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.

I don't think people understand the difference between the phrase counts as and a proxy model. In fact after reading this thread I would definitely say that is true.

thehod wrote:Some guys that have a CSM army but do nothing to make special conversions and when C:CSM came out, they immediately just became codex marines.

Fixed your typo.

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Do you have a link to that..or is that a joke?

Sorry no link. Cant find it at the moment, but itwas all models modeled up as a hockey team, and the bus as the transport and such. Nicely done. But Over the top in what I would consider too much counts as. It was one GT back in the early 2000's sometime. 2001? I dont recall.

malfred wrote:
Neutral observer? He didn't ask for your judgment on his reasons, just the counts as rule

The OP quite clearly asked for the opinion of the casual onlooker or opponent when faced with these stand in models, the end of the first post even saying something to the effect of "what would you say when faced with them".

Isn't it possible that motives influence the counts-as rule? Why do they have to be separate?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

carmachu wrote:Like a soda bottle for a carnifex?

Hello boys!




I hope someone gets the reference...

TSOALR. Turn signals on a landraider strip.


I think this thread is getting a bit confused between proxy(HBMC's example and 1-2 more) and Counts as- lik ethe orignial poster showed with fully painted and converted models.

I think if it's similar size and all of the actual equipment is WYSIWYG you can get away just fine (i.e. away with the Storm Bolters if they don't have them). I usually upsize a little and that shuts up any naysayers. I'm working on a Nurgle Daemon army using Orks as Plaguebearers, but each boy will have something that looks like a Plaguesword and will have tons of green stuff detail (missing limbs, one eye, one horn) and no guns. Night Goblins (Nurgle Cultists) = Nurglings easily enough, and my warboss being carried by goblins on a throne with a scroll with tallymarks and a giant sword makes an easy Epidemius.

carmachu wrote:
I think this thread is getting a bit confused between proxy(HBMC's example and 1-2 more) and Counts as- lik ethe orignial poster showed with fully painted and converted models.

Honestly, I don't see any real difference, and I'd be okay with either. I like the idea of a chunk of two-by-four with "I am a Rhino" sharpied into the top of it. Bonus points for drawing windows and a hatch on the back. I have an expensive army and am paying for the "privilege" of playing a silly little game, but that doesn't mean I expect others to have to do the same thing. Long as we all agree the proxied/counts-as/whatever occupies the same physical dimensions as what it is meant to represent, it's cool.

I'm fine with proxy and 'counts as' models, so long as they are easily identifiable as 'different' from the other stuff in the army. Going back to the OP, I would be fine with those jetbikes proxying TWC... so long as the actual jetbikes in the army looked significantly different.

Failing that, then some sort of placard will be necessary so I can readily distinguish the 'counts as TWC' bikes from the 'these actually are jetbikes.' It's only common courtesy to make sure your stuff is easily identifiable as what it is.

i have a count as unit, a squad of twenty plague zombies that count as spinegaunts in my tyranid army. they get led around by a zoanthrope brood that uses their psycic powers to keep the squad of dead boies walking around. ive never used their spinefists (its jsut the cheapest weapon a gaunt can have....)

would any of you have a problem with this?

To me personally a masterful execution of the proposed theme is all the reason I need.

BrookM wrote:To me personally a masterful execution of the proposed theme is all the reason I need.

+1

I'm all for counts-as. I've played my exodite eldar as codex eldar, space wolves, and dark eldar. I think the rules for each provides a nice flavor that adds to the theme of the army and it's different unique incarnations. I've never had issues with my opponents nay-saying me and if they talk about me behind my back, at least they don't have a problem playing my counts-as army. The club I'm a member of has made it clear that I should use codex eldar for tournaments, which I don't have a problem doing.

As for proxies, I'd have a problem playing empty bases, beer bottle caps, empty soda bottles, and blank 2x4's unless models were left at home and we were allowed to add to our forces by contributing said beer bottle caps and soda bottles after they were consumed. That being said, I'm the first to remember that it's a game and if you don't have the boot, car, dog, moneybag, iron, or thimble to play, find something that's about the same size and shape and let's get rolling dice.

Frazzled wrote:

squilverine wrote:Everyone will have their own ideas of what is acceptable and what isn't. As far as I can see there tends to be four main reasons for "counts as"

1 The actual model doesn't exist, so another is used to represent them
2 A change of rules has made someones beautifuly painted army illegal, they don't want to mess up their painting so they turn to "counts as"
3 The player does not have the money to update his force or buy new models
4 A player wants to try out a new unit using counts as models before comiting to purchase them.

There are probably more but I cant think of them right now.

I don't have too much of a problem as long as either an effort has been made to at least make the model look like what it is trying to represent or that it is a similar equivilant. Also that these are clearly agreed and noted before any game, nothing is worse than playing someone who's marines keep turning from devastators to assualt marines whenever it suits them.

Fpr spme reason this thread has reminded me of the episode of Bottom where Ritchie and Eddie decide to have a game of chess using Ritchies antique board, unfortuanately Eddie has pawned most of the peices to pay for booze so they use frozen prawns as pawns, a bottle of ketchup for a rook and a Spiderman bubble bath for a Queen!

You forgot #5 and a prime driver of the original gaming set-conversions to do something different.

Thats very true. And I think with either army, if you want to play your friends with it, it should be completely fine. However if I showed up at a tournament to throw down the objections raised above regarding the bikes, and the confusing nature of the GS army as well, would be valid.

I have used proxies with friends to test stuff out, but I shouldn't expect someone to accept anything I decide to count as if it doesn't bear a close representation to the actual model at hand, or some rather cool thematic similarity. For example - if someone really wanted to create jungle space wolves, and have fenrisian wolves as cold ones, and TWC as Carnosaurs or Stegadons or some such thing, and they did it right with the models well done, even if not painted? Awesome, I would be totally cool with that, and I think that most players, even at tournaments, would be as well - everything would be identifiable, distinct and cool. If they decided that riding on top of a 4x4 would be ok? Not nearly as awesome, nor as thematic, nor as identifiable - possible issues. Thats the issues with the jetbikes here.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Can I ask a stupid and really off-topic question.

At that link, there is a map of the 40K Milky Way. It has a blow-out to two different systems - Anti-Mar and Angelus. How did you make those pics?

No problem, I did that with the following:

Celestia for the planets (Just get a good shot of a planet, screenshot and use Photoshop to crop)
http://www.shatters.net/celestia/

Random Google search for the deep space backgrounds

Photoshop to overlay each


I also made icons to show planet control, etc etc...but that's for when we roll the campaign out . On a completely different note, I can't applaud Celestia enough. If you have children (Or you're a star geek)...that's a definite download. My kids love it, surfing the Milky Way with a mouse .


WhiteDragon: I'm actually working on a mechanical lion idea . The Heresy bikes are now being used to represent the Scars command squad accompanying Khan under siege at Terra (Damaged and in disrepair, so they speed up slowly, etc). I'll be bringing that force to Adepticon this year, along with the Primarch. I hope I don't have issues! I hope being able to say "Everything is WYSIWYG in my army, except THESE ARE TWC! " will disperse any confusion. I'm also considering making a laminated sheet to track wounds in the unit so my opponent can see at a glance who is wounded in each unit...dunno yet though.

On the original subject, I can understand those whom are less forgiving for Counts As even if I'm more of the 'everything goes' type. The only restraint I really have is they fail to point out before the game what is what. Other than that, if it makes you happy playing World Eater Space Wolves....hell it's just a pile of rules made for cool models. With the sudden flood of companies making bit components (and alternate models)...I see Counts As as the future.

Regardless, it's obviously a continuum and not a straight line. Wherever you fit on that continuum, it will be subjective to opinion..not unlike the others. What I'm more interested in (and why I started this thread)...was a common set of criteria players judge counts as armies with.

Defiler wrote:

malfred wrote:
Neutral observer? He didn't ask for your judgment on his reasons, just the counts as rule

The OP quite clearly asked for the opinion of the casual onlooker or opponent when faced with these stand in models, the end of the first post even saying something to the effect of "what would you say when faced with them".

Isn't it possible that motives influence the counts-as rule? Why do they have to be separate?

Sorry, I was just pointing out that the tone of your post was rude, including the tone
of your follow up posts defending your opinion.

Hollismason wrote:I don't think people understand the difference between the phrase counts as and a proxy model. In fact after reading this thread I would definitely say that is true.

Psst.
Proxy models can be "counts as", and vice versa.

Good use of Counts-As: http://forums.eternityofwar.com/showthread.php?t=6034

Bad use of Counts-As: Thunder-Trygon Cavalry

bhsman wrote:Bad use of Counts-As: Thunder-Trygon Cavalry

That classifies as an awesome use of Counts-As.

The genestealer army is an army i would LOVE to play against, it has so much character. The jetbikes are also real nice
However, an army of bad painted Blue Marins (playing on the stereotypes), proxyed into for example Eldar, is too far. Way too far.

To tell the truth, I have a generic chapter of space marines that I use with whatever space marine codex I feel like playing at any given time.
I just let my opponent know what rule book I'll be using for them and we're good to go.
The army is WYSIWYG as far as weapons and upgrades go, but other than that, they're green and yellow with a Griffon on the shoulder pad.

i like them and would have no issues going up against them.
i can see an issue since they are very similar to an existing unit in the dex but if you pointed it out at the beginning of the game, which you clearly would have to, then it would be a non-issue in my eyes.

both of those forces are outstanding.

of course i have to throw in the obligatory internet "id smash them with a hammer" and "id punch you in the face if i had to play against them" responses.

IMHO the "Counts as" should at least match the background of the army thats being played the Celestial Lions bikes look awesome and because he was using as a "Counts as" Space Wolves force was entirely Kosher as thunderwolf cavalry

Orks use Boars yes thats fine....because they fit the character of the army.Now a CSM army that used Optimus Prime as a Warhound Titan with Plasma Blastgun and Vulcan Megabolter id have a problem and ask them to remove it WYSIWYG only goes so far and many players take the mickey.....

I reckon as long as it looks good then by all means use it and it works.

I also play against people that proxy models for other things as they contemplate buying something new for their army. To me, an Ork trukk can fill in for a rhino or a Leman Russ for a land raider. I'll do this in a friendly game or three against someone not sure if they want to fork out the cash from a limited budget for something unless they are sure they will use it enough to justify the purchase.

IMO, if you have spend a 100 hours converting an army themed army, that looks amazing and has no tagged on rules, just whats in a codex then that is not just fine but interesting

its also the only way to field some forces with lots of fluff but no rules like:
genestealer cult
mechanicus explorer fleets
xeno inquisitor
planet living elder
squats

on the using a SM codex to field a CSM army its a bit iffy but if its theme based instead of power play based then i would be fine with it, such as:
pre heresy world eater army using a blood angels codex
aplha legion using IG codex with converted storm troopers as CSM but with no rule change


I think the most important part is who you're playing against, if they are getting angry at stuff like the ones i've posted, they are d-bags and i would not want to play with them.

Those bikes do not remind me any way, shape, or form of Thunder Wolf Calvary. I have to say the lack of a ridden beast is what does it in. The "ork" army presents similar issues. They're beautiful, but confusing. Also, Leman Russ tanks are not large enough to be a stand in for battlewagons.

I'll keep it simple the more awesome a unit looks the more likly you'll let it "count as".

This is just my opinion, and I'll probably get blasted for it, but, oh well.

My personal opinion is that "counts as" is the stupidest thing GW has ever done.
Now, I understand that the only way to use some armies(derived from a fluff perspective) is to use them as a counts as, which I don't normally see a problem with.
However, my opinion is that if you want to play Space Wolves(or any other army that has a codex, for that matter), then just play that army. In a one off game I would probably let someone proxy one army for another, but not in a tournament. And, most likely would only play against it once. The OP's army comes to mind as my example. For a Celestial Lions SM army using SW rules, I would expect to see an army converted and painted as Lion themed SW...i.e in the case of TWC, I would expect to see SM riding Lions, or some type of Cyber Lion, and not a bike/jetbike. Note, I am not singling out the OP, just using his example as mine.

I also understand that some of us(myself included) are under a severely limited budget, and can't afford to be swapping armies very often. I just always try to make sure I'm going to enjoy the army that I choose. In the days before "counts as", if you wanted to play something different, you just had to suck it up and face the fact that you didn't have any special rules for your army.

Anyways, that's just my opinion.

Lord Alaric wrote:...In the days before "counts as", if you wanted to play something different, you just had to suck it up and face the fact that you didn't have any special rules for your army.....

Or you had the option to just play with people who were cool with counts as without it being Chapter Approved or what-not.

To each their own, I suppose.

I'm a pretty casual wargamer myself. All I really need to know is what special rules your army is using, and which units they apply to. So long as I know that and can tell your units apart easily, I'm cool with it.

In a tournament, I would not be surprised to see the judges be much tighter on things, though.

AgeOfEgos wrote:Does "Counts As" armies tick you off?

if a player were to sit down across from you and say "I'm using the SW dex for my Heresy marines, everything is WYSIWYG except the Heresy jetbikes represent TWC"...would you rage?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Gorgon%27s_Genestealer_Cult

I'm generally good with Counts As, and do a fair amount of this myself.

SW are an extreme variant, and not a suitable basis for "Heresy" marines - C: CSM or C: BT are. And those bikes look absolutely nothing like Cavalry models - they look like Jetbikes! If playing a WS army, I could see you playing as C: DA Ravenwing or C: SM, but not Woofs. Quite frankly, this is going too far beyond reasonableness. If someone made some lame story about how their WS army played as SW, just so they can field "uber" TWC, I'd be OK to play against it in casual play, but I'd ride them all game about it and also in the AAR. This is pretty much a a poster child example of "bad" counts as.

The Genestealer Orks are good counts as.

The difference is that good counts as armies are simple, and don't have strong precedents for how they "should" be played. If using something with roots, don't stray so far afield.

As always YMMV.