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.

Well this has kinda gone off-topic and closer to my thead in the 'Proposed Rules' section. The point of this thead is/was to gauge how accepted unoffical codexes are in the community.

And I ask more questions to people who say something different since I'd like to understand the reasoning behind it.

SDFarsight wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

SDFarsight wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Do you mean a "counts as" army where you use one official codex and figures from a different range? For example, a Necron amy made with Tomb King figures.

Well, anything that can be made with 100% GW parts. Feral Orks, Hrud etc.

It's the rules more than the models that could cause a problem.

Why would they a problem? As said before, the only reason I can see is if someone hasn't got the time, interest or trust to look through a codex that they peronaly don't know about. And if the codex is of the Pan Fo or Stealth Marines variety.

Well look at it this way.

You know there is a problem because you started the thread.

You yourself have given some reasons why there could be a problem. I've given some more and so have other people.

These aren't all stupid reasons. Everyone isn't interested in reading every single piece of material that GW, FW or someone else might write, just in case some guy decides to make a new army. A lot of people have limited time and want to stick with the core stuff.

There's all kinds of people playing the game. If you have an interest in a specialist area, you can find people who share that interest.

Even something as mainstream as Apocalypse splits players down the middle. For every person who loves it there is another who hates it.

yeah,
Well I think if you were to make a hrud codex complete with fluff etc but use the units and costs and rules of a existing codex you'd have more success in getting it accepted, than if you created you own rules costs stats etc...

If you were local to me I'd give you a game, but I Think it would be more Fun for both of us If the army was a legal counts as...

Panic...

Yeah, I agree with Panic. Is the question "are people overly dimissive of Fan Codexes" or is it really "why don't people understand how awesome my Space Skaven are and give them a chance"?

Frankly, fan codexes are a tough nut for most gamers when they are the result of collaboration and consensus. You have to expect that people aren't going to take to it immediatly.

As for the site you linked to, it's dated from 2001, meaning the rules are two editions out of date.

Additionally, there is no real system or technique for converting Fantasy models to 40k. Stats tend to stay similar (elves and eldar have high I, orks and orcs have high T, humans are 3's across the board), but can vary wildly as needs demand (orks are A2, Guardians are only WS3) while many 40k models have no directly analogous unit (Space Marines, tau).

In general, GW gave up the WFB in space aspect in 2nd edition with the gradual death of the squats and the introduction of the Tau and Necrons. That's not to say that space skaven wouldn't be interesting or fitting, but the goal is no longer to make a complete fit.

Frankly, it's tough to imagine the need for a special hrud list. How would it fight? What kind of make up would it have? Nearly any archtype can be easily built with current codices.

to that end, I'd recommend trying to use a current codex as the base. If you want to create a new special character or unit, or best yet an apocolypse formation, then people might be more willing to try that than an entirely new codex.

For example, if you want to build a traditional Skaven army, but in Space!, you have the following: hordes of cheap troops, large warmachines, small amounts of highly elite sneaky troops or hulking brutes, and a lack of powerfully heroic characters. Sounds like an IG army to me!

Slave = conscripts
Clan rats = Platoons
Wacky warmachines = tanks
Rat ogres = Ogryn
Stormvermin = Stormtroopers
Plague monks = Sisters?
Gutter runners = hardened veterans/special weapon teams
Grey Seer = Inquisitor
Screaming Bell = Inquisitor's land raider
Jezzails = heavy weapon squads

You can go other directions (tyranids for more of a gribbly horde, DE for more of a alpha strike force), but I think you'd be better off using an existing codex as a base and then adding any new units you simply can't live without.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Well look at it this way.

You know there is a problem because you started the thread.

You yourself have given some reasons why there could be a problem. I've given some more and so have other people.

These aren't all stupid reasons. Everyone isn't interested in reading every single piece of material that GW, FW or someone else might write, just in case some guy decides to make a new army. A lot of people have limited time and want to stick with the core stuff.

There's all kinds of people playing the game. If you have an interest in a specialist area, you can find people who share that interest.

Even something as mainstream as Apocalypse splits players down the middle. For every person who loves it there is another who hates it.

You're right with that Apocalypse thing; I guess some people would just prefer to play the core lists that they're used to, just as some would like to keep to regular 40K instead of Apocalypse.

yeah,
and while using the guard codex... the units you can't do without you should nick from other codexs... using their prices and rules...
like if you wanted skaven seers, you could probabily use eldar warlocks or farseers...
Panic...

whitedragon wrote:I've found the best approach to this kind of situation is to use "Counts As". Instead of trying to write your own "Hrud Codex", use the IG codex or something and just use models converted to look like Hrud and they are "Counts As" IG.

One of the store employees at my gaming store is doing that with a Squat Army. Or more properly, Squat Marines. We finally found one of the lost Legions.

@Polonius: As I said, the original point of this thread is "are people overly dimissive of Fan Codexes". The "Space Skaven" idea is neither new nor mine.

And GW recently brought Chaos Deamons into 40K, which are so close to their Fantasy counterparts that it's pretty much only the circular bases that make them different. I do see your point though; I'd imagine that GW brought the Necrons and Tau in to make the armies seem more original and generally fitting into the sci-fi world.

Using Imperial allies would actualy be a great idea for an overall 'counts as' army, since it would let me mix'n'match units whilst still being in the rules (presuming the Allies rules are that flexible). Thanks for that advice.

I'm not sure if I'd want to go down the 'nick stuff from other codexes' route, since armies are balanced on an overall list level as well as on the simple unit level. It's why Missile Launchers are (or so I've heard) more expensive for Guard despite being the same as SMarine ones.

One other issue if I do Skaven models using 'counts as' IG/Imperium rules; at least fuff-wise (I've yet to compare the actual models), Skaven are fairly smaller and/or hunched over than humans of the Imperium, so that might be borderline rules abuse considering the 5th ed 'true Line of Sight' rules. Though hopefully the size difference is insignificant if even noticible.