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.

Guitardian wrote: More to the point though, I think it says something about the player and the type of game. It is a WAAC competative thing to do.

Playing different armies with WYSIWYG models is not a WAAC thing to do. I don't know why WAAC even enters into this. I've used my Chaos Marines to proxy--WYSIWYG of course--CSM, SW, and BA. Proxying different armies can come around because you want to play the new shinydex, you want a change of pace from your "old" army, or because you simply get sick of doing the same thing all the time and hop around between newer and older codices. I've seen and done all 3.

That's not Win-At-All-Costs. It's arguably not even competitive as jumping onto the 'new thing' by definition means that you've got less time invested in it and aren't as familiar with the army or the build--you could easily be taking a step down in how 'competitively' you can play.

WAAC seems to be the rallying cry of the WAAC player, as if the first person to scream it at the other guy suddenly holds the moral high ground and their inevitable loss (with the same 4ed army that they've been doggedly adhering to for the last 5 years) is now invalid because they somehow got chipmunked by a new codex again (and never mind that they've lost to the same new codices for the last 5 books running).

Perhaps "at all costs" is a bit harsh, I concede that. However, it does seem to be one of those costs of "all costs" to be playing the absolutely most up to date fresh version of power armor that you can get, at the risk of having everyone know you are shamelessly jumping on the latest cheesewagon for a win.

Again, I don't hear of anyone using BA as C:SM, or use the C:CSM codex for their BA, just the other way around. I have played against a guy who brought his unpainted, sometimes half constructed power armors, sometimes even with a weapon to our weekly league games. Over the course of a year the guy never really got much done investing in his power armor, but that was the span of time when SW suddenly became cool and sure enough, now those are all SW feet charging at me. Then BA was released in a couple months and he tried that too, until he found they were not as good for his play style - which amounted to "take all of the best stuff and go roll dice" - so he wasn't slaughtering as much at the weekly league games, so he went back to SW. What is that if it isn't a part of those "all costs"? It definitely wasn't a shift to make the game any more fun for anyone, or experiment around modelling wolf bits and pieces, just for his win-loss ratio.

Guitardian wrote:Really this kind of "problem" can only exist among the variant SM chapters, as are the only armies that use the same figures with different books. Blood Angels use Space Marines figures for everything but their unique BA/SW only things. It's the power armor. If I played SM and just wanted an easier game, sure I would just use the BA Codex. Suddenly my devastators are cheaper and my assault squads are troops and all my vehicles are faster and my dreadnought can teleport and my LR can deep strike and so on. Neat! Why not? No faction in the game other than Marine variants in their standard issue power armor (all 5-7 of them depending on if you consider GK or CSM too) even has this option. That is why I think it is unfair.

More to the point though, I think it says something about the player and the type of game. It is a WAAC competative thing to do. Some players like to play that kind of game. Fine with me. I don't though. When I play with my toys I like to play with MY toys.

So be it, drag out the greys and soda cans and stuff too while you're at it. If I want a truly competative game I will play chess. If I want to play with cool toys I will use the cool toys I have because I have them because I like my cool toys, and I will not worry that a different toy might be better than my toy, since my toy is cool, otherwise I wouldn't have wanted it.

If anyone doesn't think it is a competative/WAAC choice, please try to find a single SW or BA collection being used with C:SM rules and I will stand corrected.

1) You have a fundamental misunderstanding of 40k if you truly believe that Blood Angels are strictly better than Space Marines.
2) I am glad you are around to let people know they are having fun wrong, what would we do without people like you?

I play test armies before I buy them. But I don't codex hop. I want to have a loyal marine army.

Guitardian wrote: Again, I don't see anyone using BA as C:SM but plenty of people do the opposite from what I have read.

You don't see that now, but in 2008 when C:SM was the new kid, there were plenty of BA armies using that codex. Over on B&C they developed a sort of custom mix codex that had three levels of mixing the shiny new C:SM with the pdf BA codex.

One of the reasons I would use the BA dex is to use the Stormraven model... Tell me how that is a competitive choice...

Almost everybody that have whined in this thread have whined over one of the following:
1- It's unpainted forever (and/or unbuilt etc)
2- It's not WYSIWYG
3- People only do it to win
4- I can't play and need to shout loudly that my opponents all win because they play a new codex.
4b - WAAA, I don't play space marines, and when I can't do it, nobody can.

Read what the OP posted in the first post:

so for the sake of this thread I'm specifically refering to Space Marine (edit: and Chaos Space Marine) armies where the army is mostly WYSIWYG and the owner uses codicies other than what is reflected in the army's paintjob. DA as wolves, Ultras as BA, etc, etc.

He is talking about WYSIWYG armies and painted armies. The guys most of the whiners in this thread describe are just general poor opponents, and should not be confused with "regular guys" that take advantage of multiple rulesets for the same figures to open up much more possibilities with their models.

As for nr 4+4b, suck it up, learn to play and stop whining.

Guitardian wrote:Again, I don't see anyone using BA as C:SM but plenty of people do the opposite from what I have read.

I jump back and forth. If I want to play with bikes, I go C:SM, if I want to go dreadnought-heavy, I can go C:SM or C:BA, if I want to play shooty mech, I go BA, if I want to play gunline, I play BT etc.

Guitardian wrote:It is a WAAC competative thing to do.

WAAC /= competitive.

Competitive players are the best opponents IMO. They usually give exciting games, know the rules, are usually good sports and they are usually graceful in both defeat and when they win.
WAAC players is another beast, poor sports, shady or outright cheating moves etc.
Please don't use those terms about the same thing.

Guitardian wrote:Perhaps "at all costs" is a bit harsh, I concede that. However, it does seem to be one of those costs of "all costs" to be playing the absolutely most up to date fresh version of power armor that you can get, at the risk of having everyone know you are shamelessly jumping on the latest cheesewagon for a win.

Again, I don't hear of anyone using BA as C:SM, or use the C:CSM codex for their BA, just the other way around. I have played against a guy who brought his unpainted, sometimes half constructed power armors, sometimes even with a weapon to our weekly league games. Over the course of a year the guy never really got much done investing in his power armor, but that was the span of time when SW suddenly became cool and sure enough, now those are all SW feet charging at me. Then BA was released in a couple months and he tried that too, until he found they were not as good for his play style - which amounted to "take all of the best stuff and go roll dice" - so he wasn't slaughtering as much at the weekly league games, so he went back to SW. What is that if it isn't a part of those "all costs"? It definitely wasn't a shift to make the game any more fun for anyone, or experiment around modelling wolf bits and pieces, just for his win-loss ratio.

So one guy you played against was slightly noobish and tried to hop on bandwagons but wasn't successful.

AKA: He's not the best player, so he went back to one army and stuck with it as he was better at it than the other one he tried?...
I'm really not sure what your complaint is.
Are you saying because he bought one army he should be doomed to use it and only it ever? It's a game of plastic men, he didn't buy the SW a ring and ask their father's permission.
Trying something new is not WAAC.
Not liking something new and going back to what you enjoy/are good at isn't WAAC.
It's called playing a game and seeing what you like.
This is like saying I picked Ryu in Street Fighter the first time I played, so now I'm never allowed to pick Ken.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Guitardian wrote: were not as good for his play style - which amounted to "take all of the best stuff and go roll dice"

I assume when building an army list you prefer to choose only the worst units available?

I think the reason for some variation to the OP question is because some of us don't see his exact situation, but are seeing something similar. I don't see fully painted, WYSIWYG armies and codex hopping. I do see half/unpainted armies with proxies in this codex hopping situation. With the release of the GK codex, I forcast I will soon be facinng off against a bunch of proxied GK models and yet be another case of figuring out what I'm playing against.

If I actually saw what the OP is asking, I wouldn't care. However, what he is asking is what I think is the exception rather than the rule.

I don't mind people codex hopping at all, gives me the chance to wreck the new codex or adapt and then wreck it. has to be WYSIWYG gear at least though, proxies are so confusing to me.

So many people ridin' on their high horses in here, I'm assuming most of the fluffy people don't attend tournaments, and then by all means just refuse to play the game with people who codex hop. Or even play them and sit there making grumbling noises the whole time to make 'em feel bad. Again getting mad at people who play how they want to within all legality is just like people that complain about how people could like music they don't like, oh the horror of someone with a different taste!! You don't like it, we get it. Don't berate or degrade people who do it.

As for tournament play, WYSIWYG is all that matters.

I'm painting my SM army in a special color scheme, that is no where near BA, but I intend to use the BA rules, since I'm told they are the SM codex of choice if you want a CC army, which I do.

Illumini Quoted:

WAAC /= competitive.

To me this is the following:
"Competitive person with an Attitude = WAAC"

As I have stated before it is "those" kinds of people that ruin the game for all of us.

There is nothing wrong in being competitive. Losing games and learning the reason why you lost is the main way of perfecting your game play skills.

Adam LongWalker wrote: There is nothing wrong in being competitive.

You'd never know that when reading gak like Dakka, though.

Adam LongWalker wrote: Illumini Quoted:

WAAC /= competitive.

To me this is the following:
"Competitive person with an Attitude = WAAC"

You can be 'WAAC TFG' and not actually be "competitive".

I have definitely played against people for whom not winning induces seizures and brain anneurisms, but I would not consider those people competitive, as in, winning is a skill set that requires practice and continuous revision and fine tuning. Those people only exhibit competitive behavior, as in, not winning results in a stroke-out and throwing of models.

I had a friend who started a marine army, and he codex hops. He also cheats like a melon-fether. for example, he was the first person i ever played. I didnt have an army at that point, so i played his orks. He played BA. he had a list 50 points over than mine (and the points limit, 500pts), he took Sanguinary preists as squad leaders (which he told me was legal, and i didnt know any better) and he rushed me into rolling for CC, making me unintentionally skip my shooting phase, then telling me i cant shoot becuase i skipped the phase. etc. etc.

Due to this guys behavior, i am now throughly against codex hoping. IMO, people like this shouldnt play. I almost dropped the game entirely because of this first game. The only thing that kept me on was the prospect of converting.

What about that scenario you detailed can possibly be attributable to codex hopping?

I proxy.
I "Counts as."
I codex hop.

I have no shame in it.

My group has no issue with any of it. We're all friends and realize that we're in it for the FUN of the game and the SOCIALIZATION. We're not elitists who act like it's the end of the hobby if your army isn't perfectly WYSIWYG.

I proxy & "count as" because it's silly to spend more money than I already have on a models I'm not going to use, but a few times.
As for Codex hopping... It's not the "desperate to win" thing, as some have accused. I don't mind losing, provided the game's fun. Rather, it's the "OMGTHATLOOKSSOFUN!" factor.

It's silly to me that some people feel the need to deride and degrade others for not meeting their standards of what's acceptable in a game of mandollies.

Eric

Eric

sourclams wrote:What about that scenario you detailed can possibly be attributable to codex hopping?

well, the general attitude is the same between the codex hoppers i know, hes just the most extreme case


Edit: it strikes me now that i should have mentioned that in my initial post....

Obsidian Raven wrote:I had a friend who started a marine army, and he codex hops. He also cheats like a melon-fether. for example, he was the first person i ever played. I didnt have an army at that point, so i played his orks. He played BA. he had a list 50 points over than mine (and the points limit, 500pts), he took Sanguinary preists as squad leaders (which he told me was legal, and i didnt know any better) and he rushed me into rolling for CC, making me unintentionally skip my shooting phase, then telling me i cant shoot becuase i skipped the phase. etc. etc.

Due to this guys behavior, i am now throughly against codex hoping. IMO, people like this shouldnt play. I almost dropped the game entirely because of this first game. The only thing that kept me on was the prospect of converting.

Sounds like you need better friends.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MagickalMemories wrote:I proxy.
I "Counts as."
I codex hop.

I have no shame in it.

My group has no issue with any of it. We're all friends and realize that we're in it for the FUN of the game and the SOCIALIZATION. We're not elitists who act like it's the end of the hobby if your army isn't perfectly WYSIWYG.

I proxy & "count as" because it's silly to spend more money than I already have on a models I'm not going to use, but a few times.
As for Codex hopping... It's not the "desperate to win" thing, as some have accused. I don't mind losing, provided the game's fun. Rather, it's the "OMGTHATLOOKSSOFUN!" factor.

It's silly to me that some people feel the need to deride and degrade others for not meeting their standards of what's acceptable in a game of mandollies.

Eric

Eric

Kind of like when people on Dakka derided and degraded someone (and possibly advocated assault against) for not wanting to play against a codex they see as bad and not fun.

or maybe that was "different".

I would say remember the lovely page Hitler Ate Sugar. TFG donkey-caves tend to be codex hoppers, just as they tend to play certain armies. However, bear in mind that just because those TFG donkey-caves are codex hoppers and play internet lists does not mean all codex hoppers are TFG donkey-caves, just like not all Space WOlf, IG, Grey Knight or Blood Angel players are TFGs. Some are, some aren't, wait till you play the person before you judge them.

Worglock wrote:

Kind of like when people on Dakka derided and degraded someone (and possibly advocated assault against) for not wanting to play against a codex they see as bad and not fun.

or maybe that was "different".

Remember, anyone who plays 'different' than you deserves to be derided and degraded. Insulting those you disagree with gives you the moral highground.

The key point some people seem to be missing is the "My group has no issue with any of it." Opponents consent goes a long way and when the group consents, then all is good... And respecting that not all people/groups/clubs/stores/events play the game the same way as you do and asking permission instead of demanding compliance goes a long way. The only way to be accepted 100% of the time is meeting the highest standard... a Fully painted WYSIWYG army.

Just because one person consents, doesn't mean it makes it fair to use proxies against everyone in all situations. Many proxies and counts as are VERY abusive and burdensome to opponents and you shouldn't force a burden on an unwilling opponent especially in a competitive environment where every mental CPU cycle wasted on deciphering your models is something your opponent can spend on the game itself.

Good everymarine armies work great and are accepted. Bad ones work terribly and are hated. Rule of cool reigns supreme. The thing is you can play an everymarine army without using codexes or unfair counts as. All it means is you may have one or two codex specific units per codex and a few extra models.

Obsidian Raven wrote:

sourclams wrote:What about that scenario you detailed can possibly be attributable to codex hopping?

well, the general attitude is the same between the codex hoppers i know, hes just the most extreme case

You showed me nothing in your post that equated 'codex hopping' to being a cheating, douchebag dick.

The real problems are

a) Constant switching. Say you play someone at your LGS who gets into marines. Sure their weapons are WYSIWYG. But, one week they are space wolves, the next Blood Angels, back to space wolves, then to vanilla marines, then grey knights, then space wolves, then dark angels... you will be finding you have to ask EVERY GODDAMN GAME what is what. "Oh, gak... I thought those were tactical marines, not grey hunters! I wouldn't have charged grey hunters. Goddammit!"

b) The wannabe bs comments of "But it makes more sense, it fits to the fluff better" Guys like Goatboy on BoLS are notorious and basically hated now because of it. I am sorry, but blood angels do NOT represent Khorne chaos marines better. Neither do Space Wolves. Your Word Bearers shouldn't be using Space Wolf rules. No, Thousand Sons are not better suited with GK rules. ANYONE AT ALL doing this is doing it 100% for rules and not at all for fluff. Fluff only matters in the context of the model. Rules are changed to abuse them. Don't kid the world that you're some fluff monkey when you clearly aren't.

I just have to agree with a lot of the posters. If you can do it, why can't my Tau use Dark Eldar rules? Why can't my eldar use guard rules? Hell, why even play with models? You COULD just put green army men on bases if you are just gonna switch every week anyhow. I can't tell if they are space wolves or blood angels or gk or deathwing any better then I can when you are switching constantly.

timetowaste85 wrote: I play WYSIWYG and don't have proxies, at most one or two.

Sorry but i laughed at that. I totally understand why people do it. And if your trying something out and its just a fun game with a mate you know well then have at it. But it's annoying to play against that's the underlying problem there 'is' always proxy as the player can not have the new big shiny that made him switch in the first place and it's the unique therefore it's always proxies.

I dont care if you pain Ultramarines Blue Pink or have orange grots. As long as it's lovingly done and is meant to be what was intended. Theres a massive difference about how your armies look which are 'counts as' armies and 'proxy' armies which are hard to look at and understand whats what. Again just personal but i really don't like playing unpainted grey masses.

Walls wrote:The real problems are

a) Constant switching. Say you play someone at your LGS who gets into marines. Sure their weapons are WYSIWYG. But, one week they are space wolves, the next Blood Angels, back to space wolves, then to vanilla marines, then grey knights, then space wolves, then dark angels... you will be finding you have to ask EVERY GODDAMN GAME what is what. "Oh, gak... I thought those were tactical marines, not grey hunters! I wouldn't have charged grey hunters. Goddammit!"

You can't keep track of what army you're fighting with WYSIWYG models? I fail to see how that's the other guy's fault. I've played against WYSIWYG Grey Hunters painted in Salamanders colors and never once have I thought I was up against Vulkan.

b) The wannabe bs comments of "But it makes more sense, it fits to the fluff better" Guys like Goatboy on BoLS are notorious and basically hated now because of it. I am sorry, but blood angels do NOT represent Khorne chaos marines better. Neither do Space Wolves. Your Word Bearers shouldn't be using Space Wolf rules. No, Thousand Sons are not better suited with GK rules. ANYONE AT ALL doing this is doing it 100% for rules and not at all for fluff. Fluff only matters in the context of the model. Rules are changed to abuse them. Don't kid the world that you're some fluff monkey when you clearly aren't.

Totally subjective comment.

I just have to agree with a lot of the posters. If you can do it, why can't my Tau use Dark Eldar rules? Why can't my eldar use guard rules? Hell, why even play with models? You COULD just put green army men on bases if you are just gonna switch every week anyhow. I can't tell if they are space wolves or blood angels or gk or deathwing any better then I can when you are switching constantly.

Why no Tau for DE? Because they're not WYSIWYG. Eldar can't use Guard rules because the wargear is not WYSIWYG. Nids can't be Marines for the same reason. Pink Space Marines modeled with bolter, chainsword, and bp have no problem bouncing between Space Wolves and Chaos Marines. Sorry you don't like it, but ultimately your beef is with a guy who stuck with a generic template that GW continuously rewards.

I have issue with your point of b, it's not entierly true. It's nice to have fluff with rules as well as models. Guardsmen are expendible and thus are T3 with a 5+ armor save. They wouldn't be the same if they were T10 with a 2++. If I can better represent the fluff of a certain set of models with a different rule set, I think I should be allowed to do so. As long as I'm internally consistent and it makes sense, I don't see a problem.

I also think your problem isn't with proxying, but with people who don't use the models ordained for a specific purpouse. If I want to play Blood Angels, but play them not with Blood Angels models, but with different, WYSIWYG models in a manner that makes sense with the fluff, what's wrong with that?

Pink Space Marines with Bolter, Chainsword and Bolt Pistol can't be tactical space marines then... but people always use tactical space marines as Grey Hunters.

It's not just gear. There are a ton of rules each army has different. That forms your strategy. If you can't remember what the hell is what because that army was blood angels yesterday and space wolves last friday and the wednesday before was dark angels... that's your opponents fault, not yours.

Why can't eldar be guard? Just say their guns are Str 3 rapid fire. You're saying your marine has counter charge and acute senses one day and red thirst the next. No real difference.

My problem isn't with someone using tactical marines and making a space wolf army. It makes sense as you should NOT have to buy metal models just to make a unit when you can make them in plastic. HOWEVER, my problem is those armies are never just that one. In the context of this thread and the OPs post, we are talking about constant hopping to whatever book will work better that day. So, inherently, it's not the gear change that's the sore spot, it's the rules changes. Not knowing wtf they are is just as bad as not knowing what the gun they have is.

sourclams wrote:Why no Tau for DE? Because they're not WYSIWYG. Eldar can't use Guard rules because the wargear is not WYSIWYG. Nids can't be Marines for the same reason. Pink Space Marines modeled with bolter, chainsword, and bp have no problem bouncing between Space Wolves and Chaos Marines. Sorry you don't like it, but ultimately your beef is with a guy who stuck with a generic template that GW continuously rewards.

But when your Pink space marines modeled with bolter, chainsword, and BP bounce from spacewolves to Chaos Marines, then you better have all the chaos space marine codex specific units. Your terminators are not obliterators just because they have a 2+ save, and your scouts are not daemons because they both kinda are sneaky and lightly armored, your plain marines don't have FNP as they are not plague marines, and your space marine dred is not a daemonprince because they are both 'big'.

The issue is people feel anything in power armor clearly can be anything else in power armor and claim they are WYSIWYG even when the weapons are wrong and the special rules of the unit are not represented in any way when they clearly can be.

80% of these posts are "Yeah I get beaten by marines alot, and that makes me label them *cheesy*, so by some failed property of association, I am now against codex hopping"

Walls wrote:Pink Space Marines with Bolter, Chainsword and Bolt Pistol can't be tactical space marines then... but people always use tactical space marines as Grey Hunters.

It's not just gear. There are a ton of rules each army has different. That forms your strategy. If you can't remember what the hell is what because that army was blood angels yesterday and space wolves last friday and the wednesday before was dark angels... that's your opponents fault, not yours.

Why can't eldar be guard? Just say their guns are Str 3 rapid fire. You're saying your marine has counter charge and acute senses one day and red thirst the next. No real difference.

My problem isn't with someone using tactical marines and making a space wolf army. It makes sense as you should NOT have to buy metal models just to make a unit when you can make them in plastic. HOWEVER, my problem is those armies are never just that one. In the context of this thread and the OPs post, we are talking about constant hopping to whatever book will work better that day. So, inherently, it's not the gear change that's the sore spot, it's the rules changes. Not knowing wtf they are is just as bad as not knowing what the gun they have is.

So let me get this straight. If it's wysiwyg but not painted correctly, you can't tell the difference?

Sounds like you either like to tailor your lists or you shouldn't leave your padded room.