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.

for instance... ive seen people use infantry from guard in a tyranid list to represent a genestealer cult. the stats are the same or similiar but its the wrong model. do you find this annoying or tend to think its ok? the reason i ask is because i often find myself really liking models from different armies but hating their background or the rest of their army. id like to use different models from different armies together using a single army list like i mentioned in the cult example. any thoughts on how this would go in a tournament setting?

There is a guy who runs Chaos as grey knights. Kinda kills it but i bite my tongue and play.
And not it would be unaccpetable for Tournie.

If you're creative in the painting/modeling aspect, this can look really cool. I saw a Tyranid army that used Guardsmen converted up as Genestealer cultists for Gaunts, and the Tervigons were Genestealer limos with gunners around them. It's just the typical counts-as debate: If you can make it look good and sensical, then go for it.

it depends. I've seen an Adeptus Mechanicus army built up using the tyanid codex. "gaunts" were used to represent the basic skitarii and various servitor drone models, whilst the tyranid MCs were used to represent various bio-mechanical AM constructs. All in all, it was converted beautifully, and extremely well painted.

On the other end of the scale, we did a game once where my mate borrowed my kroot and used them as banshees as a once off...

IMO, in your example, basic guard representing a genestealer cult infestation seems fine. using standard cadian models works... but its boring. if you want to run with this, i'd suggest properly modelling it up. extra arms, claws, tentacles, various mutations etc.

As long as you paint it up with a consistent theme and don't do anything that obviously models for advantage (Cult Magus as Zoanthrope, Patriarch as Hive Tyrant, etc.), you're all good.

Plus, so long as you spend effort on it, you're simply better than those that field Blood Omegas and UltraKnights and Ultra Wolves and Ultra Templars and other color contrivances.

usernamesareannoying wrote:for instance... ive seen people use infantry from guard in a tyranid list to represent a genestealer cult. the stats are the same or similiar but its the wrong model. do you find this annoying or tend to think its ok? the reason i ask is because i often find myself really liking models from different armies but hating their background or the rest of their army. id like to use different models from different armies together using a single army list like i mentioned in the cult example. any thoughts on how this would go in a tournament setting?

For one thing, you need to learn to not give a crap about what other people think (Most people wont give a crap if you want to proxy) this is your hobby as well as everyone elses'. Your in this hobby because you obviously like it so don't conform to anything less then what you like and think is cool. If I ever gamed with you and you wanted to use a guardsman instead of a carnifex I'd tell you "hell yeah, chuck that sucker on!" if not for you then atlease for the craps and giggles of having a guardsmen carnifex.

As for tournaments rules are a bit more strict with WYSIWYG rules, but then again that takes the hobby to a whole new direction to where you are being competitive and your opponent deserves the respect of having the game pieces you say you do.

"Proxying" is not necessarily the same as "Counts As".

It's a minor thing to realize, but it's important in the context of this discussion.

When one is discussing a "Counts As" army, it is usually done with a distinct and coherent theme in mind. The "Genestealer Cult" example that is given would likely be used in such a way that there is a distinct organization to it, not just random models thrown together and it called a day.

In a tournament setting?
The first one would likely be okay, provided you haven't done too much which could be considered "modeling for advantage"(i.e. Cult Magus as Zoanthropes) and the theme is a bit logical. Guardsmen with Lasguns as Termagants, Guardsmen with CCW/pistols as Hormagaunts, Ogryn as Warriors, etc.
The second one would likely be heavily marked down to the point where you might as well not even have bothered to put it down on the table. The less intuitive your system of "Counts As", the more obnoxious it is for the other player.

There are lots of converted models and armies in use and on average they are significantly better modeled/painted than other armies. As long as its easy enough to follow, doesn't significantly alter their gaming (LOS changes can be a big deal), then it's more than acceptable.

As its been pointed out you may have issues with tournaments, so keep in mind any effort, money, and time put into that army may only be for fun play or painting competitions.

Some stuff its a natural to use as something else when you play.
I always field plague bearers as lesser demons in my deathgaurd list. They dont really make a lesser demon model for the chaos marines codex so these are a natural stand in.
Its fine if the models are converted and painted a bit, or its a natural stand in the way the plague bearers are.

No.


How dare you use any sort of imagination and use any model except for what it is strictly intended.

The models are GW's property. they should only be uses as the great Wort commands.

You have to buy and paint all SM chapters because SM minis are very diferent and may confuse people.

I'm also doind a cult as a personal project based on RT stuff and I plan using exactly 1 GW mini

Depends, Marines are all marines, and fluff has no place in the game rules, so to me any marine can play as any chapter/codex as long as it is WYSIWYG. For instance space wolves terminators with psicanons and halberds as grey knights.

Guardsmen as stealer, that i would not like so much unless they are converted or follow an army scheme or something.

I commonly play my Dark elf Corsairs as Hex Hunters for Legion of Everblight. Magnets are a god send considering the bases.

A good friend of mine plays his demon/ chaos army as Blood Angels, Space wolves. He even played them in the 'Ard boyz tournament last year as BA and no one cared.

This weekend I played against a Adeptus Mechanicus army, using the Necron Codex.
The necron warriors were using cadian models, with the Mechanicus type hoods greenstuffed over them, Annihilation Barges were Chimeras (modelled with the tesla cannons from the actual annibarge) Crypteks were Ogryns, with weapons fused into their arms, also with the Mechanicus hoods over them.

I didn't have a problem playing against them, nor did anybody else at the gaming club.
As long as it's obvious what model is representing what, and it's kept consistent across the army (not, these guardsmen are warriors, but these guardsmen are immortals) there should be no problem with it.

thanks all... i appreciate everyone's thoughts.

I recently say a battle report from Bell of Lost Souls where one guy was playing Night Lords with the Blood Angels codex. I couldn't see all the models weel enough, but I dont think he used any Blood Angels models. However, his army looked great and it was as easy to tell what were Assault Marines, Sanguinary Guard etc, as if he was using actual Blood Angels models. There were many people posting comments on the video (it was on youtube) of how using Night Lords as Blood Angels was heresy, and how they stopped watching when they heard counts-as. There were just as many people commenting on how good the army looked and saying it was nice to see some imagination being used. Also from a fluff point of view, it worked better than a CSM codex . I will soon be playing Raven Guard as Blood Angels (lots of fun painting Death Company and Sanguinary Guard up as Raven Guard) and will probably have the same problem, albeit to a smaller degree.

Yes. I don't like the Ogryn models, so I use Krootox instead. Also use Kroot as Penal Legionaries, harking back to the good old days of Kroot Mercenaries.

usernamesareannoying wrote:for instance... ive seen people use infantry from guard in a tyranid list to represent a genestealer cult. the stats are the same or similiar but its the wrong model. do you find this annoying or tend to think its ok? the reason i ask is because i often find myself really liking models from different armies but hating their background or the rest of their army. id like to use different models from different armies together using a single army list like i mentioned in the cult example. any thoughts on how this would go in a tournament setting?

As I say in most of these "What is acceptable" rules. It really depends on the group you are playing with.

There's a big difference between what is and is not allowable/acceptable depending on both the location you are playing, and the familiarity you have with the opponent.

My own general concept is that models should be generally easy to identify. So, proxies such as model replacement, while acceptable, should be limited in scope. At most 2 different types of figures would be acceptable, and the models proxying them should be very distinct from each other.

Even in my own level of proxying (which is very high, as I use tubes, paper tanks, and other things that get me alot of hate) I follow the concept that proxy's should be identifiable. (As such my tubes have pictures of the proxied unit, and even have the name of the unit on the tube itself, making it really identifiable). My paper tanks are made to at a minimum be generically recognizable as such once you are told what they are.