and closed group, beers on the table and some music on in the background, then of course there is no problem with it - people want to try out new armies and combinations all the time. But I think you should maintain a certain amount of social etiquette when you are attending a club or store (especially one where you are not a regular) for a pick up game. Turning up with DA army (if its painted at all) that's "actually Space Wolves" or "Actually BA" might get a reaction from a shrug and a grin, to a roll of the eyes.
As htj said in the post above me, I think the visual and imagination aspect of the game is very important. I can remember nothing of the game where I played an unpainted (and un-armed - not without weapons, actually with no arms) orc force, where warbuggies were represented by WFB movement trays. Other than thinking how gak their army looked, and that's coming from someone who has got no illusions about the level of their own modelling and painting ability. But, I guess whatever floats your boat ultimately. I do think that if you are of the persuasion where you just use the models like token representations of what they should be, be that through proxying, counts-as or 'codex hopping', or even not painting or assembling your miniatures, then that's your own prerogative. But, I don't think you should throw your arms up in anger when someone says 'no thanks mate' to a game, or you have a hard time finding someone to play against, especially in aforementioned club games.
12478
Post by: Gornall
The OP was referring to (IMO) fully painted and WYSIWYG Marine armies using a different codex from week to week. He did not mention (and tried to specifically avoid) half finished and proxy armies. For example: A vanilla marine army using BA rules some weeks and SM rules other weeks... With all painted and WYSIWYG models.
I think that is an worthwhile discussion... Yet another thread of "unpainted models and proxies are bad" is not (IMO).
42223
Post by: htj
Gornall wrote:The OP was referring to (IMO) fully painted and WYSIWYG Marine armies using a different codex from week to week. He did not mention (and tried to specifically avoid) half finished and proxy armies. For example: A vanilla marine army using BA rules some weeks and SM rules other weeks... With all painted and WYSIWYG models.
I agree, I think that was the OP's thrust. The point remains valid, however, that if this is done to the extent that it is frustrating the other players, then it's a bad thing. If it's sporadic, then it's fine. If it's common in the group and no-one cares, it's fine.
Some things don't hold up with WYSIWYG though. How do you represent Sanguinary Guard with vanilla marines? Assault squads? So what are you assault squads? It's hard to do this without some lack of WYSIWYG. Especially, to take a current example, if your Tac marines with bolters are suddenly weilding force weapons and storm bolters. Not WYSIWIG, but only really a bad thing if you're not taking someone else's enjoyment into consideration.
12478
Post by: Gornall
htj wrote:Some things don't hold up with WYSIWYG though. How do you represent Sanguinary Guard with vanilla marines? Assault squads? So what are you assault squads? It's hard to do this without some lack of WYSIWYG. Especially, to take a current example, if your Tac marines with bolters are suddenly weilding force weapons and storm bolters. Not WYSIWIG, but only really a bad thing if you're not taking someone else's enjoyment into consideration.
I do not think it is too tough to do a good Every Marine force. Personally, my Sang Guard would use the actual SG models with appropriate chapter shoulder pads and helms. I am actually doing a UltraSmurf Honorguard force to Counts As Grey Knights. I plan on mixing GK weapons with Smurf kits and bits.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
ChrisWWII wrote:and no reason why humans would be in Tau or Eldar armor.
This is what seriously annoys me - people complaining someone's army is unfluffy because it doesn't fit their idea of the fluff. There are plenty of examples of Tau recruiting humans and bringing other races into their community and military is what they're all about. Vespids get Tau style armour, why wouldn't humans? Automatically Appended Next Post: htj wrote:Some things don't hold up with WYSIWYG though. How do you represent Sanguinary Guard with vanilla marines? Assault squads? So what are you assault squads? It's hard to do this without some lack of WYSIWYG.
A squad of marines with artificer armour, jump packs and two-handed power weapons? Shouldn't be too difficult. How do you tell your vanguard or honour guard from assault squads?
42223
Post by: htj
I agree, it's not too tough. It sounds like you put a lot of effort into your army, and making it representative of the rules you are using. So absolutely, in your case, Codex hopping is not a bad thing at all. Anyone who would complain about that, well, I suspect their complaint lies elsewhere in truth. Perhaps they resent the flexibility afforded to a marine player.
However, simple as it may seem, there are plenty out there who won't make the effort and will constantly use counts-as to jump in on any ruleset they want. Herein lies the real problem, and here is where a complaint would be justified.
Your army sounds interesting. Tell me, is it all Ultras? I'd be interested to see what you do with the GK kit bash. Any chance of a P&M thread?
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
Scott-S6 wrote:
This is what seriously annoys me - people complaining someone's army is unfluffy because it doesn't fit their idea of the fluff.
There are plenty of examples of Tau recruiting humans and bringing other races into their community and military is what they're all about. Vespids get Tau style armour, why wouldn't humans?
Only, it wasn't that the humans were part of the Tau Empire. If they were Gue'la Auxillaries, I'm all for Guardsmen in Tau armor. It makes sense there. What doesn't make sense to me about that is a random human world having humans in Tau or Eldar armor, or having Tau or Craftworld Eldar mercenaries. It's like turning around and saying that your Ultramarines fight side by side with Chaos. THere are some things that just don't happen.
42223
Post by: htj
Um, it was me that said that Scott-S6. SG may have been a bad example. Go with the GK thing instead. It works better.
27826
Post by: Goterdamrung
In reading this, my army is a good example of what I think is ok. I have a Marine Chapter I made up of my own design. They are a gold metal color with a brown wash. I was running them as codex but have since started coverting them to BA. I bought the blood angels models for HQ's and Death Company but my tactical squads, Assualt squads, and vets are all ready the same. Most people i have talked to don't have a problem with it as alot of BA models wear gold armor as it is, my whole chapter does is all, with vets having black helmets. Nothing is count as and i don't proxy anything. Now trying to do this for Space wolves or anything else I don't think would work as the models just don't convert over to their codex, I just count them as an offshoot of the BA called bloodhounds, using a paw symbol with a blood drop underneath. Codex they were retrievers.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
htj wrote:Um, it was me that said that Scott-S6. SG may have been a bad example. Go with the GK thing instead. It works better. GK are a bit different - they are much more different than any of the other marine codexes which are all, essentially, just different organisations. It's pretty easy to both model and fluff a marine chapter using any of the marine codexes other than GKs (one or two very special units excepted) To do a regular marine chapter with C: GK would require an awful lot of conversion to be WYSIWYG and would abuse the fluff really badly. The only fluffy counts-as that's springing to mind is thousand sons. Automatically Appended Next Post: ChrisWWII wrote:Scott-S6 wrote: This is what seriously annoys me - people complaining someone's army is unfluffy because it doesn't fit their idea of the fluff. There are plenty of examples of Tau recruiting humans and bringing other races into their community and military is what they're all about. Vespids get Tau style armour, why wouldn't humans? Only, it wasn't that the humans were part of the Tau Empire. If they were Gue'la Auxillaries, I'm all for Guardsmen in Tau armor. It makes sense there. What doesn't make sense to me about that is a random human world having humans in Tau or Eldar armor, or having Tau or Craftworld Eldar mercenaries. It's like turning around and saying that your Ultramarines fight side by side with Chaos. THere are some things that just don't happen.
Was it a loyal imperial world? If not, then I'm really not seeing the problem. Kroot and Eldar mercs fight for anyone. Guardsmen in a non-imperial world can have armour bought from wherever they buy it or made to look however they want. I agree that it sounds pretty unlikely but it's not impossible. At least it was WYSIWYG.
3197
Post by: MagickalMemories
ChrisWWII wrote:Only, it wasn't that the humans were part of the Tau Empire. If they were Gue'la Auxillaries, I'm all for Guardsmen in Tau armor. It makes sense there. What doesn't make sense to me about that is a random human world having humans in Tau or Eldar armor, or having Tau or Craftworld Eldar mercenaries. It's like turning around and saying that your Ultramarines fight side by side with Chaos. THere are some things that just don't happen.
Do you even comprehend the absurdity of this statement - especially the emboldened text - when describing a game set in a fictional place using fictional and fantastical races, creeds and creatures?
All of that and you manage to find something in it that doesn't make sense?
Seriously, man. It's getting a little deep there.
It is a game, the history and fiction of which the game manufacturers themselves change to suit their whims. I don't care if he finds a reason to use Ork rules with his Daemon models. It's a game. There's no sense that needs to be made of anything beyond the rules.
Eric
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
Scott-S6 wrote:
Was it a loyal imperial world? If not, then I'm really not seeing the problem. Kroot and Eldar mercs fight for anyone. Guardsmen in a non-imperial world can have armour bought from wherever they buy it or made to look however they want. I agree that it sounds pretty unlikely but it's not impossible.
At least it was WYSIWYG.
When I posted that, it seemed like he was talking about an Imperial world. He later said his planet was more an independent trade planet that solves most of the fluff issues (at least theoretically, I staill say it's damn unlikely and unfluffy a world will have Guardsmen in Tau and Eldar armor). Remember, back then he said it was Eldar Harlequins fighting alongside them too, and that is unfluffy. Harlequins may fight alongside Imperials, but they'd never fight under Imperial control.
38961
Post by: Dr. Temujin
Well, I have been lucky in that I have not had the displeasure of encountering this situation, but generally I agree with those who say that it is bad to codex hop.
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
MagickalMemories wrote:
Do you even comprehend the absurdity of this statement - especially the emboldened text - when describing a game set in a fictional place using fictional and fantastical races, creeds and creatures?
All of that and you manage to find something in it that doesn't make sense?
Seriously, man. It's getting a little deep there.
It is a game, the history and fiction of which the game manufacturers themselves change to suit their whims. I don't care if he finds a reason to use Ork rules with his Daemon models. It's a game. There's no sense that needs to be made of anything beyond the rules.
Eric
It may be absurd, but I got into 40k for the fluff. When I'm looking at 40k and fictional worlds as a whole, I practice 100% suspension of disbelief, that are supposed to have internal rules of logic and sense.
I like immersing myself in the setting, and if you don't think that's alright, well that's fine. Just don't look down at me because I take a different path towards looking at my plastic space men game. You may not care if anything makes sense beyond the rules, but I do.
26430
Post by: McNs
So you'd be cool with me playing with my Necrons using Assault Marines sans 'packs as Flayed Ones, right?
I mean, its totally fluffy...
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
Glad to se that Necron-Blood Angel pic I uploaded is seeing the rounds...
And, no, no I wouldn't. Why? Because Necrons and Blood Angels do not fight along side each other regularly, they fought alongside one another ONCE, and unless we're doing a historical reenactment of that battle, it'd be unfluffy.
It'd be like saying that just because the Eldar helped the Imperium in the Gothic War, the Eldar and Imperium are best buddies. It's simply not the case.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
McNs wrote:So you'd be cool with me playing with my Necrons using Assault Marines sans 'packs as Flayed Ones, right?
I mean, its totally fluffy...
Since that only happened on one specific occasion and is highly unlikely ever to happen again then sure - providing the necrons and marines are wearing all the correct markings for the units involved in that particular battle and there's tyranid-fighting in evidence on bases, etc.
Something happening once or a single example of something existing doesn't open the door to it cropping up all over. e.g. if a chapter only has three dreadnaughts then you better have a damn good story behind why all three are in that little battleforce.
8193
Post by: dancingcricket
Personally, I have no problem with codex hopping of any flavor, even xenos to marine or vice versa. But then, when I started out I wanted to use green army men instead of buying models. This stems mostly due to price. I'd really like to be able to play with every army, at any particular time. I might want Daemons on Wednesday, Necrons on Friday night, GK on Saturday, and Tau on Sunday. But buying all those armies is expensive, and the time investment in painting them is fairly prohibitive to having a life. So I'm all for proxy and counts as.
11856
Post by: Arschbombe
Gornall wrote:
Do you paint your minis with such a broad brush?
No, I like the W&N Series 7 #2.
26430
Post by: McNs
ChrisWWII wrote:Glad to se that Necron-Blood Angel pic I uploaded is seeing the rounds...
And, no, no I wouldn't. Why? Because Necrons and Blood Angels do not fight along side each other regularly, they fought alongside one another ONCE, and unless we're doing a historical reenactment of that battle, it'd be unfluffy.
It'd be like saying that just because the Eldar helped the Imperium in the Gothic War, the Eldar and Imperium are best buddies. It's simply not the case.
My point was: even GW's official fluff can have "unfluffy" combinations.
Maybe Joe McOrk+Tau+Guard+Eldar is playing an army the ONE time they get together, as a group, to fight Chaos/Necrons/Mat Ward. Who knows?
I do agree that if someone slopped down 30 Boys, 5 Terminators (Mega-Armor Nobs), Fire Dragons (they're burna boys), and a Monolith (its a Battle Wagon), I'd be a bit confused. Especially if it was all unpainted or didn't look uniform.
The kid you were harping on claims to have given his models a unifying paint scheme, have army fluff, and have appropriate conversions. Just because its contrary to whats normally allowed in the fluff doesn't mean you should shoot it down as lazy/counts-as, etc etc etc.
Because, hey, maybe there'll be a Eldar/Tau/Guard threeway in the upcoming Tau Codex (especially if Ward wrote it)...
40509
Post by: G00fySmiley
5 Terminators (Mega-Armor Nobs),
>_< i use terminators from an AoBR box as meganobs and they are unpainted... but i am planning to convert them into meganobs with some ork heads, plasticard and some nob box bits i have when i'm done with painting the latest group of 30 boys i am on now (primed black, green and first coat of gunmetal on weapons... few more colors and a final wash and i'll be on to termie-meganob convertion)
26430
Post by: McNs
G00fySmiley wrote:5 Terminators (Mega-Armor Nobs),
>_< i use terminators from an AoBR box as meganobs and they are unpainted... but i am planning to convert them into meganobs with some ork heads, plasticard and some nob box bits i have when i'm done with painting the latest group of 30 boys i am on now (primed black, green and first coat of gunmetal on weapons... few more colors and a final wash and i'll be on to termie-meganob convertion)
Which is fine'n'dandy, as you're taking some effort to convert them.
40509
Post by: G00fySmiley
true... btu for the past month and still today they are just boring grey terminators. i think poeple mostly give me the benefit of having played for less than 6 months and having a mostly painted army at this point... plus my wife coems with me and she's a tall thin leggy blonde... yea that probably helps more than the effor tin the painting come to think of it since she hangs out in the game tbale and sometimes rolls dice for me >_<
but yea codex hoppers i stand by my stance. let em hop around like little rabbits, just leaves mroe models in the used market when a new flavor of the week comes out for other players sticking with the army
3197
Post by: MagickalMemories
ChrisWWII wrote:It may be absurd, but I got into 40k for the fluff. When I'm looking at 40k and fictional worlds as a whole, I practice 100% suspension of disbelief, that are supposed to have internal rules of logic and sense.
I like immersing myself in the setting, and if you don't think that's alright, well that's fine. Just don't look down at me because I take a different path towards looking at my plastic space men game. You may not care if anything makes sense beyond the rules, but I do.
I wasn't the one looking down. It was you.
You're passing judgement on people who don't meet the 'standards' you set forth and treating them like they're not as good for it.
*IF* I was going to look down at you for anything, *that* is what it would be for.
If you're practicing 100% suspension of disbelief, then how do you justify taking the time to roll dice? How do you explain that your armies aren't freaking out and taking Ld tests over the giant cubes falling from the skies and giant (obviously daemonic) hands reaching down to grab them, only to hurl them again?
You don't practice suspension of disbelief. You just want your "fluff" to match your army and expect others to do so, as well.
As for what armies side together matching established fluff... I'd wager that you don't meet your own standards there.
Ultramarines don't fight Ultramarines
GK's don't fight GK's
Tau don't fight Tau
...unless you're recreating battles from fluff, of course. In past writings they may have. They don't under "normal" circumstances, however. I don't know what army/armies you're playing currently, but I can't help but wonder if you refuse to play someone who's playing an army you feel wouldn't normally fight yours.
Eric
21993
Post by: Walls
God... people way over exaggerate the BA/Necron thing to absurd levels. Fist bumping and butt slapping? It says outright they were too wrecked, tired and hurt to fight further.
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
McNs wrote:
The kid you were harping on claims to have given his models a unifying paint scheme, have army fluff, and have appropriate conversions. Just because its contrary to whats normally allowed in the fluff doesn't mean you should shoot it down as lazy/counts-as, etc etc etc.
Oh no, he's explained himself, I don't really mind him too much. His original post about his army caused me to rage, but he did explain it in the end, and with his fluff justification sounds much better. My problem is still people who just throw random thing together without care for fluff. Kroot mercs using 'Nid dex? Sounds interesting to me. Kroot mercs using Guard 'dex with Krootox = Leman RUss? Eh...not so much.
MagickalMemories wrote:
I wasn't the one looking down. It was you.
You're passing judgement on people who don't meet the 'standards' you set forth and treating them like they're not as good for it.
*IF* I was going to look down at you for anything, *that* is what it would be for.
Wait wait wait. When on Earth did I pass judgement on someone just for not meeting my 'standards'? THe only time I can remember even complaining so far is about that Kroot+Eldar+Ork+Tau+Imperial thing, and even then I didn't 'pass judgement' I just said, off the cuff. 'THat doesn't sound very fluffy. What the hell made all this happen?'
If you're practicing 100% suspension of disbelief, then how do you justify taking the time to roll dice? How do you explain that your armies aren't freaking out and taking Ld tests over the giant cubes falling from the skies and giant (obviously daemonic) hands reaching down to grab them, only to hurl them again?
You don't practice suspension of disbelief. You just want your "fluff" to match your army and expect others to do so, as well.
Suspension of disbelief does not mean that I'm not playing the game! It just means that it is more than possible for me to look at what is happening on the table top as not just a game, but as something actually happening. No, I don't think that there are actually dice raining down on my Guardsmen that decide their faith, part of the suspension is that the dice don't exist. THe guy who shot a melta gun at a Land Raider an inch away and rolled a 1? His melta gun backfired and jammed at the worst possible moment, forcing him to take a minute to clear it.
I explain that they aren't freaking out and taking Ld test over the giant cubes and daemonic hands as they are hardened GUardsmen who know what they're fighting.
I practice suspension of disbelief when it comes to my 40k gaming. I look at the battlefield as a kind of movie unfolding. I like to imagine it that way, it makes the game more fun for me. Sorry, if you see it as just a game, I play 40k, cause it let's my imagination go a wandering with the game, and that's why I play Warhammer 40k, and not 'roll 100 dice to see if you get arbitrary values!'.
As for what armies side together matching established fluff... I'd wager that you don't meet your own standards there.
Part of what I love about 40k is that almost anything can be justified. GK fighting GK? Two Ordo Malleus Inquisitors end up clashing over something, and their attached retinues of GK end up skirmishing. Ultramarines vs. Ultramarines? Heresy/Alpha Legion. Tau vs. Tau? Farisght Enclaves.
There are still some guidelines that you can't pass and still claim to be 'fluffy'.
I don't know what army/armies you're playing currently, but I can't help but wonder if you refuse to play someone who's playing an army you feel wouldn't normally fight yours.
li
My sig lists exactly which armies I play. I play Imperial Guard, and Imperial Navy. I don't refuse games, just for fluff reasons, if someone brought in the most unfluffy army I would play it. I'd be annoyed by it, likely, but I'd play it. If I knew the person was a repeat offender who had used the same damn orks+tau+guard to represent Space Marines for the past 5 months, then I'd consider saying no to a game.
I'm not FAAC (fluff at all costs). I'm 'let's go blow some plastic dudes up!'. I PREFER fluffy games, but I won't rage over someone playing me with an unfluffy army.
I'd appreciate you stop making calls about my character now, if you please.
24779
Post by: Eilif
Thanks to those who are trying to steer the discussion back to what the OP (myself) originally asked.
However, let me put this out there. For those of us who are as/more interested in the specatacle than the game itself, could codex hopping be a distinctly good thing? When BA came out suddenly there was alot of red on the table (Lots of grey too, but that's another can-o-worms) For who are very game-oriented, a wider acceptance of codex hopping might give them more impetus to stick with, and possibly modify a bit, their existing army rather than throwing another army of the month on the table. This would please the spectacle oriented folks who feel like they're gonna puke if they see another red marine.
If you're gonna have to face a whole lot of the codex of the month perhaps a little variety in the minaitures used isn't all bad. For my part, if the weapons are WYSIWYG and it's easy to tell which units are which then let's play.
12478
Post by: Gornall
Eilif wrote:Thanks to those who are trying to steer the discussion back to what the OP (myself) originally asked.
However, let me put this out there. For those of us who are as/more interested in the specatacle than the game itself, could codex hopping be a distinctly good thing? When BA came out suddenly there was alot of red on the table (Lots of grey too, but that's another can-o-worms) For who are very game-oriented, a wider acceptance of codex hopping might give them more impetus to stick with, and possibly modify a bit, their existing army rather than throwing another army of the month on the table. This would please the spectacle oriented folks who feel like they're gonna puke if they see another red marine.
If you're gonna have to face a whole lot of the codex of the month perhaps a little variety in the minaitures used isn't all bad. For my part, if the weapons are WYSIWYG and it's easy to tell which units are which then let's play.
That's an interesting point. I know that playing different codexes with my UltraSmurfs (mostly Tactical Squad/Mech BA) has let me focus on painting new and different models such as the Stormraven, Sang Guard, and (in the near future) GKs and DKs rather than more rank and file troops and vehicles. That has translated into better painted units as I don't feel rushed to finish painting so I can field them. I have already started stripping and repainting my old Tactical Squads from when I first started playing to bring them up to the same level as my most recent models. Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's an example of my "Blue Angels lists. All codex marine units with the exception of my Counts As Corbulo.
24779
Post by: Eilif
Gornall wrote:[Here's an example of my "Blue Angels lists. All codex marine units with the exception of my Counts As Corbulo.
See, that's what I'm talking about. If you put down those figs, it would be perfectly clear what is what, and the one fig that isn't transferable, you built a cool conversion to represent.
That's the kind of think that every codex hopper should do. No shame in having just one space marine army, but if you want to codex hop then convert up the couple of units that are unique to the new codex or model a few figs to switch into your squads for weapons options that are different between the codicies.
42223
Post by: htj
Eilif wrote:Gornall wrote:[Here's an example of my "Blue Angels lists. All codex marine units with the exception of my Counts As Corbulo.
See, that's what I'm talking about. If you put down those figs, it would be perfectly clear what is what, and the one fig that isn't transferable, you built a cool conversion to represent.
That's the kind of think that every codex hopper should do. No shame in having just one space marine army, but if you want to codex hop then convert up the couple of units that are unique to the new codex or model a few figs to switch into your squads for weapons options that are different between the codicies.
QFT. If everyone who changed Codices frequently did this then the term 'Codex Hopper' wouldn't be an insult.
39147
Post by: Monk1junk1
Cottonjaw wrote:
My favorite new line to say, with the recent GK release is, "Well at least these marines are the right color" when staring at the grey plastic nightmare layed before me.
Black primer I refer to as "Black Crusade"
and of course the classic "Shouldn't your white scars be on bikes?" to marines primed white.
In fairness to these people, they could be play testing their armies in low level tournies so that they don't have to lovingly paint a figure only to find out that grenade launchers are crap so they have to rip off it's arms and replace them. I for one assembled my Valkyrie in one afternoon ( I love it sooo much!) and it took me a week to get the base colours down. It has now been a year and I am still adding shades and little scratches and conversions ( vendetta, various small things and a rear hatch mounted boltgun). The point is I love it and to have to remove it from my army after all that painting time would suck... Alot....
686
Post by: aka_mythos
I have no problem with people who codex hop, in general. For me though my tolerance is largely limited on the players motivation. Doing it to try out the differences that's fine. Doing it because it fits you unique army idea also fine. Doing it because your codex is so grossly out of date, I'd even accept that. Its only when a player does it solely because they think it will give them the upper hand; at that point it wreaks of bad sportsmanship because it shows a sense of indifference towards those who are actually committed to that single particular army.
12478
Post by: Gornall
aka_mythos wrote:Its only when a player does it solely because they think it will give them the upper hand; at that point it wreaks of bad sportsmanship because it shows a sense of indifference towards those who are actually committed to that single particular army.
I guess I do not get the idea of being "committed" to a specific army in a game. No offense to those who are, but I have just never understood that.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
aka_mythos wrote:Its only when a player does it solely because they think it will give them the upper hand; at that point it wreaks of bad sportsmanship because it shows a sense of indifference towards those who are actually committed to that single particular army.
It's poor sportsmanship to update your army for something that you think will work better because some other people don't want to update theirs? This is a game, you know? You are supposed to try and win.
686
Post by: aka_mythos
Gornall wrote:aka_mythos wrote:Its only when a player does it solely because they think it will give them the upper hand; at that point it wreaks of bad sportsmanship because it shows a sense of indifference towards those who are actually committed to that single particular army.
I guess I do not get the idea of being "committed" to a specific army in a game. No offense to those who are, but I have just never understood that.
Its a hobby that revolves around people collecting, converting, and painting an army. They play Grey Knights or Blood Angels because that is "their" army. Like I said, there are many situations where its perfectly acceptable to hop codices, like an individual's codex being antiquated. Its only when your sole purpose is the upper hand; that persons motivations are not to collect, convert, paint, and play that army... its only to win.
When you approach a game or sport of any sort, while you expect the other player to try and win, there is present a mutual deference. That any one participating pays their dues.
I'm not speaking in absolutist terms; I've shown its a largely conditional standard and the degree to which I feel it is less severe than it probably comes across. I put it in the same category as a person who plays an unpainted army; ok most of the time, but in a particular context it isn't.
Scott-S6 wrote:
It's poor sportsmanship to update your army for something that you think will work better because some other people don't want to update theirs?
This is a game, you know? You are supposed to try and win.
Like I said, it depends on why your updating your army to a particular codex. There is an inherent disadvantage to every other race that isn't afforded the same luxury of having so many immediately cross compatible books. Its only when its done "solely for the upper-hand" that I take any small issue. I gave several reason why and when I think its ok, so I'm not saying it isn't justifiable. Just that any time you do something without regard for the hobby and only to win, its unsporting.
This is what I say "This is a hobby, you know? There is more to it than just winning."
I think this is where the "players" have the biggest disconnect from the design staff and hobbyists; in which of these two faces holds prominence over the other.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
aka_mythos wrote:There is an inherent disadvantage to every other race that isn't afforded the same luxury of having so many immediately cross compatible books.
I think this is far more of a myth than fact. If you want to adapt a marine army from one codex to another and make full use of that codexes advantages you need to add or change so many models that, in fact, you've saved little. Automatically Appended Next Post: aka_mythos wrote:Gornall wrote:aka_mythos wrote:Its only when a player does it solely because they think it will give them the upper hand; at that point it wreaks of bad sportsmanship because it shows a sense of indifference towards those who are actually committed to that single particular army. I guess I do not get the idea of being "committed" to a specific army in a game. No offense to those who are, but I have just never understood that. Its a hobby that revolves around people collecting, converting, and painting an army. They play Grey Knights or Blood Angels because that is "their" army. Like I said, there are many situations where its perfectly acceptable to hop codices, like an individual's codex being antiquated.
I've built and painted about 12K points since fifth edition came out with another 4K in progress so I'm not sure I get the "committed to that single particular army" thing. I build paint and play whatever I feel like. (since it's relevant to the discussion, I should add that I don't codex hop - e.g. I have 7K points of C: SM - I started a new army when I wanted to try C: BA. Mostly because it's easier to start from scratch than to re-work)
686
Post by: aka_mythos
Scott-S6 wrote:I think this is far more of a myth than fact. If you want to adapt a marine army from one codex to another and make full use of that codexes advantages you need to add or change so many models that, in fact, you've saved little.
Thats what you do, I would appreciate that and be fine with that. Maybe its really another whole issue, but too many of the people around me who codex hop, don't do that much. They just consistently throw down a mix of models from different armies that approximate the units doing little to actually identifiably tie them to a codex.
Scott-S6 wrote:I've built and painted about 12K points since fifth edition came out with another 4K in progress so I'm not sure I get the "committed to that single particular army" thing.
I mean if you're playing a "Grey Knight" army... you build a collection of models to use specifically with that codex. If you're playing "Blood Angels"... you should have models specifically for that. Most of the codex hoppers I know, don't go that far. At best they use existing model from another army to approximate the units in the other book.
Scott-S6 wrote:I build paint and play whatever I feel like. (since it's relevant to the discussion, I should add that I don't codex hop - e.g. I have 7K points of C:SM - I started a new army when I wanted to try C:BA. Mostly because it's easier to start from scratch than to re-work)
So you're doing more than what I'd expect of another player. You speak as if I'm some how attacking what you're doing, I'm not. I'm attempting to be very very specific.
I'm talking about "the guy" who hops codices just to win, but does little or no modelling work to make his model work with the "new codex." Where he's making the "hop" not for the concept or modeling potential or fluff or necessity... but because he wants an edge without putting in the effort.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
aka_mythos wrote:Scott-S6 wrote:I think this is far more of a myth than fact. If you want to adapt a marine army from one codex to another and make full use of that codexes advantages you need to add or change so many models that, in fact, you've saved little.
Thats what you do, I would appreciate that and be fine with that. Maybe its really another whole issue, but too many of the people around me who codex hop, don't do that much. They just consistently throw down a mix of models from different armies that approximate the units doing little to actually identifiably tie them to a codex. I'm talking about "the guy" who hops codices just to win, but does little or no modelling work to make his model work with the "new codex." Where he's making the "hop" not for the concept or modeling potential or fluff or necessity... but because he wants an edge without putting in the effort. I think the bigger problem here is not codex hopping but the lack of WYSIWYG. Allowing proxy models encourages both codex hopping and list tailoring. It also goes hand in hand with the lack of commitment that you were commenting on earlier. If you're playing in an environment where proxying is commonplace then I can see how it would be a problem. Perhaps you should try to organise a strict WYSIWYG event and see how it's received? Automatically Appended Next Post: aka_mythos wrote:You speak as if I'm some how attacking what you're doing, I'm not.
Not at all, I'm well aware that I'm not the person you're aiming at (although I do take issue with some of your anti-competitive comments) I just enjoy a good argument. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y Automatically Appended Next Post: aka_mythos wrote:I'm talking about "the guy" who hops codices just to win, but does little or no modelling work to make his model work with the "new codex." Where he's making the "hop" not for the concept or modeling potential or fluff or necessity... but because he wants an edge without putting in the effort.
What about people who put in the modelling effort but are still making the codex switch primarily for the edge?
34906
Post by: Pacific
Scott-S6 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
aka_mythos wrote:I'm talking about "the guy" who hops codices just to win, but does little or no modelling work to make his model work with the "new codex." Where he's making the "hop" not for the concept or modeling potential or fluff or necessity... but because he wants an edge without putting in the effort.
What about people who put in the modelling effort but are still making the codex switch primarily for the edge?
I think going in terms of what the OP and most of the 'anti' posters on this thread have said, I can't think why anyone would have a problem with that.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
Pacific wrote:Scott-S6 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
aka_mythos wrote:I'm talking about "the guy" who hops codices just to win, but does little or no modelling work to make his model work with the "new codex." Where he's making the "hop" not for the concept or modeling potential or fluff or necessity... but because he wants an edge without putting in the effort.
What about people who put in the modelling effort but are still making the codex switch primarily for the edge?
I think going in terms of what the OP and most of the 'anti' posters on this thread have said, I can't think why anyone would have a problem with that.
In that case, as I said above, codex hopping is not what is being objected to - it is proxying that is actually being objected to.
13984
Post by: Captain Jack
I will admit to not reading all of this thread, I really wasn't too fussed after the first 4 pages.
From my point of view I Codex hop to keep my interest in an army up. I really dislike playing loads of games using the same codex time after time. I do have a few alternative armies I can use, and variant lists within those, mostly.
For my marines though, I have Exorcists. I have a Vulcan conversion, plus varius captains/librarians and some other special characters. I also have enough different weapon set ups to proxy them as SWolves/BAngles/DAngles as I see fit. Does this make me a bad man? Nah, I don't care about the percieved 'POWERRRRRRR' level of a codex. I just want to have a game that is fun, and in the most part competative at the same time.
I will also admit that I have a few GKnight boxes that I am considering mashing into my TSons chaos warband, why? Because I don't use them much any more as they are not even vaguely competative as a Tzeench only list, and I'm not sure that I can be bothered to build/paint silver marines.
So, just to throw my thoughts in. There are lots of different ways to 'hop'. Some are fairly well thought out (I hope mine are in this category),some are hopeless messes that are barely comprehendable and whole world of stuff in between. I don't mind it, but if you do at least make an effort in your modelling.
686
Post by: aka_mythos
Scott-S6 wrote:
I think the bigger problem here is not codex hopping but the lack of WYSIWYG.
I think its largely symptomatic and conected. Its about putting in your "dues" in an abstract sort of way. WYSWYG and proxying, in and unto themselves are not a problem, but its the combination of "iffy" actions that cast their motives in a bad light.
Scott-S6 wrote:
aka_mythos wrote:I'm talking about "the guy" who hops codices just to win, but does little or no modelling work to make his model work with the "new codex." Where he's making the "hop" not for the concept or modeling potential or fluff or necessity... but because he wants an edge without putting in the effort.
What about people who put in the modelling effort but are still making the codex switch primarily for the edge?
At that point they've made the "commitment" and even if motivated by the "upper hand" they've overall put in as much effort as the next player who uses that codex. I'd admittedly think less of someones decision for jumping on a bandwagon, which a whole different issue, but at the end of the day the only decernable difference between the codex hopper and the guy who starts that army out of sincere interest, is the effort they put into the modelling; if they make that effort their motives are moot.
6872
Post by: sourclams
There's still several things being argued over.
'Codex hopping' by a player willing to make a significant financial outlay to literally buy the new models for every single codex release.
'Codex hopping' by the Generic Marines player who is able to, with minor modeling work, create WYSIWYG 'generic' marines able to represent any basic tactical or assault marine from the marine codices that will not necessarily fit the 'theme' of the codex (spikes on chaos marines, crosses on BT, wolf bits on SW) but will have the appropriate wargear.
'Codex hopping' by the 'wants to try the new thing' player, who will use his Tactical Marines to represent Death Company, Berzerkers, and GK Purifiers for a few games before deciding whether to buy a new, appropriately modeled army.
'Codex hopping' by the Counts-As player, who does not field a WYSIWYG army and has used the same headless, weaponless power armored legs and torsos to represent anything from CSM to GK, and by the way is that partially assembled chassis a rhino, land raider, or storm raven this week?
The first two are fine at any time. It could be your preference not to play purple Blood Angels, but that's no less arbitrary than refusing to play people named Bill.
The third is conditionally okay, as presumably he'll ask permission beforehand and both players go in with the desire to find out 'what the new codex can do'.
The fourth is clearly the least okay out of the four, and it'll be a rare sort of person who can regularly find games against people with his headless torso marines.
3197
Post by: MagickalMemories
aka_mythos wrote:Scott-S6 wrote:
I think the bigger problem here is not codex hopping but the lack of WYSIWYG.
I think its largely symptomatic and conected. Its about putting in your "dues" in an abstract sort of way. WYSWYG and proxying, in and unto themselves are not a problem, but its the combination of "iffy" actions that cast their motives in a bad light.
So, now we've got to "pay our dues" in order to play a game the way we want to?
Eric
686
Post by: aka_mythos
MagickalMemories wrote:aka_mythos wrote:I think its largely symptomatic and conected. Its about putting in your "dues" in an abstract sort of way. WYSWYG and proxying, in and unto themselves are not a problem, but its the combination of "iffy" actions that cast their motives in a bad light.
So, now we've got to "pay our dues" in order to play a game the way we want to?
Eric
Only in an abstract way, its more about respecting everyone elses time and energy. Respecting a hobby that means more for a person who invests as much time. If you play monopoly, you count out the money to make sure everyone has enough and no ones cheating (yet). In sports, putting in your dues means you practiced so that the game is worth while. In poker its about bringing money to the table. In racing it means bringing a car thats in the same league and stands a chance. In 40k putting in your dues mean that you have put the hobbying time in to have "right" models to play. Its about putting out as much effort as the next guy and not riding on the good graces of other players. Its about meeting the minimal and reasonable expectations of the other players.
A clear example of what I mean is how more and more tournaments have codified into their rules that all models used must be painted. This has absolutely nothing to do about "playing" and has everything to do with respect for the game, gamemanship, and the hobby.
In that same way, if you want to play, you need to put forth the effort... in other words put in your dues.
3197
Post by: MagickalMemories
Okay.
I kind of disagree (on parts), but I see where you're coming from now.
Thanks for the clarification.
Eric
11060
Post by: Phototoxin
sourclams wrote:There's still several things being argued over.
'Codex hopping' by a player willing to make a significant financial outlay to literally buy the new models for every single codex release.
'Codex hopping' by the Generic Marines player who is able to, with minor modeling work, create WYSIWYG 'generic' marines able to represent any basic tactical or assault marine from the marine codices that will not necessarily fit the 'theme' of the codex (spikes on chaos marines, crosses on BT, wolf bits on SW) but will have the appropriate wargear.
'Codex hopping' by the 'wants to try the new thing' player, who will use his Tactical Marines to represent Death Company, Berzerkers, and GK Purifiers for a few games before deciding whether to buy a new, appropriately modeled army.
'Codex hopping' by the Counts-As player, who does not field a WYSIWYG army and has used the same headless, weaponless power armored legs and torsos to represent anything from CSM to GK, and by the way is that partially assembled chassis a rhino, land raider, or storm raven this week?
The first two are fine at any time. It could be your preference not to play purple Blood Angels, but that's no less arbitrary than refusing to play people named Bill.
The third is conditionally okay, as presumably he'll ask permission beforehand and both players go in with the desire to find out 'what the new codex can do'.
The fourth is clearly the least okay out of the four, and it'll be a rare sort of person who can regularly find games against people with his headless torso marines.
I agree -
There's the fluff player 'I want Sons of Blood Mangler' - so uses blood angels codex. That is fine.
Is its not fine when, on seeing the new space puppy codex he then uses that codex because it's better? I think not because eventually it does not matter what models we buy since we can use any codex we want to.
Heck BA's assault troops can have 2 special weapons in a 10 man squad - that would fit my salamander's fine when I'm not using vulkan - cheap *fast* transports to boot? :-) But I don't because I'm not a blood angel, I'm a Salamander.
Also:
Pre-Heresy chaos lists that use a SW or BA codex build are another example. I think Goatboy has one he did up on BOLS or his website.
Goatboys was cheese and an excuse. Why? Because he ignored the fluff he did a thundercav/razorspam list. The only problem is that in the heresy era there were no razorbacks... If he took rhinos then it would have been fine .. but no the fluff is an attempt to hide the cheese and the cheese smells more than the fluff wraps... (soft as the fluff is!)
8193
Post by: dancingcricket
aka_mythos wrote:I think this is where the "players" have the biggest disconnect from the design staff and hobbyists; in which of these two faces holds prominence over the other.
I think you're on to something with this comment. I'm not really that interested in the hobby. The only reason I purchased any models is because they're required for tournament play, as is having them painted. My difficulty is that I want to play with most of the armies. I like building lists, and I like playing them. But I don't want to spend the thousands of dollars that would be required to be able to play eldar this week, DE next week, then SW, Necrons, Daemons, Nids, Guard, BA, back to eldar, and so on. I don't have the space in my house, and thats a bit too much to spend as far as I'm concerned. It might be nice to have the models, but I don't see it as a necessity when you really could play with green army men just as easily.
We're both here to have fun. My fun comes from playing, not from modeling and painting. The game is fun, the "Hobby" is meaningless to me.
24779
Post by: Eilif
dancingcricket wrote:
. I'm not really that interested in the hobby. The only reason I purchased any models is because they're required for tournament play, as is having them painted... and I like playing them....
.... It might be nice to have the models, but I don't see it as a necessity when you really could play with green army men just as easily.
We're both here to have fun. My fun comes from playing, not from modeling and painting. The game is fun, the "Hobby" is meaningless to me.
Thanks for being willing to state what so many people -judging from the color of the armies at my FLGS- seem to feel. Your approach is definitely not mine (I like the spectacle of painted toys and the game is secondary), but I resist the temptation to say "go play magic cards" because playing wargames is a different experience and if that's your approach to gaming, so be it.
I would be interested to know though how far your feeling about the non-necessity of unit-specific miniatures go. Would you actually be willing to play with army men if give the chance? Further, what about doing away with terrain and playing with paper outlines of terrain laid out on the table?
I'm not being sarcstic here, I'm genuinely interested in where the line lies for you and others who feel similarly.
13625
Post by: phantommaster
This seems to be coming onto unpainted models, I play fairly and properly with WYSIWYG but my armies are sprayed yet unpainted simply because I'm awful at painting and struggle to find the time. But I hate proxy armies.
6872
Post by: sourclams
Eilif wrote:
I'm not being sarcstic here, I'm genuinely interested in where the line lies for you and others who feel similarly.
For me it's at WYSIWYG.
I don't care if your models are expertly painted, unpainted, or crudely chipped out of ice. If I can clearly tell that this PA guy is a meltagunner and this fancy fella over here is Mephiston, then we have 0 problems with each other.
12478
Post by: Gornall
Phototoxin wrote:
I agree -
There's the fluff player 'I want Sons of Blood Mangler' - so uses blood angels codex. That is fine.
Is its not fine when, on seeing the new space puppy codex he then uses that codex because it's better? I think not because eventually it does not matter what models we buy since we can use any codex we want to.
Heck BA's assault troops can have 2 special weapons in a 10 man squad - that would fit my salamander's fine when I'm not using vulkan - cheap *fast* transports to boot? :-) But I don't because I'm not a blood angel, I'm a Salamander.
Also:
Pre-Heresy chaos lists that use a SW or BA codex build are another example. I think Goatboy has one he did up on BOLS or his website.
Goatboys was cheese and an excuse. Why? Because he ignored the fluff he did a thundercav/razorspam list. The only problem is that in the heresy era there were no razorbacks... If he took rhinos then it would have been fine .. but no the fluff is an attempt to hide the cheese and the cheese smells more than the fluff wraps... (soft as the fluff is!)
The problem with that view point ( IMO) is that you have a set yourself up as judge and jury over whether an army is "fluffy" enough to be used. Where does that line fall? Using Rhinos instead of Razorbacks would have turned "cheese" into fine?
sourclams wrote:For me it's at WYSIWYG.
I don't care if your models are expertly painted, unpainted, or crudely chipped out of ice. If I can clearly tell that this PA guy is a meltagunner and this fancy fella over here is Mephiston, then we have 0 problems with each other.
This +1. That's what the rulebook says is the standard... rather than being painted to a standard and color scheme that other people deem "acceptable".
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Good God, is this thread still going on? People who switch around codeces are going to keep switching, people who think it's wrong will continue to think it's wrong. Play WYSIWYG and there are shouldn't be any problems. The biggest complaint in all 10 pages is that people switch codeces to get the upper hand on their opponents and WAAC, rather than just not wanting to play the same list all the time (which is the main reason MOST of us do it-we get bored using the same list every time). Each book has its own strengths and weaknesses-sometimes we just like to switch around what those strengths and weaknesses are.
I codex hop and I will not apologize to anyone on here for doing so. I don't do it to powergame, I do it to change up how I play games. I even tell my opponents which army I am running before we play (unless it's a tournament). It can't get any further from WAAC than telling your opponent before they even build their list what you are running.
WYSIWYG should rule the game, not angry fluff-nerds or the people who say "you bought X army, now you have to stick with it and can't change it for something else unless you buy a complete new army without sharing ANY models." I left this thread with my opinion given before, thinking it was going to burn out, but it just gets more ridiculous the longer it goes on. Those who codex hop will continue to do so: deal with it. Those who hate codex hoppers are always going to hate them: again, deal with it.
11060
Post by: Phototoxin
Gornall wrote:
The problem with that view point (IMO) is that you have a set yourself up as judge and jury over whether an army is "fluffy" enough to be used. Where does that line fall? Using Rhinos instead of Razorbacks would have turned "cheese" into fine?
That's kinda the point.. what difference does it make? What makes a space wolf a space wolf - coz its not grey armor clearly!
However he did say pre-heresy but then broke that. So essentially he either made a big mistake OR was hiding his cheese in fluff. (It's not a spam army its a themed army)
37409
Post by: zerodemon
My feeling is that you can use whatever the hell marine codex you like with whatever models you like as long as the units you're using are armed correctly. I have a friend who plays his Ultras as Blood Angels and has modeled up some beautiful "Sanguinary Guard" for them.
12478
Post by: Gornall
What makes a space wolf a space wolf is the name of the codex being used at the top of the army list. That name, not the paint job or arbitrary fluff rules, tells your opponent what units can be taken in the list.
27706
Post by: grrrfranky
In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with codex hopping per se, as long as wysiwyg is adhered to. If everything is modelled appropriately, and one can tell at a glance what is what, i don't see the problem.
grrr
6356
Post by: Ghidorah
sourclams wrote:'Codex hopping' by the Counts-As player, who does not field a WYSIWYG army and has used the same headless, weaponless power armored legs and torsos to represent anything from CSM to GK, and by the way is that partially assembled chassis a rhino, land raider, or storm raven this week? QFT
sourclams wrote:The first two are fine at any time. It could be your preference not to play purple Blood Angels, but that's no less arbitrary than refusing to play people named Bill.
Brilliant.
Ghidorah
21993
Post by: Walls
Gornall wrote:What makes a space wolf a space wolf is the name of the codex being used at the top of the army list. That name, not the paint job or arbitrary fluff rules, tells your opponent what units can be taken in the list.
So, by your reckoning: I can use Firewarriors as my Assault troops, Genestealers on larger bases as terminators, guardsmen as sanguinary guard... as long as it says Blood Angels at the top?
6473
Post by: Mephistoles1
[quote=Eilif
I would be interested to know though how far your feeling about the non-necessity of unit-specific miniatures go. Would you actually be willing to play with army men if give the chance? Further, what about doing away with terrain and playing with paper outlines of terrain laid out on the table?
I'm not being sarcstic here, I'm genuinely interested in where the line lies for you and others who feel similarly.
To address this point by Eilif(Noting that this has nothing to do with any individual person): I play a little warmachine now and then, with a bunch of competitive players who are mostly interested in playing the game, not modeling, or painting. They often use green felt cutouts for forests, and in fact prefer them over detailed terrain that could impact their moves by even a few milimeters. I always have a hard time getting around "you can't shoot me, I'm behind the forest. Your model can't see mine. " All while pointing to the flat felt circle. They also use a bunch of little hills (1/2" high) that provide all the benefits of being elevated, but none of the downfalls like blocking sight.
So your above statement can describe a portion of players that play for playings sake -- They get their fun out of the competitive spirit of the game and the thrill of playing the game itself. Wysiwig is less of an issue in warmachine though, since there are no optional equipemnt options on units or models.. Again, like you I'm not saying this is wrong, just that I prefer more of the hobby side of things.
@thread in general: I have no issue with codex hoppers ... as long as the models are equipped appropriatly I don't see the problem. Purple blood angels with a soul drinker fluff theme .. fine with me as long as the models are representitive.
40509
Post by: G00fySmiley
Mephistoles1 wrote:[quote=Eilif
I would be interested to know though how far your feeling about the non-necessity of unit-specific miniatures go. Would you actually be willing to play with army men if give the chance? Further, what about doing away with terrain and playing with paper outlines of terrain laid out on the table?
I'm not being sarcstic here, I'm genuinely interested in where the line lies for you and others who feel similarly.
To address this point by Eilif(Noting that this has nothing to do with any individual person): I play a little warmachine now and then, with a bunch of competitive players who are mostly interested in playing the game, not modeling, or painting. They often use green felt cutouts for forests, and in fact prefer them over detailed terrain that could impact their moves by even a few milimeters. I always have a hard time getting around "you can't shoot me, I'm behind the forest. Your model can't see mine. " All while pointing to the flat felt circle. They also use a bunch of little hills (1/2" high) that provide all the benefits of being elevated, but none of the downfalls like blocking sight.
So your above statement can describe a portion of players that play for playings sake -- They get their fun out of the competitive spirit of the game and the thrill of playing the game itself. Wysiwig is less of an issue in warmachine though, since there are no optional equipemnt options on units or models.. Again, like you I'm not saying this is wrong, just that I prefer more of the hobby side of things.
@thread in general: I have no issue with codex hoppers ... as long as the models are equipped appropriatly I don't see the problem. Purple blood angels with a soul drinker fluff theme .. fine with me as long as the models are representitive.
I've said it time and time again i play to play, the art and painting are cool as a side project, I play warhammer 40k to PLAY warhammer 40k
if I wanted to paint I’d be painting but if I’m at a game shop I’m there to play
Painting models can be fun but I mostly do it so they look good enough for a tabletop for players who care about that to play me
give me printed on paper terrain and as long as we agree on the cover type it grants that’s fine by me
I don't even care if it is wysiwyg tell me what your squad has and I’ll believe you, if you cheat I might even not care and just consider it a handicap due to you being worse at the game than me, I really only need somebody to tell me once what is in their army and what weapons they have and even torso space marines I’m set for what is on everything… and I’m not particularly smart so I have no doubt you are all capable of the same. And I do play wysiwyg for the most part, my aobr terminators have a twin linked shoota and a powerfist standing in for a twin linked shoota and a power claw as meganobs.
29027
Post by: Heffling
Scott-S6 wrote:aka_mythos wrote:There is an inherent disadvantage to every other race that isn't afforded the same luxury of having so many immediately cross compatible books.
I think this is far more of a myth than fact. If you want to adapt a marine army from one codex to another and make full use of that codexes advantages you need to add or change so many models that, in fact, you've saved little.
Super, super, super disagree. The only things you couldn't run from a new codex are the specialized units, such as Baal Predators or TWC. And with magnetizing, you could easy change your pred to a baal pred just by buying the baal pred kit.
Codex Marines : Codex Space Wolves
Devestators = Long Fangs
Tactical Marines = Grey Hunters
Razorbacks = Razorbacks
Land Speeder Typhoon = LST
You can easily make an army that could hop between one codex to another.
As an ork player, I don't have the same luxury. This gives you a significant advantage that is entirely related to the models you are utilizing. And I see people do it all the time. In a tournament level environemnt, you should not be able to hop from one codex to another with only a minimal or no investment.
|
|