Inheritors of the Primarch vs Counts-as...

[Spinsanity]

The title pretty much tells it all: how do people feel about Counts-as, now that the codex includes rules specifically meant to allow you to play other chapters that fight just like the First Founding ones?

 

Why would anyone, for example, play an Ultramarines successor chapter using the Inheritors of the Promarch Chapter Tactic, instead of simply playing his chapter as an Ultramarines Counts-as?

 

What do people think is the intent with this new rule? Do you think some tournaments (Gw-ran or otherwise) might actually end up requiring people paint their armies in the appropriate colors if they want to play using the First Founding’s rules?

 

To those against the idea, why? Since the whole 30k community is able to live with this kind of restrictions, can you at least consider it?

[redmapa]

I still think the intent of all these rules to differentiate counts as from other chapters is that its meant to limit mixing characters that have no chapter tactic with those that do, like Issodon and Shrike being in the same detachment for example. So if you are using a named character then you use Inheritors of the Primarchs and play it as is but if your chapter is just a name with no characters or rules then I think its fair game to just use the Ultramarine keyword and counts as to play your chapter, go wild with it and convert your own Not-Calgar or I-Cant-Believe-Its-Not-Sicarius.

[Dracos]

Simple ... because the 30k community hasn't been playing their DIY Chapter of Space Marines <counts as> since 1993. Anyone wanting to force us to play our Chapter with watered down rules just because of a paint color difference needs to "Get off my lawn. " ;)

[SkimaskMohawk]

Well, gw forces paint schemes to Subfactions in their tournament packet, so it seems pretty obvious their intent isn't for counts as. The last time they actually supported that kind of thing was 5th, and that was a long time ago.

[Bryan Blaire]

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/357692-colour-scheme-matters-or-does-it/

[Lemondish]

I personally do not care. You are gaining no benefit that can't be achieved naturally. There's no gaming the system here - you want to be a carbon copy of Ultras down to the same characters, then go ahead.

 

I think of it this way. My mate is colour blind.

 

You tell him your rich purple, burgundy, and gold chapter is Ultramarines and here's your calgar and Tiggy, he's going to believe you that it's Ultramarines.

 

Tournament organizers on the other hand are free to put whatever limitations, rules, and standards they want for whatever reasons they want.

[MajorNese]

Inheritors only makes sense when you use FW characters - they have a fixed chapter keyword, they can't be count-as.

 

Regarding the colour thing...as the GW tournament PDF linked in the other topic says - if it's a custom scheme then just go for whatever keyword you want, if there are different chapter detachments then they should look different enough to identify. Official color schemes of FF chapters are something else, but for me that depends on context - tournament or fun game, WAAC or long-term collector who doesn't want to repaint.

[Closet Skeleton]

The intent behind the rule is to better realise the promise of the 'choose your keyword' system from the start of 8th ed. Its not to screw anyone over. They could better realise this by unlocking primaris character equipment but its a step in a good direction.

 

Its funny to me to see people talk about 5th ed's counts as special characters as some kind of golden age of freedom when to me those characters greatly restricted people's ability to do what the wanted with their 'want stealth? hope you want your captain to have a jump pack and two lightning claws, don't worry you can still paint him hot pink' nonsense.

 

The intent isn't to stop people giving their Marneus Calgar model polkadots and an afro its fluff first rules writing aimed at people with custom chapters.

[MajorNese]

Its funny to me to see people talk about 5th ed's counts as special characters as some kind of golden age of freedom when to me those characters greatly restricted people's ability to do what the wanted with their 'want stealth? hope you want your captain to have a jump pack and two lightning claws, don't worry you can still paint him hot pink' nonsense.

Those who praise the Dark Age of Matt Ward as the golden age of flexibility have obviously never looked at 7th ed 30k. 18 legions + Blackshields with lots of different approaches to create distinct and fluffy armies/lists/characters. Still balanced - "You want an improved drop force? Then no tanks for you, that's cherrypicking."

 

Having more named characters to choose from than just maybe one per chapter would be awesome, but that's far from where they could go. The custom character creator is sadly unbalanced and thereby restricted to Open Play, that would have gone some way, considering that many named characters just have one or two additional rules and slightly improved wargear.

[Trevak Dal]

Well I guess it comes down to whether you want to use special characters or not.

 

I'm not big on special characters. Especially Primarchs. I don't even think chapter Masters should show up in most games, since until you get to Apocalypse levels, there isn't much need to go above (at Max) company strength in a single battle/game.

[Ishagu]

Well I guess it comes down to whether you want to use special characters or not.

 

I'm not big on special characters. Especially Primarchs. I don't even think chapter Masters should show up in most games, since until you get to Apocalypse levels, there isn't much need to go above (at Max) company strength in a single battle/game.

I don't have a big issue with them as a battle on the tabletop could be a snapshot of a much larger war.

 

In any case, not to worry. I don't think Guilliman will be showing up as much as he used to lol

[MajorNese]

Special characters by lore shouldn't be that common, but in the age of single-loadout generic characters, they do create some more interesting ways of playing.

 

For example for sniping, I could field a primaris captain with MC stalker bolt rifle and that's it. From then on, I'd have the choice of having him point around with a hand or with a sword, being generically inspirating for basic rerolls, while not getting anything done himself without some stellar dice rolls. Wow, how exciting and unexpected...or I could take Issodon, hop around the battlefield while sniping stuff (that might actually die) and evading retaliation with higher move and pulling back for a 360 no-scope. That does sound more like thematic option than a result of the Random Army List Generator.

[Kinstryfe]

As someone with far too many Space Marines in far too many colours I don't think I'll be personally hurt by some of the restrictions, but what it boils down to me is that you should be rewarded (or at least not penalized) for painting your army as it's a large part of GW's take on the hobby. Once tactical or game affecting decisions are taking place because of the paint on your models, you've reached a point where painting your army has potential to actually be a negative influence. I get it for tournaments where there's rules about the army being painted to a certain standard, but for any other play it shouldn't be an issue. Unless grey plastic is going to be somehow forced to play without any chapter tactics (and let's be honest, this rule would be immediately ignored by the majority of players), I don't see any reason to not treat someone's homemade Knights of Konor as just Ultramarines unless there's an actual reason to do so like a character with that keyword.

 

They really should have gone the other direction to end this being an issue and replaced Chapter Tactics with Company Tactics. Come up with whatever reason in fluff to tie it in, but want extra leadership and shooting after falling back? That's a First Company tactic. White Scars could have been an assault company tactic, Iron Hands a devastator company, heck Raven Guard could have been there scout company tactics. Special characters could have just been XYZ Company Captain archetypes, with each company having a generic and a unique Captain. Then people could reasonably do whatever they wanted without this kind of issue.

[Subtleknife]

Personally it shouldn't matter. I paint my marines as ultras, if I want to use one half as ultras and another as dark angels then that should be ok as long as you can tell which unit belongs to which chapter. It does irritate me that GW do not allow this in their tournaments. Why paint an army in an official colour scheme as it just restricts you.

[Panzer]

It's basically just an extension of WYSIWYG now that different subfactions have different rules. Whether you follow it or not follows the same reasoning.

[Closet Skeleton]

 

Those who praise the Dark Age of Matt Ward as the golden age of flexibility have obviously never looked at 7th ed 30k. 18 legions + Blackshields with lots of different approaches to create distinct and fluffy armies/lists/characters. Still balanced - "You want an improved drop force? Then no tanks for you, that's cherrypicking."

 

I don't think anyone thinks the 5th ed Space Marine book was "the golden age" of anything, but the core marine book's chapter tactics weirdness wasn't in any other Matt Ward books.

 

 

They really should have gone the other direction to end this being an issue and replaced Chapter Tactics with Company Tactics.

 

That would be a massive departure from the way marines work and just have annoyed a ton of people.

 

You don't use companies in 40k games, you use strike forces made up of elements from multiple companies, company based rules would be confusing. Predators don't have any company so that would justify the old chapter tactic restrictions .

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Personally it shouldn't matter. I paint my marines as ultras, if I want to use one half as ultras and another as dark angels then that should be ok as long as you can tell which unit belongs to which chapter. It does irritate me that GW do not allow this in their tournaments. Why paint an army in an official colour scheme as it just restricts you.

This is a perfect example of why color scheme should matter. If we're in a game and your entire army is painted as Ultramarines and most of them are using Ultramarine rules except *those squads* are a actually Dark Angel's, that is a problem. You might be able to keep what is what straight in your head, but I may not be able. It's the same problem with proxies and WYSIWYG; if that melta is actually plasma but *that* melta over there is actually a lascannon, things are going to get confusing quickly and that's not fair to your opponent.

[Ishagu]

That is true. If you make things obfuscating for your opponent then you are in the wrong.

[Rik Lightstar]

I for a long time had a Sons of Guilliman army, if I still had them, I'd use the Inheritors tactics.

 

In behaviours they're almost identical, but they're a Chapter of their own and I'm happy to put their Chapter Name on my army lists.

 

Likewise I currently have Mantis Warriors and Astral Claws, the Mantis Warriors may well be best used with White Scars Tactics, it doesn't make them White Scars though, they'll still be Mantis Warriors.

 

Rik

[RandomMarine]

as I understand it to use my IH converted Cullen the risen I have to give my self inheritors and then choose the IH chapter tactics. Then I get all 3 benefits of the chapter tactis, access to chapter specific strats but have to pay 1 cp to get relics and can't use IH named characters

[SkimaskMohawk]

That's pretty much how it works; all unknown founding have a lot of leeway in what chapter rules they can take advantage of

[Subtleknife]

 

Personally it shouldn't matter. I paint my marines as ultras, if I want to use one half as ultras and another as dark angels then that should be ok as long as you can tell which unit belongs to which chapter. It does irritate me that GW do not allow this in their tournaments. Why paint an army in an official colour scheme as it just restricts you.

This is a perfect example of why color scheme should matter. If we're in a game and your entire army is painted as Ultramarines and most of them are using Ultramarine rules except *those squads* are a actually Dark Angel's, that is a problem. You might be able to keep what is what straight in your head, but I may not be able. It's the same problem with proxies and WYSIWYG; if that melta is actually plasma but *that* melta over there is actually a lascannon, things are going to get confusing quickly and that's not fair to your opponent.

That is kinda obvious though and was the reason I didnt mention it apologies if it wasnt obvious.

[SkimaskMohawk]

From reading the supplement rules and how successor chapters work, it seems like they really do mean for paintjob=rules. to them, someone's mortificators are ultramarines successors, unequivocally.

[Malakithe]

So whats the actual difference between using Inheritors or declaring just a successor? 

 

For example if I had neon pink Primaris and wanted to use them as Ultramarines then what would I pick? Since they arent blue I cant take special characters or relics but no matter what I could still use all the strats and tactics?

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Inheritors are by definition Successors - Inheritors of the Primarch is literally the name of a Successor Chapter Tactic.