How far does counts-as go, in your opinion?

[Servant of Dante]

 

 

 

It depends. Speaking for myself I always make the effort to be WYSIWYG for my miniatures, even when I am converting. I am the guy who has 6 of every special weapon for their three troop CSM squads so I never have to proxy and I magnetize my vehicles as well. I understand though its just not realistic to do things like this if people have multiple armies built to X points, one and done. Obviously they would want to proxy before expanding them etc. As long as you are not proxying so much, especially with infantry where we can't keep track reliably or remember, I don't mind. However, when you have 2-3+ different faction worth sets of models playing an unrelated army, usually obvious ebay fodder then that is where I have a problem. Its just low or no effort and just disrespectful to your opponent and other players who are making the effort. If you are going from ebay, at least buy the stuff for the faction you wanna play then proxy within that faction with the faction's models. Thats easier to deal with and ok.

Having models from the proper faction doesn’t take effort, it takes money (since you don’t seem to be talking about painting here). If someone’s paying monofaction Blood Angels, I’d almost rather then proxy, say, bloodletters as Death Company than saying “these assault marines are Death Company”. You aren’t going to mistake bloodletters as actual BA models, where with the assault marines it’d be easier to forget they’re DC and not Assault Marines, in my opinion.

But Death Company are literally baroque Assault Marines in model.

Exactly, and that’s why I’d be easy to forget that the assault marines are standing in for Death Company. Death Company models are quite easy to distinguish from assault marines, so if you see a squad of assault marines you might forget they’re Death Company, while if you see a squad of bloodletters, you’re going to remember immediately that they’re not actually bloodletters :P

[MegaVolt87]

Well if its something like cookie cutter assault squads as an example, one being a death company I would remember by asking my opponent to use some kind of marker next to the unit, like a colorful dice or even just a coin. It breaks the immersion when you see something like blood letters in a BA loyalist force. (well ones not dead on scenic bases and heads as a rock replacement for hero's anyway). Its always better to proxy within a faction with that factions models. 

[Ishagu]

I personally don't allow any counts as, beyond some good and artful conversions.

[Vykes]

Dunno, most of the folk here already kinda got it in one for me: keep it consistent and make it clear beforehand and anything goes.  

 

Everything else feels petty.  I don't wanna dictate others' hobbies or try to curate their collection given I'm not paying for them.  

[Stoic Raptor]

I can see what you're saying, but if immersion doesn't matter to you, then why not play with cardboard counters or wooden pawns?  And let's just use books and paper towel tubes for terrain.

If people are going to take the time to assemble and paint their units and terrain, it kind of shatters the illusion when you use something that's obviously and clearly nothing like what it is supposed to represent.

[Ishagu]

I can see what you're saying, but if immersion doesn't matter to you, then why not play with cardboard counters or wooden pawns? And let's just use books and paper towel tubes for terrain.

If people are going to take the time to assemble and paint their units and terrain, it kind of shatters the illusion when you use something that's obviously and clearly nothing like what it is supposed to represent.

I agree with this, especially as 40k is such a strong game, visually.

[Marshal Rohr]

I can see what you're saying, but if immersion doesn't matter to you, then why not play with cardboard counters or wooden pawns? And let's just use books and paper towel tubes for terrain.

If people are going to take the time to assemble and paint their units and terrain, it kind of shatters the illusion when you use something that's obviously and clearly nothing like what it is supposed to represent.

This instances are the rarest of counts as unless someone is testing a new unit. My Servitors are Goliaths, my ambots are Ogryns, and soon my AoS spoops will be daemons.

[MegaVolt87]

Except Ambot ogryns and the spooky AoS ghosts make sense as substitutes for those units. A IG regiment may be hardcore anti mutie, so build a robot version of an ogryn to do the same job. Demons manifest into many different forms within and outside the warp. That also makes sense. Using something like ork commando's as space marine scouts dose not for example. 

[Vykes]

I can see what you're saying, but if immersion doesn't matter to you, then why not play with cardboard counters or wooden pawns?  And let's just use books and paper towel tubes for terrain.

If people are going to take the time to assemble and paint their units and terrain, it kind of shatters the illusion when you use something that's obviously and clearly nothing like what it is supposed to represent.

 

Immersion is in the eye of the beholder.  -shrugs- Never played 40K with books and tablecloths before?  Because I know that's sure how I started out in the 90's, and even in the battle report I was in last week me and my opponent decided very obviously to go with that campy green foam ball and red-spike Rogue Trader era space cacti even if it looks both hilarious and atrocious. But see a game with desert troops fighting around that was glorious while someone from the mid 2010's might see it as a massively immersion breaking spectacle.  They aren't in on the feeling of nostalgia and belonging that something so simple as playing a game with some mates can conjure up.  

 

I'm no judge and I'm no government minister: my standards can only apply to myself rather than to everyone else but myself.  I'm not buying other people's armies, I'm not painting them (okay I am painting some of them), and I'm not dictating what they call fun.  I can choose my opponents, but I can't dictate my opponents enjoyment or amusement of the game.  I can only relax and have some fun with friends.  If they chose to or have to use counts-as or proxies, that's cool with me so long as it's clear. 

 

If we want to talk immersion breaking, I could conjure up more than a few choice ones about totally legit army composition and gaming behaviour: gamey, immersion breaking, unfun, unsportsman garbage that affect me a whole lot more than punk pony bikers, bandai gundam models, a stray crab-like wraithlord, or a few paper cut outs on bases. 

[Bryan Blaire]

Immersion is in the eye of the beholder.

Case in point, I’ve never been “immersed” while playing a game where the pieces don’t move themselves, have less articulation points than action figures, the same squad members watching their auspexes in the same position or constantly throwing a grenade and I have to constantly move away from my figures to roll dice and check some tables. Books and movies can be immersing, heck, playing GI Joe action figures is more immersing than 40K model pushing is. The models look nicer than painted wooden blocks, but there are many different variants and marks of weaponry made by the various forge worlds, so things don’t have to look identical to the models GW produces - hence the immersion level is all the same - imagination.

 

And if anyone says they don’t have to actually imagine the battle represented by the table top, you’re lying to yourself.

[Stoic Raptor]

Sure, we have to imagine a lot - but if I'm playing against Marines, I'd "imagine" your assault troops should be represented by Marines, not Bloodletters.

If it doesn't matter at all what the models are or what they look like, save yourself a ton of money and use wooden pawns or chess pieces or something.

[Halandaar]

Sure, we have to imagine a lot - but if I'm playing against Marines, I'd "imagine" your assault troops should be represented by Marines, not Bloodletters.

If it doesn't matter at all what the models are or what they look like, save yourself a ton of money and use wooden pawns or chess pieces or something.

 

Come on. Nobody is saying it doesn't matter what the models look like. The Bloodletter thing isn't exactly your average counts-as situation; I would obviously prefer to see the correct unit on the board but if the choice is between two units of models which look the same but have different rules, and two units which look completely different, i'm going to opt for the second one for the sake of clarity.

 

Immersion is relevant for me (I personally don't play with unpainted models, for example, and will handicap my list rather than field grey plastic), but it's not for me to tell other people how to manage their own collections and i'm certainly not going to tell someone "thanks but no thanks" just because they're proxying in a single unit or have used non-standard parts on their models.

 

If we want to talk immersion breaking, I could conjure up more than a few choice ones about totally legit army composition and gaming behaviour: gamey, immersion breaking, unfun, unsportsman garbage that affect me a whole lot more than punk pony bikers, bandai gundam models, a stray crab-like wraithlord, or a few paper cut outs on bases. 

 

Absolutely this. Some of the nonsense combinations people come up with in order to give themselves an advantage fly in the face of the lore of the setting. 

[Ishagu]

I have a particular issue wit counts as wargear and models. In almost every single case players are using counts as models for an advantage in the game, so it has a shade of WAAC attitude that I can't support.

 

Let me explain:

 

A while back I was running a vehicle heavy army and had a game arranged against a local player. We had loosely discussed our armies before the game. When I arrived for my game we laid out our armies, and at that point the other player advised me that the multitudes of flamers his models were armed with are actually all Meltas, and some of the other anti infantry weapons were Plasmas (He was running Veteran heavy Guard).

You see my problem with this? He isn't trying something out, he is merely proxying weapons in his army for something more effective against mine. Why should this behaviour be supported?

 

I have never come across a player, not once, who was running an effective model as a less effective model. I have also come across many players who advise me they are simply "testing units out before buying them" but they never go on to buy the units, and simply move on to running counts as of the next best thing that is released.

 

For these reasons I will never support anything beyond well done conversions that are a clear labour of hobby love.

My hobby enjoyment and immersion should not have to suffer to accommodate someone else who is either trying to make their army more effective at best, or doesn't respect the hobby at worst.

[Servant of Dante]

I have a particular issue wit counts as wargear and models. In almost every single case players are using counts as models for an advantage in the game, so it has a shade of WAAC attitude that I can't support.

 

Let me explain:

 

A while back I was running a vehicle heavy army and had a game arranged against a local player. We had loosely discussed our armies before the game. When I arrived for my game we laid out our armies, and at that point the other player advised me that the multitudes of flamers his models were armed with are actually all Meltas, and some of the other anti infantry weapons were Plasmas (He was running Veteran heavy Guard).

You see my problem with this? He isn't trying something out, he is merely proxying weapons in his army for something more effective against mine. Why should this behaviour be supported?

 

I have never come across a player, not once, who was running an effective model as a less effective model. I have also come across many players who advise me they are simply "testing units out before buying them" but they never go on to buy the units, and simply move on to running counts as of the next best thing that is released.

 

For these reasons I will never support anything beyond well done conversions that are a clear labour of hobby love.

My hobby enjoyment and immersion should not have to suffer to accommodate someone else who is either trying to make their army more effective at best, or doesn't respect the hobby at worst.

I don’t see the issue with the anecdote you gave here personally, if a player shows up to a game with an opponent that’s running lots of vehicle, and their army has no anti-tank weapons, then they’re at quite a disadvantage. Plus, it seems like you’re saying it’d have been fine if that player had pulled out another box and just replaced every flamer model with a melta model so everything was WYSIWYG. If the list in question is one you’d be fine playing against if it were WYSIWYG then all you’re saying is that you only want to play against optimized lists if the player has shelled out the cash for the models in question. I proxy a few of one special weapon as another occasionally, because I can’t afford to own as many of every one as I’d like.

 

I know you’ve said you have multiples of just about everything for your Ultramarines, but of course not everyone has such an expansive collection so I see no issue with letting people proxy legal lists from their army. If someone is playing a list that is too strong for the kind of game you’re looking for then you could treat that as a separate issue from proxying rather than just refusing to play agains proxies because sometimes people run lists with them that are overly strong. You can set up expectations for the level of competitiveness without flat out banning all proxies.

 

Of course I don’t actually expect you to change the way you play the game, no one has to play against anyone so it is what it is, I just wanted to point out that there’s other ways of looking at these same issues you mentioned.

 

Edit: I suppose I might fall under your category of “doesn’t respect the hobby” since, while I spend plenty of time writing about my faction of choice, I don’t often spend time painting, for various reasons. I love the parts of the hobby that I love, and paining isn’t one of those :P

[Bryan Blaire]

Sure, we have to imagine a lot - but if I'm playing against Marines, I'd "imagine" your assault troops should be represented by Marines, not Bloodletters.

If it doesn't matter at all what the models are or what they look like, save yourself a ton of money and use wooden pawns or chess pieces or something.

First, the "Bloodletters are Assault Marines" is a straight proxy, not counts-as. Two different flavors of a similar thing, like having basic milk chocolate and 90% cacao dark chocolate.

 

Second, as long as the only Bloodletters on the table are Assault Marines, it's also very, very easy to keep track of mentally, or if you are like me, make a quick note on a piece of paper or electronic device. Unless there's been some serious converting going on (which starts taking it back to counts-as, instead of a straight proxy), there probably isn't going to be a load of war gear to keep track of either, because there are only a couple of distinct models in the Bloodletters.

 

It is also not hard to imagine said Bloodletters as Assault Marines.

 

Third - I model and paint because I enjoy it (and it gives me an outlet I don't have in my current job). I like the models GW produces as well. Thus I buy, build, and paint GW models. I also like a few third party produced models that look like they would exist in the 40K universe, so when I want something different, I buy, build, and paint those pieces as well.

 

The same may not hold true for everyone, so if they prefer to play the game against me using little wooden tokens, okay - I just request certain things of them - you don't get to straight proxy all kinds of stuff and not have it be a disadvantage for you. Number one off the top of my head if using tokens or chess pieces, etc., is that your infantry pieces are infinitely tall, so can always be seen, even if they get to claim a cover save. My opponent and I would have to discuss further modifications due to using non-standard game elements. After all, the opponent is the one asking to use those pieces, not me.

 

I've played against all kinds of proxies, and as long as the opponent was being a good sport about it and understood that they are the one with the Ask, not me, they've been good game. I played a game against an opponent using a Biovore as a Nightbringer and some Tau Fire Warriors as Necron Warriors and I can still see the midnight robed figure swirling above my Deathwalkers' heads as they advanced while being blasted by lascannons from their Land Raider.

 

I have a particular issue wit counts as wargear and models. In almost every single case players are using counts as models for an advantage in the game, so it has a shade of WAAC attitude that I can't support.

Let me explain:

A while back I was running a vehicle heavy army and had a game arranged against a local player. We had loosely discussed our armies before the game. When I arrived for my game we laid out our armies, and at that point the other player advised me that the multitudes of flamers his models were armed with are actually all Meltas, and some of the other anti infantry weapons were Plasmas (He was running Veteran heavy Guard).

You see my problem with this? He isn't trying something out, he is merely proxying weapons in his army for something more effective against mine. Why should this behaviour be supported?

I have never come across a player, not once, who was running an effective model as a less effective model. I have also come across many players who advise me they are simply "testing units out before buying them" but they never go on to buy the units, and simply move on to running counts as of the next best thing that is released.

For these reasons I will never support anything beyond well done conversions that are a clear labour of hobby love.

My hobby enjoyment and immersion should not have to suffer to accommodate someone else who is either trying to make their army more effective at best, or doesn't respect the hobby at worst.

Wait wait wait...

 

So you were concerned that he had list tailored because you had discussed a one off game? Sounds more like you have a WAAC attitude to me, and are more concerned with your enjoyment than your opponent's, and you want to whine that your opponent "doesn't my have the models like me." That's an elitist and entitlement attitude.

 

It's not like you were playing a campaign and those anti-tank units wouldn't have been available in the wider army you were fighting against (after all, the battlefield of a 40K game doesn't represent the entirety of a battle/war going on, just a portion of it). Sounds like you just didn't want to have your opponent to have a better chance of beating you because they paid attention to what you were bringing (which makes you WAAC) - you want to rig the game so your opponent doesn't have as good a chance to win in a one-off game and have drummed up an excuse to justify your attitudes.

 

Now, to actually address the questions asked by the OP:

How far can counts-as go on models? Are you more likely to allow counts-as on something well-modeled, or does it just come down to base size? Would you allow, say, one pattern of Cawl bolt rifle as another, or a big forge world assault cannon as an autocannon?

For something to be "counts-as," it should be something modeled on a similar frame to meet gear representation and meet an army theme. Truthfully, everything you described sounds like a proxy to me.

 

To illustrate:

Someone has built a Space Marine "Chapter Master" with an elaborate cape, clearly artificed armor, pauldrons painted ornately to mark him as a Grand Master, and a custom power axe and combi-plasma. This person puts the model down on the table and says "See how my Chapter iconography uses a bunch of axes and are clearly a Dark Angels successor - this is my Azrael." Sure, the axe isn't a Sword of Secrets, but Azrael can't use an axe anyway, and it fits the army theme. No, he/she's not using the Azrael model, but then that model either doesn't work for him or her anyway - however, to play a full Successor Chapter from the Dark Angels lineage, that's the compromise that GW has forced players into with the way they wrote the DA Codex. This is counts-as.

 

A player that uses 3rd party models of plasma ejectors (that resemble more of a melta-gun appearance) as plasma guns and uses radiation guns that have a dish around the projection point as melta-guns - and they are used consistently across all models as these weapons, for the sole purpose of more closely matching their view of the weapons a nearby Forge world produces for their Chapter - this is counts-as.

 

A player putting down three Rhinos and saying "These are my Repulsors" is using proxies, not counts-as.

 

A player saying "All my Stalker bolt rifles are actually Auto bolt rifles" is technically proxying, not using counts-as, unless their justification is about appearance, and they have modeled something else for Stalker bolt rifles, etc.

 

It definitely can get to be a grey area, but consistency is key, and usually tells you if someone is truly using something as "counts-as" or is just proxying something.

[Gederas]

I have a particular issue wit counts as wargear and models. In almost every single case players are using counts as models for an advantage in the game, so it has a shade of WAAC attitude that I can't support.

Let me explain:

A while back I was running a vehicle heavy army and had a game arranged against a local player. We had loosely discussed our armies before the game. When I arrived for my game we laid out our armies, and at that point the other player advised me that the multitudes of flamers his models were armed with are actually all Meltas, and some of the other anti infantry weapons were Plasmas (He was running Veteran heavy Guard).

You see my problem with this? He isn't trying something out, he is merely proxying weapons in his army for something more effective against mine. Why should this behaviour be supported?

I have never come across a player, not once, who was running an effective model as a less effective model. I have also come across many players who advise me they are simply "testing units out before buying them" but they never go on to buy the units, and simply move on to running counts as of the next best thing that is released.

For these reasons I will never support anything beyond well done conversions that are a clear labour of hobby love.

My hobby enjoyment and immersion should not have to suffer to accommodate someone else who is either trying to make their army more effective at best, or doesn't respect the hobby at worst.

Wait wait wait...

 

So you were concerned that he had list tailored because you had discussed a one off game? Sounds more like you have a WAAC attitude to me, and are more concerned with your enjoyment than your opponent's, and you want to whine that your opponent "doesn't my have the models like me." That's an elitist and entitlement attitude.

 

It's not like you were playing a campaign and those anti-tank units wouldn't have been available in the wider army you were fighting against (after all, the battlefield of a 40K game doesn't represent the entirety of a battle/war going on, just a portion of it). Sounds like you just didn't want to have your opponent to have a better chance of beating you because they paid attention to what you were bringing (which makes you WAAC) - you want to rig the game so your opponent doesn't have as good a chance to win in a one-off game and have drummed up an excuse to justify your attitudes.

Okay, glad it wasn't just me who noticed that. The irony of someone complaining about people having a WAAC attitude.... while having a WAAC attitude is hilariously delicious to me :lol:

[Halandaar]

A while back I was running a vehicle heavy army and had a game arranged against a local player. We had loosely discussed our armies before the game. When I arrived for my game we laid out our armies, and at that point the other player advised me that the multitudes of flamers his models were armed with are actually all Meltas, and some of the other anti infantry weapons were Plasmas (He was running Veteran heavy Guard).

You see my problem with this? He isn't trying something out, he is merely proxying weapons in his army for something more effective against mine. Why should this behaviour be supported?

 

Would you play that same game without complaint if the flamer models had been swapped out for models with Melta? I mean, your opponent has still tailored his list specifically to be more effective against yours and paid the appropriate points for that in both scenarios. The game plays out the same either way. If no, then really your complaint is against list-tailoring or "WAAC" (in which case, don't tell people what you intend to bring to the game).

 

It really boils down to your personal views on the matter and not immersion. I mean, you're prepared to suspend your disbelief enough that 10 marines can comfortably fit in a Rhino, or that a Storm Raven can fly despite having the aerodynamism of a soviet era office block, but not that one kind of heat-based pretend gun functions like another kind of heat-based pretend gun.

[Ishagu]

I'm not the one using wargear proxies to try to win because I don't care too much about results in casual games.

 

If I was trying to win I would have run all my Las Cannons as heavy bolters, but I didn't do that.

 

The way you guys think is so strange. My story was merely a very recent example. Similar things occur all the time.

[Zephaniah Adriyen]

Let's look at bikers as an example. Let's say you have a squad of Chaos Bikers in your army. How different from an actual squad of Chaos Bikers can the models be before they aren't allowed? Loyalist Bikers as proxies allowed? Loyalist kit, clearly converted to be spikier? AoS Skullcrushers as Mark of Khorne Bikers? AoS Skullcrushers converted with CSM to make them 40k? Presumably, rules would apply across most models. Just as an example, to focus down on.

[Bryan Blaire]

Personally, I wouldn't phrase it in terms of "not allowed" unless we are talking about a specific rules set from somewhere. GW's rules for 40K no longer address things like counts-as, proxying, or WYSIWYG, so for any given game, it would come down to personal feelings.

 

I'd say things get murky when you are trying to use something from the army you are playing to represent something else that is also from the army you are playing.

[MegaVolt87]

I have a particular issue wit counts as wargear and models. In almost every single case players are using counts as models for an advantage in the game, so it has a shade of WAAC attitude that I can't support.

 

Let me explain:

 

A while back I was running a vehicle heavy army and had a game arranged against a local player. We had loosely discussed our armies before the game. When I arrived for my game we laid out our armies, and at that point the other player advised me that the multitudes of flamers his models were armed with are actually all Meltas, and some of the other anti infantry weapons were Plasmas (He was running Veteran heavy Guard).

You see my problem with this? He isn't trying something out, he is merely proxying weapons in his army for something more effective against mine. Why should this behaviour be supported?

 

I have never come across a player, not once, who was running an effective model as a less effective model. I have also come across many players who advise me they are simply "testing units out before buying them" but they never go on to buy the units, and simply move on to running counts as of the next best thing that is released.

 

For these reasons I will never support anything beyond well done conversions that are a clear labour of hobby love.

My hobby enjoyment and immersion should not have to suffer to accommodate someone else who is either trying to make their army more effective at best, or doesn't respect the hobby at worst.

 

I just want to bat for the other 50% of the people who proxy within the same faction. When I switched to SM from CSM in 4th ed on I was honestly pretty poor at the time, so my SM were proxied as the "new SM hotness", because I knew I would never be able to afford to try different things at the time. I can say that yes, others who did this were just power gamers who could actually afford it to be WYSIWYG, however just actually switch faction for the next "new hotness" and the proxy cycle continued in perpetuity for them. In a gaming group its pretty obvious to quick;y sort out who the genuine people who are financially challenged and do this to the power gamer that proxy units/armies. Both types are not popular to the LGS owner sure, but I will give you three guesses which ones are actually accepted in a community socially, even one with a pretty vocal anti-proxy consensus. 

[MARK0SIAN]

The other consideration with proxying is the transition between editions (and to a lesser extent rule changes within an edition).

 

It may be that someone built their army in 7th and equipped it in a way that was appropriate or fun for that edition, but those same units and weapons etc may have been radically altered in the way they work, their cost or their performance in the transition to 8th edition.

 

So the player who put a lot of effort and time into his army has now (through no fault of their own) got an army that may be equipped with utterly useless/overcosted special weapons, units that are a shadow of their former selves or perform radically differently than how they used to and now don’t match the players desired playstyle.

 

What is that player to do? Retire and never use those models again or just say these melta guns are actually plasma guns/flamers/grenade launchers etc. Now it’s possible they may be doing it for advantage and there’s no way to tell but by the same token, you can’t blame someone for wanting a better special weapon for his squad than the one he originally equipped them with. If GW have created a ruleset where one weapon is head and shoulders above the others as a go to special weapon then that is the fault of the rules writers, not the players who will rush to use that weapon/unit.

 

Personally I would be fine with someone doing that so long as it was clear and the models were from the same faction and were the correct size (including bases).

[Interrogator Stobz]

Outside of a tournament I'm good with anything, bring a potato for all I care (although I do prefer minis :P )

In a tournament I'm still happy but meet the TOs rules.

[Halandaar]

The other consideration with proxying is the transition between editions (and to a lesser extent rule changes within an edition).

 

It may be that someone built their army in 7th and equipped it in a way that was appropriate or fun for that edition, but those same units and weapons etc may have been radically altered in the way they work, their cost or their performance in the transition to 8th edition.

 

So the player who put a lot of effort and time into his army has now (through no fault of their own) got an army that may be equipped with utterly useless/overcosted special weapons, units that are a shadow of their former selves or perform radically differently than how they used to and now don’t match the players desired playstyle.

 

Right, Grav Guns on bikers comes to mind. I don't think a player who put the effort into modelling those in 7th Edition needs to be punished by not allowing them to proxy them as Plasma in 8th because GW pulled the rug from under them between editions.

[Ishagu]

 

 

The other consideration with proxying is the transition between editions (and to a lesser extent rule changes within an edition).

 

It may be that someone built their army in 7th and equipped it in a way that was appropriate or fun for that edition, but those same units and weapons etc may have been radically altered in the way they work, their cost or their performance in the transition to 8th edition.

 

So the player who put a lot of effort and time into his army has now (through no fault of their own) got an army that may be equipped with utterly useless/overcosted special weapons, units that are a shadow of their former selves or perform radically differently than how they used to and now don’t match the players desired playstyle.

Right, Grav Guns on bikers comes to mind. I don't think a player who put the effort into modelling those in 7th Edition needs to be punished by not allowing them to proxy them as Plasma in 8th because GW pulled the rug from under them between editions.

I'm one of those players. And I never have or will use my Grav guns as Plasmas.

 

If I need to be running the absolute optimum units it means I'm in a tournament setting. In casual play a less than the best option is not a problem.