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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

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).

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.