Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Blackskullandy wrote:On WYSIWYG;

...The rule is that [such equipment] must be visually represented on the model so your opponents can clearly see what they are facing

The WYSIWYG rule states only that weapons and wargear are inluded, no mention anywhere of iconography, insignia, skulls, pelts or anything else.

That is all.

Does it? When making an assertion like this, it is nice if you provide a page reference for the rest of us. I, for example, can't seem to find it in the 5th ed rulebook at all. However, if it were there, I would assume that it would say something about the reason for this being that you want your opponent to have an easy time of seeing what your men have and can do. I would think, therefore, that putting out models clearly painted and modeled to belong to one codex, with the rules for another codex, would be violating the spirit of this rule if not the letter of it. Assuming, of course, that the rule still exists in 5th ed.

On the other hand, assuming that this is a strict rule, it is interesting to note that the basic "weapons and wargear" carried by a Space Wolf is not the same as the basic "weapons and wargear" carried by a Space Marine, so the same models, if they really are WYSIWYG, cannot be used in both armies, because WYSIWYG aren't the same. But I suppose you'll say something about it not counting for marines to need both bolt pistols and bolters. And you won't have a page number to back up that claim either.

AegisGrimm wrote:In what reality does something like painting up a pre-heresy World Eaters army and using the Blood Angels codex to represent their blood-thirstyness ever compare with plunking down Orks on the table as Necrons?

That's the hugest logic leap ever.

No one is saying that a planned out and intentional "counts-as" army is a bad thing. Or is even a 'proxy'. If you can't see the difference between spending the time and effort into creating a pre-heresy world eater army that happens to use blood angel rules, and taking your existing world eater army and just putting them on the table and calling them blood angels then there's really no point in trying to convince you any further.

Taking a purposefully build World Eater army, with all chaos parts and all chaos icons and calling it a blood angel army is not a huge logical leap from taking a basic ork army and calling it a necron army. The fact that they're both power-armour and bolt-weapons is no more relevant than the fact that the orks and necrons are both xenos armies.

BTW: Orks as necrons - done correctly.

AegisGrimm wrote:What if i want to field the 8yth company of Ultramarines, but I want to have a cool rule to represent that they are all assault marines and have a higher frequency of fielding bikes and land speeders. So I use the DA codex and all legal unit entries to have them hit the table with the ravenwing rules. I tell my opponent as such.
...
Am I honestly to believe that I just broke the entire theme of the 40K universe? I'm sorry to burst any bubbles, but a Blood Angels Sanguinary Priest model painted in Ultramarines colors in a vanilla codex army is a Ultramarines Apothecary.

Ah, but now you're starting to get it. If you do something intentionally, it's a conversion, or it's a "counts-as" army. That's all fine. If you put the effort into making your Sanguinary Priest look like an Ultra, then no one will ever say anything negative about it, and you'll probably get some kudos out of it (especially if you take the time to file off the blood-drop icons). If you deliberately make an Ultramarine 8th company army, which happens to need all-bike rules, you're doing it deliberately. (It could be argued, especially these days, that Marine all-bike armies are best done with Codex Marines and using Ravenwing rules isn't quite as beneficial as it may have been at one time, but that's another matter entirely). This is good hobbying. This is what wargaming is about. You had an idea, you put effort into it, you got a result.

On the other hand, if you just take that BA model and stick it on the table in BA colours, with no effort made at all, you're just proxying a model. It won't look good, it won't add anything to the game, and you deserve whatever ridicule you get. You put forth no effort in this second example.

And, as I've said several times already, so what. You're proxying. No one is going to refuse to play with you as a result.

Redbeard wrote:Ah, but now you're starting to get it. If you do something intentionally, it's a conversion, or it's a "counts-as" army. That's all fine. If you put the effort into making your Sanguinary Priest look like an Ultra, then no one will ever say anything negative about it, and you'll probably get some kudos out of it (especially if you take the time to file off the blood-drop icons). If you deliberately make an Ultramarine 8th company army, which happens to need all-bike rules, you're doing it deliberately. (It could be argued, especially these days, that Marine all-bike armies are best done with Codex Marines and using Ravenwing rules isn't quite as beneficial as it may have been at one time, but that's another matter entirely). This is good hobbying. This is what wargaming is about. You had an idea, you put effort into it, you got a result.

On the other hand, if you just take that BA model and stick it on the table in BA colours, with no effort made at all, you're just proxying a model. It won't look good, it won't add anything to the game, and you deserve whatever ridicule you get. You put forth no effort in this second example.

And, as I've said several times already, so what. You're proxying. No one is going to refuse to play with you as a result.

Agreed completely.

It's "codex-hopping" that I find distasteful. If you want to run a "counts-as" army, or a custom chapter, or anything like that, use whatever codex you want. But, you should stick to it and not just hop to the next flavor of the month.

And, like I said, I'm totally okay with someone playing a different codex than what their army is as long as they extend the same courtesy to me.

Redbeard wrote:Does it? When making an assertion like this, it is nice if you provide a page reference for the rest of us. I, for example, can't seem to find it in the 5th ed rulebook at all. However, if it were there, I would assume that it would say something about the reason for etc etc etc etc

Sir, I agree with your opinion.

People can, of course, paint their models however they want. However, the spirit of the WYSIWYG idea is that your opponent is not confused. If I look across the table and see some Ultramarines, and then I have to remember that they're ACTUALLY Grey Hunters, this is confusing. Regardless if I've been told that at the start of the game. In fact, I would argue that it's MORE confusing to fight proxy marine armies than any other sort of proxy army, precisely because the models are so similar.

I play this game because of the hobby elements. I like the act of collecting and modelling unique armies, even if they're not optimal. I want to play players that like this too. Deciding that it's irrelevant what the models are and picking a more competitive codex tells me that my opponent doesn't like this - he likes winning more. And that means I don't want to play him.

Of course, that doesn't mean that people shouldn't do it if they want. But I wouldn't want to play like that, and I'd consider it unfair in a tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AegisGrimm wrote:What if i want to field the 8yth company of Ultramarines, but I want to have a cool rule to represent that they are all assault marines and have a higher frequency of fielding bikes and land speeders. So I use the DA codex and all legal unit entries to have them hit the table with the ravenwing rules. I tell my opponent as such.

Well, as pointed out, the purpose of the WYSYWYG idea is to avoid confusion. I have lots of counts-as armies, which I go to great lengths to make as non-confusing as possible, to the level of converting every model so that it's REALLY obvious what it is.

I would say that the least confusing way to represent the Ultramarines 8th Company as a biker force would be to use the Biker rules from the Space Marine codex. If you want to field a counts-as army, you should pick the least confusing rules that allow you to field it, for the sake of your opponent.

This reminds me of the Space Marine player who took the time to convert some amazing Imperial Jetbikes. They were just being finished as the Space Wolf codex arrived, and the player immediately decided they were 'Thunderwolves'. The problem wasn't that he was codex hopping (the marines were his own grey-painted chapter already, so no danger of confusion there...), the problem was that there were two obviously more suitable units present in the Codex already. He chose a confusing counts-as for a competitive advantage, and that annoyed people...

Redbeard wrote:

Blackskullandy wrote:On WYSIWYG;

...The rule is that [such equipment] must be visually represented on the model so your opponents can clearly see what they are facing

The WYSIWYG rule states only that weapons and wargear are inluded, no mention anywhere of iconography, insignia, skulls, pelts or anything else.

That is all.

Does it? When making an assertion like this, it is nice if you provide a page reference for the rest of us. I, for example, can't seem to find it in the 5th ed rulebook at all. However, if it were there, I would assume that it would say something about the reason for this being that you want your opponent to have an easy time of seeing what your men have and can do. I would think, therefore, that putting out models clearly painted and modeled to belong to one codex, with the rules for another codex, would be violating the spirit of this rule if not the letter of it. Assuming, of course, that the rule still exists in 5th ed.

On the other hand, assuming that this is a strict rule, it is interesting to note that the basic "weapons and wargear" carried by a Space Wolf is not the same as the basic "weapons and wargear" carried by a Space Marine, so the same models, if they really are WYSIWYG, cannot be used in both armies, because WYSIWYG aren't the same. But I suppose you'll say something about it not counting for marines to need both bolt pistols and bolters. And you won't have a page number to back up that claim either.

AegisGrimm wrote:In what reality does something like painting up a pre-heresy World Eaters army and using the Blood Angels codex to represent their blood-thirstyness ever compare with plunking down Orks on the table as Necrons?

That's the hugest logic leap ever.

No one is saying that a planned out and intentional "counts-as" army is a bad thing. Or is even a 'proxy'. If you can't see the difference between spending the time and effort into creating a pre-heresy world eater army that happens to use blood angel rules, and taking your existing world eater army and just putting them on the table and calling them blood angels then there's really no point in trying to convince you any further.

Taking a purposefully build World Eater army, with all chaos parts and all chaos icons and calling it a blood angel army is not a huge logical leap from taking a basic ork army and calling it a necron army. The fact that they're both power-armour and bolt-weapons is no more relevant than the fact that the orks and necrons are both xenos armies.

BTW: Orks as necrons - done correctly.

AegisGrimm wrote:What if i want to field the 8yth company of Ultramarines, but I want to have a cool rule to represent that they are all assault marines and have a higher frequency of fielding bikes and land speeders. So I use the DA codex and all legal unit entries to have them hit the table with the ravenwing rules. I tell my opponent as such.
...
Am I honestly to believe that I just broke the entire theme of the 40K universe? I'm sorry to burst any bubbles, but a Blood Angels Sanguinary Priest model painted in Ultramarines colors in a vanilla codex army is a Ultramarines Apothecary.

Ah, but now you're starting to get it. If you do something intentionally, it's a conversion, or it's a "counts-as" army. That's all fine. If you put the effort into making your Sanguinary Priest look like an Ultra, then no one will ever say anything negative about it, and you'll probably get some kudos out of it (especially if you take the time to file off the blood-drop icons). If you deliberately make an Ultramarine 8th company army, which happens to need all-bike rules, you're doing it deliberately. (It could be argued, especially these days, that Marine all-bike armies are best done with Codex Marines and using Ravenwing rules isn't quite as beneficial as it may have been at one time, but that's another matter entirely). This is good hobbying. This is what wargaming is about. You had an idea, you put effort into it, you got a result.

On the other hand, if you just take that BA model and stick it on the table in BA colours, with no effort made at all, you're just proxying a model. It won't look good, it won't add anything to the game, and you deserve whatever ridicule you get. You put forth no effort in this second example.

And, as I've said several times already, so what. You're proxying. No one is going to refuse to play with you as a result.

Bolded the portion I am asking about:

So what if I painted my marines Hot Pink and gave them the correct weapons? Are they now not legal because you would have no idea what codex they were from unless I told you? How about if I painted my Ultramarines a 'dark' blue rather than the bright almost baby blue (which I did by the way) are they now so far off the reservation that you cannot figure out what they do? What if they were bright purple with lime trim and a home made decal on the shoulder, what then? The opponent would have to tell you what codex they were using.

I am guessing though that because they did not use the paint scheme GW chose for the codex they want to use that you'd just not wanna play with em?

How about this, we take all creative control for the player away and let GW and the lore-people tell everyone 'exactly' how to paint their models, exactly where decals go, and take away the fun side, hell, while we are at it lets just take painting away and sell booster packs with pre-painted miniatures.

FYI:
WYSIWYG is on page 47 of the rule book. The last sentence states: "While some tournaments may be more strict about his kind of thing, most opponents are happy to accomodate a small degree of one thing counting as another , so long as you explain exactly who has what at the start of the game."

Granted 'some' tournaments might be more strict (which is why many of us magnetize our models) this does not change the fact that in the rule book they mention this. Now you, as well as a few others might be in the minority of players who would complain and/or not play, that does not change the fact the people who wrote the book seem to be understanding of a small degree of variation.

I think that painting is a small degree, it is a huge difference if I am using model A to be model B when they are obviously not even close to the same thing.

If this is still in dispute, no idea how to approach you save you coming out and saying "I won't play anyone who paints their models the way they want, paint them by your codex or nothing! No custom colors!"

To the second portion of bolded information, in my case, I have shaved off every blood drop I could get to without messing the models up I've taken a dremel to the pewter stuff (Gabriel for example, I dremeled everything BA off of him and green stuffed a U onto his shoulder and into the center of his halo).

These conversions were done well before I even got the codex as well, simply because I liked the models. One day I wanted to try some new stuff, people were not cool with me doing so without running from that codex, so I grabbed it. On the same note I converted the Furiosos as well, no BA iconography on those unless it was something I simply could not get off without ruining a portion of the model.

ArbitorIan wrote:

Redbeard wrote:Does it? When making an assertion like this, it is nice if you provide a page reference for the rest of us. I, for example, can't seem to find it in the 5th ed rulebook at all. However, if it were there, I would assume that it would say something about the reason for etc etc etc etc

Sir, I agree with your opinion.

People can, of course, paint their models however they want. However, the spirit of the WYSIWYG idea is that your opponent is not confused. If I look across the table and see some Ultramarines, and then I have to remember that they're ACTUALLY Grey Hunters, this is confusing. Regardless if I've been told that at the start of the game. In fact, I would argue that it's MORE confusing to fight proxy marine armies than any other sort of proxy army, precisely because the models are so similar.

I play this game because of the hobby elements. I like the act of collecting and modelling unique armies, even if they're not optimal. I want to play players that like this too. Deciding that it's irrelevant what the models are and picking a more competitive codex tells me that my opponent doesn't like this - he likes winning more. And that means I don't want to play him.

Of course, that doesn't mean that people shouldn't do it if they want. But I wouldn't want to play like that, and I'd consider it unfair in a tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AegisGrimm wrote:What if i want to field the 8yth company of Ultramarines, but I want to have a cool rule to represent that they are all assault marines and have a higher frequency of fielding bikes and land speeders. So I use the DA codex and all legal unit entries to have them hit the table with the ravenwing rules. I tell my opponent as such.

Well, as pointed out, the purpose of the WYSYWYG idea is to avoid confusion. I have lots of counts-as armies, which I go to great lengths to make as non-confusing as possible, to the level of converting every model so that it's REALLY obvious what it is.

I would say that the least confusing way to represent the Ultramarines 8th Company as a biker force would be to use the Biker rules from the Space Marine codex. If you want to field a counts-as army, you should pick the least confusing rules that allow you to field it, for the sake of your opponent.

This reminds me of the Space Marine player who took the time to convert some amazing Imperial Jetbikes. They were just being finished as the Space Wolf codex arrived, and the player immediately decided they were 'Thunderwolves'. The problem wasn't that he was codex hopping (the marines were his own grey-painted chapter already, so no danger of confusion there...), the problem was that there were two obviously more suitable units present in the Codex already. He chose a confusing counts-as for a competitive advantage, and that annoyed people...

Having a unit on a jet bike count as a unit on a Wolf is far different than simply an army wide color change. As I noted here what happens if my custom colors do not obviously depict the codex I play out of, it is cheating? How so if I prefer to have pink marines instead of blue, red, black, green, or grey?

Personal note, in my case, in no way have I jumped to BA from C:SM because I want to be flavor of the month, I am trying new stuff for the sake of new stuff, furthermore check out my other threads where I am asking about BA tactica and am trying to utilize tacticals over the typical spammed assault marines (which unforunately seems to be the only option but that does not change the fact I am trying to do something fun and entertaining, not just trying to spam the "I Win button").

Redbeard wrote:

Blackskullandy wrote:The WYSIWYG rule states only that weapons and wargear are inluded, no mention anywhere of iconography, insignia, skulls, pelts or anything else.

That is all.

Does it? When making an assertion like this, it is nice if you provide a page reference for the rest of us. I, for example, can't seem to find it in the 5th ed rulebook at all. However, if it were there, I would assume that it would say something about the reason for this being that you want your opponent to have an easy time of seeing what your men have and can do. I would think, therefore, that putting out models clearly painted and modeled to belong to one codex, with the rules for another codex, would be violating the spirit of this rule if not the letter of it. Assuming, of course, that the rule still exists in 5th ed.

Page 47 in the BRB is where you can find the WYSWIG rule. It states "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 they are talking about equipment. and last I checked Ultramarine, and Blood Angel symbols and icons are not equipment.

Below is my squad of terminators with my Librarian. The Librarian has Terminator Armor, Storm Shield, and a Force Weapon. The librarian is kind of a counts as, because its the model for Kaldor Draigo, but it works as a SM Librarian due to the equipment. And there seems to be a lack of Terminator models that have a Storm Shield, and a weapon that is not a Thunderhammer. or Staff (I hate the way Staves look).

I still would like to know where it says that I can't take a bunch of my painted Ultramarine bikers and landspeeders and for a bit of variety use the Ravenwing rules from the Dark Angels codex to govern them in a battle, as long as those are the only rules that blanket the army that's on the table.

If there's no rule that says my Ravenwing have to be in black armor, there is certainly nothing about any required heraldry being that of the Dark Angels. As long as it's a Space Marine in power armor on a bike, I can use any of the rules that involve Space marines in power armor on bikes, as long as their equipment matches the army list entry I'm claiming to use.

Likewise, what if I use my painted 13th Company Space Wolves as normal Space Wolves? The established visual of Grey Hunters does not portray them in anything other than Imperial Power armor. So because about 50% of each of my models are from the Chaos plastics, and painted in Black Legion heraldry, I can;t use them as Grey Hunters, even if they follow all the rules in the SW codex?

What if my buddy wants to field his Black Templar marines using the vanilla codex instead of any BT one? Ts that somehow illegal fluff-wise, as they are no longer a vanilla chapter?

Taking a purposefully build World Eater army, with all chaos parts and all chaos icons and calling it a blood angel army is not a huge logical leap from taking a basic ork army and calling it a necron army. The fact that they're both power-armour and bolt-weapons is no more relevant than the fact that the orks and necrons are both xenos armies.

So both Chaos marines and loyalist marines using boltguns that use the exact same weapon profile is equal to Orks and Tyranids being the same because they are both non-humans? Wow.

I can take a Space marine and a chaos marine and immediately point out the things on both that are analogous, disregarding any painjob. Both have power armor, both have big shoulder pauldrons, both have boltguns (if each are so armed), both have vented backpacks, similar helmets, etc. Hell, usually they even have the exact same statline. The only comparison between Orks and Eldar is that they are both from the same game universe.

DeathReaper wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

Blackskullandy wrote:The WYSIWYG rule states only that weapons and wargear are inluded, no mention anywhere of iconography, insignia, skulls, pelts or anything else.

That is all.

Does it? When making an assertion like this, it is nice if you provide a page reference for the rest of us. I, for example, can't seem to find it in the 5th ed rulebook at all. However, if it were there, I would assume that it would say something about the reason for this being that you want your opponent to have an easy time of seeing what your men have and can do. I would think, therefore, that putting out models clearly painted and modeled to belong to one codex, with the rules for another codex, would be violating the spirit of this rule if not the letter of it. Assuming, of course, that the rule still exists in 5th ed.

Page 47 in the BRB is where you can find the WYSWIG rule. It states "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 they are talking about equipment. and last I checked Ultramarine, and Blood Angel symbols and icons are not equipment.

Below is my squad of terminators with my Librarian. The Librarian has Terminator Armor, Storm Shield, and a Force Weapon. The librarian is kind of a counts as, because its the model for Kaldor Draigo, but it works as a SM Librarian due to the equipment. And there seems to be a lack of Terminator models that have a Storm Shield, and a weapon that is not a Thunderhammer.

By the logic that a couple of posters keep bringing up, your force is not painted to match any codex, so they would 'be confused as to what you are indeed using.'

Like the bright colors though, definitely stands out.

AegisGrimm wrote:I still would like to know where it says that I can't take a bunch of my painted Ultramarine bikers and landspeeders and for a bit of variety use the Ravenwing rules from the Dark Angels codex to govern them in a battle, as long as those are the only rules that blanket the army that's on the table.

If there's no rule that says my Ravenwing have to be in black armor, there is certainly nothing about any required heraldry being that of the Dark Angels. As long as it's a Space Marine in power armor on a bike, I can use any of the rules that involve Space marines in power armor on bikes, as long as their equipment matches the army list entry I'm claiming to use.

Likewise, what if I use my painted 13th Company Space Wolves as normal Space Wolves? The established visual of Grey Hunters does not portray them in anything other than Imperial Power armor. So because about 50% of each of my models are from the Chaos plastics, and painted in Black Legion heraldry, I can;t use them as Grey Hunters, even if they follow all the rules in the SW codex?

What if my buddy wants to field his Black Templar marines using the vanilla codex instead of any BT one? Ts that somehow illegal fluff-wise, as they are no longer a vanilla chapter?

I'd have no problem with it, in the Vanilla book it explains what to do if you use two different chapter HQs, you choose who is 'commanding' (replace chapter tactics with their stuff). But you could still field 2 'different' chapter leaders and it would be ok, granted you'd have to tell your opponent what stuff you were using, and that is perfectly legal via that book.

How is it any different if you run UM as DA for the raven wing stuff, you are not bringing anything from one codex to the other save the models (which are WYSIWYG) and by the logic in the Codex: Space Marines one might argue that their force is being led by another chapter's leader for that battle, that is assuming in the lore space marines work together...oh right, because they fight for the imperium of man and have their own codex in the lore they won't be on the same 'team.'

I think the point that is confusing some, is that the ones who are against things such as using "Ultramarines" as "Blood Angels", or using "Black Templars" as "space wolves", etc.

The problem isn't "what codex is the color of the army from" it's more a "GW established this group in this codex, but is it the same"

For instance, many people who run Raven Guard armies, run either Shrike in Vanilla codex lists, OR they run a non-shrike (often times generic HQ) BA, DOA list. This is almost never brought up as a problem. The reason there seems to be a problem with The Big Four, is because they are literally the poster children, or the namesake of their individual books.


DiY, descendent, and Counts-As armies almost never have this problem, because there is usually much less "fluff" to go on, and thus IMHO would create much less confusion.

Cut'n pasted as it seems relevent----------------------


Your dudes

That's never going to happen to a major character of ANY FACTION.

Here is what 40k is about. Are you ready? Write this down, because it is important.

40k is about your own group of soldiers.

I don't care what faction you play or what lists you use. I don't care if you're an existing unit or you make up your own. 40k is about your dudes. It is about YOUR GUYS.

Let me tell you a story about one Erasmus Tycho: http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Tycho

Erasmus Tycho was a captain in an early after-action report in White Dwarf. At one point he got KOed by a Weirdboy's psychic blast. This was fluffed as him being severely injured, and that affected his characterization and so on. In-game events were strung together and then logically connected to a potential story - an EMERGENT story based on the guided events of the gameplay.

Do you see what that is? THAT IS AN EVOLVING STORY. THAT IS THE KIND OF THING YOU CAN DO WITH YOUR GUYS. You can give your dudes names and grow attached to them in the same way that you can with X-COM or Final Fantasy Tactics or any other game where you have generic dudes.

Hell, if you played Chaos Gate, that was basically the game! The last time someone played it for /tg/, there was a dude named APEMANTUS who was badass (based on in-game events), was killed (as an in-game event), and was brought back as a dreadnought (a stretch of the imagination that was connected to in-game events).

That's the kind of stuff 40k should be about. Evolving stories based on what you did, and how a battle went. It's what Necromunda does, it's what Mordheim does, and it's what every strategy game ought to do.

Don't worry about "the fluff". The fluff is background material. It exists to provide context for your own story. Worrying about fluff is like worrying about Drizzt and Elminster in the Forgotten Realms - it shouldn't be about them, it should be about your party. The same thing applies to 40k. Become the change you want.

Redbeard wrote:

Blackskullandy wrote:On WYSIWYG;

...The rule is that [such equipment] must be visually represented on the model so your opponents can clearly see what they are facing

The WYSIWYG rule states only that weapons and wargear are inluded, no mention anywhere of iconography, insignia, skulls, pelts or anything else.

That is all.

Does it? When making an assertion like this, it is nice if you provide a page reference for the rest of us. I, for example, can't seem to find it in the 5th ed rulebook at all. However, if it were there, I would assume that it would say something about the reason for this being that you want your opponent to have an easy time of seeing what your men have and can do. I would think, therefore, that putting out models clearly painted and modeled to belong to one codex, with the rules for another codex, would be violating the spirit of this rule if not the letter of it. Assuming, of course, that the rule still exists in 5th ed.

On the other hand, assuming that this is a strict rule, it is interesting to note that the basic "weapons and wargear" carried by a Space Wolf is not the same as the basic "weapons and wargear" carried by a Space Marine, so the same models, if they really are WYSIWYG, cannot be used in both armies, because WYSIWYG aren't the same. But I suppose you'll say something about it not counting for marines to need both bolt pistols and bolters. And you won't have a page number to back up that claim either.

Suppose whatever you like, I didn't say a thing about my thoughts on this subject, just what the BRB has to say on WYSIWYG.

Jstncloud wrote:
So what if I painted my marines Hot Pink and gave them the correct weapons? Are they now not legal because you would have no idea what codex they were from unless I told you? How about if I painted my Ultramarines a 'dark' blue rather than the bright almost baby blue (which I did by the way) are they now so far off the reservation that you cannot figure out what they do? What if they were bright purple with lime trim and a home made decal on the shoulder, what then? The opponent would have to tell you what codex they were using.

I am guessing though that because they did not use the paint scheme GW chose for the codex they want to use that you'd just not wanna play with em?

This is called a Straw Man argument. You're setting up a position that no one else is claiming, and then trying to knock it down.

No one cares if you use your own paint scheme. Go to town with it.

The issue is that if you use a paint scheme or models that are very obviously tied to one codex (space wolves, blood angels, ultramarines, etc), and then you just say that they're using a different set of rules, this can be just as confusing for an opponent as if you had them with the wrong weapons modeled.

Imagine it like, you've obviously got Blood Angels, but you're running them as normal Space Marines. Your opponent shoots your guys with pistols, prior to charging. You say 'I'll choose to fail this leadership test with Chapter Tactics, and fall back." And then your opponent goes, "oh, crap, I forgot you had that, normal Blood Angels can't do that. I wouldn't have shot you if I'd have remembered."

If you have your own colour scheme, that's not going to happen. No one is going to assume anything about them. That doesn't make things complicated for anyone. But if I see Blood Angels, I expect certain things, and Chapter Tactics isn't one of them.

If this is still in dispute, no idea how to approach you save you coming out and saying "I won't play anyone who paints their models the way they want, paint them by your codex or nothing! No custom colors!"

Again, STRAW MAN. No one has said this. Seriously, stop it. Go back and read the thread. I've even said, more than once, that I do play against people who do far worse things than codex-hop. I've played against cardboard boxes because an opponent hadn't assembled his tanks yet.

DeathReaper wrote:
Page 47 in the BRB is where you can find the WYSWIG rule. It states "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 they are talking about equipment. and last I checked Ultramarine, and Blood Angel symbols and icons are not equipment.

Thanks for the page reference. So, this rule, found in the character section, only applies to characters then? No, probably not.

How many Space Marines have you seen modeled with both their Bolt Pistol, and their Bolter? Probably a discussion for some other place. Point is, however, that if you want to play by the letter of the rules, you better make sure all your guys are modeled to the letter of the rules. If you want to play to the spirit of the rules, the one that is based around not misleading or confusing your opponent, then deliberately misrepresenting which army you're playing is probably a bad thing.

Below is my squad of terminators with my Librarian. The Librarian has Terminator Armor, Storm Shield, and a Force Weapon. The librarian is kind of a counts as, because its the model for Kaldor Draigo, but it works as a SM Librarian due to the equipment. And there seems to be a lack of Terminator models that have a Storm Shield, and a weapon that is not a Thunderhammer.

Hrm, your model doesn't have a psychic hood. By the letter of the rules that you're recommending, you probably shouldn't use him, as he doesn't have all his wargear represented...

AegisGrimm wrote:I still would like to know where it says that I can't take a bunch of my painted Ultramarine bikers and landspeeders and for a bit of variety use the Ravenwing rules from the Dark Angels codex to govern them in a battle, as long as those are the only rules that blanket the army that's on the table.

I would like to know where it says that I can't take a bunch of my painted orks, and buggies and for a bit of variety use the Ravenwing rules from the Dark Angels codex to govern them in a battle, as long as those are the only rules that blanket the army that's on the table.

If there's no rule that says my Ravenwing have to be in black armor, there is certainly nothing about any required heraldry being that of the Dark Angels. As long as it's a Space Marine in power armor on a bike, I can use any of the rules that involve Space marines in power armor on bikes, as long as their equipment matches the army list entry I'm claiming to use.

Well, you have to model all the wargear, right?

Ravenwing Attack Bikes list "teleport homers" among their wargear. Do your models have visibly represented teleport homers? If they do, then they're invalid as Ultramarine bikers, as Ultramarine bikes don't have teleport homers.

If the basis of your argument is that models with the same wargear should be interchangable between codexes, you should probably do a better job of picking examples that actually have the same wargear.

So both Chaos marines and loyalist marines using boltguns that use the exact same weapon profile is equal to Orks and Tyranids being the same because they are both non-humans? Wow.

But chaos marines and loyalist marines with boltguns do not have the exact same weapon profile. Chaos Marines list their wargear as "Power Armour, Bolt Pistol, Frag Grenades, Krak Grenades, Close Combat Weapon, Bolter", and Loyalist Marines list, "Power Armour, Bolt Pistol, Frag and Krak Grenades, Boltgun"

Again, if the basis of your argument is on identical profiles, shouldn't you be picking examples with identical profiles?


Now, to try and clearly state, again, my stance on this, so as to avoid additional potential strawman arguments, the issue is not about what the model is armed with, or is modeled with, for as fun as it is to pick apart your examples, this really has no bearing on my position. My concern is that when you field an army with an established appearance, which includes the paintjob, the iconography, the chapter markings, and so on, it is as confusing for an opponent to try and keep track of this as it is when you take a model with a defined weapon (say, a lascannon), and tell them before the game that it's going to count as a plasma cannon for this game.

Both of these cases are what we call proxies. Yes, you told me. But, in the heat of battle, I'm liable to forget. If I leave my guys bunched up because I SEE a lascannon, and you blast the whole squad off the table because you had told me it is a plasma cannon, well, I must not have remembered. I wouldn't have done this if I saw a plasma cannon. Visual cues make a difference. Likewise, if I SEE Ultramarines, I'm going to make certain assumptions. My expectations about your capabilities will be influenced by the fact that I am seeing Ultramarines. So, when I leave you a rear-armour shot because I forgot that your Blood Angel rhinos are fast, or when I fail to string my guys out because I forgot that your "Librarian" has Jaws of the World Wolf... it's the exact same thing. You're PROXYING, and that is influencing our game.

And, if you have a home-brew colour scheme, or you've taken the time and effort to do a pre-heresy army, or a thirteenth company, this isn't going to be an issue. You've got an army that is its own thing. It's only an issue when I look at one thing that creates an expectation, and it then doesn't behave as it is portrayed.

But chaos marines and loyalist marines with boltguns do not have the exact same weapon profile. Chaos Marines list their wargear as "Power Armour, Bolt Pistol, Frag Grenades, Krak Grenades, Close Combat Weapon, Bolter", and Loyalist Marines list, "Power Armour, Bolt Pistol, Frag and Krak Grenades, Boltgun"

I mean that their boltguns use the same weapon profile.

I would like to know where it says that I can't take a bunch of my painted orks, and buggies and for a bit of variety use the Ravenwing rules from the Dark Angels codex to govern them in a battle, as long as those are the only rules that blanket the army that's on the table.

Mainly because none of the models are human, none have have power armor, or any of the weapons and/or wargear that is visually associated with Space marines. Also none of the bikes are space marine bikes, and buggies are not landspeeders.

The only thing, model-wise, that separates a Ravenwing Force of bikes from an Ultramarine force of bikes is an established paintjob.

Ravenwing Attack Bikes list "teleport homers" among their wargear. Do your models have visibly represented teleport homers? If they do, then they're invalid as Ultramarine bikers, as Ultramarine bikes don't have teleport homers.

If the basis of your argument is that models with the same wargear should be interchangable between codexes, you should probably do a better job of picking examples that actually have the same wargear.

Do any actual Ravenwing models have that wargear modeled on the figure? Because if not, than even a Ravenwing force cannot use the Ravenwing rules by that logic.

Redbeard wrote:

Jstncloud wrote:
So what if I painted my marines Hot Pink and gave them the correct weapons? Are they now not legal because you would have no idea what codex they were from unless I told you? How about if I painted my Ultramarines a 'dark' blue rather than the bright almost baby blue (which I did by the way) are they now so far off the reservation that you cannot figure out what they do? What if they were bright purple with lime trim and a home made decal on the shoulder, what then? The opponent would have to tell you what codex they were using.

I am guessing though that because they did not use the paint scheme GW chose for the codex they want to use that you'd just not wanna play with em?

This is called a Straw Man argument. You're setting up a position that no one else is claiming, and then trying to knock it down.

No one cares if you use your own paint scheme. Go to town with it.

The issue is that if you use a paint scheme or models that are very obviously tied to one codex (space wolves, blood angels, ultramarines, etc), and then you just say that they're using a different set of rules, this can be just as confusing for an opponent as if you had them with the wrong weapons modeled.

Imagine it like, you've obviously got Blood Angels, but you're running them as normal Space Marines. Your opponent shoots your guys with pistols, prior to charging. You say 'I'll choose to fail this leadership test with Chapter Tactics, and fall back." And then your opponent goes, "oh, crap, I forgot you had that, normal Blood Angels can't do that. I wouldn't have shot you if I'd have remembered."

If you have your own colour scheme, that's not going to happen. No one is going to assume anything about them. That doesn't make things complicated for anyone. But if I see Blood Angels, I expect certain things, and Chapter Tactics isn't one of them.

If this is still in dispute, no idea how to approach you save you coming out and saying "I won't play anyone who paints their models the way they want, paint them by your codex or nothing! No custom colors!"

Again, STRAW MAN. No one has said this. Seriously, stop it. Go back and read the thread. I've even said, more than once, that I do play against people who do far worse things than codex-hop. I've played against cardboard boxes because an opponent hadn't assembled his tanks yet.

DeathReaper wrote:
Page 47 in the BRB is where you can find the WYSWIG rule. It states "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 they are talking about equipment. and last I checked Ultramarine, and Blood Angel symbols and icons are not equipment.

Thanks for the page reference. So, this rule, found in the character section, only applies to characters then? No, probably not.

How many Space Marines have you seen modeled with both their Bolt Pistol, and their Bolter? Probably a discussion for some other place. Point is, however, that if you want to play by the letter of the rules, you better make sure all your guys are modeled to the letter of the rules. If you want to play to the spirit of the rules, the one that is based around not misleading or confusing your opponent, then deliberately misrepresenting which army you're playing is probably a bad thing.

Below is my squad of terminators with my Librarian. The Librarian has Terminator Armor, Storm Shield, and a Force Weapon. The librarian is kind of a counts as, because its the model for Kaldor Draigo, but it works as a SM Librarian due to the equipment. And there seems to be a lack of Terminator models that have a Storm Shield, and a weapon that is not a Thunderhammer.

Hrm, your model doesn't have a psychic hood. By the letter of the rules that you're recommending, you probably shouldn't use him, as he doesn't have all his wargear represented...

AegisGrimm wrote:I still would like to know where it says that I can't take a bunch of my painted Ultramarine bikers and landspeeders and for a bit of variety use the Ravenwing rules from the Dark Angels codex to govern them in a battle, as long as those are the only rules that blanket the army that's on the table.

I would like to know where it says that I can't take a bunch of my painted orks, and buggies and for a bit of variety use the Ravenwing rules from the Dark Angels codex to govern them in a battle, as long as those are the only rules that blanket the army that's on the table.

If there's no rule that says my Ravenwing have to be in black armor, there is certainly nothing about any required heraldry being that of the Dark Angels. As long as it's a Space Marine in power armor on a bike, I can use any of the rules that involve Space marines in power armor on bikes, as long as their equipment matches the army list entry I'm claiming to use.

Well, you have to model all the wargear, right?

Ravenwing Attack Bikes list "teleport homers" among their wargear. Do your models have visibly represented teleport homers? If they do, then they're invalid as Ultramarine bikers, as Ultramarine bikes don't have teleport homers.

If the basis of your argument is that models with the same wargear should be interchangable between codexes, you should probably do a better job of picking examples that actually have the same wargear.

So both Chaos marines and loyalist marines using boltguns that use the exact same weapon profile is equal to Orks and Tyranids being the same because they are both non-humans? Wow.

But chaos marines and loyalist marines with boltguns do not have the exact same weapon profile. Chaos Marines list their wargear as "Power Armour, Bolt Pistol, Frag Grenades, Krak Grenades, Close Combat Weapon, Bolter", and Loyalist Marines list, "Power Armour, Bolt Pistol, Frag and Krak Grenades, Boltgun"

Again, if the basis of your argument is on identical profiles, shouldn't you be picking examples with identical profiles?


Now, to try and clearly state, again, my stance on this, so as to avoid additional potential strawman arguments, the issue is not about what the model is armed with, or is modeled with, for as fun as it is to pick apart your examples, this really has no bearing on my position. My concern is that when you field an army with an established appearance, which includes the paintjob, the iconography, the chapter markings, and so on, it is as confusing for an opponent to try and keep track of this as it is when you take a model with a defined weapon (say, a lascannon), and tell them before the game that it's going to count as a plasma cannon for this game.

Both of these cases are what we call proxies. Yes, you told me. But, in the heat of battle, I'm liable to forget. If I leave my guys bunched up because I SEE a lascannon, and you blast the whole squad off the table because you had told me it is a plasma cannon, well, I must not have remembered. I wouldn't have done this if I saw a plasma cannon. Visual cues make a difference. Likewise, if I SEE Ultramarines, I'm going to make certain assumptions. My expectations about your capabilities will be influenced by the fact that I am seeing Ultramarines. So, when I leave you a rear-armour shot because I forgot that your Blood Angel rhinos are fast, or when I fail to string my guys out because I forgot that your "Librarian" has Jaws of the World Wolf... it's the exact same thing. You're PROXYING, and that is influencing our game.

And, if you have a home-brew colour scheme, or you've taken the time and effort to do a pre-heresy army, or a thirteenth company, this isn't going to be an issue. You've got an army that is its own thing. It's only an issue when I look at one thing that creates an expectation, and it then doesn't behave as it is portrayed.

There is no real arguing with you, the points cannot be made. What if my codex marines were red and you thought they were Blood Angels anyways? What if my Blood Angels were blue and you thought they were Ultramarines. I am not starting the match with "Here is the back history of the army I am playing" I would stay by telling you what it is. Your argument is weak at best, in my opinion, and call my position what you want it is spot on for the thread.

If I had a set of marines who were green, because I wanted them to be and you made a play error thinking they were Dark Angels, not my fault so long as I told you prior to starting the game. There is no difference in me playing Ultramarines as Blood Angels or me playing BLUE Blood Angels, only that because I connect the lore of one to the use of another irritates you, which is your opinion.

I am entitled to paint my models in the fashion I wish, regardless of the lore, and if you look past the lore the color alone could be confusing, regardless of the 'why.'

Ribon Fox wrote:Cut'n pasted as it seems relevent----------------------


Your dudes

That's never going to happen to a major character of ANY FACTION.

Here is what 40k is about. Are you ready? Write this down, because it is important.

40k is about your own group of soldiers.

I don't care what faction you play or what lists you use. I don't care if you're an existing unit or you make up your own. 40k is about your dudes. It is about YOUR GUYS.

Let me tell you a story about one Erasmus Tycho: http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Tycho

Erasmus Tycho was a captain in an early after-action report in White Dwarf. At one point he got KOed by a Weirdboy's psychic blast. This was fluffed as him being severely injured, and that affected his characterization and so on. In-game events were strung together and then logically connected to a potential story - an EMERGENT story based on the guided events of the gameplay.

Do you see what that is? THAT IS AN EVOLVING STORY. THAT IS THE KIND OF THING YOU CAN DO WITH YOUR GUYS. You can give your dudes names and grow attached to them in the same way that you can with X-COM or Final Fantasy Tactics or any other game where you have generic dudes.

Hell, if you played Chaos Gate, that was basically the game! The last time someone played it for /tg/, there was a dude named APEMANTUS who was badass (based on in-game events), was killed (as an in-game event), and was brought back as a dreadnought (a stretch of the imagination that was connected to in-game events).

That's the kind of stuff 40k should be about. Evolving stories based on what you did, and how a battle went. It's what Necromunda does, it's what Mordheim does, and it's what every strategy game ought to do.

Don't worry about "the fluff". The fluff is background material. It exists to provide context for your own story. Worrying about fluff is like worrying about Drizzt and Elminster in the Forgotten Realms - it shouldn't be about them, it should be about your party. The same thing applies to 40k. Become the change you want.

Love the example, thanks.

Redbeard wrote:

Deathreaper wrote:
Below is my squad of terminators with my Librarian. The Librarian has Terminator Armor, Storm Shield, and a Force Weapon. The librarian is kind of a counts as, because its the model for Kaldor Draigo, but it works as a SM Librarian due to the equipment. And there seems to be a lack of Terminator models that have a Storm Shield, and a weapon that is not a Thunderhammer.

Hrm, your model doesn't have a psychic hood. By the letter of the rules that you're recommending, you probably shouldn't use him, as he doesn't have all his wargear represented...

It is under his Helmet :-P

i am not recommending playing it like this, I was just giving you the page and Quote of said rules.

Technically the rules only apply to characters, but tournaments play them that the rules apply army wide.

Even then, most tournaments only require that you use GW models (mostly), and model any and all upgraded equipment.

They are lenient on standard equipment from what I have seen.

Only wargear that is special or different from the norm is needed... that's why no Ravenwing models even come with a teleport homer

Who is so thick they cannot remember what army they are playing against? It is a 2-3 hour game; if you cannot remember what book I am running my models as in that time frame after I have told you at the beginning and let you look at my list, and you don't ask when you can't remember, you deserve to screw that up. Don't make the rest of the world dumb down so you don't have to think.

-cgmckenzie

Redbeard wrote:
On the other hand, assuming that this is a strict rule, it is interesting to note that the basic "weapons and wargear" carried by a Space Wolf is not the same as the basic "weapons and wargear" carried by a Space Marine, so the same models, if they really are WYSIWYG, cannot be used in both armies, because WYSIWYG aren't the same.

You are incorrectly making you logic to all-encompassing.

Had you said; "A Grey Hunter (armed according to WYSIWYG) model cannot stand-in for a Tactical Marine (armed according to WYSIWYG) model as they aren't aren't armed the same way" you would be right.
But you are expanding that logic to include all space wolfs and all space marines.

A SW Blood Claw and BA Assault Marine (sans jump pack, of course) CAN be represented by the same model (WYSIWYG), especially if painted in a "neutral" colour-scheme so nobody will have any preconceived notions about what the model is supposed to represent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:

No one cares if you use your own paint scheme. Go to town with it.

The issue is that if you use a paint scheme or models that are very obviously tied to one codex (space wolves, blood angels, ultramarines, etc), and then you just say that they're using a different set of rules, this can be just as confusing for an opponent as if you had them with the wrong weapons modeled.

Imagine it like, you've obviously got Blood Angels, but you're running them as normal Space Marines. Your opponent shoots your guys with pistols, prior to charging. You say 'I'll choose to fail this leadership test with Chapter Tactics, and fall back." And then your opponent goes, "oh, crap, I forgot you had that, normal Blood Angels can't do that. I wouldn't have shot you if I'd have remembered."

If you have your own colour scheme, that's not going to happen. No one is going to assume anything about them. That doesn't make things complicated for anyone. But if I see Blood Angels, I expect certain things, and Chapter Tactics isn't one of them.

OK. So DR and I, who have painted our armies in a "neutral" colour-scheme, won't have any problems with you playing SW one week and Blood Angels the next (assuming strict WYSIWYG, of course)?



...

Steelmage99 wrote:A SW Blood Claw and BA Assault Marine (sans jump pack, of course) CAN be represented by the same model (WYSIWYG).

Just as they both CAN be represented by a cork stuck to a base. But should they be?

Does anyone really care so little about their force that they'd take SW Bloodclaws and use them as Assault Marines?

A cork isn't WYSIWYG though. It's like comparing two cars and saying they're cars and you come along with a banana and say "so is this"...

Logic time.

I see alot of People saying that playing Marine's painted X as Codex Y is the same as using Orks as Eldar. I will now explain the fallacy.

Marines of Codex X, and Marines of Codex Y share the following basic features
L 1: models of nearly identical shape and size.
L 2: the majority of wargear options are identical.
L 3: stat lines for basic units are usually the same.
L 4: certain global special rules ("And they shall know no fear...")
they also have the following major differences
D 1: vastly different global special rules
D 2: different named characters.
D 3: Codex specific units

now lets compare these lists to the Ork=Eldar concept.
L 1: ork models are slightly shorter, and significantly wider than eldar models
L 2: few, if any wargear items are even similar
L 3: no units share even similar stats
L 4: they share no global special rules
D 1: these armies do have Vastly different global special rules
D 2: these armies do have Different named characters
D 3: these armies do have codex specific units.

That said, i would let someone use Orks as Eldar or vice versa, but only to TEST whether they could play that army, and only with the codex on hand.
also if you are codex hopping because you want to win, Feth you. if you are, like to OP said, wanting to try something different, more power to ya.

Note, as stated previously, the ONLY INSTANCE WHERE PAINT MATTERS, IN THE ENTIRETY OF THIS GAMES RULES IS WITH THE ORKS RED PAINT JOB UPGRADE!!!

AegisGrimm wrote:

I would like to know where it says that I can't take a bunch of my painted orks, and buggies and for a bit of variety use the Ravenwing rules from the Dark Angels codex to govern them in a battle, as long as those are the only rules that blanket the army that's on the table.

Mainly because none of the models are human, none have have power armor, or any of the weapons and/or wargear that is visually associated with Space marines. Also none of the bikes are space marine bikes, and buggies are not landspeeders

I get that, but I don't get why you'd care.

Whats the difference? If you want to take your beautifully painted and modelled Ultramarines army and run it with Blood Angels rules, why would you look down on me for taking my Ork army and running it with Ravenwing rules? Why is your proxying better than mine?

n0t_u wrote:A cork isn't WYSIWYG though. It's like comparing two cars and saying they're cars and you come along with a banana and say "so is this"...

You never heard of counts-as or proxying? What if I glue a bolt-pistol and chainsword to the cork?

cgmckenzie wrote:Who is so thick they cannot remember what army they are playing against? It is a 2-3 hour game; if you cannot remember what book I am running my models as in that time frame after I have told you at the beginning and let you look at my list, and you don't ask when you can't remember, you deserve to screw that up. Don't make the rest of the world dumb down so you don't have to think.

-cgmckenzie

Don't make the mistake of thinking this is anything other than ragehammer. Arguing in circles is just another game to play here.

Seriously, the problem of "counts as" is mitigated by simply leaving your codex on the table.

Kaldor wrote:Does anyone really care so little about their force that they'd take SW Bloodclaws and use them as Assault Marines?

I actually like the Blood Claw models more than the Vanilla Assault marines they sell.

The Vanilla Assault marines seem so plain, compared to the blood claws.

Kaldor wrote:

AegisGrimm wrote:Mainly because none of the models are human, none have have power armor, or any of the weapons and/or wargear that is visually associated with Space marines. Also none of the bikes are space marine bikes, and buggies are not landspeeders

I get that, but I don't get why you'd care.

Whats the difference?

The difference is that a Tactical Marine painted like an Ultramarine is exactly the same, WYSIWYG and model wise, as any other chapters Tactical Marine. The only difference between them is the paint you put on them.

This is not true of the Ork as a Eldar comparison. The space marines use the exact same model kit to make a tactical squad, no matter what codex it comes from. The Orks do not use the same models as the Eldar.

There is literally no way to figure out which model is a Tactical Marine for the Ultramarines and which model is a Tactical Marine for the Blood Angels before they are painted. Which is not true of the Orks and Eldar.

That is the difference.

Big Mek Dattrukk wrote:Logic time.

I see alot of People saying that playing Marine's painted X as Codex Y is the same as using Orks as Eldar. I will now explain the fallacy.

Well, you sure made a mess of that.

Allow me to correct you.

L 1: ork models are slightly shorter, and significantly wider than eldar models
L 2: few, if any wargear items are even similar
L 3: no units share even similar stats
L 4: they share no global special rules
D 1: these armies do have Vastly different global special rules
D 2: these armies do have Different named characters
D 3: these armies do have codex specific units.

By applying the 'counts as' or 'proxying' conventions, I can easily navigate all those points. For real WYSIWYG sticklers, I could even take the appropriate wargear and blu-tak it to the relevant models, but thats not strictly necessary.

So, logically, one must conclude that IF a force with established rules is being used with other rules, then the proxying or counts-as conventions must be in play.

IF those conventions are in play, there is no objective measure to determine what is acceptable, and what is not. Some people will happily use cardboard chits, others will not.

IF it is not possible to say one counts-as or proxy is better than another, then all proxies must be equal.

Therefore, using Ultramarines as Blood Angels is exactly the same as using cardboard chits, or using Orks as Eldar.

I'll be frank: this thread makes me feel like this:



Now to actually address the topic at hand, as long as I know what army you're using and what's what, idgaf if they're black,blue,red, grey, pink, orange, or the color of my .

I personally want to use the SW models for C:SM and BA. Why? CAUSE THEY LOOK AWESOME!

Now to the people who want me to have 4 different colors of MEQ. Go to hell. 1. It's a game. 2. Your proposal is expensive. 3. You're getting worked up over details at best and idiosyncrasies at worst. 4. It's a game. And lastly, to quote Tyler the Creator, "feth your traditions, feth your positions/ feth your religion (this one doesn't really apply here), feth your decisions"

So OP, go paint them whatever you want. Nice models btw!

Oh and Kaldor, your argument to me seems to be the very definition of a slippery slope.

Kaldor wrote:

n0t_u wrote:A cork isn't WYSIWYG though. It's like comparing two cars and saying they're cars and you come along with a banana and say "so is this"...

You never heard of counts-as or proxying? What if I glue a bolt-pistol and chainsword to the cork?

Then it is a cork with a bolt pistol and chainsword glued to it. Or in the earlier analogy a banana with an air freshener attached to it.
I'm not saying the whole idea is wrong, just that it isn't quite as cut and dry as it seems.

For example back to the Ultra's 8th company, a company completely made of assault units and the usual command. The normal codex for them cannot quite represent the force a you cannot have solely assault units as troops. Therefore you'd have to either use the BA codex (and maybe make up a reason for the rule they all have) or use the SW codex and take their assault troops but with limited options to represent it. Surely some of the other kits may have bits with nice poses or whatever that could be used with a different range of marines, but in the end it does indeed look better to try and stay with the look of one theme rather than blood wolf angel marines.

My point is it should have more effort put into it than simply a coat of paint. Conversions and proxying allow armies like the Squats, Adeptus Mechanicus, Traitor Guard, etc to exist on the table. In the case of the 8th company, they'd still look like Ultras they'd just be using a different ruleset.

Problem is, as I have shown, the Tactical Marine painted like an Ultramarines and the Tactical Marine painted like a Blood Angel have the exact same model kit, so pre-paint they look exactly the same.

So they are not a proxy or a counts-as, they are the real deal.

The conversation goes like this:

O = Opponent, M = Me.

O: I thought you were using Blood Angels?
M: I am.
O: then why do you have Ultramarines on the table?
M: are you referring to the Blue blood angel that has a U symbol on it?
O: Yes.
M: That is not an Ultramarine, that is a Omega Marine from the planet Baal Prime.
O: What?
M: The Omega Marines have mastered the red thirst and refuse to wear the red of their founding chapter (Blood Angels) so they paint their armor blue, and have an upside down Omega symbol on their shoulder.
O: why is the symbol upside down?
M: so they do not run out of luck.
O: Enough roleplay, lets play.

DeathReaper wrote:Problem is, as I have shown, the Tactical Marine painted like an Ultramarines and the Tactical Marine painted like a Blood Angel have the exact same model kit, so pre-paint they look exactly the same.

So they are not a proxy or a counts-as, they are the real deal.

Ah, but you're demonstrably wrong.

Do Ultramarines have rules?

Yes.

Do Blood Angels have rules?

Yes.

Therfore, using an Ultramarine model with Blood Angels rules is either a proxy or a counts-as.

You can make up any backstory you want to justify your counts-as or proxying, but that doesn't change what it is.

That is not using an ultramarine as a blood angel.

It is Using a Tactical Marine as a Tactical Marine. Using Tactical marines as Tactical marines is not proxying, or counts as.

Slight, but important difference.

DeathReaper wrote:That is not using an ultramarine as a blood angel.

It is Using a Tactical Marine as a Tactical Marine. Using Tactical marines as Tactical marines is not proxying, or counts as.

Slight, but important difference.

Absolutely right. I agree with you.

But once a model is painted UM blue, given UM iconography, and an UM style, it is no longer a tactical marine. It is an Ultramarine tactical marine. As I said, you can make up any backstory to justify it (oh yeah, my homebrew chapter just happens to be identical to the ultramarines) but it's still taking one thing that has a rule-set, and using it with a different rule-set.