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.

aka_mythos wrote:Its only when a player does it solely because they think it will give them the upper hand; at that point it wreaks of bad sportsmanship because it shows a sense of indifference towards those who are actually committed to that single particular army.

I guess I do not get the idea of being "committed" to a specific army in a game. No offense to those who are, but I have just never understood that.

aka_mythos wrote:Its only when a player does it solely because they think it will give them the upper hand; at that point it wreaks of bad sportsmanship because it shows a sense of indifference towards those who are actually committed to that single particular army.

It's poor sportsmanship to update your army for something that you think will work better because some other people don't want to update theirs?

This is a game, you know? You are supposed to try and win.

Gornall wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:Its only when a player does it solely because they think it will give them the upper hand; at that point it wreaks of bad sportsmanship because it shows a sense of indifference towards those who are actually committed to that single particular army.

I guess I do not get the idea of being "committed" to a specific army in a game. No offense to those who are, but I have just never understood that.

Its a hobby that revolves around people collecting, converting, and painting an army. They play Grey Knights or Blood Angels because that is "their" army. Like I said, there are many situations where its perfectly acceptable to hop codices, like an individual's codex being antiquated. Its only when your sole purpose is the upper hand; that persons motivations are not to collect, convert, paint, and play that army... its only to win.

When you approach a game or sport of any sort, while you expect the other player to try and win, there is present a mutual deference. That any one participating pays their dues.

I'm not speaking in absolutist terms; I've shown its a largely conditional standard and the degree to which I feel it is less severe than it probably comes across. I put it in the same category as a person who plays an unpainted army; ok most of the time, but in a particular context it isn't.

Scott-S6 wrote:
It's poor sportsmanship to update your army for something that you think will work better because some other people don't want to update theirs?

This is a game, you know? You are supposed to try and win.

Like I said, it depends on why your updating your army to a particular codex. There is an inherent disadvantage to every other race that isn't afforded the same luxury of having so many immediately cross compatible books. Its only when its done "solely for the upper-hand" that I take any small issue. I gave several reason why and when I think its ok, so I'm not saying it isn't justifiable. Just that any time you do something without regard for the hobby and only to win, its unsporting.

This is what I say "This is a hobby, you know? There is more to it than just winning."

I think this is where the "players" have the biggest disconnect from the design staff and hobbyists; in which of these two faces holds prominence over the other.

aka_mythos wrote:There is an inherent disadvantage to every other race that isn't afforded the same luxury of having so many immediately cross compatible books.

I think this is far more of a myth than fact. If you want to adapt a marine army from one codex to another and make full use of that codexes advantages you need to add or change so many models that, in fact, you've saved little.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

aka_mythos wrote:

Gornall wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:Its only when a player does it solely because they think it will give them the upper hand; at that point it wreaks of bad sportsmanship because it shows a sense of indifference towards those who are actually committed to that single particular army.

I guess I do not get the idea of being "committed" to a specific army in a game. No offense to those who are, but I have just never understood that.

Its a hobby that revolves around people collecting, converting, and painting an army. They play Grey Knights or Blood Angels because that is "their" army. Like I said, there are many situations where its perfectly acceptable to hop codices, like an individual's codex being antiquated.

I've built and painted about 12K points since fifth edition came out with another 4K in progress so I'm not sure I get the "committed to that single particular army" thing. I build paint and play whatever I feel like. (since it's relevant to the discussion, I should add that I don't codex hop - e.g. I have 7K points of C:SM - I started a new army when I wanted to try C:BA. Mostly because it's easier to start from scratch than to re-work)

Scott-S6 wrote:I think this is far more of a myth than fact. If you want to adapt a marine army from one codex to another and make full use of that codexes advantages you need to add or change so many models that, in fact, you've saved little.

Thats what you do, I would appreciate that and be fine with that. Maybe its really another whole issue, but too many of the people around me who codex hop, don't do that much. They just consistently throw down a mix of models from different armies that approximate the units doing little to actually identifiably tie them to a codex.

Scott-S6 wrote:I've built and painted about 12K points since fifth edition came out with another 4K in progress so I'm not sure I get the "committed to that single particular army" thing.

I mean if you're playing a "Grey Knight" army... you build a collection of models to use specifically with that codex. If you're playing "Blood Angels"... you should have models specifically for that. Most of the codex hoppers I know, don't go that far. At best they use existing model from another army to approximate the units in the other book.

Scott-S6 wrote:I build paint and play whatever I feel like. (since it's relevant to the discussion, I should add that I don't codex hop - e.g. I have 7K points of C:SM - I started a new army when I wanted to try C:BA. Mostly because it's easier to start from scratch than to re-work)

So you're doing more than what I'd expect of another player. You speak as if I'm some how attacking what you're doing, I'm not. I'm attempting to be very very specific.

I'm talking about "the guy" who hops codices just to win, but does little or no modelling work to make his model work with the "new codex." Where he's making the "hop" not for the concept or modeling potential or fluff or necessity... but because he wants an edge without putting in the effort.

aka_mythos wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:I think this is far more of a myth than fact. If you want to adapt a marine army from one codex to another and make full use of that codexes advantages you need to add or change so many models that, in fact, you've saved little.

Thats what you do, I would appreciate that and be fine with that. Maybe its really another whole issue, but too many of the people around me who codex hop, don't do that much. They just consistently throw down a mix of models from different armies that approximate the units doing little to actually identifiably tie them to a codex.

I'm talking about "the guy" who hops codices just to win, but does little or no modelling work to make his model work with the "new codex." Where he's making the "hop" not for the concept or modeling potential or fluff or necessity... but because he wants an edge without putting in the effort.

I think the bigger problem here is not codex hopping but the lack of WYSIWYG. Allowing proxy models encourages both codex hopping and list tailoring. It also goes hand in hand with the lack of commitment that you were commenting on earlier. If you're playing in an environment where proxying is commonplace then I can see how it would be a problem. Perhaps you should try to organise a strict WYSIWYG event and see how it's received?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

aka_mythos wrote:You speak as if I'm some how attacking what you're doing, I'm not.

Not at all, I'm well aware that I'm not the person you're aiming at (although I do take issue with some of your anti-competitive comments) I just enjoy a good argument.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y


Automatically Appended Next Post:

aka_mythos wrote:I'm talking about "the guy" who hops codices just to win, but does little or no modelling work to make his model work with the "new codex." Where he's making the "hop" not for the concept or modeling potential or fluff or necessity... but because he wants an edge without putting in the effort.

What about people who put in the modelling effort but are still making the codex switch primarily for the edge?

Scott-S6 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

aka_mythos wrote:I'm talking about "the guy" who hops codices just to win, but does little or no modelling work to make his model work with the "new codex." Where he's making the "hop" not for the concept or modeling potential or fluff or necessity... but because he wants an edge without putting in the effort.

What about people who put in the modelling effort but are still making the codex switch primarily for the edge?

I think going in terms of what the OP and most of the 'anti' posters on this thread have said, I can't think why anyone would have a problem with that.

Pacific wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

aka_mythos wrote:I'm talking about "the guy" who hops codices just to win, but does little or no modelling work to make his model work with the "new codex." Where he's making the "hop" not for the concept or modeling potential or fluff or necessity... but because he wants an edge without putting in the effort.

What about people who put in the modelling effort but are still making the codex switch primarily for the edge?

I think going in terms of what the OP and most of the 'anti' posters on this thread have said, I can't think why anyone would have a problem with that.

In that case, as I said above, codex hopping is not what is being objected to - it is proxying that is actually being objected to.

I will admit to not reading all of this thread, I really wasn't too fussed after the first 4 pages.

From my point of view I Codex hop to keep my interest in an army up. I really dislike playing loads of games using the same codex time after time. I do have a few alternative armies I can use, and variant lists within those, mostly.

For my marines though, I have Exorcists. I have a Vulcan conversion, plus varius captains/librarians and some other special characters. I also have enough different weapon set ups to proxy them as SWolves/BAngles/DAngles as I see fit. Does this make me a bad man? Nah, I don't care about the percieved 'POWERRRRRRR' level of a codex. I just want to have a game that is fun, and in the most part competative at the same time.

I will also admit that I have a few GKnight boxes that I am considering mashing into my TSons chaos warband, why? Because I don't use them much any more as they are not even vaguely competative as a Tzeench only list, and I'm not sure that I can be bothered to build/paint silver marines.

So, just to throw my thoughts in. There are lots of different ways to 'hop'. Some are fairly well thought out (I hope mine are in this category),some are hopeless messes that are barely comprehendable and whole world of stuff in between. I don't mind it, but if you do at least make an effort in your modelling.

Scott-S6 wrote:
I think the bigger problem here is not codex hopping but the lack of WYSIWYG.

I think its largely symptomatic and conected. Its about putting in your "dues" in an abstract sort of way. WYSWYG and proxying, in and unto themselves are not a problem, but its the combination of "iffy" actions that cast their motives in a bad light.

Scott-S6 wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:I'm talking about "the guy" who hops codices just to win, but does little or no modelling work to make his model work with the "new codex." Where he's making the "hop" not for the concept or modeling potential or fluff or necessity... but because he wants an edge without putting in the effort.

What about people who put in the modelling effort but are still making the codex switch primarily for the edge?

At that point they've made the "commitment" and even if motivated by the "upper hand" they've overall put in as much effort as the next player who uses that codex. I'd admittedly think less of someones decision for jumping on a bandwagon, which a whole different issue, but at the end of the day the only decernable difference between the codex hopper and the guy who starts that army out of sincere interest, is the effort they put into the modelling; if they make that effort their motives are moot.

There's still several things being argued over.

'Codex hopping' by a player willing to make a significant financial outlay to literally buy the new models for every single codex release.

'Codex hopping' by the Generic Marines player who is able to, with minor modeling work, create WYSIWYG 'generic' marines able to represent any basic tactical or assault marine from the marine codices that will not necessarily fit the 'theme' of the codex (spikes on chaos marines, crosses on BT, wolf bits on SW) but will have the appropriate wargear.

'Codex hopping' by the 'wants to try the new thing' player, who will use his Tactical Marines to represent Death Company, Berzerkers, and GK Purifiers for a few games before deciding whether to buy a new, appropriately modeled army.

'Codex hopping' by the Counts-As player, who does not field a WYSIWYG army and has used the same headless, weaponless power armored legs and torsos to represent anything from CSM to GK, and by the way is that partially assembled chassis a rhino, land raider, or storm raven this week?

The first two are fine at any time. It could be your preference not to play purple Blood Angels, but that's no less arbitrary than refusing to play people named Bill.

The third is conditionally okay, as presumably he'll ask permission beforehand and both players go in with the desire to find out 'what the new codex can do'.

The fourth is clearly the least okay out of the four, and it'll be a rare sort of person who can regularly find games against people with his headless torso marines.

aka_mythos wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:
I think the bigger problem here is not codex hopping but the lack of WYSIWYG.

I think its largely symptomatic and conected. Its about putting in your "dues" in an abstract sort of way. WYSWYG and proxying, in and unto themselves are not a problem, but its the combination of "iffy" actions that cast their motives in a bad light.

So, now we've got to "pay our dues" in order to play a game the way we want to?

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:I think its largely symptomatic and conected. Its about putting in your "dues" in an abstract sort of way. WYSWYG and proxying, in and unto themselves are not a problem, but its the combination of "iffy" actions that cast their motives in a bad light.

So, now we've got to "pay our dues" in order to play a game the way we want to?

Eric

Only in an abstract way, its more about respecting everyone elses time and energy. Respecting a hobby that means more for a person who invests as much time. If you play monopoly, you count out the money to make sure everyone has enough and no ones cheating (yet). In sports, putting in your dues means you practiced so that the game is worth while. In poker its about bringing money to the table. In racing it means bringing a car thats in the same league and stands a chance. In 40k putting in your dues mean that you have put the hobbying time in to have "right" models to play. Its about putting out as much effort as the next guy and not riding on the good graces of other players. Its about meeting the minimal and reasonable expectations of the other players.

A clear example of what I mean is how more and more tournaments have codified into their rules that all models used must be painted. This has absolutely nothing to do about "playing" and has everything to do with respect for the game, gamemanship, and the hobby.

In that same way, if you want to play, you need to put forth the effort... in other words put in your dues.

Okay.
I kind of disagree (on parts), but I see where you're coming from now.
Thanks for the clarification.

Eric

sourclams wrote:There's still several things being argued over.

'Codex hopping' by a player willing to make a significant financial outlay to literally buy the new models for every single codex release.

'Codex hopping' by the Generic Marines player who is able to, with minor modeling work, create WYSIWYG 'generic' marines able to represent any basic tactical or assault marine from the marine codices that will not necessarily fit the 'theme' of the codex (spikes on chaos marines, crosses on BT, wolf bits on SW) but will have the appropriate wargear.

'Codex hopping' by the 'wants to try the new thing' player, who will use his Tactical Marines to represent Death Company, Berzerkers, and GK Purifiers for a few games before deciding whether to buy a new, appropriately modeled army.

'Codex hopping' by the Counts-As player, who does not field a WYSIWYG army and has used the same headless, weaponless power armored legs and torsos to represent anything from CSM to GK, and by the way is that partially assembled chassis a rhino, land raider, or storm raven this week?

The first two are fine at any time. It could be your preference not to play purple Blood Angels, but that's no less arbitrary than refusing to play people named Bill.

The third is conditionally okay, as presumably he'll ask permission beforehand and both players go in with the desire to find out 'what the new codex can do'.

The fourth is clearly the least okay out of the four, and it'll be a rare sort of person who can regularly find games against people with his headless torso marines.

I agree -
There's the fluff player 'I want Sons of Blood Mangler' - so uses blood angels codex. That is fine.
Is its not fine when, on seeing the new space puppy codex he then uses that codex because it's better? I think not because eventually it does not matter what models we buy since we can use any codex we want to.
Heck BA's assault troops can have 2 special weapons in a 10 man squad - that would fit my salamander's fine when I'm not using vulkan - cheap *fast* transports to boot? :-) But I don't because I'm not a blood angel, I'm a Salamander.

Also:

Pre-Heresy chaos lists that use a SW or BA codex build are another example. I think Goatboy has one he did up on BOLS or his website.

Goatboys was cheese and an excuse. Why? Because he ignored the fluff he did a thundercav/razorspam list. The only problem is that in the heresy era there were no razorbacks... If he took rhinos then it would have been fine .. but no the fluff is an attempt to hide the cheese and the cheese smells more than the fluff wraps... (soft as the fluff is!)

aka_mythos wrote:I think this is where the "players" have the biggest disconnect from the design staff and hobbyists; in which of these two faces holds prominence over the other.

I think you're on to something with this comment. I'm not really that interested in the hobby. The only reason I purchased any models is because they're required for tournament play, as is having them painted. My difficulty is that I want to play with most of the armies. I like building lists, and I like playing them. But I don't want to spend the thousands of dollars that would be required to be able to play eldar this week, DE next week, then SW, Necrons, Daemons, Nids, Guard, BA, back to eldar, and so on. I don't have the space in my house, and thats a bit too much to spend as far as I'm concerned. It might be nice to have the models, but I don't see it as a necessity when you really could play with green army men just as easily.

We're both here to have fun. My fun comes from playing, not from modeling and painting. The game is fun, the "Hobby" is meaningless to me.

dancingcricket wrote:
. I'm not really that interested in the hobby. The only reason I purchased any models is because they're required for tournament play, as is having them painted... and I like playing them....
.... It might be nice to have the models, but I don't see it as a necessity when you really could play with green army men just as easily.

We're both here to have fun. My fun comes from playing, not from modeling and painting. The game is fun, the "Hobby" is meaningless to me.

Thanks for being willing to state what so many people -judging from the color of the armies at my FLGS- seem to feel. Your approach is definitely not mine (I like the spectacle of painted toys and the game is secondary), but I resist the temptation to say "go play magic cards" because playing wargames is a different experience and if that's your approach to gaming, so be it.

I would be interested to know though how far your feeling about the non-necessity of unit-specific miniatures go. Would you actually be willing to play with army men if give the chance? Further, what about doing away with terrain and playing with paper outlines of terrain laid out on the table?

I'm not being sarcstic here, I'm genuinely interested in where the line lies for you and others who feel similarly.

This seems to be coming onto unpainted models, I play fairly and properly with WYSIWYG but my armies are sprayed yet unpainted simply because I'm awful at painting and struggle to find the time. But I hate proxy armies.

Eilif wrote:
I'm not being sarcstic here, I'm genuinely interested in where the line lies for you and others who feel similarly.

For me it's at WYSIWYG.

I don't care if your models are expertly painted, unpainted, or crudely chipped out of ice. If I can clearly tell that this PA guy is a meltagunner and this fancy fella over here is Mephiston, then we have 0 problems with each other.

Phototoxin wrote:

I agree -
There's the fluff player 'I want Sons of Blood Mangler' - so uses blood angels codex. That is fine.
Is its not fine when, on seeing the new space puppy codex he then uses that codex because it's better? I think not because eventually it does not matter what models we buy since we can use any codex we want to.
Heck BA's assault troops can have 2 special weapons in a 10 man squad - that would fit my salamander's fine when I'm not using vulkan - cheap *fast* transports to boot? :-) But I don't because I'm not a blood angel, I'm a Salamander.

Also:

Pre-Heresy chaos lists that use a SW or BA codex build are another example. I think Goatboy has one he did up on BOLS or his website.

Goatboys was cheese and an excuse. Why? Because he ignored the fluff he did a thundercav/razorspam list. The only problem is that in the heresy era there were no razorbacks... If he took rhinos then it would have been fine .. but no the fluff is an attempt to hide the cheese and the cheese smells more than the fluff wraps... (soft as the fluff is!)

The problem with that view point (IMO) is that you have a set yourself up as judge and jury over whether an army is "fluffy" enough to be used. Where does that line fall? Using Rhinos instead of Razorbacks would have turned "cheese" into fine?

sourclams wrote:For me it's at WYSIWYG.

I don't care if your models are expertly painted, unpainted, or crudely chipped out of ice. If I can clearly tell that this PA guy is a meltagunner and this fancy fella over here is Mephiston, then we have 0 problems with each other.

This +1. That's what the rulebook says is the standard... rather than being painted to a standard and color scheme that other people deem "acceptable".

Good God, is this thread still going on? People who switch around codeces are going to keep switching, people who think it's wrong will continue to think it's wrong. Play WYSIWYG and there are shouldn't be any problems. The biggest complaint in all 10 pages is that people switch codeces to get the upper hand on their opponents and WAAC, rather than just not wanting to play the same list all the time (which is the main reason MOST of us do it-we get bored using the same list every time). Each book has its own strengths and weaknesses-sometimes we just like to switch around what those strengths and weaknesses are.

I codex hop and I will not apologize to anyone on here for doing so. I don't do it to powergame, I do it to change up how I play games. I even tell my opponents which army I am running before we play (unless it's a tournament). It can't get any further from WAAC than telling your opponent before they even build their list what you are running.

WYSIWYG should rule the game, not angry fluff-nerds or the people who say "you bought X army, now you have to stick with it and can't change it for something else unless you buy a complete new army without sharing ANY models." I left this thread with my opinion given before, thinking it was going to burn out, but it just gets more ridiculous the longer it goes on. Those who codex hop will continue to do so: deal with it. Those who hate codex hoppers are always going to hate them: again, deal with it.

Gornall wrote:


The problem with that view point (IMO) is that you have a set yourself up as judge and jury over whether an army is "fluffy" enough to be used. Where does that line fall? Using Rhinos instead of Razorbacks would have turned "cheese" into fine?

That's kinda the point.. what difference does it make? What makes a space wolf a space wolf - coz its not grey armor clearly!

However he did say pre-heresy but then broke that. So essentially he either made a big mistake OR was hiding his cheese in fluff. (It's not a spam army its a themed army)

My feeling is that you can use whatever the hell marine codex you like with whatever models you like as long as the units you're using are armed correctly. I have a friend who plays his Ultras as Blood Angels and has modeled up some beautiful "Sanguinary Guard" for them.

What makes a space wolf a space wolf is the name of the codex being used at the top of the army list. That name, not the paint job or arbitrary fluff rules, tells your opponent what units can be taken in the list.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with codex hopping per se, as long as wysiwyg is adhered to. If everything is modelled appropriately, and one can tell at a glance what is what, i don't see the problem.

grrr

sourclams wrote:'Codex hopping' by the Counts-As player, who does not field a WYSIWYG army and has used the same headless, weaponless power armored legs and torsos to represent anything from CSM to GK, and by the way is that partially assembled chassis a rhino, land raider, or storm raven this week?

QFT

sourclams wrote:The first two are fine at any time. It could be your preference not to play purple Blood Angels, but that's no less arbitrary than refusing to play people named Bill.

Brilliant.



Ghidorah

Gornall wrote:What makes a space wolf a space wolf is the name of the codex being used at the top of the army list. That name, not the paint job or arbitrary fluff rules, tells your opponent what units can be taken in the list.

So, by your reckoning: I can use Firewarriors as my Assault troops, Genestealers on larger bases as terminators, guardsmen as sanguinary guard... as long as it says Blood Angels at the top?

[quote=Eilif
I would be interested to know though how far your feeling about the non-necessity of unit-specific miniatures go. Would you actually be willing to play with army men if give the chance? Further, what about doing away with terrain and playing with paper outlines of terrain laid out on the table?

I'm not being sarcstic here, I'm genuinely interested in where the line lies for you and others who feel similarly.

Mephistoles1 wrote:[quote=Eilif
I would be interested to know though how far your feeling about the non-necessity of unit-specific miniatures go. Would you actually be willing to play with army men if give the chance? Further, what about doing away with terrain and playing with paper outlines of terrain laid out on the table?

I'm not being sarcstic here, I'm genuinely interested in where the line lies for you and others who feel similarly.

To address this point by Eilif(Noting that this has nothing to do with any individual person): I play a little warmachine now and then, with a bunch of competitive players who are mostly interested in playing the game, not modeling, or painting. They often use green felt cutouts for forests, and in fact prefer them over detailed terrain that could impact their moves by even a few milimeters. I always have a hard time getting around "you can't shoot me, I'm behind the forest. Your model can't see mine. " All while pointing to the flat felt circle. They also use a bunch of little hills (1/2" high) that provide all the benefits of being elevated, but none of the downfalls like blocking sight.

So your above statement can describe a portion of players that play for playings sake -- They get their fun out of the competitive spirit of the game and the thrill of playing the game itself. Wysiwig is less of an issue in warmachine though, since there are no optional equipemnt options on units or models.. Again, like you I'm not saying this is wrong, just that I prefer more of the hobby side of things.

@thread in general: I have no issue with codex hoppers ... as long as the models are equipped appropriatly I don't see the problem. Purple blood angels with a soul drinker fluff theme .. fine with me as long as the models are representitive.

Scott-S6 wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:There is an inherent disadvantage to every other race that isn't afforded the same luxury of having so many immediately cross compatible books.

I think this is far more of a myth than fact. If you want to adapt a marine army from one codex to another and make full use of that codexes advantages you need to add or change so many models that, in fact, you've saved little.

Super, super, super disagree. The only things you couldn't run from a new codex are the specialized units, such as Baal Predators or TWC. And with magnetizing, you could easy change your pred to a baal pred just by buying the baal pred kit.

Codex Marines : Codex Space Wolves
Devestators = Long Fangs
Tactical Marines = Grey Hunters
Razorbacks = Razorbacks
Land Speeder Typhoon = LST

You can easily make an army that could hop between one codex to another.

As an ork player, I don't have the same luxury. This gives you a significant advantage that is entirely related to the models you are utilizing. And I see people do it all the time. In a tournament level environemnt, you should not be able to hop from one codex to another with only a minimal or no investment.