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 would (for some reason) like to run a CSM Plague Zombie army in a tournament. The army is still in the planning stages at the moment (no models have been purchased yet), but it will be built for the sole purpose of running in a tournament. Would these models be acceptable in lieu of the Chaos cultists? It would make fluff sense that an infected hive city would have civilian zombies in the wake of a Nurgle invasion...

http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-2003-ZOMBIES-Bag-Zombies/dp/B000E9T8G4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1392829134&sr=8-1&keywords=bag+of+zombies

http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-2009-Bag-Zombies-Babes/dp/B001M4N9BK/ref=pd_sim_t_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=055HT68NE6ETFPE7Q717

I would not ever be interested in ever running regular cultists in a tournament setting otherwise so I hate to purchase the models and paint up 200 of them to never be played otherwise. The remainder of the models in the army will be GW and everything would be painted to a high tabletop standard (a feat to be sure with 200+ models)... And to be completely "legal" I will also need to purchase enough 25mm bases to fit them since they do not come with appropriate sized bases. If needed, would some IG bits help to make them more legit? I would, of course, be going for any paint/theme points in a tournament and would hopefully give any opponents a run for their money (maybe). This will be my first tournament level list that I will be putting together. Would I just need to send a picture of the army to an organizer before planning to attend? Any thoughts? Thank you in advance as I am a little nervous stepping into the ring of competitive 40K and would like to gather as much information as possible.

Todd

It really is a fine line between something being a suitable "counts-as" model and something being absolutely abhorrent. I'm reminded of a few examples from personal experience. Someone at a local tournament brought a custom "riptide", but it was straight from Toys R' Us and looked pretty gawdy. Granted, it was painted nicely and looked decent (converted with appropriate guns... there was no doubt it was a riptide), but I know a few people who took... "offense" (putting it nicely) to someone buying a $10 toy and sticking it on a base. There was also a "Counts-As" Tau army made with Renegade Militia models and FW Guns. It looked nice, but I heard a few people complaining that they had no idea what was what in the army, so it was hard to distinguish what models were Fire Warriors/Pathfinders/ etc.

Similarly, I remember a picture of the NOVA open where someone made an army from Aquarium Fish Toys as a "counts-as" Daemons army. It looked absolutely terrible.

A picture to the TO is always advisable when in doubt. In the end it's their discretion that'll vindicate your decision. Otherwise, while your opponents may/may not care, their opinion won't really matter.

Yeah, it sounds like a "build at your own risk" venture... which is fine as I think the end product will look great and there will not be a doubt that they are zombies (with only 1 attack base per the rule). I think I would need to put some IG bits on them. The scale according this picture seem to be about the size of a fire warrior... So I don't think that it would be modeling for advantage. I do think they could use some green stuff on them for guts or something to show that I put effort into them. I think it would be cool to see it realized on the table and that it would make a competitive army.

http://i991.photobucket.com/albums/af31/Litany_of_hate/Kroot/001-4.jpg

While most TOs will not ban you or disqualify you once you've paid and shown up, there are some caveats.

IF the models are not clearly what they are supposed to be, and thus easy for your opponent to figure out in combination with an army list, you'll likely get talked to and have your list changed or be DQ'ed. I.E., if you fielded (I'm exaggerating) 500 zombie models and put a few of them on oval bases and a few of them on large bases and the rest on little ones and said the oval based zombies were Mawlocs and the 60mm based zombies were Hive Tyrants and the rest were Termagants, that wouldn't be OK.

If, on the other hand, you fielded a normal Tyranid force but had all of your Termagants represented by zombies ... that would probably tick off opponents and not be very thematic, but most TOs would grudgingly allow you to play since it's VERY clear what's what in game terms, and you're already there / already paid. Not exactly going to win brownie points, though, especially from TOs who know their event will receive silly potshots whether they were OK with it or not, just by having said army present.

Flipside to all this is the rule of cool - if your army is really radical looking and well painted and what not, most people will even forgive some "hard to figure what's what" faux pas.

The best thing you can do is make sure everything fits thematically, shows at least some effort, and works really well as a cohesive force. If you can accomplish this with third party miniatures, very few people will hold it against you.

IF, on the other hand, you field a very hodgepodge and "proxy" looking army that looks like you just didn't want to invest in much, well, the reaction's going to cut the other way.

If it was painted, on an appropriate 25mm base. They are kinda small.

Also... You may need to consider the ramifications of taking 'hundreds' of zombies to a tourney... Unless you have the experience and the personal discipline to 'pull it off' you may be dispised by opponents not because of your models, but because of your inability to play your army in a reasonable period of time.

If cheap or bad 'counts as' says anything to a stranger, it shows a lack of effort and commitment, which means your first action is going to set opponents on guard... You would be surprised how much slack showing up with 180 footsloggers get when they are well-painted and modeled and how much ire it raises when they are ugly proxies.

Right on! I really think this would work as I plan on playing the Typhus Plague Zombie list. I have seen some crazy conversions during my time playing 40K and definitely do not think this is such a stretch visually, but I do understand that I must work hard to make it look really good in order to pass would-be skeptics' muster. The biggest legal issue that I readily recognized was was the base size as it must be the proper sized base for certain game mechanics to work. I agree that it can be very easy to go overboard with proxy modeling, but I am 30 years old and just want a nice themed army on the table top. I really do appreciate the feedback on this.

To the OP; if someone used the Mantic Zombies as "counts-as Nurgle Zombies", I probably wouldn't be that upset. Yours look pretty decent, considering the price tag.

A bit off topic/perhaps relevant, is that it's always hard to actually gauge effort. Some people can spend hours and hours trying to achieve a look/paint scheme and be really proud of it, only to have people knock it for looking terrible/awful/cheesy/this person only plays to win etc. Where I'm from, we have a ton of ridiculously talented painters who can bang out armies fast/beautifully. What would probably take an average person a year or two to get done, they can hammer out in a month or two. So effort for them to achieve a desired effect/would probably be less than say an average/beginning player.

I generally don't begrudge someone for their conversions/effort. Most Ork conversions look terrible IMO because they look haphazardly tacked on. I understand that's part of the Ork's aesthetics, but most of the time it's executed poorly so it looks like little to no effort has gone into it. I guess for me, if someone is happy with their work generally that's all you can really expect. Although in a tournament setting its probably more important.

BTW I wasn't taking a potshot at you MVBrandt for that Aquarium army It's just the best example off the top of my head of extremes in terms of what some people might find acceptable/tolerable.

 punkisntdeadyet wrote:
To the OP; if someone used the Mantic Zombies as "counts-as Nurgle Zombies", I probably wouldn't be that upset. Yours look pretty decent, considering the price tag.

A bit off topic/perhaps relevant, is that it's always hard to actually gauge effort. Some people can spend hours and hours trying to achieve a look/paint scheme and be really proud of it, only to have people knock it for looking terrible/awful/cheesy/this person only plays to win etc. Where I'm from, we have a ton of ridiculously talented painters who can bang out armies fast/beautifully. What would probably take an average person a year or two to get done, they can hammer out in a month or two. So effort for them to achieve a desired effect/would probably be less than say an average/beginning player.

I generally don't begrudge someone for their conversions/effort. Most Ork conversions look terrible IMO because they look haphazardly tacked on. I understand that's part of the Ork's aesthetics, but most of the time it's executed poorly so it looks like little to no effort has gone into it. I guess for me, if someone is happy with their work generally that's all you can really expect. Although in a tournament setting its probably more important.

BTW I wasn't taking a potshot at you MVBrandt for that Aquarium army It's just the best example off the top of my head of extremes in terms of what some people might find acceptable/tolerable.

I didn't think you were, no worries! It's just a relevant example from how a TO sees army types. I still get to hear people who actually do say things like "Well NOVA doesn't have good painting, they allowed even like a bunch of rubber dollar store fish figures to be a counts as army lol!" Makes you feel bad for guys like this: https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1/994266_709913162357871_1774602332_n.jpg

Long and short for the OP - you don't have to use GW models, but make what you do bring look cool as you can, and make sure the proportions and recognizability are well in hand. In short, make it as pleasant and easy for your opponents as possible, and you're on the right track.

Those zombies the OP linked are way to small to use for 40k.

 punkisntdeadyet wrote:
To the OP; if someone used the Mantic Zombies as "counts-as Nurgle Zombies", I probably wouldn't be that upset. Yours look pretty decent, considering the price tag.

A bit off topic/perhaps relevant, is that it's always hard to actually gauge effort. Some people can spend hours and hours trying to achieve a look/paint scheme and be really proud of it, only to have people knock it for looking terrible/awful/cheesy/this person only plays to win etc. Where I'm from, we have a ton of ridiculously talented painters who can bang out armies fast/beautifully. What would probably take an average person a year or two to get done, they can hammer out in a month or two. So effort for them to achieve a desired effect/would probably be less than say an average/beginning player.

I generally don't begrudge someone for their conversions/effort. Most Ork conversions look terrible IMO because they look haphazardly tacked on. I understand that's part of the Ork's aesthetics, but most of the time it's executed poorly so it looks like little to no effort has gone into it. I guess for me, if someone is happy with their work generally that's all you can really expect. Although in a tournament setting its probably more important.

BTW I wasn't taking a potshot at you MVBrandt for that Aquarium army It's just the best example off the top of my head of extremes in terms of what some people might find acceptable/tolerable.

I am taking everything you guys are saying into consideration as I am new to the tournament scene and don't want to show up with a sub par army. I don't mean to turn this into a picture show off thread but here is an Ork army that I started with 100+ minis and I am proud to say that I think I pulled off a very good table top quality throughout (assembly line style painting was used to ensure army cohesiveness). Not specifically looking for kuddos just wanting to verify if this paint standard for non-GW models if they were painted to this level. I, for one, do not want to waste my time painting all of the models if it will, in turn, make someone else feel like they have wasted their time. I too am a stickler for what passes as "painted". The Plague Marine pics are included (they are old) to show an approximate style in which the Zombies could be done. Again, not wanting to de-rail on P&M stuff, but rather an acceptable level for tournament level play.

EDIT: The Marines shown were some of the first models I had ever painted... not looking for props just (maybe) forgiveness lol