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.

tneva82 wrote:
If custodians have no place in game neither has ig.

Guard are an important part of the fluff, are responsible for the majority of the Imperium's wars, and have a clear design concept that doesn't require stealing the spotlight from other factions.

Gold marines are a negligible part of the fluff, have such absurdly tiny numbers that they might as well not exist, and are just marines +1 that try to steal the "elite army of heavy infantry" concept from every other color of space marines.

One of these things is not like the other, no matter how much salty gold marine players try to pretend otherwise.

tneva82 wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Great solution - instead of losing rules for some models, just lose the rules for dozens units and armies. Brilliant!

Is anything of value being lost here? Gold marines should never have been a faction in the first place and knights don't work with the scale of the rest of the game. I guess GSC have an argument for existing but TBH that's easily solved by letting Tyranids take IG allies.

If custodians have no place in game neither has ig.

To be fair, Custodes don't have the time in table service that IG does, Custodes are the latest boy band pushed into the limelight. Soon it will be the Space Dwarves. 2 years from now the exact same argument will be used against Votann.

I play custodes, and I honestly don't see why they need to be a separate faction. Just make them, SoS, Inquisitors, Naval units, and Assassins all into one dex. Call agents of the Imperium.

Anyone could argue that any army shouldn't be in the game because everyone has personal preferences. The "play an old edition" is fine for people who can do so but it's not a cure-all.

Goreshrek wrote:
So a few years ago you spent lots of time lovingly converting/modifying a model to match a particular entry in your codex or IA book. Then comes a new codex, and poof, that configuration is now illegal, or at best really bad. What do you do with the model?
Park in in the back of your shelf / case and forget it?
Try to convert it again into something current?
trash it?

Examples: Ork Big Mek on bike, big trakk with supa-skorcha, metal Ghazghull. but I would think most armies have something similar. Do you have an example from your collection?

2k out of my 4k Corsairs became non-playable. They are still sitting in box doing nothing with, the other playable units I sold right away just in case. I also had to cut off many weapons on the few models I did keep to reuse (Had 4 Venoms with double Shuriken Cannons for example), also one of my Wraithknights I made rocket Jump packs (Sold this and no longer any pics sadly, I used a RWJF engines to do it).

Here is some fast pics of some of them. I had 50 guys with Jump Packs, 9 Bikes fully custom, and 9 characters all custom (Jump Packs and Bikes),

What an awesome army and what a waste by gw of a concept...

 Blackie wrote:
Or keep the existing rules and use the models as count as. Easiest way to do it.

As I've been saying for 15 years now: 'Counts As' is never the answer.

Yeah counts as is functional but doesn't really cut it.

 morganfreeman wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Chaos lost more than just Jump Pack Lords. And Orks losing stuff doesn't mean Chaos losing stuff is ok.

Ironically, orks losing stuff has been ok with a large part of the playerbase.

I wouldn't say it's been "ok" with them. More so the stuff lost has broadly not been massively gameplay altering (you could never, for example, give a warboss a Rocketpack and double their movement), we've gotten used to it over time (we've been taking losses every codex for well over 15 years), and orks are generally pretty robust so far as "counts as" goes.

You could give them a bike though.

Not Online!!! wrote:
What an awesome army and what a waste by gw of a concept...

And even worst they were built for 8th it feels like, they had Raiding Force detachment system (2-4 Patrols) and subfactions. Literally the easiest army to port.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Or keep the existing rules and use the models as count as. Easiest way to do it.

As I've been saying for 15 years now: 'Counts As' is never the answer.

Why not? As long as there's no confusion and it's clear what is what I don't see any issue in using the official model, a proxy, a conversion, a third party model, etc...

 Blackie wrote:
Why not? As long as there's no confusion and it's clear what is what I don't see any issue in using the official model, a proxy, a conversion, a third party model, etc...

What do I "counts as" a Salamander tank as? It doesn't look at all like any non-legends unit so when legends rules are finally put out of their misery (or with people who already don't allow them) those models will have no purpose.

 Blackie wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Or keep the existing rules and use the models as count as. Easiest way to do it.

As I've been saying for 15 years now: 'Counts As' is never the answer.

Why not? As long as there's no confusion and it's clear what is what I don't see any issue in using the official model, a proxy, a conversion, a third party model, etc...

What do I count my big mek on warbike, Waaagh! banner on warbike or painboy on warbike as? How about those nobz which have a kombi-skorcha and a big choppa?
The eight big guns I have? Old ork buggies and skorchas? The third fully magnetized jet? Lootas #13-15 from each mob? The extra turrets and rokkit upgrades for my battlewagons?

The answer is nothing, it's all worthless plastic (and pewter) now. I will never, ever field those again. Because 'counts as' is not a solution for models which have no counterparts anymore, for models which you already own in sufficient number, and for models which cannot be fielded without causing confusion or having vastly different silhouettes and/or footprints.

And don't you dare bring up legends.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Why not? As long as there's no confusion and it's clear what is what I don't see any issue in using the official model, a proxy, a conversion, a third party model, etc...

What do I "counts as" a Salamander tank as? It doesn't look at all like any non-legends unit so when legends rules are finally put out of their misery (or with people who already don't allow them) those models will have no purpose.

A chimera. As I understand it the current version of the game does really do fire arcs, so the lack of turret is irrelevant. An autocannon is close enough to a multilaser, and it has transport capacity. Easy.

 Flinty wrote:
A chimera. As I understand it the current version of the game does really do fire arcs, so the lack of turret is irrelevant. An autocannon is close enough to a multilaser, and it has transport capacity. Easy.

A Salamander is not even close to a Chimera. The weapons don't match (and no, an autocannon does not look like a multilaser), the Chimera's lasgun arrays don't exist, and the Salamander has no transport area on the model. It's slightly better than using a cardboard box as a Chimera but it's a completely non-WYSIWYG proxy that just happens to be close in size and shape, not a legitimate counts-as option.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
A chimera. As I understand it the current version of the game does really do fire arcs, so the lack of turret is irrelevant. An autocannon is close enough to a multilaser, and it has transport capacity. Easy.

A Salamander is not even close to a Chimera. The weapons don't match (and no, an autocannon does not look like a multilaser), the Chimera's lasgun arrays don't exist, and the Salamander has no transport area on the model. It's slightly better than using a cardboard box as a Chimera but it's a completely non-WYSIWYG proxy that just happens to be close in size and shape, not a legitimate counts-as option.

It's based on the Chimera chassis. It has a single turret gun and a hull mounted weapon and an open area at the back that could conceivably hold troops. It's not perfect (counts as never is, by definition) but I seriously doubt anyone is going to be confused by the idea that this Chimera-shaped thing is a Chimera.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
A chimera. As I understand it the current version of the game does really do fire arcs, so the lack of turret is irrelevant. An autocannon is close enough to a multilaser, and it has transport capacity. Easy.

A Salamander is not even close to a Chimera. The weapons don't match (and no, an autocannon does not look like a multilaser), the Chimera's lasgun arrays don't exist, and the Salamander has no transport area on the model. It's slightly better than using a cardboard box as a Chimera but it's a completely non-WYSIWYG proxy that just happens to be close in size and shape, not a legitimate counts-as option.

I... I don't think you fundamentally understand how Counts As works...

Slipspace wrote:
It's based on the Chimera chassis. It has a single turret gun and a hull mounted weapon and an open area at the back that could conceivably hold troops. It's not perfect (counts as never is, by definition) but I seriously doubt anyone is going to be confused by the idea that this Chimera-shaped thing is a Chimera.

The area at the back can hold maybe 1-2 troops in addition to the gunner, not the 12 a Chimera can carry. And it still doesn't have the lasgun arrays a Chimera has. Whether or not someone is going to be confused it's still a stupid looking proxy as a Chimera and not a legitimate counts-as option. A cardboard box with "Chimera" written on it is not going to confuse everyone but it's still a proxy.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Or keep the existing rules and use the models as count as. Easiest way to do it.

As I've been saying for 15 years now: 'Counts As' is never the answer.

Why not? As long as there's no confusion and it's clear what is what I don't see any issue in using the official model, a proxy, a conversion, a third party model, etc...

What do I count my big mek on warbike, Waaagh! banner on warbike or painboy on warbike as? How about those nobz which have a kombi-skorcha and a big choppa?
The eight big guns I have? Old ork buggies and skorchas? The third fully magnetized jet? Lootas #13-15 from each mob? The extra turrets and rokkit upgrades for my battlewagons?

The answer is nothing, it's all worthless plastic (and pewter) now. I will never, ever field those again. Because 'counts as' is not a solution for models which have no counterparts anymore, for models which you already own in sufficient number, and for models which cannot be fielded without causing confusion or having vastly different silhouettes and/or footprints.

And don't you dare bring up legends.

Why not? Those are valid 9e rules. GW tells you so. If you choose to play in environments or with people who'd deny you your Legends units? That's on you.
As for your 3rd fully magnetized jet? Idea #1: Save it for when you play Onslaught scale games. Idea #2: Play some Crusade. That silly flyer restriction, indeed the entire Rule of 3? And the Buggy limit BS? Not a thing outside matched play.

I also have an offer for you. I'll buy your Big Gunz. They will go to a good home & they will be used often. PM if you're interested in parting with them & maybe we can work out a deal.

 Grimtuff wrote:
I... I don't think you fundamentally understand how Counts As works...

I understand perfectly how counts-as works and how it is different from proxying.

Counts-as: "this model is legitimately a WYSIWYG representation of its rules, but it is not the standard GW kit". For example, using third-party plasma guns instead of GW plasma guns is legitimate counts-as. They aren't technically the official representation of a plasma gun but it's clear what they are and you can reasonably argue that it's an alternate pattern of plasma gun that your force uses.

Proxy: "this model is not WYSIWYG but I'm using it to represent these rules anyway". For example, using a flamer and saying "pretend this is a plasma gun" is proxying. You aren't making a credible attempt at an alternate WYSIWYG option, you're just putting down something reasonably similar in size as a substitute for the real model.

So what about a Salamander as a Chimera? The weapons do not match (and the autocannon is a 40k autocannon, so there is no argument that it's an HB/AC/ML), the transport section is not believably present, and the lasgun arrays are missing entirely. It's no better than using a Basilisk as a Chimera, it is the correct size because it uses the Chimera hull parts but that's about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:
Those are valid 9e rules.

No they aren't. GW put very little effort into them when they were originally written and they haven't been updated to keep up with new codex releases. There are still obvious typos, nonsensical rules, missing keywords, old mechanics that no longer apply, etc. GW can say "these are official" all they want but most of us are going to continue to treat them as the garbage they are and not allow them in normal games. At best you have to do a bunch of house ruling on them to get them, there are legends units that literally can not be used RAW because their rules do not work anymore.

Not a thing outside matched play.

Most people use those rules in all games because they are obvious balance changes. In fact, the argument for using them is even stronger than it is in tournament games. In a tournament it's fine if plane spam is overpowered, you just buy a bunch of planes and use the overpowered thing. But nobody wants to get wiped off the table in a narrative game because the thing that is too overpowered for tournaments is somehow legal in an environment where many people are using much weaker lists.

Where are those definitions from? I was under the impression that proxy and counts-as were synonyms.

ccs wrote:
Why not? Those are valid 9e rules. GW tells you so. If you choose to play in environments or with people who'd deny you your Legends units? That's on you.

I am not using those rules because no matter what GW says, they are *not* valid rules. At least for orks, the rules in legends are dysfunctional, lack essential keywords, have old profiles for weapons and wargear as well rules they shouldn't have. Almost all units are terrible because of that, and the only reason to bring any of them is to exploit the lack of updates, like cheating a 5++ KFF in your army, having warboss which still has advance&charge and breakin' eads or exploiting the fact that there is no point costs attached to the legacy wargear options.

Fixing that mess is essentially the same as just writing your own rules for those models.

Not to mention that some of the models I listed aren't even in legends.

As for your 3rd fully magnetized jet? Idea #1: Save it for when you play Onslaught scale games. Idea #2: Play some Crusade. That silly flyer restriction, indeed the entire Rule of 3? And the Buggy limit BS? Not a thing outside matched play.

Crusade having no limits is a myth. They just aren't spelled out, but part of the rules implicitly.
At PL25 you cannot have more than two fliers no matter what, and you will most likely lose the game if you do bring that many. Bringing 3 at 50 not only just as stupid, but also a great way to ruin the game for both players. There is nothing narrative about half an army flying in circles and not interacting with the table.
Same about those buggies - sure, you can have five of each in theory, but detachments, PL limits and kustom jobs are a good incentive to diversify.

I also dearly hope you aren't cheating your fellow crusade player by using the buffed Waaagh! from the data slate while also chosing to ignore the restrictions in the same document.

I also have an offer for you. I'll buy your Big Gunz. They will go to a good home & they will be used often. PM if you're interested in parting with them & maybe we can work out a deal.

Eh, I'd take the offer but dealing with sending stuff to the US has been a PITA since orange clown man. Sending 8 converted toys around half the globe isn't worth 80€ of shipping for either of us.

 Flinty wrote:
Where are those definitions from? I was under the impression that proxy and counts-as were synonyms.

They are. Counts as is just a more permanent (and IMO visually coherent) version of proxying.

 Flinty wrote:
Where are those definitions from? I was under the impression that proxy and counts-as were synonyms.

I don't know if anyone has ever made official definitions but that's how it has been since I started in the hobby 15+ years ago. Counts-as is WYSIWYG with a custom model, proxying is using some random non-WYSIWYG object as a placeholder for the real thing.

To my mind "counts as" is just for smaller stuff - i.e. "this flamer counts as a melta gun, this power sword counts as a power fist" while proxying is for entirely units/armies. I.E. I don't have "new hot unit" but want to test it out, so [these models] are standing in until I can get hold of it.

I'd be completely fine with someone using a Salamander as a Chimera. A proxy would be someone chucking in say a Rhino. Or a Wave Serpent.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
I... I don't think you fundamentally understand how Counts As works...

I understand perfectly how counts-as works and how it is different from proxying.

Counts-as: "this model is legitimately a WYSIWYG representation of its rules, but it is not the standard GW kit". For example, using third-party plasma guns instead of GW plasma guns is legitimate counts-as. They aren't technically the official representation of a plasma gun but it's clear what they are and you can reasonably argue that it's an alternate pattern of plasma gun that your force uses.

Proxy: "this model is not WYSIWYG but I'm using it to represent these rules anyway". For example, using a flamer and saying "pretend this is a plasma gun" is proxying. You aren't making a credible attempt at an alternate WYSIWYG option, you're just putting down something reasonably similar in size as a substitute for the real model.

So what about a Salamander as a Chimera? The weapons do not match (and the autocannon is a 40k autocannon, so there is no argument that it's an HB/AC/ML), the transport section is not believably present, and the lasgun arrays are missing entirely. It's no better than using a Basilisk as a Chimera, it is the correct size because it uses the Chimera hull parts but that's about it.

So when the day comes that you can't (or won't) use your Salamander as a Salamander?
1) Remove the autocannon & replace it with something valid for a Chimera. Depending upon the edition details you may need to include a turret.
2) Using simple hobby tools, some glue, & a bit of plastic card, extend the sides of the open crew compartment upwards a bit,
3) Drill out the firing ports for the lasgun array on your compartment extensions.
4) Add lasguns.
5) Finally? Using a bit more plasticard, make a top for the newly extended compartment.
Paint to match original model.
And now you have a Chimera.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:
Those are valid 9e rules.

No they aren't. GW put very little effort into them when they were originally written and they haven't been updated to keep up with new codex releases. There are still obvious typos, nonsensical rules, missing keywords, old mechanics that no longer apply, etc. GW can say "these are official" all they want but most of us are going to continue to treat them as the garbage they are and not allow them in normal games. At best you have to do a bunch of house ruling on them to get them, there are legends units that literally can not be used RAW because their rules do not work anymore.

Yes Bob, they are. Because GW has told you so.
You might not like them. You might choose to not use them. Some of them might be utter crap. But they are valid rules.
Being out right bad, full of typos, being too expensive/too cheap, being utter nonsense, wrong/missing keywords, not being frequently updated, having little effort invested in their initial writing, etc? Well that also applies to a great many non-Legends things - unit stats/faqs/balance sheets/CA changes - that GW puts out. And you accept those.
And yes, now & then on a Legends unit you might find something that simply doesn't work anymore. You do one of two things: You just shrug & totally ignore the ability. Take that mental sharpie & simply cross it out. Or you discuss it with opponent - who will be OK with having this discussion because you're playing with someone already OK with using Legends.....

 Flinty wrote:
Where are those definitions from? I was under the impression that proxy and counts-as were synonyms.

To everyone else they are. I guess if you really want to win an online argument badly enough you can just come up with your own self-serving definitions, treat them as the ultimate truth, and show everyone how wrong they are.

I guess my standards are just lower than others. To me the salamander has a hull mount, a support weapon and has space the back for duderz, that typically will be armed with lasguns. Hey presto, a chimera.

If you didn’t have any other basilisks, I’d allow them as a chimera too. To be honest, if you stick a bit of cardboard tube in the back of the salamander I’d allow it as a basilisk. Now whether that was counts-as or proxying, I would leave to the experts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or even better, it’s an artillery spotter scout, and therefore acts like a basilisk without the cardboard tube.

ccs wrote:
Yes Bob, they are. Because GW has told you so.
You might not like them. You might choose to not use them. Some of them might be utter crap. But they are valid rules.
Being out right bad, full of typos, being too expensive/too cheap, being utter nonsense, wrong/missing keywords, not being frequently updated, having little effort invested in their initial writing, etc? Well that also applies to a great many non-Legends things - unit stats/faqs/balance sheets/CA changes - that GW puts out. And you accept those.

Sorry, but that is nothing but whataboutism. Just because other rules are slightly flawed doesn't change the fact that Legends are not compatible to current codices, while everything else considered "valid rules" is. Legends was written for 8th edition and not updated since, and there was no updated statement from GW since then.

Technically, legend rules are no more or less valid for 9th edition play than the rules for Goff Rokka and Grukk Face-Rippa from the WD in June 2020.

And yes, now & then on a Legends unit you might find something that simply doesn't work anymore. You do one of two things: You just shrug & totally ignore the ability. Take that mental sharpie & simply cross it out. Or you discuss it with opponent - who will be OK with having this discussion because you're playing with someone already OK with using Legends.....

Riddle me this - if those rules need house rules to function, why do we need them to begin with?

How is having models with rules that can't be played properly different from having models with no rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Flinty wrote:
I guess my standards are just lower than others. To me the salamander has a hull mount, a support weapon and has space the back for duderz, that typically will be armed with lasguns. Hey presto, a chimera.

If you didn’t have any other basilisks, I’d allow them as a chimera too. To be honest, if you stick a bit of cardboard tube in the back of the salamander I’d allow it as a basilisk. Now whether that was counts-as or proxying, I would leave to the experts.

I'm totally with you. Most 3rd party printed models look less like the models they are counting as than that salamander tank looks like a chimera.

 Blackie wrote:
Why not?

As Jid said, what do I 'Counts As' all my now-illegal units? Like most of my Death Guard? Like almost all of my Chaos Terminators?

'Counts As' is a pathetic joke of a solution for GW's endless demolishing of certain armies.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Why not?

As Jid said, what do I 'Counts As' all my now-illegal units? Like most of my Death Guard? Like almost all of my Chaos Terminators?

'Counts As' is a pathetic joke of a solution for GW's endless demolishing of certain armies.

Whats wrong with your death guard and terminators in that theyre now 'illegal'?

Genuinely curious...

'Counts as' isn't a perfect fit, but imo where it can work, it should at least be considered. At the very least I see it as a good ol' middle finger to the suits at gw. :p