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 use the SM codex, with an army that has a roughly 50/50 mix at a guess of CSM power armour models, old 3rd edition tactical marines with some minor bits added on like cloaks, extra bits of armour extra to give them a more renagade look and then the rest is the modern SM models, with the odd minor conversion to give them a more chaos/renagade feeling.

The paint schemes unifies them, the army started in 3rd ed as space marines, then they went to the dark side, and after a long break from the game, in 7th I updated the army and use the SM codex, because that codex best represents how I want the army to play (lots of marines..)

In my mind, it's perfectly acceptable, chaos fluff lends itself to all kinds of possibilities. The models are armed wysiwyg.

Back in the day, GW even had paint schemes for loyalists who turn to chaos and use the CSM codex. Always thought that would be pretty neat, lots of painting diversity. I don't think GW gave two craps what you did with your power armour models back then, I doubt they do now! (Within reason).

@ShieldBrother: That's it right there. Do you believe proxying to be WAAC behavior? You're really ascribing a lot of TFG-ness to a person who really isn't acting like TFG, and is even asking how people feel about it *before he even does it.* Spoiler alert, 5 out of 6 are okay with it being a permanent thing for him. No amount of your logical fallacies is going to change that, although you are entitled to disagree with and dislike the actions. Your disagreement doesn't simply make him TFG though. It's everyone's hobby, and not even the great GW gets to dictate all of it.

Would you have a different opinion if he said "You know, I've got all these space marines, but I'd like to play CSM"? Honestly, is it because he's going to a stronger codex, or is it because he's using models that are very dang similar for another codex?

Internet is anecdotal at best. It's really going to come down to what your opponents say. However, if the opinions of members of Dakka matter in this regard, you have all but two people in this thread telling you to go for it. Two people are telling you that you're ruining their fun (although another 5 just voted it bothered them and skipped off). Chances are you wouldn't want to game with those two people, but they're also a tiny drop of the people in the thread. You might, at best, have one person upset about it in your local area. Just tell that guy that if your SM army appearance bothers him, he doesn't have to ever bother asking you for a game. In regards to tournaments, just clear it with the TO ahead of time.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
Now you're just being petty. Everyone knows each faction has its own models because those are the intended models in their codex entry etc. Go to your local gamestore and yell everyone your daemon prince is a Warhound titan. I dare you. You'll get laughed out of the store.

A marine model and a chaos marine model are the same model.
Prior to some of the current goodness you had the raid the chaos inventories for earlier armor types. Several items (twin linked bolter, autocannons) are explicitly noted in fluff as early versions of current marine gear. Further, some of the more recent chaos warbands are just marine formations that finally saw the light and got religion.

As long as its WYSIWYG it would work in a tournament and explicitly works via the books. You may not like the concept and thats fine, but as long as your opponent uses a legal marine list with legal war gear he's good to go in the gaming circuit.

 Frazzled wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
Now you're just being petty. Everyone knows each faction has its own models because those are the intended models in their codex entry etc. Go to your local gamestore and yell everyone your daemon prince is a Warhound titan. I dare you. You'll get laughed out of the store.

A marine model and a chaos marine model are the same model.
Prior to some of the current goodness you had the raid the chaos inventories for earlier armor types. Several items (twin linked bolter, autocannons) are explicitly noted in fluff as early versions of current marine gear. Further, some of the more recent chaos warbands are just marine formations that finally saw the light and got religion.

As long as its WYSIWYG it would work in a tournament and explicitly works via the books. You may not like the concept and thats fine, but as long as your opponent uses a legal marine list with legal war gear he's good to go in the gaming circuit.

Yet another reason I'm a dog person. They make so much sense.

Well...yea. of course.


I will note, I've played marines using chaos rules in the past, with mild conversions (the infamous and never victorious Zincwarriors-Zinc Within Zinc Without!), and I've played demon lists using Nid rules before there was a Demon Codex, so my view may be slightly different (see this really big Centaur with the giant machine gun? Yes thats a Carnifex...with a giant machine gun).

I have seen many great conversions of entire armies that hinged on being used for a particular codex for it's mechanics since it fit the way that army worked or "counts as".

Spikey Bits has a good article here:
http://www.spikeybits.com/2016/02/the-3-golden-rules-for-counts-as-conversions.html

Some really good "rules" I had not considered as part of the plans for conversion.

Plus an 1d4 chan note on proxy:
https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Proxy

I found many times the actual rules of an army did not extend the hardware far enough to what the "fluff" stated.
So using a codex that "better" suits what you want in the army makes sense.

Not sure how we got into an "elitist" discussion a while back... we pick our models because we think they look cool right?

I use the same Calth marines for 30k, CSM and SM, it's not like they're different.

In 30k, they're obviously Death Guard (I have a lot of MKII/III models too, for you anti-Calth DG purists ), recently turned traitor.

As loyalist-rule SM they've been traitors for a while, but still haven't reached the chaosy conclusion that dumping all your drop pods is strategically sound. I even have nurgled up Centurions, but who's to say that they didn't loot them or got them from a rogue space marine force that turned traitor and got incorporated into a larger warband, and took up their colours?

As CSM they've reached a point where their warband is filled with daemonic engines and cultists, with only a few actual marines remaining.

It's not like people could possibly get confused about which army they face at the sight of slightly chaos-looking marines, because I doubt most people have faced an actual Chaos Marine model (except Sorcerers) in about 4 years, and have largely forgotten that they exist.

So as long as the models are essentially the same, a marine being a marine, a Predator a Predator, etc. I would say a person is completely unreasonable for objecting to this. Of course, saying that Obliterators are actually Grav-Centurions or that a Maulerfiend is actually a Dreadnought is pushing it too far, imo.

Just do as Games Workshop tells you to do: forge the narrative.

The 40k setting is so large, and stretches over a 10 000 year period, so you have to be pretty unimaginative to not find a way to find a fluffy way to have spiky marines in drop pods. I understand it when Heresy-players get upset over things like using MK7-8 on traitor forces in that setting, but 40k is much more open to personal customizations.

In the current instance, this (using a Maulerfiend as an Ironclad) would not happen as I would only use models the SM have, except with slight changes to their armor. Such as no Aquila symbols, no mutations, no 8 pointed stars, or anything related to the chaos gods.

It is funny how some people dislike the idea so much, and keep referring to obvious instances where proxying would be the main issue. As of course you would have to talk to your opponent if you used non standard models to represent something else, though usually as long as the base is the same size, and you tell me, it's ok in my book.

So far, I see no issues with using my army how I intend to use it. I should have probably used a slightly different title, as I doubt anyone would have a problem if I said I wanted to make a fluffy SM army that was originally part of the 4th legion and now has been sworn to secrecy with regards to thier true origins. As people have taken my request as literally using all CSM units as proxy SM units, even though the majority overlap.

Thanks for the feedback everyone, I appreciate it

GrafWattenburg wrote:
I use the same Calth marines for 30k, CSM and SM, it's not like they're different.

In 30k, they're obviously Death Guard (I have a lot of MKII/III models too, for you anti-Calth DG purists ), recently turned traitor.

As loyalist-rule SM they've been traitors for a while, but still haven't reached the chaosy conclusion that dumping all your drop pods is strategically sound. I even have nurgled up Centurions, but who's to say that they didn't loot them or got them from a rogue space marine force that turned traitor and got incorporated into a larger warband, and took up their colours?

As CSM they've reached a point where their warband is filled with daemonic engines and cultists, with only a few actual marines remaining.

It's not like people could possibly get confused about which army they face at the sight of slightly chaos-looking marines, because I doubt most people have faced an actual Chaos Marine model (except Sorcerers) in about 4 years, and have largely forgotten that they exist.

So as long as the models are essentially the same, a marine being a marine, a Predator a Predator, etc. I would say a person is completely unreasonable for objecting to this. Of course, saying that Obliterators are actually Grav-Centurions or that a Maulerfiend is actually a Dreadnought is pushing it too far, imo.

Just do as Games Workshop tells you to do: forge the narrative.

The 40k setting is so large, and stretches over a 10 000 year period, so you have to be pretty unimaginative to not find a way to find a fluffy way to have spiky marines in drop pods. I understand it when Heresy-players get upset over things like using MK7-8 on traitor forces in that setting, but 40k is much more open to personal customizations.

Me likey

As a further note, ForgeWorld displays 40k Chaos Cultists and Catachan models in their Imperial Militia/Warp Cult section of a 30k book. Isn't this clearly breaking with what a model "is"? If they can get away with portraying one type of human with a lasgun as another type of human with a lasgun 10,000 years earlier, I don't see the problem with doing the same with standard marine units.

I personally would not care at all. This boils down to be simply a fluff based discussion/opinion. What if you "invented" your own Space Marine chapter which happened to be super rusty/spiky? No different than running a Space Marine force with Chaos-esque models.

The end result is no different for your opponent.

As long as they're using the whole codex rather than cherry picking bits from both books I'm all for it.

I might even choose to ignore that Daemonkin would be 'Come the Apocalypse' level of alliance to any chapter in the Codex Space Marines the next time we play.

BossJakadakk wrote:
@ShieldBrother: That's it right there. Do you believe proxying to be WAAC behavior? You're really ascribing a lot of TFG-ness to a person who really isn't acting like TFG, and is even asking how people feel about it *before he even does it.* Spoiler alert, 5 out of 6 are okay with it being a permanent thing for him. No amount of your logical fallacies is going to change that, although you are entitled to disagree with and dislike the actions. Your disagreement doesn't simply make him TFG though. It's everyone's hobby, and not even the great GW gets to dictate all of it.

Would you have a different opinion if he said "You know, I've got all these space marines, but I'd like to play CSM"? Honestly, is it because he's going to a stronger codex, or is it because he's using models that are very dang similar for another codex?

I know people disagree with me, but asked for what people thought, and I told him. Nothing wrong with that. Never called him a TFG, but swapping codices is very WAAC. He is switching for the sole purpose of being stronger, because he wants to win. I simply don't like that, that's all I'm saying. And yes, I would have a different opinion. That person changed what army they want to play, given they de chaos most of their stuff I'd be fine with that. If they've got dead imperial guard trophies on their tanks a year later then I've got a problem.

Hmmm interesting take on it. Referring back to my initial post, I am changing so that I can field a fluffy list (based on how I want my army to play, ie with a lot of marine squads) as fielding a lot of CSM marines against optimized stealth cadres or necron decurions will almost certainly lead to my army being tabled. I am not jumping into this to run a White Scars/Space Wolves super friends list. Though I do realize that someone could have malicious intent when changing armies like this, I play this game to have fun. This idea was actually suggested to me after I played a 1500 point game where a SM player brought a knight, 2 stormtalons and white scars against my list of marines, cultists and havocs in rhinos. Needless to say, it did not end well for me, and he mentioned that I might have more luck if I try to use Chapter Tactics to help give my guys staying power and mobility. I figured it might be worth a try, but wanted to know the general opinion first.

sturgeondtd wrote:
Hmmm interesting take on it. Referring back to my initial post, I am changing so that I can field a fluffy list (based on how I want my army to play, ie with a lot of marine squads) as fielding a lot of CSM marines against optimized stealth cadres or necron decurions will almost certainly lead to my army being tabled. I am not jumping into this to run a White Scars/Space Wolves super friends list. Though I do realize that someone could have malicious intent when changing armies like this, I play this game to have fun. This idea was actually suggested to me after I played a 1500 point game where a SM player brought a knight, 2 stormtalons and white scars against my list of marines, cultists and havocs in rhinos. Needless to say, it did not end well for me, and he mentioned that I might have more luck if I try to use Chapter Tactics to help give my guys staying power and mobility. I figured it might be worth a try, but wanted to know the general opinion first.

Do it, people are often small minded. You said you werent gonna be proxying so it doesnt matter what others think in the slightest, if they refuse to play you ignore them.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

Verviedi wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
Now you're just being petty. Everyone knows each faction has its own models because those are the intended models in their codex entry etc. Go to your local gamestore and yell everyone your daemon prince is a Warhound titan. I dare you. You'll get laughed out of the store.

Except your ideas are more along the lines of "Your Tau aren't yellow, therefore they aren't official Tau models".

Never said that, however swapping codices is too much.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
Csm isn't an auto lose, by a mile. They are bad, yes, but anyone who just rolls over and accepts they will be ground into dust every game is doing something wrong. Play smart, use what effective stuff you have and don't play with donkey-caves.

Donkey-caves can be anyone just using an averagely-built army, because the average army can beat a competitive CSM list. Make it just a bit more efficient and it is a slaughter.

So yeah you're wrong. Who cares if someone proxies a Maulerfiend into an Ironclad? An Ironclad having two Flamers sounds like a Maulerfiend breathing fire which is neat. There's plenty of good reasoning to do things like this (Rubric Marines carrying exotic ammo ala Sternguard? Makes sense to me).

To you, what is an average codex? Because to me, Imperial guard is about pretty average. I have a friend who plays guard, my brother who plays chaos, and I play kdk occasionally. Out of all of us the guard player loses most. (Neither me or my brother play formations) Now this may be anecdotal, but from my experience chaos can do fine against guard.

And I care if he proxies a Maulerfiend for an Ironclad, use the correct models for the correct faction and don't just be WAAC that changes codex depending on the flavour of the week.

The average codex is pretty much anything outside the CSM codex. The only things it gives a good fight against is the Sub-Faction codices (like, PURE MT, Harlies, Inquisition) and when going all out with the "cheese" of the codex, anything outside the Big 4 using super mediocre lists.

The codex is SO horribly written that it isn't funny. Any of the "good" of the codex pretty much has a superior in the SM codex, and wanting a specific playstyle is better done with other codices as a whole. What you're suggesting is that CSM players like 626 suck it up and deal with the fact their codex is THE worst one in the game. That's unacceptable because wanting to win doesn't make you WAAC.
In fact, we should be openly telling newer CSM players to use all the rules from the new SM codex outside Heldrakes (which aren't really good anymore because of only having one weapon that's a pain to aim. Would it REALLY have been hard to give a thing with a neck 180 degrees of a firing arc?)

 jreilly89 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
Im a TFG for playing the game properly? It's not my fault (or anyone else's) that chaos is bad. That's like me using space wolves with the dark angels codex, doesn't make much sense, does it? If anything switching codex is the TFG thing, get a godly codex with no downsides by still being chaos, sounds pretty WAAC to me.

And please tell who gave you the authority to decide what is the correct way to play the game?

GW. CSM has their own codex and DA has their own codex and SM has their own codex. Doing anything else pretty much goes against the spirit of the game.

Someone better tell Jervis Johnson he's playing against that 'spirit of the game' he loves to harp on about with his custom marine chapter that jumps around and uses different loyalists codexes depending on his mood.

And no, I'm not just making gak up, Jervis does (or at least did, not sure if he still does) have that SM/BA/DA/SW army

Power armour is power armour, and a bolter is a bolter. The paint job doesn't matter as long as the wargear is WYSIWYG or a rule of cool counts as model that is equally WYSIWYG.

Its the same way that a vanilla marine player who wants to run a 1st company army could make use of C: DA for the more detailed all terminator army, or a Khorne CSM player using C:SW for a better melee oriented power armoured army.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:
@ShieldBrother: That's it right there. Do you believe proxying to be WAAC behavior? You're really ascribing a lot of TFG-ness to a person who really isn't acting like TFG, and is even asking how people feel about it *before he even does it.* Spoiler alert, 5 out of 6 are okay with it being a permanent thing for him. No amount of your logical fallacies is going to change that, although you are entitled to disagree with and dislike the actions. Your disagreement doesn't simply make him TFG though. It's everyone's hobby, and not even the great GW gets to dictate all of it.

Would you have a different opinion if he said "You know, I've got all these space marines, but I'd like to play CSM"? Honestly, is it because he's going to a stronger codex, or is it because he's using models that are very dang similar for another codex?

I know people disagree with me, but asked for what people thought, and I told him. Nothing wrong with that. Never called him a TFG, but swapping codices is very WAAC. He is switching for the sole purpose of being stronger, because he wants to win. I simply don't like that, that's all I'm saying. And yes, I would have a different opinion. That person changed what army they want to play, given they de chaos most of their stuff I'd be fine with that. If they've got dead imperial guard trophies on their tanks a year later then I've got a problem.

Yeah. Hard idea to have to actually face possibility of losing when you are playing on even terms rather than having ridiculous advantage by virtue of codex Guess tough game is not in your interests...

And guess you are then also deadset against non-GW models...After all they aren't official GW models approved by GW! If using GW codex is wrong how much more using non-GW model is!

(despite GW not saying any word whatsoever against using chaos models in codex:SM. But guess that's too hard for some people to admit so they instead twist and lie)

What if someone strted 40k by buying the C:SM book, and then choosing CSM marines to represent his tactical marines?

Is that still WAAC?

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

If they've got dead imperial guard trophies on their tanks a year later then I've got a problem.

But why? Grey Knights have literally covered themselves in the blood of Sisters of Battle, Space Marine loyalists wear trophies from killed traitors and xenos, who is to say that the dead guardsmen weren't traitors who had to be put down? Or signs that a once-loyal chapter is about to turn to the forces of the Dark Gods?

Don't worry, SM are incorruptible good guys, and it's against cannon to have them ever do anything morally questionable or evil.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nvm, this guy is either a troll or a hypocrite:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
So I'm making a dark eldar army and I would like to use some talos, but the models just don't do it for me. I was browsing AOS stuff and saw the skaven stormfiends and they look pretty dark eldar-ish with all their tubed and modified limbs etc. So I was going to convert (pretty much paint them differently ) stormfiends as talos counts as.
My question is, would most gamers be okay with this? I know my group would be, but I don't want to get turned down at the gw when I visit. Second question, are they close to the same skze? I don't want to model for advantage but they look pretty similar in size, I just think the talos is taller. Third question, any ideas for the conversion? I.e. bits I could use etc. Because I think the rat heads could fly with some people because DE are messed up like that, but I'd rather some personality to them rather than aos models slapped into 40k.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
While I'm here;

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
I've been kicking around the idea of making another army, and I really like GK and Mechanicus. So, instead of making 2 armies I can make 1 big one. I stick to the fluff pretty religiously so while they're battle bros in game, is it common for these alliances to happen?

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
use the correct models for the correct faction and don't just be WAAC that changes codex depending on the flavour of the week.

There is a difference between WAAC and the Need to use a different Codex to be able to play a "fluffy" army
The Codex CSM is missing a lot of possibilities to play something else than a 08/15 Black Legion Warband, while players want to have god specific warbands, rules for for the traiter legions, dark mechanicum etc.

the same like the Codex SW has always been the better option to play Iron Hands even after they got their own supplement.

 Selym wrote:
What if someone started 40k by buying the C:SM book, and then choosing CSM marines to represent his tactical marines?

Some years ago this was called the 13th Company and was official sold by GW

As long as everything is wysiwyg and clearly identifiable as what it's meant to be I don't see the issue. There's a lot of false equivalence going on in this thread, using slightly different space marine models to represent space marines is nothing like using a wraithknight as a riptide or whatever else. We're not talking about proxying, but essentially kitbashing.

Are we honestly saying that a converted space marine army, wysiwyg and using units solely from that book, is somehow unacceptable?

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:


And no, I'm not just making gak up, Jervis does (or at least did, not sure if he still does) have that SM/BA/DA/SW army

Ah yes, the old Dark Blood Wolves chapter. Used to see a lot of them during 5th ed and then a few got promoted to the Dark Grey Space Blood Knights when the GK book came out.

 Selym wrote:
Don't worry, SM are incorruptible good guys, and it's against cannon to have them ever do anything morally questionable or evil.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nvm, this guy is either a troll or a hypocrite:

NO. His opinion was asked. While you may disagree with it, that does not mean he's a troll or hypocrite, he just has his opinion. Thats what the thread is about-player's thoughts on it.
That doesn't make him a troll. Come down to the OT and you'll see what trolls are*. We all float down here.


*Better yet, don't.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Don't worry, SM are incorruptible good guys, and it's against cannon to have them ever do anything morally questionable or evil.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nvm, this guy is either a troll or a hypocrite:

NO. His opinion was asked. While you may disagree with it, that does not mean he's a troll or hypocrite, he just has his opinion. Thats what the thread is about-player's thoughts on it.
That doesn't make him a troll. Come down to the OT and you'll see what trolls are*. We all float down here.


*Better yet, don't.

You're a troll too, I guess? Selym just pointed out that this guy, who will not abide by anything but the official model for each unit, is using alternate models for his units as proven by his posts in other threads. I guess you're one of those guys that don't really care to read a whole post before commenting.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Webstore-Blog/2016/07/25/Using-all-the-Space-Marines

Compared to selectively adding Grav-Cents and Stormwolves to a Blood Angels army, using Space Marines rules wholesale for Chaos Space Marines seems like small potatoes.

 RustyKnight wrote:
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Webstore-Blog/2016/07/25/Using-all-the-Space-Marines

Compared to selectively adding Grav-Cents and Stormwolves to a Blood Angels army, using Space Marines rules wholesale for Chaos Space Marines seems like small potatoes.

There you go.

There we go what?