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 think Somnicide has a clear and cogent position, and he’s been very patient with some unfriendly digs. During 3rd edition I think I recall GW tournament rules expressing very similar opinions.

I do think, however, that it’s a position that is not entirely in keeping with GW’s more recent instructions with regard to paint scheme vs. special rules. The 4th ed codex was very clear that you could choose to play an Ultramarines army with traits if you wanted to, and that a chapter that had specific traits could also just choose to play without traits. And as was linked above, the current tournament guidelines do expressly permit Counts As, as long as you’re careful and reasonable with it. So there’s some clear precedent of this being permitted and even endorsed by GW.

For me, the big point is WYSIWYG. If the units are appropriately represented, I’m cool with it. If some berserkers with CCW + plasma pistols are standing on a hill pretending to have missile launchers and be havocs, that is really not acceptable, any more than it would be for someone to bring an unpainted army to a GT.

Actually, there is a whole section in the rulebook devoted to what each army looks like, so it actually is in the rules. You have to have that rule or people just do whatever and then the game gets bogged down or there are unpleasant surprises.

Okay, let's see...

I want my green plastic soldiers to "count as" space marines. Is that acceptable?

or,

I want my daemonettes to count as plaguebearers in my daemon army because plaguebearers are better at holding objectives - it makes sense that they would have a high toughness and feel no pain cause they are into bondage and s&m. Is that acceptable?

or,

I want tyranids to count as orks

or,

I want these guardsmen weapon teams to count as obliterators.

or,

this shoebox is a landraider

I like knowing what I am facing at a tourney at a glance. I like the rules to be plain and obvious. I think if you start making exceptions there is no end to them.

For a home game or a game store game, as I have said repeatedly I don't give a damn. Use pennies, use hero clix, use CCG cards, use strips of paper. Whatever, I don't care go and have fun (I will play you, it will be a good time).

The OP asked about tourneys. My replies have been in a tourney setting. I still stand by that. Outside of a tourney setting do whatever and have fun with it.

edit: to clarify my thoughts on "counts as"

If someone has a great genestealer cult army and runs it "counting as" IG then that is fine as long as it is not confusing. There are no current rules for a genestealer army or hybrid models. There ARE rules for CSM models.

Does that make sense on the counts as thing at least from my point of view?

That daemonette vs plaguebearer example seems ironic, given that GW has given them exactly identical rules when used in a CSM army.

Yeah, I saw that coming, but then they are identical in a CSM list as lesser daemons. I will edit so it doesn't get strawmanned

Cool. Any response on the points about the GTs allowing "counts as" and the 4th ed codex expressly authorizing you to use multiple different rules for your SM?

Well, 5th edition codex is just around the corner and from the time I spent with it at the GT I didn't see anything to make me think it was anything but cool to still use marines but take a counts as korsorro khan for instance. Basically, the moral here is to do your own successor chapter then you can make it whatever you want because you opponents will have no preconceived notions as to what chapter it is.

I clarified a bit my thoughts on "counts as" above. It all comes down to what the tourney organizers say. I am a "by the rules" kind of guy and if the rules say it is fine for Black Templars to be used as regular codex Marines then fine, that is the rule and everyone is on the same page.

I still think that since CSM models represent something that exists in the game, I would not want to see it used as Space Marines. But if the tourney rules allow it such broad representations of counts as then I will follow the rules. I have no vested interest in it either way, I would defer to the rules. The big rule is WYSIWYG. I see a CSM I should be safe in assuming it is a CSM.

If I see a genestealer hybrid (or squat, er demiurg, or slaan) then those models don't represent anything currently in the ruleset and thus don't allow me to make assumptions based on what I am seeing.

Does that make sense?

So I suppose you would object to someone using the IW Warsmith model in their CSM army (using the CSM codex) too, right? Afterall, there is no "Warsmith" in C:CSM nor is anything in the codex allowed to take a servo-arm (which the model clearly has). That would put the warsmith model in the same category as all the invalid LatD armies, and therefore no longer kosher for tournament play, would it not?

And what about someone who has a SM army built right out of the box with all the appropriate imperial markings and color scheme, but instead of buying a metal chaplain model he makes his out of plastic bits from the SM tac squad box + the "skull" helmet from the CSM box. That's not WYSIWYG either then is it? I mean, that's clearly not a chaplain model - it's a plastic SM model with a CSM head!

Sigh.

Obviously and as I have stated above I wouldn't object to an IW Warsmith model. It doesn't currently have rules, so as long as you paid for the appropriate upgrades it would be fine. I might prefer that you pay for a power fist since that is what the servoarm represents. And if we were playing a pick up non tourney game I wouldn't care less.

And to your second example you are absolutely wrong and not reading anything I wrote. It is clearly a Chaplain because it has a skull helmet and is in loyalist army and the entire model is not a berzerker painted red. It is clearly a chaplain model.

edit:
And just to save some time: Yes, I personally destroyed the rain forests, am responsible for every species that has become extinct in the last century, crucify kittens, gave the bad information about WMDs in the desert, and kick puppies - especially the cute ones.

Just leave the guy alone. I don't 100% agree with him, but I see his point, as I think most of us do.

Horse. Dead. Beat.

Somnicide wrote:

kadun wrote:

Somnicide wrote:
At the end of a tournament I have trouble remembering what is in my own list.

You're entitled to your opinion. Given the above quote, however, I would question the weight of your opinion dealing with matters in a tournament setting.

And given your quote I doubt you play in tourneys at all :-)

The merit of you opinion continues to dwindle. Based on your previous posts it seems that your opposition to the original matter stems from that fact that you don't want to give your opponent a competitive edge, "you can't remember which model is which and might make a poor decision." As I said, again based on other posts you have made (like the one I quoted) it seems that you would not be a very competent tournament player if you cannot even remember your own list (good in game memory being an important skill in competitive gaming). That being said, the opinion of a non-competitive tournament player should not be given much weight in discussing any perceived competitive advantages based on the appearance of an army.

Once again, you are entitled to your opinion. I am curious, how did my statement lead you to conclude, incorrectly, that I don't play tourneys at all?

"preconceived notions as to what chapter it is. "

That right there is your entire problem. You have a very set preconceived notion about how things should look. Those notions supercede your ability to think "I know it looks like a CSM, but my opponant just said it is an SM by its rules, so I will treat it as an SM." You set your notions about what looks like what, and can not get past that.

That is silly. It really is. It is a SciFi-Fantasy setting. Hardly anything even makes sense in how it works, much less as part of an extremely defined system. Sure, the rule book has pictures of miniatures, but it doesn't say it HAS to look like those. It in fact suggests that you try chopping up models and converting them.

Beyond even that though, why can't you look at a nicely painted or converted army and play it despite it's rules? Why does it matter if the red marines use blue rules? All of your examples above are obviously fine, with the exception of the shoe box, which is not a miniature at all.

Take this for example: I have a friend who plays Daemons, but does not like the fact that you need to take a mix of gods to get a solid list. He decided he will use bloodletters with brass flame throwers as "flamers" and something else different that I don't recall... some daemon heresy. Why would you complain about that? If you don't, you are violating your rule about not changing the rules on miniatures, but at the same time violating your fluff sensibilities as stated.

Basically, you are saying it is everyone else's problem that you can't get past your own preconceptions and assumptions, no matter what they do to help you, so you would penalize them. I am pretty certain that makes you a very poor sport, but I suppose that would depend on the form one was filling out.

Somnicide wrote:Obviously and as I have stated above I wouldn't object to an IW Warsmith model. It doesn't currently have rules, so as long as you paid for the appropriate upgrades it would be fine.

But you CAN'T pay for the appropriate upgrades if you're using the CSM codex because it doesn't have servo-arms.

I might prefer that you pay for a power fist since that is what the servoarm represents.

The servo-arm represents a servo-arm. Isn't that the whole point of WYSIWYG?

And if we were playing a pick up non tourney game I wouldn't care less.

I'm not talking about a pick up non tourney game. So again, why don't you consider the IW Warsmith model just as invalid as a LatD mutant model for tourney play?

And to your second example you are absolutely wrong and not reading anything I wrote. It is clearly a Chaplain because it has a skull helmet and is in loyalist army and the entire model is not a berzerker painted red. It is clearly a chaplain model.

Why is a CSM model in a SM army "clearly" a chaplain, but a 10-man squad of CSM models in a SM army not "clearly" a tactical squad? What percentage of the model can be CSM before it becomes not WYSIWYG?

I think the point I'm trying to make is that if you're doing a traditional CSM Legion army, then you're going to have use "counts as". There's no way around it. Your Warsmith with servo-arm is going to have to "count as" a Chaos Lord with power fist, your Alpha Legion cultists are going to have to "count as" lesser daemons, your EC Terminators with sonic blasters are going to have to "count as" terminators with combi-bolters and a Slaanesh Icon, etc. So if you're going to have to do a "counts as" army anyway, why not shop around for the codex that best fits your army concept?

Somnicide: I find your position utterly confusing - maybe I'm a bit slow. Please offer correction to the following if any of my interpretations are wrong.

1. Pre-heresy era marine armies using the marine codex, modeled exclusively with the chaos marine kits. This is unacceptable, as the marine dex should be represented by using a significant quantity of the base marine kits and have loyalist insignia.

2. If the above is not acceptable, would it be acceptable with all chaos iconography removed. This would be confusing as there is now no insignia to represent allegiance, though the base kit would still be Chaos. As such, this is still not acceptable "counts as" for use with the Marine codex.

3. Heresy era (think Istvaan) renegade army using the marine codex, based on the chaos marine kits. This one is flat out unacceptable.

4. Chaos (renegade) army using the Chaos codex, represented by the base marine kits as recent converts. Good or bad? (Red Corsairs, Mantis Warriors, Lamenters etc.) This would only be acceptable if they contained a significant proportion of chaos bits and had defaced Imperial insignia. Renegade marines made exclusively from the marine kit would be unacceptable as they do not adequately represent chaos marines.

5. Using cultists to represent summoned daemons. Cultists have no rules. Generic daemons have no models, so I think this would probably be acceptable.

Please advise.

keezus wrote:1. Pre-heresy era marine armies using the marine codex, modeled exclusively with the chaos marine kits. This is unacceptable, as the marine dex should be represented by using a significant quantity of the base marine kits and have loyalist insignia.

But you can't use most of the base marine kits because none of the legions save the Emperor's Children were allowed to wear the aquila on the breastplate. Besides I'm pretty sure Mk6 and 7 armor had not been invented yet. Therefore you would only be able to use the Mk4 armor from the DA and BT kit. But then you would have to play using DA or BT rules. But BT hadn't been invented yet. So you could only use DA rules. So the only pre-heresy army you can use is DA with the DA codex. This is fun because they have a jetbike. Yay!

As long as I can tell without too much difficulty what the weapons are and what the models are I'm fine. If your spiky SM use non-spiky SM rules, and they have all the options modeled correctly, thats okay. If you say your rhino is a land raider, that's not okay.

I am done with this topic. I have said what I have to say, my point is clear. I do well enough at tourneys to have won more than one RTT in the LA area as well as a Best Sportsman in a GT so I am obviously not an idiot nor am I a jackass.

My opinion has been asked of and given.

Vaktathi wrote:So a CSM army, with a list that uses only models that have direct and clear counterparts in a Smurf army with a legal SM list would be totally out?

If the weapons look similar to SM weapons, or are otherwise clearly distinctive, I'd be OK with it.

Polonius wrote:what would you do if I brought a Space Marine list to the tournament, we played, but my force was modeled and themed as Night Lords?

I ask because while I really do understand your position (it was something GW drummed pretty heavily in 3rd and most of 4th), it does have a chilling effect on army creativity and the depth of modeling possibilities; two things that I think should be encouraged.

If you're playing something that matches Index Astartes: Night Lords in every detail, but play it as C: SM, I'd have problems with it, just as I'd have problems with a Dark Angels army in full insignia playing as something other than Dark Angels. OTOH, if you have a "Batwings Marines" army that uses a lot of NL bitz, but is otherwise different, then that's all OK.

GW pushed WYSIWYG to kill of the stuff like: "my skeletons are Space Marines, and this skeleton with the slightly darker head is a Librarian - er, no, oops, I meant *this* skeleton... - er, I'm sorry, I meant *that* skeleton on the other side of the board...".

I do see where you're coming from, Somnicide as the line has to be drawn somewhere, and I wouldnt like to play a tournament game with bottlecaps and shampoo bottles either. However, I think that the line should be a bit further That way. -->

Say that I was to use the loyalist plastic kit, and model on spikes with greenstuff. The backstory could be that they don't like anyone invading their private space. Would this be acceptable? Is your problem:
1. That their legion/backstory etc doesnt match their codex. (No IG being tyranids, etc..)
2. That the models were not created with their unit in mind (Are those raptor models Assault troops, vangurad vets etc..)
3. That you don't want to remember what is what in tourney play, and as such everything should be kept stock.

If its 1 or 2, then I agree to a point. However if its simply 3, then I think that is defeating the purpose of the modeling hobby.

But if they were a "batwing marines" army that uses lots of nightlords bits, but is otherwise different, then thats all OK.

So you problem seems to be fluff based. Say I was to change the logo so it was smiling, and nicknamed them The Iron Skulls would that be fine for you?

Mannahnin wrote:I think Somnicide has a clear and cogent position, and he’s been very patient with some unfriendly digs.

I do think, however, that it’s a position that is not entirely in keeping with GW’s more recent instructions with regard to paint scheme vs. special rules. The 4th ed codex was very clear that you could choose to play an Ultramarines army with traits if you wanted to, and that a chapter that had specific traits could also just choose to play without traits. And as was linked above, the current tournament guidelines do expressly permit Counts As, as long as you’re careful and reasonable with it. So there’s some clear precedent of this being permitted and even endorsed by GW.

For me, the big point is WYSIWYG. If the units are appropriately represented, I’m cool with it.

I would generally agree and would also agree with the note that certain posters are being unfair in how they're addressing things to Somnicide.

I believe that the question is what level of reasonableness one might assume. Ultramarines can have Traits or not, but they would be expected to follow C: SM (whatever the heck that means), as opposed to C: CSM or C: DA. Similarly, Fists could play as with the common Fists Traits, or something else - again, it's a recommendation, but you similarly, wouldn't want or expect Fists to play as SoB or DA. And "Counts As" was intended to represent stuff that doesn't currently have clear rules in the current edition. Like Squats or Mole Mortars.

I agree with the push for WYSIWYG, because having clear weapons representation is a good thing to prevent confusion.

blinky wrote:

But if they were a "batwing marines" army that uses lots of nightlords bits, but is otherwise different, then thats all OK.

So you problem seems to be fluff based. Say I was to change the logo so it was smiling, and nicknamed them The Iron Skulls would that be fine for you?

If they were painted in parchment and iron, that would be fine.

But if you had the iconic red wings, navy armor w/ electric patterning, and so forth, simply making a minor edit to the skull in the logo, I don't think that would pass the differentiation test.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

blinky wrote:

But if they were a "batwing marines" army that uses lots of nightlords bits, but is otherwise different, then thats all OK.

So you problem seems to be fluff based. Say I was to change the logo so it was smiling, and nicknamed them The Iron Skulls would that be fine for you?

If they were painted in parchment and iron, that would be fine.

But if you had the iconic red wings, navy armor w/ electric patterning, and so forth, simply making a minor edit to the skull in the logo, I don't think that would pass the differentiation test.

I honestly don't understand how you can say that, but I'm assuming that you think DIY space marines are fine, even using different codicies and calling them "successor" chapters.

I have no problem with DIY marines being played as anything under the sun.

But once you make an army look like a duck, please do us the favor of playing it like a duck.

Why?


I say again that the best Codex for Night Lord players (all 3 of them) is the new Marine Codex.

You can get Night Lord Bikers as troops, and Raptors as Fast Attack, and a Night Lord Lord (I love how redundant that is) on a Bike to run around with them.

You just use Chaos Bikers, Raptors, and loads of Batwing Helmets and use the new Marine Codex. You get a great looking (kinda...) army that fits with the background (speedy death with bike/assault units) and actually uses a Codex that can represent it.

The only thing you don't get are Furies because:

A). GW hated them so much they took them away from Marines.
B). And they hated them even more than that, completely and utterly nerfing the hell out of them in the Daemon Codex, to the point where taking them actually reduces your IQ.

BYE

JohnHwangDD wrote:If you're playing something that matches Index Astartes: Night Lords in every detail, but play it as C: SM, I'd have problems with it, just as I'd have problems with a Dark Angels army in full insignia playing as something other than Dark Angels. OTOH, if you have a "Batwings Marines" army that uses a lot of NL bitz, but is otherwise different, then that's all OK.

This is EXACTLY the crux of the argument. Well said. Neither Somnicide, myself nor anyone else who answered the OPs question with a negative is saying anything other than this. Converted armies are beyond awesome. It's really that energy that drives enjoyment in this hobby after the first 5 years. If the OP, or anyone, came to a tourney, revealed a space marine army, that was heavily converted using many chaos bits, but had theme and originality then i approve. My good friend and gaming buddy has been building a soul drinkers army. Using loyalist rules, but with lots of chaos bits. Work was done on the models, they certainly are NOT straight out of the box. I encourage him to take that model to tourneys.

If my opponent came to a tourney with a modern paint scheme black legion army, painted just like the chaos codex. And said. This is a tac squad, this is a sternguard squad, this is my librarian, he would have a negative stigma attached to himself. Sportsmanshipis graded on a checklist. He may or may not get full marks... it depends on the checklist, a lot of the subjectivity is removed with those.

If the OP is asking if his opponents may have a negative feeling or two towrds him, then I would say... yes... some would. If he doesn't care, then there MAY not be anythign stopping him. He came, he asked, he got his answer.

As a side note. The personal attacks on Somnicide were completely uncalled for. There was such bitterness and vitriol for a person that just offered his opinion. The nerd rage seemed to have boiled over... to those that flew off the handle... I'll tell you what you have wanted to hear this whole time... "do whatever the hell you want to do... make sure you have fun at all costs..."

JohnHwangDD wrote:And "Counts As" was intended to represent stuff that doesn't currently have clear rules in the current edition. Like Squats or Mole Mortars.

Or IW Warsmiths.

JohnHwangDD wrote:But once you make an army look like a duck, please do us the favor of playing it like a duck.

But C:CSM no longer has rules for ducks, it only has rules for chickens. On the other hand, this new SM codex looks like it has rules for swans and geese. Since ducks are closer to geese (both are waterfowl) than to chickens I think I'd rather use the SM codex.

Not going to read the thread(slightly tipsy)

Always wanted to include a Basilisk or 2 in my Black Legion Army. I'm an Artillery fan for some reason but ofc no way I can do it now. So is a Basilisk converted acceptable as a Thunderfire cannon or even a whirlwind?

As for why I like Arty,Well who doesn't like indirect fire weaponry and with the loss of Defiler indirect fire where the hell am I supposed to get my fun.

Voodoo_Chile wrote:So is a Basilisk converted acceptable as a Thunderfire cannon or even a whirlwind?

If you go and convert it to have 4 cannons, then sure. If it's just a Basilisk... then no... then it'd be a Basilisk and you'd be proxy-ing the Basilisk for a Thunderfire Cannon. It's a bit different to bring an existing unit and call it something else than it would be to, say, buy a WFB Hellcannon and use that as a "Chaos' Thunderfire Cannon.

BYE