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.

Fetterkey wrote:

sabote wrote:Not a huge fan of counts as in tournaments. Mostly because its hard to tell where to draw the line. Yeah a pre- heresy marine army is pretty easy but than i have seen some conversions that just make me shake my head and wonder WTF. I remember playing a guy in the Chicago GT years ago that ran a Chaos army that was so heavily converted with Green Stuff it was next to impossible to tell what was what. I cannot remember his name but many of the old timers would remember this guy. He was some kind of graphic design guru and his stuff looked amazing. It was just impossible to tell exactly what it was. The next year he showed up with a Marine Templar army and that was just as hard to figure out.

This guy might have been Joe Orteza. I remember seeing some of his stuff in White Dwarf back in the day.

That is exactly who it was!! Wow just could not think of the name its been such a long time lol. Amazing and I have never seen its like but it was pretty hard to figure out many times.

Actually, I think my relative lack of encyclopedic 40k/WHFB knowledge makes me more in favor of counts as. Demons, for instance, are pretty vague to me past how they deploy and which ones are likely to shoot me vs ripping faces off manually. If you tell me which random model is which and stats, I am as good as I am going to be, whether that model looks like a purple manta ray or a little robot or whatever. I am the same way with most Xenos; they all look alike to me.

Fortunately, most 40k armies are imperial/CSM and so use most of the same basic gear. That makes things a lot easier (CSM counts as Space Wolves etc.)

Personally, my only real request for counts as is that it is easily distinguishable and reasonably shaped for the stats. Applying a little thought so that the rules match the models in an internally consistent manner is really important. If I can look at a model and see "It is big and has giant bladed things, it must want to chop me" or "It has a large gun, it must want to shoot vehicles" I am already pretty far ahead compared to demon princes that have that Str8 lazor power thing.

RiTides wrote:I voted for "C", but I could also see "B" as well. Basically, the rule of cool would apply, as always... if it's awesomely done (and very clear) people should not have any problem with it.

But when people decide to run orks as nids or vice versa simply due to the advantages of one codex over the other (as an example) I cry party foul...

Not that I agree with running orks as nids but I cry party foul when one army has an advantage over the other simply because it's a little bit "newer".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hulksmash wrote:::Claps for Polonius::

It's all good Rtides. I think where your at is why most people have problems with "count-as". Most people to closely associate it with proxying. Where 90% of counts-as style armies are generally well thought out and pretty well done. At least from my person experience.

You mean like the steampunk nids. Yeah those were awesome.

I voted B. as long as the models are clearly modelled thematically and intuitively to resemble their official counterparts as well as appropriately based, i'd have no problems with counts-as. Someone who went with the previously mentioned "knight" theme with marines who used squires with boltpistols/ccw as scouts, foot knights with bolters as normal marines, and mounted knights with storm bolters as bikes... sounds cool and meets my personal requirements. the steampunk orks counts as necrons in the gallery are another example of what i wouldn't mind.

This is the perfect exaple of what a counts-as army should be like:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/271328.page

if a counts as army is cos you are lazy/power gamer people won't want to play against you, if you have care and dedication with easy to understand units people will want to talk about your army and play you.

I LOVE that army... one of my faves. If you put in work like that, of course anyone would want to play you!

B. I love counts as armies but they need to have a way of identifying. I feel that anyone who wishes to field a Counts-as army should have a refrence sheet like the ones Protieus does for his armies (and Hulkmash did for his AdMech) in order to make life easier for opponents who may not be familiar with the codex or can't work out what is what.

Link

It's about halfway down the page.

I think this is a super hard topic because of the huge variety of “counts as” that you see. This is how I have seen tournaments in my area called, and pretty much how I have called the ones I have run.

1.Space Marines painted Book A counts as Space Marine Book B – I’m 100% percent cool with it so long as all the weapons are right.

2.Special character models counts as non special HQ choice – 100% as a long as its openly disclosed (preferably by mouth but on the army list is ok I guess)

3.Non special character model counts as special character – I’m less ok with it. I’ve never stopped it in any of the tournaments I have run, I would say so long as the weapons are the same I would let it fly. But personally if the only reason it was done is because a person had an extra Berserker model and didn’t want to pay $20 for Kharn I would be upset.

4.Stead models counts as bike models or vice versa – I’m cool with it so long as there isn’t an option in the codex for the other model. If you say a steed is a bike but you could buy either I think that is legitimately confusing. I wouldn’t allow it in my tournaments.

5.Really out there conversions that don’t look much like the original thing- I would say rule of cool applies. If someone poured their heart and soul into something, I’m willing to tolerate a little confusion. In my experience people who are so into the hobby side aren’t that into the gaming side and it’s an easier game for me anyway.

6.Modeling for cost savings – I’ve seen some people use fantasy zombies as plague bearers, poorly convert some cheaper vehicle into a more expensive one, or some variation of this. There is a fine line between what was done for cost savings and what was done because someone liked this model better. It’s almost impossible to prove, so long as everything was the right size, right weapons, and not made of toys I would allow it, but this is my least favorite of all.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:
3.Non special character model counts as special character – I’m less ok with it. I’ve never stopped it in any of the tournaments I have run, I would say so long as the weapons are the same I would let it fly. But personally if the only reason it was done is because a person had an extra Berserker model and didn’t want to pay $20 for Kharn I would be upset.

4.Stead models counts as bike models or vice versa – I’m cool with it so long as there isn’t an option in the codex for the other model. If you say a steed is a bike but you could buy either I think that is legitimately confusing. I wouldn’t allow it in my tournaments.

6.Modeling for cost savings – I’ve seen some people use fantasy zombies as plague bearers, poorly convert some cheaper vehicle into a more expensive one, or some variation of this. There is a fine line between what was done for cost savings and what was done because someone liked this model better. It’s almost impossible to prove, so long as everything was the right size, right weapons, and not made of toys I would allow it, but this is my least favorite of all.

This really breaks down for me at #3. I don't understand the concept of "It isn't the character unless you paid X$ for it." I could understand being annoyed if it looked exactly like the other 20 odd Berserkers and so folks got confused about which was which. But being upset because someone didn't want to pay the extra money for a model? Is it that they didn't pay, and so a gift of Kharn would be bad, or that GW didn't get cash for one, and so a decent conversion would be bad? I am hoping you really meant that you are annoyed that the player didn't have a special dedicated Kharn model of some sort, but I do hear a lot of people complaining about "they were too cheap to buy the model." To be honest, many of GW's models are so bad I wouldn't use them if they were free. (See my marauder heavy WoC army; using Rackham models wasn't exactly the cheap way out!)

I can kind of understand #4 though unless they have both options modeled the same way in the army, I don't see an issue. The steed part is just to mark him as having a special upgrade and rules; so long as it is there and fairly intuitive without the shell game aspect I don't see the issue.

Again with #6, I don't see the issue. I sometimes like a model better because it is cheaper, and if someone uses toys I don't draw that distinction. Then again, I feel tremendous guilt playing with non-painted or partially painted units, so to me both poorly painted or poorly converted models fall into the "cares more about the rules than the models" category of players, which doesn't bother me much. It just makes my models look better by comparison I just don't get why people accept "He doesn't paint well" but not "he doesn't convert well" or "he doesn't have cash to buy stupid expensive models as much as me." I can accept arguments along the lines of "If you are going to play, at least try to do it right" but only so far. I might even argue that having "the right" models for an army is easier and lazier than having poorly converted and painted models, and so even if you have 400$ in metal plague bearers, if they are not painted to my standard I think you should be ashamed. Learning to paint is after all pretty cheap, and if you are just putting together models that look the same as everyone else's you should at least put that much effort into it. (I wouldn't of course do this, I am just saying the distinction between bad painting and bad modeling isn't very compelling.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and I don't mean to jump on you, just that you were nice enough to clearly number your points such that I could address them sufficiently easily

Yeah, I have one of the old metal SM captains that I gave a plasma pistol to and call Sicarius. I don't use the official model because my guys aren't Ultramarines.

I did that because:
1) basic captains are pants
2) I had the model already painted
3) I was too cheap to buy the new model

it's still converted properly, but would I lose favor because I did what I did out of sloth, frugality, and powergaming?

Wehrkind wrote:
This really breaks down for me at #3. I don't understand the concept of "It isn't the character unless you paid X$ for it." I could understand being annoyed if it looked exactly like the other 20 odd Berserkers and so folks got confused about which was which. But being upset because someone didn't want to pay the extra money for a model? Is it that they didn't pay, and so a gift of Kharn would be bad, or that GW didn't get cash for one, and so a decent conversion would be bad? I am hoping you really meant that you are annoyed that the player didn't have a special dedicated Kharn model of some sort, but I do hear a lot of people complaining about "they were too cheap to buy the model." To be honest, many of GW's models are so bad I wouldn't use them if they were free. (See my marauder heavy WoC army; using Rackham models wasn't exactly the cheap way out!)

I personally think most of GW’s special character models are pretty nice. What I don’t like is when a person takes a single marine out of the plastic box, adds a storm bolter and fist onto it and calls it “Pedro Kantor”. I also have some friends who run an Emperor’s Champ model as Khan for their fist armies. They at least have a fluffy reason and a nice looking model. Would I stop any of it? No. Do I personally need to like it? No (although I have mixed feelings on the Champ/Khan thing). I guess I just like people to have the actual special character model, I think it is the least confusing/best situation. The exception would be a sweet conversion that looked better/different than the original model, but that’s not really what I’m talking about. It kind of goes back to the “you did something that looks worse just to save money” thing which I don’t like.

Wehrkind wrote:
I can kind of understand #4 though unless they have both options modeled the same way in the army, I don't see an issue. The steed part is just to mark him as having a special upgrade and rules; so long as it is there and fairly intuitive without the shell game aspect I don't see the issue.

My thing is that the marker is confusing if you are used to seeing it for different things. If you put rough riders on bikes it’s not going to do anything because Guard don’t have bikes. If you put marines on cold ones it doesn’t matter because marines don’t have steeds. If you put a chaos lord on a bike and call it a steed to me that’s really no longer counts as that’s proxy which should not be allowed in tournaments. I think in that situation the modeling is important, it’s like having the right weapons modeled.

Wehrkind wrote:
Again with #6, I don't see the issue. I sometimes like a model better because it is cheaper, and if someone uses toys I don't draw that distinction. Then again, I feel tremendous guilt playing with non-painted or partially painted units, so to me both poorly painted or poorly converted models fall into the "cares more about the rules than the models" category of players, which doesn't bother me much. It just makes my models look better by comparison I just don't get why people accept "He doesn't paint well" but not "he doesn't convert well" or "he doesn't have cash to buy stupid expensive models as much as me." I can accept arguments along the lines of "If you are going to play, at least try to do it right" but only so far. I might even argue that having "the right" models for an army is easier and lazier than having poorly converted and painted models, and so even if you have 400$ in metal plague bearers, if they are not painted to my standard I think you should be ashamed. Learning to paint is after all pretty cheap, and if you are just putting together models that look the same as everyone else's you should at least put that much effort into it. (I wouldn't of course do this, I am just saying the distinction between bad painting and bad modeling isn't very compelling.)

I think complaining about people making things uglier just to save money is legitimate. I’m not saying everyone has to run out and drop two paychecks on an all forge world army, but there is balance in there. Where that balance is I don’t know, so I would never call it in a tourney unless someone was obviously using toys which 90% of us I think would agree is out of balance.

And most tournaments do give extra points for conversions so they do reward modeling as well as painting. But that is kind of off topic, I never said we shouldn’t do those things. I just said uglier or really pushing it counts as stuff just to save money isn’t IMO good for the tournament scene or the hobby. But it’s just my opinion.

Wehrkind wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and I don't mean to jump on you, just that you were nice enough to clearly number your points such that I could address them sufficiently easily

No jumping taken. I like discussing these things, that’s why I posted :0)

Re: Pedro Can't Do, see, so long as it doesn't look like a Sgt (ie. so I don't get confused as to which one is Pedro) I think that is fine. Not every model that uses Pedro's rules has to be represented by the man himself. In fact, the book specifically says that you can use the rules to represent your own chapter instead of the Crimson Fists, in which case the model wouldn't even make sense. (Unless your chapter master really idolizes Pedro down to dressing like him )
And honestly, I get really tired of seeing the same models used all the time anyway. Yea, it is easy to spot ol' Tiggy as himself when the model is used, but if 4 people are going to field him at my shop, I would rather 3 decided to model up a replacement. If someone wanted to make a demon army with a "night of the living dead" theme using zombies as plague bearers I would be all for it, just because it would be different. I would actually prefer it over someone who just dropped a wad of cash on the army, primered it and slapped on some house paint with a giant brush and called it done.

As to making things ugly in order to be cheap, I do understand your point, but let me put it forth another way:

If I were to field 25mm Army Men (soft green plastic) as my IG, but had painted them all to Golden Demon standards, or perhaps more realistically paid someone a lot of money to do so , and they were properly set with weapons etc, would you prefer that to someone who had an all genuine and expensive GW army built and painted poorly?

If not, why not require the GW army guy to have his stuff propainted? Lots of painting services are pretty cheap these days, to table top anyway.

My point is mostly that people who don't like counts as because the model doesn't look good enough sometimes forget that we painters think most people's armies look like hell :-P but just deal with it. I don't think that poor modeling or using sub-par models deserves special reprobation, considering that spending extra on painting lessons or straight up painting services isn't going too much farther if you are insisting that someone pay 20$ for a mediocre character model.

Of course, I am all in favor of teasing people whose models don't look cool. I like to think that all my armies are silently screaming vituperative at less armies


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, this segues nicely into the PrePainted Plastics debate. I personally don't like them because they generally are not painted as well as I would like, and the soft plastic doesn't give the details I expect. Plus, I like to cut things.

However, if someone were bring in a crappy PPP army of GW stuff somehow, I wouldn't complain. I wouldn't like the paint job ("Dude, that man's eyes are like, on his temples") but I would appreciate that there is something there other than bare plastic/metal and primer. As I see it, some aspects of the hobby are not for everyone, whether it is painting well, modeling well or having the cash to get the exact model.

Wehrkind wrote:My point is mostly that people who don't like counts as because the model doesn't look good enough sometimes forget that we painters think most people's armies look like hell :-P

That's a bit glib and arrogant of you to say. As a painter I admire everybodys efforts. *looks at latest painting attempts and remembers the shody work of other people armies at FLGS* Okay... maybe you do have a point.

Personaly I love a well painted counts as army. What I don't like, on par with your ideas, are people who claim that a standard rank and file troop counts as an Independant Character or claim that their (un-converted) CSM are cult marines. Things like that irritate me and should not be allowed in a tourny.

@ Wehrkind.

Most of the special character replacements I have seen fall into the uglier to be cheaper category. There are some that don’t, the Emperor’s champ thing is one of them. And I kind of like those, but I still think it would be less confusing, if only slightly, to have the real model in a tournament setting. And lowering confusion at tournaments is pretty important.

As for the golden demon army men, find me that army and I’ll give you an answer. Until then I say the people that model “uglier to be cheaper” almost always have the worst painted stuff as well. There are exceptions, which is why I don’t make rules disallowing the stuff. But I think everyone knows those two usually go hand in hand.

And I don’t know if I would rather play against the night of the living dead army as opposed to a stock army, I think that is the point of the discussion. It sounds like a lot of people are also unsure or would prefer the stock army. I think generally the stock models reflect the game world that I like to play in. Now it’s other peoples stuff, I’m not telling them how to spend their money and time; it’s just what I prefer. I like conversions and themes that enhance the game world, not counts as armies that jar you out of the game world. Just my taste.

I think we both agree that 90% of counts as cases should be allowed. I say because making rules around it is too subjective and unfair. You say (from what I can tell) because modeling should be encouraged, which I don’t disagree with. But that doesn’t mean I can’t be unhappy with what in my eyes is misuse or at least confusing use of the counts as policy.

If the person was using a whole bunch of wargaming models from all ranges and races (and perhaps no-wargaming models too) and was using it as an eldar army, then no. But if he was using some elf models (maybe high elves) then yeah that's ok. As i voted, as long as it's easy to identify that's fine by me.

I run Alpha Legion counts as Space Wolves.

Chaos lord = Wolfguard Battle Leader

Possessed w/ normal weapon arms = Wolf guard

CSM = grey hunters

Cadians A.K.A. Traitor guard / Cultists = wolf scouts

Razorback = Razorback

Havocs = Long Fangs

Landspeeders = Landspeeders

So far aside from the hardcore fluff lovers I haven't run into a single problem. When I explain that:
SW ability to take up to 4 HQ is something alpha legion would do. (They never rely on a single commander)
SW ability to use MSU with a ton of redundancy to attack from all sides effectively sounds like something Alpha legion would do.
Scouts "Behind Enemy Lines" sounds like an embedded chaos cult.

I know it's not perfect but I like the look of chaos models but the playstyle of wolves so its the best I could do.

Shas'O Dorian wrote:I run Alpha Legion counts as Space Wolves.

*snip*

SW ability to take up to 4 HQ is something alpha legion would do. (They never rely on a single commander)
SW ability to use MSU with a ton of redundancy to attack from all sides effectively sounds like something Alpha legion would do.
Scouts "Behind Enemy Lines" sounds like an embedded chaos cult.

while i wouldn't refuse to play against you in a tourney, i'd highly suspect you're using the most powerful codex as a counts as force simply because of the fact that its the most powerful codex, not because the fluff matches (because it doesn't). chaos cultists who should have inferior stats to a vanilla marine are the elite wolf scouts with rules/abilities that go above and beyond what a normal marine is capable of? SW for 4 hq's because the alphas use more of them? i'd think two identical twin chaos lords with the same loadout would better suit the fluff. i think it'd be more believable if you put some space wolf bits on those chaos models and just called them 13th company instead of shoe-horning them in as alpha legion.

p.s. this is coming from someone who used his blood angels as space wolves for 2 months inbetween the release of the SW and the rumors of an upcoming BA codex started to filter out. i always felt sooo dirty after a game. as soon as the credible BA rumors started leaking, i stopped.

warboss wrote:
while i wouldn't refuse to play against you in a tourney, i'd highly suspect you're using the most powerful codex as a counts as force simply because of the fact that its the most powerful codex, not because the fluff matches (because it doesn't). chaos cultists who should have inferior stats to a vanilla marine are the elite wolf scouts with rules/abilities that go above and beyond what a normal marine is capable of? SW for 4 hq's because the alphas use more of them? i'd think two identical twin chaos lords with the same loadout would better suit the fluff. i think it'd be more believable if you put some space wolf bits on those chaos models and just called them 13th company instead of shoe-horning them in as alpha legion.

i think that marines can use any book they want. If nothing else, nobody would care if you ran a DIY marine army with loyalist models painted grey (the classic "grey marines") as renegades out of the chaos book, ultras, blood angels, etc. I'm not sure I'd totally change my take because the player is using chaos marine models. the whole "rules must fit your paint scheme" thing is so very, very 3rd edition.

That said, yeah, I'm not sure trying to justify using wolves as the best represenetation of alphas in general is going to pass the sniff test. I personally think that a Khan led, all outflanking shock force does it better.

However, the wolf codex might best represent YOUR alpha legion warband. I always tell my opponents: "The background for my IG is that they're smart, and they like to win. Which is why they're armed the way they are!"

p.s. this is coming from someone who used his blood angels as space wolves for 2 months inbetween the release of the SW and the rumors of an upcoming BA codex started to filter out. i always felt sooo dirty after a game. as soon as the credible BA rumors started leaking, i stopped.

So... can he use his alphas as blood angels until chaos rumors start leaking out?

warboss wrote:

Shas'O Dorian wrote:I run Alpha Legion counts as Space Wolves.

*snip*

SW ability to take up to 4 HQ is something alpha legion would do. (They never rely on a single commander)
SW ability to use MSU with a ton of redundancy to attack from all sides effectively sounds like something Alpha legion would do.
Scouts "Behind Enemy Lines" sounds like an embedded chaos cult.

while i wouldn't refuse to play against you in a tourney, i'd highly suspect you're using the most powerful codex as a counts as force simply because of the fact that its the most powerful codex, not because the fluff matches (because it doesn't). chaos cultists who should have inferior stats to a vanilla marine are the elite wolf scouts with rules/abilities that go above and beyond what a normal marine is capable of? SW for 4 hq's because the alphas use more of them? i'd think two identical twin chaos lords with the same loadout would better suit the fluff. i think it'd be more believable if you put some space wolf bits on those chaos models and just called them 13th company instead of shoe-horning them in as alpha legion.

p.s. this is coming from someone who used his blood angels as space wolves for 2 months inbetween the release of the SW and the rumors of an upcoming BA codex started to filter out. i always felt sooo dirty after a game. as soon as the credible BA rumors started leaking, i stopped.

I don't get this either. Would you feel better if he called them Space Wolves? I can kind of get the fluff vs Wolf Scouts thing, that is pretty hair splitting, especially considering you can get no where near the army type he is looking for in Codex: Bland Marines of Chaos. No offense, but it really seems like you are unhappy that his imagination differs from yours. I do agree that wildly divergent rules and models makes for poor counts as choices, but aside from the slightly questionable scouts, there is nothing to complain of there.
And just a note, but suggesting that you think he is playing the strongest codex just to win perhaps says as much about your concern with winning yourself than his. Lots of people said the SW codex would make a better Chaos Codex than C:CSM when it was released, after all.

Gathering Storm: Hehe that was sort of my point, if poorly stated: Everyones stuff can look bad to certain people, and one should remember to roll with it and have fun with the game even if your opponent doesn't have the same preferences you do.

ArtfcllyFlvrd: Yea, I think we definitely agree on most cases. Though like I said, if you expect someone to spend X$ to get a better looking army, you might not want to rule out painting services for people who can't paint
I do like a lot of the stock models myself, but a differently built army can really mix things up and lend a lot of variety. Let's face it, the problem is very rarely too much variety, but usually that 5 of 10 armies are the Primer Marines, with the remainder being 3-4 different armies if you are lucky I would say my reasons for allowing Counts As is not just that it encourages modeling and creativity, which is very important, but that it lets people play the army they like. I want to play the army I like, and I don't think it would be right to tell other people to play the game the way I see fit.

Full disclosure, I have two >90% counts as armies I use Orks for my Word Bearers and Cultists though :-P

Gathering Storm wrote:B. I love counts as armies but they need to have a way of identifying. I feel that anyone who wishes to field a Counts-as army should have a refrence sheet like the ones Protieus does for his armies (and Hulkmash did for his AdMech) in order to make life easier for opponents who may not be familiar with the codex or can't work out what is what.

Link

It's about halfway down the page.

what? why does he need the refrence sheet at least 50% of each of those models were the original model they were supposed to be, heck the leman russ was just a leman russ with a few orky bits on them... overall a really good army.


also where can I get a link to this admech army? I'm slowly converting my imperial guard into skitarii.

It depends. I've seen an entire IG army that used eldar guardians as guardsmen. Technically it was WYSIWYG, but it was awful to look at. Or is that proxying?

3.Non special character model counts as special character – I’m less ok with it. I’ve never stopped it in any of the tournaments I have run, I would say so long as the weapons are the same I would let it fly. But personally if the only reason it was done is because a person had an extra Berserker model and didn’t want to pay $20 for Kharn I would be upset.

Lol, you wouldn't like my straken then He's a guard commander with an xv-8 arm and a plasma rifle that got cut down to a plasma pistol. he's for a Gue'vessa army I made. Shotgun vets also use Pulse Carbines.

Also for non tournament games I use a reaper "Space marine" as harker. and no, he looks nothing like a space marine. More like a vet with a chain gun. Official Tournaments I use Ox for harker.

Samus_aran115 wrote:It depends. I've seen an entire IG army that used eldar guardians as guardsmen. Technically it was WYSIWYG, but it was awful to look at. Or is that proxying?

Please explain how a Guardian with Eldar weapons is WYSWYG for an Iguard with Iguard weapons. They are similar, but in no way WYSIWYG and this is very much a proxy.

Polonius wrote:i think that marines can use any book they want. If nothing else, nobody would care if you ran a DIY marine army with loyalist models painted grey (the classic "grey marines") as renegades out of the chaos book, ultras, blood angels, etc. I'm not sure I'd totally change my take because the player is using chaos marine models. the whole "rules must fit your paint scheme" thing is so very, very 3rd edition.

That said, yeah, I'm not sure trying to justify using wolves as the best represenetation of alphas in general is going to pass the sniff test. I personally think that a Khan led, all outflanking shock force does it better.

*snip*

So... can he use his alphas as blood angels until chaos rumors start leaking out?

sure, like i said, i wouldn't refuse to play them. i'll just call him out on WHY he's using the most powerful codex for his toy soldiers when he tells me its because they capture the feel of alphas more. if he wanted to use an inferior, less OP codex, i'd just leave it be. when i used spacewolves and people asked, i simply said the truth that after not playing for 5+ years, i came back to 40k and found out my blood angels had a pathetic PDF with little variety instead of a real codex and i didn't want to use it. the SW codex was coming out so i decided to opt for that instead of the vanilla and dark angels marines that were heavy in my old store. i didn't try to make up some twilight-esque combination of werewolves and space vampires.

Wehrkind wrote:I don't get this either. Would you feel better if he called them Space Wolves? I can kind of get the fluff vs Wolf Scouts thing, that is pretty hair splitting, especially considering you can get no where near the army type he is looking for in Codex: Bland Marines of Chaos. No offense, but it really seems like you are unhappy that his imagination differs from yours. I do agree that wildly divergent rules and models makes for poor counts as choices, but aside from the slightly questionable scouts, there is nothing to complain of there.
And just a note, but suggesting that you think he is playing the strongest codex just to win perhaps says as much about your concern with winning yourself than his. Lots of people said the SW codex would make a better Chaos Codex than C:CSM when it was released, after all.Full disclosure, I have two >90% counts as armies I use Orks for my Word Bearers and Cultists though :-P

the bold part is needlessly inflammatory as i already said i'd play against him. his army passes mostly passes my counts as criteria in that the substitutions are mostly intuitive and easily recognizable so i'd not complain. just don't tell me its "creative" to take the most powerful codex and use it for your clearly NOT-sw army. would i bring up anything if he went through the trouble of converting some SW bits onto each of the guys? no. would i mention the above if he is just using his chaos marines as space wolves? yes. frankly, i think SW would be a great codex for doing preheresy world eaters (the mark of the wulfen guys could be the ones with the aggressive psychosurgery brain implants) but it all boils down to the modelling and the cool rule. if you're doing it and it looks cool, i'd have no problem with it.

p.s. orks as marines and ig? really???

nkelsch wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:It depends. I've seen an entire IG army that used eldar guardians as guardsmen. Technically it was WYSIWYG, but it was awful to look at. Or is that proxying?

Please explain how a Guardian with Eldar weapons is WYSWYG for an Iguard with Iguard weapons. They are similar, but in no way WYSIWYG and this is very much a proxy.

Eldar in 2nd edition were modeled with, and used the rules for, lots of imperium weaponry. Guardians could take lasguns, they used lascannons, heavy plasma guns, and missile launchers, and rangers used needle sniper rifles.

gendoikari87 wrote:what? why does he need the refrence sheet at least 50% of each of those models were the original model they were supposed to be, heck the leman russ was just a leman russ with a few orky bits on them... overall a really good army.


also where can I get a link to this admech army? I'm slowly converting my imperial guard into skitarii.

-He was annoyed with people failing to understand that it was a counts as guard army. At a recent tourney his army was mislabelled as Orks on the first day and he had to get the organisers to change. Also, it's just his thing. He did the same for his renegade mechanics counts as daemon army.

-Check the gallery of the author of the thread. I think he also used to have a P&M blog on it as well.

warboss wrote:
sure, like i said, i wouldn't refuse to play them. i'll just call him out on WHY he's using the most powerful codex for his toy soldiers when he tells me its because they capture the feel of alphas more. if he wanted to use an inferior, less OP codex, i'd just leave it be. when i used spacewolves and people asked, i simply said the truth that after not playing for 5+ years, i came back to 40k and found out my blood angels had a pathetic PDF with little variety instead of a real codex and i didn't want to use it. the SW codex was coming out so i decided to opt for that instead of the vanilla and dark angels marines that were heavy in my old store. i didn't try to make up some twilight-esque combination of werewolves and space vampires.

I get where you're coming from, and it's possible that you're right about your buddy being a closet, self loathing power gamer. I'm just going to say that you're coming off as a pretty big jerk ripping into the guy. Maybe you know for certain, but I don't like attributing motive that casually. It's not like a less powerful codex would work better. (DA or BT? really?)

I write documents analyzing people's credibility at work, and let me tell you: a light touch goes a long way. It's far more effective to set up the relevant facts and let people draw their own conclusions than to spell everything out.

I voted A because I think it is great to see how creative people can get. I also own every codex and know the rules for every unit pretty well so it is easy for me to identify what units are what once I have been told.

But most gamers aren't that OCD about the game and I can easily see how they would get confused. I think B is the best of all worlds for the community at large.

And Hulk's Admech army (counts as Demons) is sweetass! Like Inquisitor Malice said, you could just label stuff to make it easy.

warboss wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:I don't get this either. Would you feel better if he called them Space Wolves? I can kind of get the fluff vs Wolf Scouts thing, that is pretty hair splitting, especially considering you can get no where near the army type he is looking for in Codex: Bland Marines of Chaos. No offense, but it really seems like you are unhappy that his imagination differs from yours. I do agree that wildly divergent rules and models makes for poor counts as choices, but aside from the slightly questionable scouts, there is nothing to complain of there.
And just a note, but suggesting that you think he is playing the strongest codex just to win perhaps says as much about your concern with winning yourself than his. Lots of people said the SW codex would make a better Chaos Codex than C:CSM when it was released, after all.Full disclosure, I have two >90% counts as armies I use Orks for my Word Bearers and Cultists though :-P

the bold part is needlessly inflammatory as i already said i'd play against him. his army passes mostly passes my counts as criteria in that the substitutions are mostly intuitive and easily recognizable so i'd not complain. just don't tell me its "creative" to take the most powerful codex and use it for your clearly NOT-sw army. would i bring up anything if he went through the trouble of converting some SW bits onto each of the guys? no. would i mention the above if he is just using his chaos marines as space wolves? yes. frankly, i think SW would be a great codex for doing preheresy world eaters (the mark of the wulfen guys could be the ones with the aggressive psychosurgery brain implants) but it all boils down to the modelling and the cool rule. if you're doing it and it looks cool, i'd have no problem with it.

p.s. orks as marines and ig? really???

I didn't mean to be inflammatory, sorry, but that's how your statements comes across. Perhaps if you had suggested other codexes that you thought would cover the his idea better, instead of saying first that you thought he was using the most powerful codex to win, and saying how your idea of the army didn't fit it as well. Key points: HIS idea vs YOUR idea of how the fluff works. You want him to use yours, not his, and you assume he is simply power gaming because he uses his idea. At least that's how it comes across. Just one of those things, our opinions of others tend to reflect more on ourselves than they do of the others.

Not to mention the fact that your friend's list as posted doesn't even seem that hard. Where are the 30 thunderwolves? It looks to me like he made a pretty friendly, even handed list, not the uber tourney copy pasta lists people hate SW players for. Further, it isn't as though CSM don't have their power build.

Considering you also just happened to use that self same "power dex" for your army instead of the regular SM codex further undermines your points. It might be time for some serious thought about why you are so concerned about what codex your opponents use. If you are interested I can get you some brochures and pamphlets for Kumbaya-con and some of our programs for learning what kind of a gamer you are, and coming to terms with your place in the community.

As to Lost and Damned counts as orks here's the modeling thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/228000.page#530250
TL;DR : The nobs are heavy army & power clawed, leading truck mobs of muties hopped up on drugs. The Lord leads a small unit of terminators (mega nobs), and there are some random tanks and some shootas. Pretty obvious what things are, and it plays a treat. Every terminator should have 3 attacks and two wounds More epic marines captures the feel better, as even a lone 'nob is scary when he gets into combat.

Wehrkind wrote:Key points: HIS idea vs YOUR idea of how the fluff works. You want him to use yours, not his, and you assume he is simply power gaming because he uses his idea. At least that's how it comes across.

um... space wolves being wholey different from alpha marines in both their deployment stategies, combat tactics, and organization isn't "my idea of how the fluff works". it's gw's. who knows, maybe he is the part of that small minority of people using the SW codex for non-sw armies that aren't doing it for the power builds. you're right.. i should just take everything i read on the internet (even if it sounds unplausible) at face value even if i disagree with it. right after i post here, i've got a few nigerian emails about transferring funds i need to respond to while i'm in this new trusting mood.

Wehrkind wrote:Considering you also just happened to use that self same "power dex" for your army instead of the regular SM codex further undermines your points. It might be time for some serious thought about why you are so concerned about what codex your opponents use.

i'm not "concerned" as i said i'd play against it without a fuss in a tourney (you keep missing that part). questioning why someone is playing a count-as army that isn't modelled as such isn't evil. what i'm doing is DISCUSSING it seeing as how he put it up for DISCUSSION on a DISCUSSION board. i couldn't give a care if he used skittles as necrons ultimately seeing as how the probability of me actually facing him is close to zero. If he posted "i just use them with SW" i woudn't care but he's making the case that its a plausible substitution that fits the fluff. i'm making the opposing case. as for my own case, i played it for the first two months because it was known as the true power codex of 5th edition so far and stopped using it soon after; read into that what you will. i only mentioned it to show that i really don't have a problem with someone doing it as long as they're honest about why. either way, i've voted and spoken my peace. later fellas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wehrkind wrote:As to Lost and Damned counts as orks here's the modeling thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/228000.page#530250
TL;DR : The nobs are heavy army & power clawed, leading truck mobs of muties hopped up on drugs. The Lord leads a small unit of terminators (mega nobs), and there are some random tanks and some shootas. Pretty obvious what things are, and it plays a treat. Every terminator should have 3 attacks and two wounds More epic marines captures the feel better, as even a lone 'nob is scary when he gets into combat.

you've got a very nice army there and have taken the time and effort to make it work and plausible. i'd have no problem playing against it and would congratulate you on work well done if i ever faced you across the tabletop. when you initially said "i use orks as marines and ig", i took that at face value in that you use unconverted ork models as marines some days and IG other days. THAT i wouldn't play against as its needlessly confusing.