Counts-As: Your own thoughts on the matter, and when it gets taken too far?

[Kaika87]

So, I admit, I'm partially wanting to post this for the whole March contest dealie, but also I think that it's a topic that rarely gets a real discussion going. I remember months ago, a BoLS battle report had some Death Guard counts-as Black Templar, and the comments were full of seething, uncontrollable fury at the very notion. Especially as I near completion of my own counts-as army, I start to worry if that's really the dominant opinion on the idea. Obviously, there are instances of Counts-As that take it too far and are quite unacceptable, but then there are others.

From my perspective, I can identify 3 broad categories of Counts-As, and for the sake of discussion, let's talk about all of these from the perspective of seeing this unpacked across from you in a tournament environment, because with a friendly game, all bets are off. Hell, until I was sure of the army list for my current project, I was using Styrofoam 3-d cutouts of Rhinos in casual games.

Category 1 - "The Proxy": These are your players that have decided to change one of their current armies over to another with little no conversions done. WSIWYG is most certainly not in effect here, and instead you'll hear an explanation of how the models with dark lances instead are carrying heavy bolters, or how the squad of models without heads is a squad of Genestealers, not Skeletons. Really, this is the army that won't be allowed in a tournament setting in the way that I've explained it, as most tournaments enforce WSIWYG. I've seen a couple exceptions from local 3-game events, though, so it's not outside the realm of possibility.

The outermost edge of this category would be the Space Marine bandwagon-jumper. If you sit across from someone that has a beautiful Ultramarines army and then hear him start explaining that he's got Njal and 3 squads of Grey Hunters, you know you've found this type of Proxy army. In this case, everything is in fact WSIWYG, but it's still pretty obvious that this guy is adhering to the first sentence of this category, taking a current army and using it for a different codex.

Category 2 - "The Conversion": This is probably where the majority of actually-played-in-tournaments Counts-As armies fall. These are your World Eaters Counts-As Blood Angels, Thousand Sons Counts-As Grey Knights, and your Eldar Counts-As Dark Eldar. The player that made this army put at least some effort into changing over the models to be appropriate to the codex he's playing out of, and in some cases a great deal of effort. Effectively, this category attempts to blend the aesthetic of the models with the rules they're playing out of. Taking the World Eaters counts-as Blood Angels as an example, it'd be doing simple things like making Assault Marines out of Berzerkers, up through, for example, greenstuffing wings onto Bloodletters to make them into Sanguinary Guard, with plenty of gore and viscera lovingly adorning everything. This army could well be something the owner had previously been using under a different codex and converted over for one reason or another, or a project entirely taken from the ground up as a way of alternatively modelling units from a different codex. In either case, WSIWYG will most certainly be adhered to here, and again, attempts will be made to blend aesthetic and rule mechanics.

Category 3 - "You have too much free time on your hands.": I could go on a long explanation of this one too, but instead I'll just introduce (or re-introduce) you to a man named Michael Strange.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4nzgPbHlNo4/TF-S0aBe19I/AAAAAAAAIwE/ms9KF31WMGc/s1600/strange-03.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4nzgPbHlNo4/TF-R3O4eE1I/AAAAAAAAIv8/nrHU727fV_k/s1600/strange-02.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4nzgPbHlNo4/TF-THa6uh3I/AAAAAAAAIwU/ebIkvO7EG1Y/s1600/strange-05.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4nzgPbHlNo4/TF-TR8oE50I/AAAAAAAAIwc/ht4kIY3deP8/s1600/strange-06.jpg



So those are the 3 categories. And now I ask you, which of these would you be comfortable sitting across the table from in a tournament? Why? Obviously you'd play it out assuming it was deemed legal by the TO, but would you feel like your opponent is trying to cheat you? Would you care at all?

Personally, I think that #1 is pushing it for a tournament, especially if there is no WSIWYG. I can understand if this was a last-minute idea, and you're just trying something out for fun (especially if it's the Ultra-Wolves I mentioned earlier and it's a local tournament), but for a big, weekend tournament I feel like you should pay the toll and make an army for that codex. Be it the actual GW models for the codex, a bunch of conversions, or....Mechanids. From a game mechanics standpoint, so long as I can identify a visually distinction between units and wargear, I'm satisfied, especially if I get to look at some eye-candy in the process.

[pathwinder14]

I would love to sit across from #3. Heck, most of the time my stuff is so heavily converted I am one step removed from #3. Once I start my Orks they will deffinitely be a #3 type army.

[gendoikari87]

Category 1- I'd play em' but no respect

Category 2- Love to play props.

Category 3- Mad propps, just have **** labeled kay? (when the mechanicus rise again, this will be them)

[Rissan4ever]

#1 is inappropriate for tournaments, but ok for casual play IF you're trying out a new concept or still planning the army. Once it's beyond the planning stage, you should move on to #2.

#2 depends on the time and care put into the conversions. If they look cool, and I can tell what's what, it's fine. If the units aren't clearly distinguishable, then it's a problem.

#3 is 100% pure awesomeness. If someone spent this much time and effort making an army that looks that amazing, they can use whatever rules they want, and I won't care because I'll be too busy drooling.

[Faultie]

#2 and #3 are what make 40k armies stand out to me, because you can get so much diversity from the set of models that GW makes (and from other sources) when you mix and match and make something more than just "Codex: Space Marines" or "Codex: Imperial Guard". #1 I'm iffy on, but depends on the motive I guess.

[Night System]

Well I have a category 2 World Eaters army that I have unit conversions for different codexes, I have converted a chaotic style storm raven and some Jugganaut riders using Thunderwolve rules. As long as the conversions have more effort put into them than the model they are replacing I cannot really complain.

I also have a category 3 Exodite army, which is currently using the tyranid rules.

I have never had anybody refuse to play me.
On terms of category 1 however... I would play a game or two just for testing models before purchasing, but otherwise I don't like playing proxy games.

[ara989]

I'm fine with all of the above options. Though #1 can get annoying overtime if its a permanent switch rather than someone wanting to fiddle around with a different codex to get the feel for it or test stuff out prior to buying new models.

[ragnarcissist]

i love getting new ideas from ppls conversions, i personally cant stand fielding unpainted models, but will use "counts as" sometimes (like my metal wolfscout plasma gunner counts as melta) but dont like doing it often

[Grenadier]

I am fairly laid back on allowing counts as. I have but one real requirement of an opponent choosing to do counts as. And that is WYSIWYG. And this only applies to weapons. For the simple fact I don't want you to shoot me with a bolt pistol in one turn then blast me with a missile launcher in the next turn. Otherwise you can counts as much as you like.

Much in my army is a counts as kind of a deal. Mainly because I can't afford to buy entirely new squads and stuff when a codex update invalidates something in my army. Whenever there's a major change I'll painstakingly examine each model and reorganize in a manner that will let me be rules legal. Anyone who doesn't will then get rebuilt if my available bits permit it. If not then my only other options are to counts as or discontinue using the model.

I'm very easy going in letting models stand in for other models in an army. For example, I have enough Space Marines to make either 1 gigantic Black Templars army or 1 small Templar army and 1 small vanilla. Now, all the modles to some degree are "Templary." They have the shoulder badges, robes, etc. And many of them are painted as Templars. But because my battles always are huge Apoc scale ones I find sometimes I have to play them as two different armies. In which case I'll keep my Templar core intact and then create a separate vanilla list. That list then can make use of the new units vanilla's have that Templars don't have . In general the new vanila list makes up for the shortcomings of the Templars. As for justifying doing this and the fact everyone looks like a Templar I simply say my vanilla chapter is a successor chapter to the Templars. A crusade that for some reason was long isolated from the rest of the chapter and had to adopt new ways to survive.

Sometimes my opponent wants to do a counts as for vehicles. Often turning a Razorback into a Rhino. That's fair enough. If he can remove it I'll have him take off the heavy weapon. If he cant I ask him to rotate it backwards so it'll remind us that it is now a Rhino.

The way I see it as long as counting as is not excessively confusing then its ok.
So, I admit, I'm partially wanting to post this for the whole March contest dealie, but also I think that it's a topic that rarely gets a real discussion going. I remember months ago, a BoLS battle report had some Death Guard counts-as Black Templar, and the comments were full of seething, uncontrollable fury at the very notion. Especially as I near completion of my own counts-as army, I start to worry if that's really the dominant opinion on the idea. Obviously, there are instances of Counts-As that take it too far and are quite unacceptable, but then there are others.

From my perspective, I can identify 3 broad categories of Counts-As, and for the sake of discussion, let's talk about all of these from the perspective of seeing this unpacked across from you in a tournament environment, because with a friendly game, all bets are off. Hell, until I was sure of the army list for my current project, I was using Styrofoam 3-d cutouts of Rhinos in casual games.

Category 1 - "The Proxy": These are your players that have decided to change one of their current armies over to another with little no conversions done. WSIWYG is most certainly not in effect here, and instead you'll hear an explanation of how the models with dark lances instead are carrying heavy bolters, or how the squad of models without heads is a squad of Genestealers, not Skeletons. Really, this is the army that won't be allowed in a tournament setting in the way that I've explained it, as most tournaments enforce WSIWYG. I've seen a couple exceptions from local 3-game events, though, so it's not outside the realm of possibility.

The outermost edge of this category would be the Space Marine bandwagon-jumper. If you sit across from someone that has a beautiful Ultramarines army and then hear him start explaining that he's got Njal and 3 squads of Grey Hunters, you know you've found this type of Proxy army. In this case, everything is in fact WSIWYG, but it's still pretty obvious that this guy is adhering to the first sentence of this category, taking a current army and using it for a different codex.

Category 2 - "The Conversion": This is probably where the majority of actually-played-in-tournaments Counts-As armies fall. These are your World Eaters Counts-As Blood Angels, Thousand Sons Counts-As Grey Knights, and your Eldar Counts-As Dark Eldar. The player that made this army put at least some effort into changing over the models to be appropriate to the codex he's playing out of, and in some cases a great deal of effort. Effectively, this category attempts to blend the aesthetic of the models with the rules they're playing out of. Taking the World Eaters counts-as Blood Angels as an example, it'd be doing simple things like making Assault Marines out of Berzerkers, up through, for example, greenstuffing wings onto Bloodletters to make them into Sanguinary Guard, with plenty of gore and viscera lovingly adorning everything. This army could well be something the owner had previously been using under a different codex and converted over for one reason or another, or a project entirely taken from the ground up as a way of alternatively modelling units from a different codex. In either case, WSIWYG will most certainly be adhered to here, and again, attempts will be made to blend aesthetic and rule mechanics.

Category 3 - "You have too much free time on your hands.": I could go on a long explanation of this one too, but instead I'll just introduce (or re-introduce) you to a man named Michael Strange.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4nzgPbHlNo4/TF-S0aBe19I/AAAAAAAAIwE/ms9KF31WMGc/s1600/strange-03.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4nzgPbHlNo4/TF-R3O4eE1I/AAAAAAAAIv8/nrHU727fV_k/s1600/strange-02.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4nzgPbHlNo4/TF-THa6uh3I/AAAAAAAAIwU/ebIkvO7EG1Y/s1600/strange-05.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4nzgPbHlNo4/TF-TR8oE50I/AAAAAAAAIwc/ht4kIY3deP8/s1600/strange-06.jpg



So those are the 3 categories. And now I ask you, which of these would you be comfortable sitting across the table from in a tournament? Why? Obviously you'd play it out assuming it was deemed legal by the TO, but would you feel like your opponent is trying to cheat you? Would you care at all?

Personally, I think that #1 is pushing it for a tournament, especially if there is no WSIWYG. I can understand if this was a last-minute idea, and you're just trying something out for fun (especially if it's the Ultra-Wolves I mentioned earlier and it's a local tournament), but for a big, weekend tournament I feel like you should pay the toll and make an army for that codex. Be it the actual GW models for the codex, a bunch of conversions, or....Mechanids. From a game mechanics standpoint, so long as I can identify a visually distinction between units and wargear, I'm satisfied, especially if I get to look at some eye-candy in the process.

[turiya64]

2 and 3 are both great. but 1 i would be less then excited to play

[Cuddy]

I don't have a problem with number one, 40K is expensive, so it can take a long time between when you decide to start playing a new army and when you finish it. I think the game as a whole is more fun when every player can try out the new codex or whatever, rather then just one faction being excited about it. I do see how it could be abused heavily by a powergamer though.

On a related note, what about a different version of type 1 where the models are still from the same army? Ie. "these unconverted ork boys 'count as' tankbustas"?

[kargie]

I'm OK with all levels, though obviously far prefer 2 or 3.
1 is more situational--if it is someone new to an army, I'm fine with proxies as long as I know what's going on. I'd rather have a model that doesn't fit than a piece of paper in the shape with a name on it.
With people I regularly play, I don't complain at all UNLESS no progress is made from month to month. If they're building things up I have no objection to proxying as long as each time I play there are fewer than the last time.

[asteroidjawa]

I am all for conversions. As for proxies, just write down what everything is so opponents know what they are facing.

[crazyredpraetorian]

I have seen some great counts as armies. However, most are just an excuse to codex hop.

[Cuddy]

When it comes to playing friends number one can be great. I got into the game playing two friends, and I know we had more fun playing different match ups all the time rather then the same three armies paired up for every match.

[flygonzom]

Meh, just be wysiwyg. I don't mind the codex hoping as long as the unique units are different, but a tac sqaud is a tac squad.

[Bean]

I've been playing a category 2 army for years. I started building a Chaos army when the current Chaos codex came out, but at that time I didn't like all the spiky and gribbly bits associated with the Chaos model range (and I still don't) so I bought Space Marine models, instead, and used those.

Almost everything is wysiwyg, but conversions are fairly minimal. I cleaned all of the Imperial iconography and purity seals from my marines, but I haven't modeled my Icons of Glory, stating instead that my squad sergeants, who are all visibly distinct, carry them. I use assault marines for Raptors and Terminators for Terminators, but I did arm swaps on the robed Dark Angels Veterans to give them all pairs of chainswords and use them for Berserkers. I built terminators carrying plasma cannons (using the terminator heavy flamer and plastic Devastator plasma cannon bits) that I use as Obliterators.

I use unconverted Balrogs from the WotR line for Daemon Princes (I play them as Wings, Mark of Khorne) and more heavily converted plastic marines as lords and sorcerers. I have a Chaos Terminator Lord with all of his gribbly armor detail cleaned off built into a counts-as Abbadon.

My army is fully painted in a non-cannon scheme, so there's no source of confusion, there.

I have had people presume that my marines are loyalist marines. It's understandable. I've never had anyone complain once I explain to them how my equivalencies work, though.

Really, this is a border-line example. It's not proxies, exactly, 'cause almost everything looks pretty much exactly how it's supposed to except for aesthetic details. There are some conversions, but they're pretty minor.

[flygonzom]

Almost is wysiwyg, but conversions are fairly minimal. I cleaned all of the Imperial iconography and purity seals from my marines, but I haven't modeled my Icons of Glory, stating instead that my squad sergeants, who are all visibly distinct, carry them. I use assault marines for Raptors and Terminators for Terminators, but I did arm swaps on the robed Dark Angels Veterans to give them all pairs of chainswords and use them for Berserkers. I built terminators carrying plasma cannons (using the terminator heavy flamer and plastic Devastator plasma cannon bits) that I use as Obliterators.

I did the same thing with my Berzerkers with a few more spikes and Power Fisting Cypher for the champ. Gives it more of a reaping feel than just the strait up slaughter

[Kaika87]

#1 is inappropriate for tournaments, but ok for casual play IF you're trying out a new concept or still planning the army. Once it's beyond the planning stage, you should move on to #2.

#2 depends on the time and care put into the conversions. If they look cool, and I can tell what's what, it's fine. If the units aren't clearly distinguishable, then it's a problem.

#3 is 100% pure awesomeness. If someone spent this much time and effort making an army that looks that amazing, they can use whatever rules they want, and I won't care because I'll be too busy drooling.

I will say, having been in that position recently, it can be hard to judge when it's time to move beyond the planning stage and make that big lump-sum investment in buying a bunch of models at once. But you're right, you eventually have to do it, and no longer will the folks at my local store be subjected to my Ghetto-Rhinos.

[Bean]

I did the same thing with my Berzerkers with a few more spikes and Power Fisting Cypher for the champ. Gives it more of a reaping feel than just the strait up slaughter

Cool. I actually built my champs with double power weapons, just to keep the sword theme going. I also retained the Dark Angels sword iconography--on the shoulder pads. It's pretty much the only iconography I didn't scrape off of my guys, and it shows up mostly on my berserkers.

[The Madman]

I ain't got a problem with any of them really, though proxy i wouldn't want to see at a tourny (but i don't do competative games anyway ).

EDIT: hell if i didn't accept count-as i'd be a hypocrite.

[Duskstorm]

Personally I have no problem with counts as, until you get people trying to play 2, 3, or even 4 or more codex's with one army. It just stinks of bandwagon jumping, changing codex's when they see others doing well with a different book than they are currently using. The games seem less fun because the players are less invested in the game and their armies/models.

[Akela99]

I am not on the boat with Counts as armies. When I got back into 40k in third edition (skipped 2nd), there was a guy who had a painted marine army, done up in "bone." Any new book or what not became his Bone Wolves, Bone Angels, etc. If an opponent does a conversion army, good for him/her and I am in support. The marine army that is now Space Wolves pisses me off. I have a Space Wolf army. They are Space Wolf models and look like Space Wolves. I also have a marine army. They are Marines! I have an ork army. They are Orks, not IG. If I want an IG army, out will come the airbrush. But I am a hobbyist and I know not everyone in our gaming community shares the hobbyist sentiment.

[Altimit01]

2 and 3 are great. 1 is irritating to play against. I'm rather partial to 2 since sometimes there's a theme you want but the codex for your army doesn't properly express it while another codex fits perfect. As long as it's WYSIWYG I'd be all for all terminator blood angels or all jump pack ravenguard.

[Lord Inquisitor]

2 and 3 for tournaments, while 1 only for friendly games.

[Kaika87]

I am not on the boat with Counts as armies. When I got back into 40k in third edition (skipped 2nd), there was a guy who had a painted marine army, done up in "bone." Any new book or what not became his Bone Wolves, Bone Angels, etc. If an opponent does a conversion army, good for him/her and I am in support. The marine army that is now Space Wolves pisses me off. I have a Space Wolf army. They are Space Wolf models and look like Space Wolves. I also have a marine army. They are Marines! I have an ork army. They are Orks, not IG. If I want an IG army, out will come the airbrush. But I am a hobbyist and I know not everyone in our gaming community shares the hobbyist sentiment.

But see what you're talking about is the category 1 that I brought up, and this is what I think most people think of when they hear counts-as. Basically what I was trying to do is get discussion going about the other types of counts-as armies, although it seems like there's a broad consensus on it.

[Grenadier]

So basically your concern is how they look? If they're going to be X army they have to be painted X army's colors and using X army's bits and unique models?

Some of my Black Templars are comprised of bits from Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Chaos marines, and Black Templars. And not all of them are painted in black, red, and white. One reason my army is full of so many different models, bits, and pieces, is that I can't afford to build a new marine force every time I catch the new army fever. So my army gets done, and redone, and did over, again and again. Right now I'm strongly considering abandoning the Black Templars entirely and converting them all back to a themed vanilla chapter. And one day that too may change whenever the next marine codex comes out that will undo my list.


I am not on the boat with Counts as armies. When I got back into 40k in third edition (skipped 2nd), there was a guy who had a painted marine army, done up in "bone." Any new book or what not became his Bone Wolves, Bone Angels, etc. If an opponent does a conversion army, good for him/her and I am in support. The marine army that is now Space Wolves pisses me off. I have a Space Wolf army. They are Space Wolf models and look like Space Wolves. I also have a marine army. They are Marines! I have an ork army. They are Orks, not IG. If I want an IG army, out will come the airbrush. But I am a hobbyist and I know not everyone in our gaming community shares the hobbyist sentiment.

[Drunkencorgimaster]

I guess have to play Horus' advocate. I am not sure where I stand on the specific examples 1,2, and 3, but I know I am growing real tired of "counts as" real fast. If a player manages to get basic WYSIWYG (such as it sounds like most of you on this thread do) and does not codex hop to every flavor of the month, then I am okay with that.

But how often do people take it way too far? I suspect we all know gamers who bend a little leniancy in this regard until it totally breaks. I have seen a tyranid arm with rubber cement pored all over it "counts as" a greater daemon. An unpainted, armless half-torso of a Nightbringer "counts as" a Necron lord. A broken lascannon "counts as" Epidemius (s/b?). A grenade -yes that is right; a tiny, little plastic freaking GRENADE "counts as" an entire Imperial Guard heavy weapon team. If a player can't make a proper model of whatever it is he is trying to represent then he should stick to computer games or board games. What is it about this hobby that attracted these people in the first place? "I want to game against carefully built and painted models, but I want to use a broken lascannon." I am sorry to sound like a snob, but if you have a beat-to-hell rowboat, don't enter a regatta.

Inquistor Inspector: "Commander, where are your troops?"
Lord Count Sass: "Well, see that grenade over there? That there is a weapons team. It's a lascannon or heavy bolter or whatever I need it to be in the middle of a battle."
Inquistor Inspector: Mmmmm...yeah....

[Grenadier]

I've seen a block of wood in the vague shape of a Landraider count as a Landraider. And a Rhino count as a Leman Russ. And the "Torsoless Biker of Sleepy Hollow" count as a Space Marine Chaplain on a bike. Just a pair of legs on a bike! Each turn he had a different weapon. This kind of counting as I object to. But letting Ultramarines count as Imperial Fists? Or so forth? No biggie. Just be sure to give them the right weapons and I'm cool with that. My best counts as moment: getting away with letting an empty can be a drop pod.

[Plowboy22]

2 and 3 for tournaments, while 1 only for friendly games.

What he said!

[Loafer of Change]

I'm a very new player (2 games under my belt) so I've been guilty of a fair bit of #1.
However, I think the shame will start to eat at me if I continue to use Blood Bowl Orc Linemen as Plaguebearers...

[Danno]

I'll have to jump on the bandwagon and agree that #1 is fine for friendly games/ testing out new ideas and that in a tournament it just shouldn't be allowed. #2 and #3 I am fine with as long I know what's what through WYSIWYG and/or something I can look at that will tell me what I'm looking at. Though most of the converted armies I've played against I haven't had too many problems figuring out what units are on the board so long as I can remember what codex is used!

[bfmusashi]

Most folks are fine with me using Ork Kaptin Badrukk to represent Nork Deddog. It's one well dressed ork in an army of Imperial Guard and since I run them as a Rogue Trader fleet most folks just go with it and think it's fun. He is a little short though, so I could see the objection.

[Colonel Bindoff]

I'm cool with counts as as long as it's clear what is what. Nothing kills fun like having to ask every few minutes which group of unpainted ork boys represents the sanguinary guard and which the tactical squad.

[Sort Of Purple]

In a tournament setting? Honestly counts as is far too much of an overblown thing and I wouldn't want to see any of it. I'd have it that for an army to be legal from a codex, it has to be using a colour scheme exampled in the book. But wouldn't a popular idea. And the really good conversions you see at these events would be missed.

Beyond that it all goes murky. One guy has spacewolves, and actual Njal, of course thats fine. Another guy has done a fantastic conversion for his own chapter that counts as Njal, most say fine. One guy has ultramarines and his librarian counts as njal. People get angry. But what honestly makes the second guys counts as more legitimate? The effort and time he put in? Possibly, but thats still subjective. And what if guy two with the awesome conversion does another one for Mephiston, his army are now all Blood Angels. And he would probably get away with it because the apparent effort people will see to make the army Blood Angels, despite them being power armour army X to start with.

[Altimit01]

I'd have it that for an army to be legal from a codex, it has to be using a colour scheme exampled in the book.

So you'd want to remove that boxed out section on page 127 Codex Space Marines?

[Sort Of Purple]

So you'd want to remove that boxed out section on page 127 Codex Space Marines?

No, just the very small line saying you can make you own colours and heraldry. But thats the same for every codex going. it's not a great solution, but I tire of counts as arguments about counts as, and it's what i would do.

If anything that little boxout outlaws conversions as it states you could use Marneus Calgar as is, or use him AND his model as a named character of another chapter, just with a new name. Nowhere wheres does it say OR. But thats a silly argument anyway.

[doom-kitten]

Not gonna lie, I like being able to look at my opponents side of the table and see exactly what I'm fighting against, painted armies also please me, I could see playing and army like the #3 and enjoying it because it's unquie but a ultra/wolves army would irrate me alittle.

[KJD]

I say the game is about having fun... Provided that my opponent was willing to do a pregame run down on what's what I'd play any of them. I would prefer 2 or 3 though.

[david5th]

Category 1- I'd play em' but no respect

Category 2- Love to play props.

Category 3- Mad propps, just have **** labeled kay? (when the mechanicus rise again, this will be them)

pretty much.:)

[Marshal_Wilhelm]

When I see BA getting this and that set of goodies, but selfishly keeping it to themselves (which doesn't seem very BA to me, anyway)
or Ultramarines without the sense to carry a chainsword on themselves, despite Tacticals getting beaten up by Chaos Marines and Grey Hunters _ha, obviously these heretics and barbarians are just stooges!_ and the like, it just makes me sad.

And then a friend reminds me that 'yes, the on table rules don't truly represent what happens fluffwise' & so I calm down. But boy, wouldn't it be sweet to have something a bit more neato to take to the table?

This is count as, and I know some dudes are allergic to it, either from supreme orthodoxy (to which I would think that playing a pretend game and the issues that my friend points out, renders moot) or from being bashed by powa! gamers.
Well, on the powa! gaming thing, that really is something you need to make clear about what you want from your games before one of you bushwacks the other guy, playing his strong list against your laid back list.
So to my mind, no reason to be allergic to counts as, at all.

To me, for instance, the Mentor Legion [a heavily retcon'ed Chapter - wearing green and white] could quite happily be tech savvy, [old fluff] but because they know other Imperials are allergic to it, they conduct themselves covertly and secretively [new fluff] and tadaa, a perfect blend of the the two seemingly conflictive fluffs.

So somehow, the Mentor Legion are open to technology. Perhaps the initial recruits were from a world where they had lived in harmony with benevolent aliens, such as the Tau, or Eldar that weren't being capricious xenos? I don't know.

But anyway, the idea of having one Marine force, able to use different Codices, and having it be because of experimental weaponry, tactics and/or technology, is just too cool to me.

For example, from C:SM:
• Vulkan's oodles of twin linked mayhem. Refined weaponry.
• Vanilla. Perhaps the Chapter is not trying out anything too high tech on this outing? But Sternguard and Conversion beams could be expected.
• Lysander. His bolter drill is the old targeting network fluff. His armour has a targeting machine spirit that when linked to a squad, gives improved targeting prowess. A bit like those AWAC aircraft.
• Shrike. Fleet on his army? Various combat drugs are within usage by the Mentors, and this one increases metabolic rate. Or soemthing.
• Pedro. Plenty of Sternguard, this seems very Mentors'ish.
• Khan. Their leader is equipped with a phasing device, perhaps somewhat like the Warp Spider's jump generator. This represents furious charge by landing blows whilst partially phasing, for example. Hit & run is them spiriting away from their now confused foes. Outflank'ing is done via grav chutes, termites & moles, or other such means.

C:BA
• Fast vehicles. Tinkered with designs to improve the output of the humble Rhinos power plant.
• Sanguinary priest's FNP and FC. Furious charge, like fleet, can always be accounted for with combat stimms. But given it is one package, instead of a sacred cup, the Sang Priest is actually sporting a force field generator. A field envelops the squad, hence FNP. But the field can also be harnessed by the squad on the attack, lending extra power to blows, accounting for FC.
• Death Company. This guys are stimmed up warriors. There is a borderline limit as to how much the patients can receive, and this dosage is right on the limit.

C:CSM
• Plague Marines. A new type of power armour is being made, but is not as heavy as TDA. FNP, t4(5) and -1 initiative are the result.
• Berzerkers. A lower dose of what the Death Co get.
• Havocs and Chosen. The mass of special weapons is the extra equipment the Chapter runs.
• Obliterators. A new TDA rig. The gun is very powerful, and has many settings.
• Daemon Prince. Perhaps something like the Dreadknight.

C:SW
• Wolf standard. A variant force field generator of the Sang Priest, but with the long term protection benefits exchanged for a one off, different modulation.
• TWC. Like the Daemon Prince, a fighting rig, styled like the Dreadknight.
• Mark of the Wulfen. A developing power weapon.

Whilst the Mentors would have Librarians, spells from Librarians, Rune Priests and Chaos Sorcerers could easily be represented by a new gun, or some kind of a force generator, a tractor beam or gravitron gun for Lash of Submission, etc. The perils roll is simply the finicky nature of the new tech.

Whilst I wouldn't really be interested in overloading an army with a powa! build from any of the Dexes, I think they all have something cool that could easily represent the tinkering happening in the Mentor labs.

I think this is all pretty cool stuff.

:)

[sonsoftaurus]

Proxy: Don't mind it in casual games, prefer not to see it often.

Counts-as: Love it. Different things for wargear/weapons, different codex, different paint schemes, completely different figures, go for it. As long as it's consistent and understandable, I'll happily play your army from the cybernetic dystopian future Hogwarts that uses Tyranid rules.

Rules. Models. Paint schemes. Mix and match as desired. It's your hobby. As long as it counts-as fun, I'm in.

[Belial69]

The only rule of thumb that my group really stick to is WYSIWYG. It can be as heavily converted as you like.
For example my jokearo army (just for fun). 43 warhammer quest snotlings covered (carefully) with flock to make apes and painted orange. (These originally were mutants in my LatD army - evil space monkeys!) Coteaz is a monkeyed up mantic forgefather, with hammer and the crow from the WH giant set for the cyber eagle. And the giant is also flocked and orange with the big stone for a daemon hammer and GS digi weapons on the other hand for a dreadknight.

[ComradePenguin]

I have a zombie army that that uses the ork book. Each zombie counts as a normal slugga boy, and I've converted a bunch of huge mutants for my nobs and warboss. I even have a bunch of surgically altered weapons zombies to count as lootas. So far no one has had an issue because all 135 zombies are fully painted and converted.

I am personally fine with people wanting to try new units out as long as the model is suitable. For example I don't want to see a grot count as a vindicator. But I'm for people being able to use models before they shell out the money for them, these plastic toys are expensive after all.

[Houghten]

I'd have it that for an army to be legal from a codex, it has to be using a colour scheme exampled in the book. But wouldn't a popular idea.
Too right it wouldn't. I'd probably stop collecting altogether. I can't stand to have a plain force just like the ones in the book. Black-and-yellow Tyranids, grey-skinned Orks, white-and-red Space Marines* and psychedelic green-and-orange Chaos Marines, that's me.

(Those of you with long memories may remember me saying that "I don't like painting, or even choosing a colour scheme." Which is still true, but painting-by-numbers? Blech. Worse.)

*No, not like the Blood Ravens. They're red-and-white, not white-and-red.

[(TV)]

If I see a bunch of unpainted guys who've switched books to the newest every few months without getting any closer to completion, especially at a toruney (provided they even allow unpainted) then it bothers me but as far as I can see it's not expressly against the rules. However if I see that someone has invested the time to complete and fully paint/etc an army, I don't think people should bother them for fielding with rules they like the most or feel most fit their count as list. There's lots of underrepresented factions from fluff that would otherwise not be seen either due to non-existant or really bad rules, so someone being open minded and adapting existing ones seems cool to me.

Regards,
TV

[St.Germaine]

Couldn't be bothered to waste my time with a tournament. I prefer a fluffy army to something that will do well at a tourny. A loss with a fluffy army is better than a win with with a cookie cutter list. To be honest I could give a rat's *** about balance as well. Playing the "British" in a Rorke's Drift style scenario and surviving is worth more to me than a dozen tournament wins.

With that said, not likely I'm going to see any of these armies across from me at a tournament. At our local gamestore, I'm game for all three. I'm currently involved in using a proxy army while deciding if I'm interested in a SM bike army (OK, I've played enough proxy games that this decision has already been made.)

The army I've played with the longest is in the second category. My Loyalist Emperors Children have been seeing the tabletop since the release of the 1st BA codex. The almost berserker aspects of that codex were exactly what I expect of a chapter almost rabid in their need to redeem their honor. The next version of the codex put them on the shelf for a long time. The latest codex has them seeing the table again.

I've never personally seen anything as extreme as the third example in the original post. We did have a girl in our group for a while that played Halloween marines with a lot of intriguing conversions.

[Fxeni]

Rule of cool: The nicer your army looks, the less people will complain about it.

[Psychosplodge]

http://www.tsoalr.com/wordpress/comics/2003-10-06-011_proxy.gif
and
http://www.tsoalr.com/wordpress/comics/2003-10-09-012_soda.gif

[hippsman]

I'm cool with proxy as long as it is only a model or two and for a good reason (i.e. model is broken, don't have the bits for this one piece.) I'm not much for saying that this eldar squad represents my long fangs or even taking a squad of bolter carrying marines and say they are long fangs. If you want to field a unit, model it. the only exception is if you are play testing with a friend to see if a certain model is worth buying.

[Cavscout]

I won't allow #1 in a tournament stting. There are rules to a tourney for good reason. #2 is fine as long as its wysiwyg. #3 is awesome. Outside of a tourney, i'm very laid back. Just don't get mad if i can't remember what everything is and i have to keep asking :)

[Diagnosis Ninja]

If I see a bunch of unpainted guys who've switched books to the newest every few months without getting any closer to completion, especially at a toruney (provided they even allow unpainted) then it bothers me but as far as I can see it's not expressly against the rules. However if I see that someone has invested the time to complete and fully paint/etc an army, I don't think people should bother them for fielding with rules they like the most or feel most fit their count as list. There's lots of underrepresented factions from fluff that would otherwise not be seen either due to non-existant or really bad rules, so someone being open minded and adapting existing ones seems cool to me.

Regards,
TV

No offence intended with this one, but why does "flavour of the month" players bother you? They are the ones who probably spent £200 on an army they might only play for a few weeks, shouldn't you feel sorry for them instead?

[Vangrail]

Personally I cant stand proxy. only time i think proxy is ok is because someone just bought a unit and has not built it or they wanna test a unit before buying them. I let one of my buddies test out units before but i knew if he liked them he would buy them right after the battle.

[Denied]

1) I will play in casual settings, but never a tournament. I understand the 40K on a budget and all but if you army isn't strong enough for tournament play then don't proxy it sorry.

2) perfectly fine in my opinion, again a lot of people are playing 40K on a budget and I accept seeing these across from me as people are trying to stay competitive, but don't want to spend large sums of money on new minis.

3) I both love and hate these guys. I love them because they are super creative and their armies are gorgeous, but I hate them because some of these models (although not intentionally) are modeled for advantage. It can really mess with regular strategies and it can get frustrating trying to figure out facings on something that is a freaking sphere or pyramid.

[makkeru]

I think they could all be ok for casual play. For a tournament they can all be a hinderence.

[L192837465]

Anyone who believes #1 is anything but "sure, as long as it's clear what things are" are one step out of something called "real life" and should re-evaluate their own. They're plastic miniatures. If I want to use a guardsman as a space marine, who are you to judge why I can or can't do that? That's like saying "you don't have the new Nike on, you can't play basketball here."

It's stupid, and that line of reasoning is childish, immature, and unrealistic. It's a game. Treat it as such.

[Tepogue]

#1 is fine in casual settings, trying out a unit before buying/converting is perfecty fine with me. Just don't bring this to any sort of time contrainted event, That will seriously cause issues and amazing morphying armies seem to follow hand in hand with this.

#2 &3 as long as it not obviously modeled for advantage and the general weapons are correct i'm fine even in a tournament setting,

[Joshh]

My friends and I are still building our lists and models, so by necessity half of our games are type 1. "Ok, so I don't have a second Valkyrie, so this Rhino is standing in for a Valk. If we need to check LOS, I'll grab the actual model and we'll go from there."

My room-mate plays Necrons (we got him into the hobby this year) and he owns a grand total of 5 models. So most of his forces is by necessity proxied space marines. For the longest time my Guardsmen were a friend's Termagants.

The games work well enough, and eventually our armies will all be legit WYSIWYG or type 2/3 armies, and fully painted to boot. I've been knocking out Guardsmen in between my classes and I've finished 2 squads this week.

Just as planned.

[gingerkid]

So, I admit, I'm partially wanting to post this for the whole March contest dealie, but also I think that it's a topic that rarely gets a real discussion going. I remember months ago, a BoLS battle report had some Death Guard counts-as Black Templar, and the comments were full of seething, uncontrollable fury at the very notion. Especially as I near completion of my own counts-as army, I start to worry if that's really the dominant opinion on the idea. Obviously, there are instances of Counts-As that take it too far and are quite unacceptable, but then there are others.

From my perspective, I can identify 3 broad categories of Counts-As, and for the sake of discussion, let's talk about all of these from the perspective of seeing this unpacked across from you in a tournament environment, because with a friendly game, all bets are off. Hell, until I was sure of the army list for my current project, I was using Styrofoam 3-d cutouts of Rhinos in casual games.

Category 1 - "The Proxy": These are your players that have decided to change one of their current armies over to another with little no conversions done. WSIWYG is most certainly not in effect here, and instead you'll hear an explanation of how the models with dark lances instead are carrying heavy bolters, or how the squad of models without heads is a squad of Genestealers, not Skeletons. Really, this is the army that won't be allowed in a tournament setting in the way that I've explained it, as most tournaments enforce WSIWYG. I've seen a couple exceptions from local 3-game events, though, so it's not outside the realm of possibility.

The outermost edge of this category would be the Space Marine bandwagon-jumper. If you sit across from someone that has a beautiful Ultramarines army and then hear him start explaining that he's got Njal and 3 squads of Grey Hunters, you know you've found this type of Proxy army. In this case, everything is in fact WSIWYG, but it's still pretty obvious that this guy is adhering to the first sentence of this category, taking a current army and using it for a different codex.

Category 2 - "The Conversion": This is probably where the majority of actually-played-in-tournaments Counts-As armies fall. These are your World Eaters Counts-As Blood Angels, Thousand Sons Counts-As Grey Knights, and your Eldar Counts-As Dark Eldar. The player that made this army put at least some effort into changing over the models to be appropriate to the codex he's playing out of, and in some cases a great deal of effort. Effectively, this category attempts to blend the aesthetic of the models with the rules they're playing out of. Taking the World Eaters counts-as Blood Angels as an example, it'd be doing simple things like making Assault Marines out of Berzerkers, up through, for example, greenstuffing wings onto Bloodletters to make them into Sanguinary Guard, with plenty of gore and viscera lovingly adorning everything. This army could well be something the owner had previously been using under a different codex and converted over for one reason or another, or a project entirely taken from the ground up as a way of alternatively modelling units from a different codex. In either case, WSIWYG will most certainly be adhered to here, and again, attempts will be made to blend aesthetic and rule mechanics.

Category 3 - "You have too much free time on your hands.": I could go on a long explanation of this one too, but instead I'll just introduce (or re-introduce) you to a man named Michael Strange.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4nzgPbHlNo4/TF-S0aBe19I/AAAAAAAAIwE/ms9KF31WMGc/s1600/strange-03.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4nzgPbHlNo4/TF-R3O4eE1I/AAAAAAAAIv8/nrHU727fV_k/s1600/strange-02.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4nzgPbHlNo4/TF-THa6uh3I/AAAAAAAAIwU/ebIkvO7EG1Y/s1600/strange-05.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4nzgPbHlNo4/TF-TR8oE50I/AAAAAAAAIwc/ht4kIY3deP8/s1600/strange-06.jpg



So those are the 3 categories. And now I ask you, which of these would you be comfortable sitting across the table from in a tournament? Why? Obviously you'd play it out assuming it was deemed legal by the TO, but would you feel like your opponent is trying to cheat you? Would you care at all?

Personally, I think that #1 is pushing it for a tournament, especially if there is no WSIWYG. I can understand if this was a last-minute idea, and you're just trying something out for fun (especially if it's the Ultra-Wolves I mentioned earlier and it's a local tournament), but for a big, weekend tournament I feel like you should pay the toll and make an army for that codex. Be it the actual GW models for the codex, a bunch of conversions, or....Mechanids. From a game mechanics standpoint, so long as I can identify a visually distinction between units and wargear, I'm satisfied, especially if I get to look at some eye-candy in the process.


#1 us fine in a pick up game with friends when you need to playtest a model before you go

[gingerkid]

So, I admit, I'm partially wanting to post this for the whole March contest dealie, but also I think that it's a topic that rarely gets a real discussion going. I remember months ago, a BoLS battle report had some Death Guard counts-as Black Templar, and the comments were full of seething, uncontrollable fury at the very notion. Especially as I near completion of my own counts-as army, I start to worry if that's really the dominant opinion on the idea. Obviously, there are instances of Counts-As that take it too far and are quite unacceptable, but then there are others.

From my perspective, I can identify 3 broad categories of Counts-As, and for the sake of discussion, let's talk about all of these from the perspective of seeing this unpacked across from you in a tournament environment, because with a friendly game, all bets are off. Hell, until I was sure of the army list for my current project, I was using Styrofoam 3-d cutouts of Rhinos in casual games.

Category 1 - "The Proxy": These are your players that have decided to change one of their current armies over to another with little no conversions done. WSIWYG is most certainly not in effect here, and instead you'll hear an explanation of how the models with dark lances instead are carrying heavy bolters, or how the squad of models without heads is a squad of Genestealers, not Skeletons. Really, this is the army that won't be allowed in a tournament setting in the way that I've explained it, as most tournaments enforce WSIWYG. I've seen a couple exceptions from local 3-game events, though, so it's not outside the realm of possibility.

The outermost edge of this category would be the Space Marine bandwagon-jumper. If you sit across from someone that has a beautiful Ultramarines army and then hear him start explaining that he's got Njal and 3 squads of Grey Hunters, you know you've found this type of Proxy army. In this case, everything is in fact WSIWYG, but it's still pretty obvious that this guy is adhering to the first sentence of this category, taking a current army and using it for a different codex.

Category 2 - "The Conversion": This is probably where the majority of actually-played-in-tournaments Counts-As armies fall. These are your World Eaters Counts-As Blood Angels, Thousand Sons Counts-As Grey Knights, and your Eldar Counts-As Dark Eldar. The player that made this army put at least some effort into changing over the models to be appropriate to the codex he's playing out of, and in some cases a great deal of effort. Effectively, this category attempts to blend the aesthetic of the models with the rules they're playing out of. Taking the World Eaters counts-as Blood Angels as an example, it'd be doing simple things like making Assault Marines out of Berzerkers, up through, for example, greenstuffing wings onto Bloodletters to make them into Sanguinary Guard, with plenty of gore and viscera lovingly adorning everything. This army could well be something the owner had previously been using under a different codex and converted over for one reason or another, or a project entirely taken from the ground up as a way of alternatively modelling units from a different codex. In either case, WSIWYG will most certainly be adhered to here, and again, attempts will be made to blend aesthetic and rule mechanics.

Category 3 - "You have too much free time on your hands.": I could go on a long explanation of this one too, but instead I'll just introduce (or re-introduce) you to a man named Michael Strange.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4nzgPbHlNo4/TF-S0aBe19I/AAAAAAAAIwE/ms9KF31WMGc/s1600/strange-03.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4nzgPbHlNo4/TF-R3O4eE1I/AAAAAAAAIv8/nrHU727fV_k/s1600/strange-02.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4nzgPbHlNo4/TF-THa6uh3I/AAAAAAAAIwU/ebIkvO7EG1Y/s1600/strange-05.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4nzgPbHlNo4/TF-TR8oE50I/AAAAAAAAIwc/ht4kIY3deP8/s1600/strange-06.jpg



So those are the 3 categories. And now I ask you, which of these would you be comfortable sitting across the table from in a tournament? Why? Obviously you'd play it out assuming it was deemed legal by the TO, but would you feel like your opponent is trying to cheat you? Would you care at all?

Personally, I think that #1 is pushing it for a tournament, especially if there is no WSIWYG. I can understand if this was a last-minute idea, and you're just trying something out for fun (especially if it's the Ultra-Wolves I mentioned earlier and it's a local tournament), but for a big, weekend tournament I feel like you should pay the toll and make an army for that codex. Be it the actual GW models for the codex, a bunch of conversions, or....Mechanids. From a game mechanics standpoint, so long as I can identify a visually distinction between units and wargear, I'm satisfied, especially if I get to look at some eye-candy in the process.


#1 us fine in a pick up game with friends when you need to playtest a model before you go out and waste money on it

#2 & #3 are spot on in my books as I love to see custom armies. This is a hobby to what you want with, to express your own artistic flare and creativity

[ElDuchen]

http://www.tsoalr.com/wordpress/comics/2003-10-06-011_proxy.gif
and
http://www.tsoalr.com/wordpress/comics/2003-10-09-012_soda.gif

Oh how I miss Turn Signals on a Land Raider! Great comic.

Like almost everyone else, I am fine with #1 for trying out lists before you buy models, but not for tournaments

#2 and #3 are great to see anytime, especially with heavy conversions. As long as each unit is identifiable, let 'er rip!