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.

the_scotsman wrote:
OHHHHHHHH, this is a bad faith argument thread meant to let you "win" a different argument you're having in another unrelated thread that you want to use as ammunition.

No, it's me trying to find out whether there really is any limit on what players are willing to accept "counts as".

Apparently, there isn't.

Oh, well...

Realistically the whole concept of WYSIWYG in 40k is a fallacy because it relies on our good faith agreement as players that any model represents what we say it represents. Each model is a symbolic representation of a set of rules, but those rules are not actually inherent to the symbols we have agreed to associate them with. In a my 10 man unit of Neophyte Hybrids no two models look identical. They might have some common aesthetic characteristics, but none of them even use identical pieces. This is exactly as they came out of the GW box. The only way you know all ten models in that unit are Neophytes is that I just told you that is what all 10 different looking models represent and you agreed with me.

WYSIWYG might exist in chess, but 40k is not chess... If you are that concerned about representation and rules you are probably playing the wrong game.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
OHHHHHHHH, this is a bad faith argument thread meant to let you "win" a different argument you're having in another unrelated thread that you want to use as ammunition.

No, it's me trying to find out whether there really is any limit on what players are willing to accept "counts as".

Apparently, there isn't.

Oh, well...

Maybe if you worded the poll better, you'd have a better understanding.

As a hobbyist first kinda player I have run an entire army of "counts as" back in the days of GW run GTs. Never had an issue. It was an army entirely made of 2nd ed. Stormboyz with Catachan arms using the IG codex. So it was Orks c/a Guard. Every weapon was an imperial one and every unit matched the other units that were the same. Like all the infantry squads were made of the same models I mean.

If there was something memorable about the different squads besides a different color or numbered pad I'd say it was fine. The exact same models but with different numbers representing both Plague Marines and Rubrics would be kinda confusing though.

I thin the question has changed alot since the first post. It is one thing to field tac marines as CSM or devs as havoc's but when you got squad 7 being cult marines squad 4 as chaos marines with the same load out it is getting to be a bit much. TBH I would rather play vs tokens at this point. The big thing for me is things need to be clear what they are and about the right size. Soda bottle drop pod's or 1 carnifex as guliman? Sure pretty clear what they are and about the same size. But squad markings are just to small of a detail and unless everything is written down somewhere it is bit much to remember for both of you.

Ayuh.

The goalposts moved in the OP and they haven't kept still since.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
OHHHHHHHH, this is a bad faith argument thread meant to let you "win" a different argument you're having in another unrelated thread that you want to use as ammunition.

No, it's me trying to find out whether there really is any limit on what players are willing to accept "counts as".

Apparently, there isn't.

Oh, well...

I mean, you've got quite a lot of people telling you they won't accept squad markings on two different Tactical squads allowing you to field one as Berzerkers and the other as Noise Marines, by applying a relatively straightforward one-sentence standard ("is this likely to cause confusion to your opponent?"), so I'm not sure where "no limit on what players are willing to accept 'counts as'" is coming from.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
OHHHHHHHH, this is a bad faith argument thread meant to let you "win" a different argument you're having in another unrelated thread that you want to use as ammunition.

No, it's me trying to find out whether there really is any limit on what players are willing to accept "counts as".

Apparently, there isn't.

Oh, well...

Maybe if you worded the poll better, you'd have a better understanding.

I doubt that very much.

It's now clear to me that there exists a sizable number of people who flat out don't care, regardless of the circumstances, and that they are joined by another rather sizable number of people with significantly higher tolerance for "count as" than I do. To that end, the poll and thread have provided the basic information that I was looking for, and I have no particular interest in splitting those hairs any further.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
OHHHHHHHH, this is a bad faith argument thread meant to let you "win" a different argument you're having in another unrelated thread that you want to use as ammunition.

No, it's me trying to find out whether there really is any limit on what players are willing to accept "counts as".

Apparently, there isn't.

Oh, well...

I mean, you've got quite a lot of people telling you they won't accept squad markings on two different Tactical squads allowing you to field one as Berzerkers and the other as Noise Marines, by applying a relatively straightforward one-sentence standard ("is this likely to cause confusion to your opponent?"), so I'm not sure where "no limit on what players are willing to accept 'counts as'" is coming from.

People draw the line differently.

If you look at the poll numbers, quite a few people just don't care.

If you think that there is a better way to ask the question and get the answers, please feel free to start another thread with a better poll.

Uffda.

Nothing you have done here demonstrates any of that. You're literally telling lies about your own strawman.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
...People draw the line differently.

If you look at the poll numbers, quite a few people just don't care.

If you think that there is a better way to ask the question and get the answers, please feel free to start another thread with a better poll.

Last time I looked the poll was 42-22 "this is an unacceptable proxy".

JohnHwangDD, if one actually wanted to field a chaos army that is recently turned loyalist marines, then how would you expect it to be represented?

I mean, certainly I personally would model some chaos iconography and defiled imperial heraldry on them if I were creating such an force, but they would still mostly be made out of loyalist bits and would even share the colour scheme and some markings with their loyalist version. And I really don't feel it is my place to tell another person what is the appropriate amount of chaosification such an army must have. If they're painted marines with correct gear, then I'm happy to play against them.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
OHHHHHHHH, this is a bad faith argument thread meant to let you "win" a different argument you're having in another unrelated thread that you want to use as ammunition.

No, it's me trying to find out whether there really is any limit on what players are willing to accept "counts as".

Apparently, there isn't.

Oh, well...

Sure, a bad faith argument isn't a bad faith argument if someone SAYS it isn't, I remember now.

Wait, is that how that works? Let's see.

You're on an internet forum with a limited group of people that you don't know are representative of the general playerbase.

You started your poll in the midst of an argument with other players on a similar, but critically unrelated topic (Paint doesn't matter VS paint AND MODELS don't matter)...evidently as an attempt to gain "ammo" in that argument.

You phrase the options of the poll in such a way that attempts to lead the audience - introducing a 1000$ cash prize at stake, rules from a third party requiring strict wysiwyg, and adding a moralistic element by saying that the player is obviously attempting to gain an advantage over you by using these models.

This is very much analogous to getting into an argument with your local homeowner's association about whether it's immoral for someone to paint their house the color they want to, so you print up a newspaper poll the following day asking the citizens of your town

"would you be OK with somebody spraypainting someone else's house with profanity and hate symbols if you knew they were doing it just to lower the property value of the neighborhood?

YES, everyone should be allowed to do anything they want!

NO, I stand against hate symbols!"

Are the models roughly the correct size and on the correct bases?

Then fine. Good.

For a casual game, sure, why not.

For a tournament this really comes down to can a guy use an entirely proxy army in a decent sized tournament. I'd say no, IMO it falls into the 'modeling for advantage' category, you're using deceptive models and (maybe) actively trying to mislead your opponent. Mainly because proxies are confusing as hell when you're on your 3rd or 4th game of the day and it's not fair to your opponent. I'd despise playing that game.

Similarly I wouldn't be in favor of a DE player using wyches as Troupes and Reavers as Skyweavers, just because they're better and he doesn't want to be bothered to actually try to have the correct models

On a more personal level, using an entire army to 'count as' and entire other army, just because it got a new rules release, is just shady and a 'that guy' sort of move. If someone actually liked the faction he'd have at least some models, if someone is just chasing the 'latest and greatest' rules release then they'll try the proxy thing.

If I'm the opponent, I've nothing against a little light proxying, especially if there's a good fluff justification, but an entire army without at least some light conversion would be irksome. According to your parameters though, I don't see how his army could possibly satisfy the WYSIWIG requirement, at least by my interpretation of WYSIWIG. In the scenario you give, I'd have to call a tournament organizer to get their opinion, but I'd be happy with whatever they decide. Their tournament, their rules, their interpretation.

If I was the tournament organizer? No. I would not accept that army as fulfilling the WYSIWIG requirement.

Ginjitzu, would you accept the above list?

^I would accept that, because everything is really clear and very analogous to what it represents.

Numbering Tac squad A as Berzerkers and Tac squad B as Noise Marines would be acceptable for a few casual games, but I'd be really against that sort of thing at a tournament.

Poll sucks.

It's fine. As stated above John only created the poll as a strawman to use as fuel in another argument. It sucks down to it's very foundations.

I really wish I had seen this thread and more specifically, the post below, before essentially wasting time on the OP.

I thought his query was genuine, but now I know that I (and alot of others in this thread) essentially got, to use twitch-lingo: Jebaited.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Rogerio134134 wrote:
instead of using the crimson fists rules I run my marines with the Deathwatch codex.
I just use Deathwatch rules as they are better.

I'm also painting up my iron warriors but will be running them as black legion so I can take abbadon (in iron warriors colours of course.

In competition with cash value prizes on the line, I would zero you out for not playing a WYSIWYG army.

If it looks like Crimson Fists, it needs to play as Crimson Fists.

If it looks like Iron Warriors, it needs to play as Iron Warriors.

If you don't like the rules, don't paint an army to match.

Or just buy another army.

This thread should get locked.

JNAProductions wrote:

Spoiler:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I didn't vote, because it didn't have an appropriate answer.

My answer is "No, because it's not WYSIWYG".

A Plague Marine is more than just a weapon-swapped CSM-same with Berserkers, same with TSons. (And kinda the same with Noise Marines, but they're pretty close.)

So, let me propose an amendment to your OP:

The list is:

Renegade Battalion

HQs
Chaos Lord (Bolt Pistol, Chainsword)-Represented by a Space Marine Captain with Bolt Pistol and Chainsword
Chaos Sorcerer (Bolt Pistol, Force Sword)-Represented by a Space Marine Librarian with Bolt Pistol and Force Sword

Troops
5 Man Chaos Marine Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marines
5 Man Chaos Marine Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marines
5 Man Chaos Marine Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marines

Elites
Helrbute (Multi-Melta and Fist)-Represented by a Dreadnought with Multi-Melta and Fist
Helrbute (Multi-Melta and Fist)-Represented by a Dreadnought with Multi-Melta and Fist

Fast Attacks
4 Man Chaos Biker Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marine Bikers
4 Man Chaos Biker Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marine Bikers
3 Man Chaos Biker Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marine Bikers

Dedicated Transports
Chaos Rhino (Two Combi-Bolters)-Represented by a Space Marine Rhino with two Combi-Bolters
Chaos Rhino (Two Combi-Bolters)-Represented by a Space Marine Rhino with two Combi-Bolters

992 Points

So no Calgar counts-as, no Plague Marines or Khorne Berserker counts-as (which, for a WYSIWYG tournament with cash on the line, is inappropriate) just 100% sensible, WYSIWYG models painted Imperium instead of Chaos.

I would be 100% fine with THAT, because it's WYSIWYG. Your example... Is not.

Edit: Ignore the fact that this list sucks and would never see a victory in a big tournament, let alone top tables. Assume the list is actually decent, but still WYSIWYG.

Ginjitzu, would you accept the above list?

I would, because as

Insectum7 wrote:...everything is really clear and very analogous to what it represents.

Also, my interpretation of WYSIWIG is flexible enough to allow for what I see in that list as a very reasonable lore justification; that chapter have turned heretic, and though their gear still appears loyalist, their agenda and behavior certainly aren't. I also believe it's worth stressing that WYSIWIG is not an actual Warhammer rule and thus open to many interpretations, all of which are skub!

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
...People draw the line differently.

If you look at the poll numbers, quite a few people just don't care.

If you think that there is a better way to ask the question and get the answers, please feel free to start another thread with a better poll.

Last time I looked the poll was 42-22 "this is an unacceptable proxy".

The numbers changed as more people voted.
____

 Crimson wrote:
JohnHwangDD, if one actually wanted to field a chaos army that is recently turned loyalist marines, then how would you expect it to be represented?

Red Corsairs. The first thing that they do is to deface ALL of the loyalist / Imperial iconography, insignia, heraldry and badging. They might still be blue, but there won't be a single intact Ultramarines symbol anywhere to be seen.
____

the_scotsman wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
OHHHHHHHH, this is a bad faith argument thread meant to let you "win" a different argument you're having in another unrelated thread that you want to use as ammunition.

No, it's me trying to find out whether there really is any limit on what players are willing to accept "counts as".

Apparently, there isn't.

Oh, well...

Sure, a bad faith argument isn't a bad faith argument if someone SAYS it isn't, I remember now.

Wait, is that how that works? Let's see.

You're on an internet forum with a limited group of people that you don't know are representative of the general playerbase.

You started your poll in the midst of an argument

No, I started this thread and poll when I wanted to see to what extent the nonsense in that thread was shared by others on Dakka.

edited by ingtaer.

Heck yeah man. It means a game of 40k. Full points for originality. Half points for other csm players using correct models cause well.. think of something new. It’s like necron orks. Use ork models with the necron codex. Extremely fluffy and original. I’m not kidding about any of this either, it’s my honest opinion. Mostly because individuals such as yourself with your extremist mindset irritate me more than players who want to play ultramarines they have painted us as crimson fists, and you flying off the handle that you would give 0’s across the board for it.

I say yes just to annoy the disingenuous OP.

* ALL weapons are "correct"
"And then - "particular squads are actually Berzerkers, Noise Marines, Plague Marines "

You contradict yourself here. Cult marines have own weapons and can't be "correct".

Playing UM painted army as CSM (tacticals == csm, devastators == havocs, assault marines == raptors etc) is totally ok, no problem here.
Using regular tactical marines as plague marines? Not cool, but I'll swallow it. Calgar as chaos lord? Totally no, it's gravis armour, he has 2 relic pw, he has different base size, nit acceptable proxy.

Silver144 wrote:
Calgar as chaos lord? Totally no, it's gravis armour, he has 2 relic pw, he has different base size, nit acceptable proxy.

Bearing in mind there are four different Calgar models - of which three even have have their own datasheets at present - I wouldn't immediately assume it is the Primaris version being talked about here

 Dysartes wrote:

Silver144 wrote:
Calgar as chaos lord? Totally no, it's gravis armour, he has 2 relic pw, he has different base size, nit acceptable proxy.

Bearing in mind there are four different Calgar models - of which three even have have their own datasheets at present - I wouldn't immediately assume it is the Primaris version being talked about here

You totally right, but all of them equipped with two relic pf, so it's pretty bad proxy. If the base size is correct I'll kek a bit at this "chaos lord", but overall it's not a tournament level)

I would like to register my opinion, but unfortunately the poll has been set up to exclude it.

Add another to the write-in for "No, because the equipment and representation of cult troops are not WYSIWYG."

I would have absolutely no problem with the alternative SM-to-CSM option presented by JNA.

(I would also point out that the poll question is just "Ultramarines "count as" Chaos Marines OK?", and that all the other stuff being described such as use of Cult Troops are only described in the thread itself. So anyone who came into the thread, answered the poll, then started reading may have given an answer which is not representative of their exact position.)

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Would you be OK if your Tournament opponent showed up with a 100% perfect Codex Ultramarines army, but played it as Chaos Space Marine Renegades?

Assume:
* $1,000 cash prize
* Tournament Rules require fully WYSIWYG armies, no exceptions
* ALL weapons are "correct"
* ALL models have "correct" Ultramarines Chapter, 5th Company, Squad and soldier insignia
* army composition matches a Codex demi-Company supported by Veterans from 1st Company and auxiliaries
* the Marneus Calgar Special Character model is the Chaos Lord
* Codex: Chaos Space Marines >>> Codex: Ultramarines
* background story is that the Ultramarines 5th Company *just* turned to Chaos, so they haven't had time to repaint their stuff

Throughout the game, you'll have to remember that the entire army is actually Chaos Space Marine Renegades, and that particular squads are actually Berzerkers, Noise Marines, Plague Marines or Marked. But the opponent claims that the army is WYSIWYG, and gave you a copy of their list, so they say you should accept it.

Obviously, the player is playing as Chaos Marines because the army is "better", but would you be cool with that?

If you were the Tournament Organizer, would you allow it?

No and the bolded parts are the issue for me.

If I have to ensure that all Choppas and Big Choppas are legit (most players don't know he difference), playing Ultramarines as anything other than Ultramarines is not WYSIWYG.

As a TO ? No I'd not allow it without it being more clearly crafted to be so. I think it would be too easy to abuse the other player by forgetting when the visuals are such a key part of your decision making. Wouldn't want hard feelings to emerge if this players goes all the way and then people complain it wasn't wysiwyg, was hard to remember the squads while playing to a time limit, etc, etc. Just would rather it be clear if money is on the line for all parties.

Pick up game ? It's totally fine, I'd give it a shot but I personally don't agree with it, just feels off to me. Even if my book is crap, I play it by the book they were made from. Like when I played my Dark Angels as them despite using the late 4th edition codex for them which was beyond boring and soft. I just couldn't make myself play them as vanilla when the better book came out after for Marines, felt like I was taking the easy way out if I did so. Then I did play the Tempestus as a stand alone force when their solo codex came out and took my rear hammering till I figured out how to make them work then. ( Work being a very loose term as even at their best they were weak as heck ).

Though if I saw someone do that I would have to chuckle inwardly as I remember back when the 5th ed Space wolves book dropped and every chaos player was trying to jump ship to that codex because it " Better represented " chaos marines, khorne most exactly. So how the worm has turned, don't jump ship loyalist comrades, loyal marines will rise again. Trust me, it can't be as bad as when I started with vanilla marines in 3rd edition and my other friend played the 3.5 chaos codex against me, Iron warriors no less, all the time. Now that was fun and I remember him telling me my codex was fine because I could have a cheap HQ, I think it was a strike commander who was like a vet sgt in his stats, that was some sad stuff there. All the while pounding me to nothing with his artillery, felt good.

The disingenuous motive behind starting this thread aside, the original post contradicts itself. How does the army have ALL weapons correct while still representing Cult Troops like Noise Marines, or even have Calgar as a Chaos Lord (unless that Chaos Lord is really armed with a combi-bolter and two PFs)? So the strawman falls apart under the weight of its own abstract and dishonest creation.

Having said that, if the army was just CSM squads, Bikers, Havocs etc and all the weapons actually were correct, so all ML were MLs, flamers were flamers and none of the units were armed with weapons unique to CSM I wouldn't have a problem with it. Once you start having to remember which identical-looking squad is Plague Marines and which are Noise Marines then it's gone too far. With a bit of creativity I think it is possible to have renegade UM with Cult troops in their ranks, but it would require some extra modelling effort from the player to make it work.

WYSIWYG ultimately comes down to a judgement call. It's very difficult to make hard and fast rules that everyone will agree with but I think there's probably general agreement that there's a spectrum from completely stock, official paintjobs and models at one end to random collection of confusing models and toys at the other. The main criteria for me is "is it confusing" but even that requires a judgement call.