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.

H.B.M.C. wrote:So how would you do Word Bearers or Alpha Legion with the new Marine Codex?

Not sure, I don't play either Legion.

I wonder though, can I take Cassius in my Deathguard army? He's obviously dedicated to Nurgle as he's tougher than Typhus, so if I convert him up, do you think people will mind?

BYE

As long as the entire list uses the rules from the SM codex and you aren't trying to take Cassius in an army using the CSM codex. That said, Typhus has an extra wound as well, although I do think its rather dumb for an SM chaplain to be harder to hurt than a Nurgle Daemon Prince.

H.B.M.C. wrote:So how would you do Word Bearers or Alpha Legion with the new Marine Codex?

Alpha Legion is easy. Just use scouts as cultists/operatives and sternguard as Legionnaires (cause Alpha Legion are badasses). For Word Bearers... use the Chaos codex until Codex: Inquisition comes out?

Vaktathi wrote:I do think its rather dumb for an SM chaplain to be harder to hurt than a Nurgle Daemon Prince.

But Cassius has bionics! And scars! Does the Nurgle Daemon Prince have bionics and scars? I think not. Hurr.

Alpha, Ironically, is best represented in the 4th edition loyalist codex (take the trait that lets everyone infiltrate, remove the pride in the colors one which I forget what that backfire is). I had fully intended on making a loyalist Alpha Legion (as I feel they fit better in that after reading Legion) and then they announced they were pulling out traits in the new codex =(. Crying shame.

For Alpha Legion, 5th Edition Marine Codex it is then!

As a tourney player, in a tourney, yes I would have a problem with you using the loyalist list with your chaos marine models.

Fine, call me a douchebag, but it would be confusing and I don't want to have to worry about what every little thing counts as.

Now, in a friendly game or in my LGS I couldn't care less. But yeah, in a tourney, I mind.

Somnicide wrote:As a tourney player, in a tourney, yes I would have a problem with you using the loyalist list with your chaos marine models.

Fine, call me a douchebag, but it would be confusing and I don't want to have to worry about what every little thing counts as.

wouldn't most of the equipment be identical or pretty much be auto-converted (oh, those Terminator guns are TL bolters, but they look exactly like Stormbolters too!) The marines, sergeant weapons, and heavy weapons would all pretty much be identical, as would the tanks unless someone is trying to proxy in a Defiler as something.

It's one thing if it's "This Dread with the two claws and stubby gun on its sarcophagus is a Defiler and this Dread with two DCCWs and underslung bolters is a CSM Dreadnaught." or "these terminators are terminators, but these terminators are obliterators."

It's another if it is "all the CSM are SMs, the plasma guns are - plasma guns, and the warsmith with a servo-arm and a wonkin' big artillery piece is a techmarine with a servo-harness and a thunderfire cannon."

Some people can take 'Count As' to an extreme, but I'd be fine with playing CSM as SM, as long as it's pretty obvious. In fact, that actually makes me think about doing an IW army. If it makes anyone feel better, they'll be pre-Heresy, so that way I can use the loyalist dex, and I'll theme them to not include any of the new exotic weaponry like the assault cannon or razorback. Ah, IW termies with thunderhammers and storm shields.........

Sure. Oh, and this sorcerer is a librarian. oh yeah, and my vindicators ignore dangerous terrain checks. and these guys here, painted like khorne guys are actually devastators.

And my whole army has combat squads and ATSKNF.

If you want space marines, paint space marines. If you want chaos space marines paint chaos space marines.

At the end of a tournament I have trouble remembering what is in my own list.

And this is from someone who has an Alpha Marine army which is already very heavily inspired by loyalist stuff (no spiky bits, no defiler, no obliterators).

dietrich wrote:It's one thing if it's "This Dread with the two claws and stubby gun on its sarcophagus is a Defiler and this Dread with two DCCWs and underslung bolters is a CSM Dreadnaught." or "these terminators are terminators, but these terminators are obliterators."

It's another if it is "all the CSM are SMs, the plasma guns are - plasma guns, and the warsmith with a servo-arm and a wonkin' big artillery piece is a techmarine with a servo-harness and a thunderfire cannon."

Agreed, the "counts-as" would have to be reasonable, but it shouldn't be that difficult, and other than a couple horns and some 8 pointed stars in many armies there would be no difference as long as one puts in the effort and isn't just trying to be a cheeseball.

Somnicide wrote:Sure. Oh, and this sorcerer is a librarian. oh yeah, and my vindicators ignore dangerous terrain checks. and these guys here, painted like khorne guys are actually devastators.

And my whole army has combat squads and ATSKNF.

If you want space marines, paint space marines. If you want chaos space marines paint chaos space marines.

Again, if one has a legal list, and the Counts As isn't abused (as in, Berserkers aren't used as Devestators) its fine. It's one thing to *proxy* the **** out of everything and piss people off just to be a cheese monkey, its another to use CSM models with the new list. If someone showed up with a couple Chaos dreads for normal dreads, a Thunderfire cannon, a Chaos vindicator model for a Smurf vindi, a properly kitted Havoc squad as a Devestator squad, and a Warsmith for a Master of the Forge and a Lord for a Chapter master, with basic CSM's as tac squads, I wouldn't have any problem with that. If they showed up just trying to throw whatever they had as proxies for units that they don't resemble (like Berserkers for Devestators) and just want to abuse the SC's, of course thats not fine.

A genuine WYSIWYG effort with Spiky guys instead of normal guys is I think what most of us are talking about, not just willy-nilly wholesale proxying of armies.

At the end of a tournament I have trouble remembering what is in my own list.

This is why you print it out and bring a copy with you.

Vaktathi wrote:
A genuine WYSIWYG effort with Spiky guys instead of normal guys is I think what most of us are talking about, not just willy-nilly wholesale proxying of armies.

No, actually, I don't think that is what most people are thinking of doing. I think most people are just wanting to bring their models and use the other list. By the same token, I wouldn't want someone to bring a list of all eldar models and say "these are dark eldar." Sure, you could easily count stuff as other stuff but it isn't actually a dark eldar army.

This is why you print it out and bring a copy with you.

yep. So why should I have to try and figure out what my opponent has. Like I said, in friendly games, no problem. Hell, proxy anything you want in friendly games. In tourneys I want there to be absolutely no surprises. Even if the other person is being totally legit, if something is unclear it makes it less fun.

I've alwasy wanted to do a Tyranid army using Guard - model up Guardsmen running with large blades as H-Gaunts, some big Sentinel conversions as Tyrants and 'Fexes - things like that.

No real difference between that and Malf's T.W.A.R. project.

BYE

yeah I wouldn't have really liked that either, to be honest.

Somnicide wrote:
No, actually, I don't think that is what most people are thinking of doing. I think most people are just wanting to bring their models and use the other list. By the same token, I wouldn't want someone to bring a list of all eldar models and say "these are dark eldar." Sure, you could easily count stuff as other stuff but it isn't actually a dark eldar army.

So a CSM army, with a list that uses only models that have direct and clear counterparts in a Smurf army with a legal SM list would be totally out?

It's one thing with the Eldar/Dark Eldar thing as they don't really have too many parallels, but Horns versus No horns is really that big of a difference? But a 10man CSM squad with a plasma gun, missile launcher and powerfist coulnd't "counts-as" a loyalist SM squad with the same equipment just because they have horns? An IW Warsmith model (the one with the big servo arm and mechanical claw) couldn't "counts as" a Techmarine? That's being a bit draconian methinks.

yep. So why should I have to try and figure out what my opponent has. Like I said, in friendly games, no problem. Hell, proxy anything you want in friendly games. In tourneys I want there to be absolutely no surprises. Even if the other person is being totally legit, if something is unclear it makes it less fun.

It shouldn't be that hard to clear anything up. As long as everything is WYSIWYG and you ask about anything you aren't quite sure of before the game starts I don't see why it would be any different than bringing a heavily converted army.

Meh. The OP asked what we thought about it. I have said what I think about it.

If someone is just going to use all the regular marine stuff, then why not play marines and use those models?

Anyway, we are in an area of taste, so it is gonna be each persons individual opinion on it. My opinion is that I would not like it. I would love to be able to have 2 armies with just one set of models for the convenience and money it would save, but if that is the case, then lets just play with paper models and bases.

Somnicide wrote:If someone is just going to use all the regular marine stuff, then why not play marines and use those models?

What if you are playing loyalists, but you just like the Chaos aesthetic better, so you get nothing but Chaos Marine miniatures and paint them up as... Ultramarines and even play them as Ultramarines - you just prefer the spiky versions over the 'clean' versions.

BYE

I think the best way to go is to the use the rules that best represent the type of army you want. As long as you keep WYSIWYG on the equipment, there shouldn't be any problem at all.

If someone looks at a unit of 6 guys with bolters and 4 guys with missile launchers and knows the codex being used is Codex: Space Marines, if they don't figure out that it's a devastator squad, there's something wrong with them.

Also, for cultusts and other recruits that are appropriately equiped, you'll also have access to the inquisition codexes. Storm Troopers might make perfect Alpha Legion operatives.

grickherder wrote:Also, for cultusts and other recruits that are appropriately equiped, you'll also have access to the inquisition codexes. Storm Troopers might make perfect Alpha Legion operatives.

Ah! Even better in reverse, an Inq army taking units from the new Marine Codex.

Perfect. Thanks for that idea Grick!

BYE

Somnicide wrote:If you want space marines, paint space marines. If you want chaos space marines paint chaos space marines.

But they're not CHAOS SPACE MARINES. They're SPACE MARINES with some conversions (a spike here, a pair of horns there, a few 8-pointed stars, etc). Sure, my fluff for my army maybe has them worshipping Chaos, but why should you care what fluff I make up for my SPACE MARINE army?

Somnicide wrote:If someone is just going to use all the regular marine stuff, then why not play marines and use those models?

Cause they like their marines to have horns and trims? Because using the loyalist marine models makes them feel dirty inside?

If you want space marines, paint space marines. If you want chaos space marines paint chaos space marines.

Somnicide:
So if I make up my own chapter of marines named "The Spike Lords" who love melee so much they mount spikes all over their armor for wrestling with their opponants, and paint their armor scary black and red to intimidate their opponants, you would have a problem with that?

If I decided my "Angels of Death" would have scary white skull masks and black armor, how would you catagorize that?

I am seriously asking you, not trying to prove you wrong.

Somnicide wrote:
If someone is just going to use all the regular marine stuff, then why not play marines and use those models?

As has been stated several times in the thread previous, Its because ironically the Loyalist codex represents the Iron Warriors better than the CSM one does. I want planning on actually proxying anything - That Plasma gun is still a plasma gun, that CCW is still a CCW, and that Jump Pack is still a jump pack.

So why bother using the codex you ask? Because there is so much more flexibility in the list. I no longer have parts that cost $20 that do absolutely nothing, thanks to the new list. I can create a non cookie cutter lord, and one that will better my army and further my theme to boot. Add that to the fact that marines in the the new CSM codex is useless, as anything other than Cult troops will break and die in the first turn.

So everything is still as it should be in the land of Spase Marinez, just a bit spikier. And with chevrons.

As long as you are clear from the beginning that you are using the marine dex then there shouldn't be a problem. I think wehrkind makes an excellent point that you can really just think about this like you are creating your own marine chapter and as long as nothing ridiculous or unreasonable is being used (like berserkers as devs) I think it's a good idea.

Wehrkind wrote:

If you want space marines, paint space marines. If you want chaos space marines paint chaos space marines.

Somnicide:
So if I make up my own chapter of marines named "The Spike Lords" who love melee so much they mount spikes all over their armor for wrestling with their opponants, and paint their armor scary black and red to intimidate their opponants, you would have a problem with that?

If I decided my "Angels of Death" would have scary white skull masks and black armor, how would you catagorize that?

I am seriously asking you, not trying to prove you wrong.

It would depend on how it looked. If you used Imperial armor as the base and glued spikes to it (a la Black Dragons) it wouldn't be much of a problem as long as you didn't use anything else. Once more, the OP asked what people would think. Specifically tourney players. I am specifically a tourney player. I have said what I think and it's not going to change. I will also go on the record here saying that I don't even like it when someone has an army painted like dark angels (or black templars or blood angels etc) and uses codex marines. If you want a list that can do either, then create your own successor chapter.

I have also said that in a friendly game, do whatever you want. Use tau models for space marines for all I care. I pay good money to play in tourneys and I want there to be no chance of making a mistake (oh, those guys aren't fearless? oh, they have an extra attack? oh, your sorcerer is really a librarian with totally different powers and a abilities?)

If you Angels of Death are wearing imperial armor and are just painted different then it is irrelevant, right?

edit: And HBMC doesn't even play the game (as he has said repeatedly and loudly to anyone who will listen) so I would probably not put too much stock into what he says.

@ Somnicide: Everybody is entitled to your opinion, and it takes some guts to hang in here and stick by yours when it's against the current. Kudos for that.

What I think the problem people are having, and I am too, isn't your opinion, it's the way you explain it. As a matter of taste and preference it is of course unimpeachable, but to really rely on the "I get confused in the middle of battles" excuse seems a little odd to most of us, particularly if you're an experienced tournament gamer. By now, most tournaments are Open List, which means you should be able to see your opponents army list, and now exactly what each unit is, what it has, and what each transport contains. So, based on that premise, you're essentially arguing that because a unit looks like a Chaos Marine squad, you will get confused despite being told it's space marines, you have a list that shows them as space marines, and they've fought as Space marines all game?

I'm not trying to badger you, and I can see that there are times when you might slip up, but it still seems a little unlikely to me.

I guess My other question would be: what would you do if I brought a Space Marine list to the tournament, we played, but my force was modeled and themed as Night Lords? Would you deduct my sports? Ding my paint/theme/comp/whatever? Or would you, despite being annoyed, play in good faith? I ask because while I really do understand your position (it was something GW drummed pretty heavily in 3rd and most of 4th), it does have a chilling effect on army creativity and the depth of modeling possibilities; two things that I think should be encouraged.

What about Sisters of Battle? They are all in power armor with Bolters. They use the rhino chassis on their vehicles. I just don't like it. It doesn't fit the established background.

Okay, here is an example. It is near the end of a kill point game and I know that it is going to be close and time is running out.

Across the table were two units that I could shoot at and one is painted as some kind of fearless cult marine and the other as black legion or whatever. I have a chance of breaking the black legion through shooting but not of the plague marine. It influences which unit I shoot at. It is not an intentional cheat but it still has an effect.

As to your other question, Sports has nothing to do with army design (I do not subscribe to the "sportsmanship starts with army design philosophy".) I would base that solely on the game. If it is painted well, then I would give you the appropriate scores. I would probably dock you on theme, because you are playing a night lords theme - not a loyalist theme. In the old tourneys there were well painted armies like the hello kitty armies and the marneus calgar high school football team and although they were good for a snicker, I was never happy having to play them. Your clever idea ruined the internal movie of the game for me. I like my grim darkness to be grim.

Now, that being said, that is absolutely something different than what you said, and of all the options available of a chaos list I would probably be more forgiving of either an Alpha Legion or Night Lords list using the codex space marines rules because of their background. But it would still feel wrong to me.

And I say all this having wanted to use my previous Iron Warriors as loyalists (no, really, they are Iron Marines, not Iron Warriors...) and my current Alpha Legion (which even has infiltrator models done up in loyalist colors with an alpha legion part (arm, leg, body, helmet, etc).

Once more, fine in friendly games, not in tourneys.

I'm with Somnicide.

It is an even easier discussion than this though. Taking chaos space marine models and using the new space marine codex for rules just isn't tourney legal.

Its exactly the same as a dark angel green army with sword iconography. If the models (or even the paint scheme) is associated with another codex, then that codex MUST be used.

Heavily converted space marine models that use the heads from chaos, or loyalist models with spikes attached would be just fine. But buying a box of chaos marines, glueing them together, then using the new book, is just not tourney legal.

In your group, I'm sure it would be MORE than kosher. I have used pennies as grots before, and squares of paper as rhinos. Your friends just enjoy playing the game with you.

In a store, it is "legal" too. But if you are curious, after one or two games, as a store opponent I would hope that you have done enough testing to be able to confidently buy some new models. (remember I'm ok with conversions)

So depending on where the OP gets his games in. Friends are obviously fine, strangers in a non tourney setting are usually fine for a couple games (which might be the most you play that stranger), and tourneys are a no-go.

One more way it could make a difference in game play - CSM don't have ATSKNF so if a unit of CSM is down to it's last model or two and falling back I can ignore it, if a loyalist is falling back, he can still rally and is still a scoring objective.

Shep wrote:I'm with Somnicide.

It is an even easier discussion than this though. Taking chaos space marine models and using the new space marine codex for rules just isn't tourney legal.

Its exactly the same as a dark angel green army with sword iconography. If the models (or even the paint scheme) is associated with another codex, then that codex MUST be used.

this is actually completely incorrect. Every tournament sets their own rules, and in the past the standard RTT pack had a rule about using the miniatures for the army you are playing. However, this is not the case for the current US GTs:

GW wrote:

The army must be WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get). This means that weapons, armor options, and upgrades chosen from the army list must be shown on characters and a majority of the models in a unit or squad.

Should you wish to field certain models in your army that “count as” something different in your list than the model that was originally intended you need to follow these basic rules: the models must be roughly the same size as those you are substituting them for (eg. you could not use Imperial Guard Ogryn to represent Imperial Guard Conscripts), you must be consistent throughout your army (eg. if both of your Space Marine Dreadnoughts have twin-linked heavy bolters - an option no longer allowed - you could field them both as assault cannons, but not one of them as an assault cannon and the other as twin-linked lascannons), and finally you must be very clear with your opponent prior to the game, going over anything that may cause confusion. It may be appropriate to create a “cheat sheet” for your opponent that has pictures of the units accompanied by a description of the units and it’s equipment.

Edit: link to the above: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?community=true&catId=&categoryId=300005&pIndex=3&aId=3400027&start=4

Again, as a matter of personal preference, I understand, but it's certainly not illegal in most tournaments now. I really think that GW realized that rather than have three major bike armies (Ravenwing, White Scars, and Night lords) they could really get by with two. Counts as is the law of the land.

It would depend on how it looked. If you used Imperial armor as the base and glued spikes to it (a la Black Dragons) it wouldn't be much of a problem as long as you didn't use anything else. Once more, the OP asked what people would think. Specifically tourney players. I am specifically a tourney player. I have said what I think and it's not going to change. I will also go on the record here saying that I don't even like it when someone has an army painted like dark angels (or black templars or blood angels etc) and uses codex marines. If you want a list that can do either, then create your own successor chapter.

I kind of figured that is what you would say. The fact your opponant specifically said "These are spikey loyalists" doesn't matter unless you percieve the models to be loyalists with spikes on them, as opposed to models with loyalist armor with spikes on it and possibly some naughty pictures. Got it.

For the math hammer inclined crowd:

Spikes + Skulls + Red + Winged skull = ok with loyalist rules
Spikes + skills + red + khorne thing = bad with loyalist rules

It is obviously a well thought out and internally consistant stance.

For the non-obtuse crowd how about -

spikes + skulls + chaos markings + different trim + different backpacks+ mutations = bad with loyalist rules

spikes + skulls + imperial markings + standard trim on shoulders and legs + standard backpacks = good with loyalist rules

It is obviously a well thought out and internally consistent stance.