Counts-as in a world of stricter sub-faction RAW

[jaxom]

I’m working on a written project for Codex Space Marines, but would like to have better former perspective on counts-as from the whole community.

 

What is your current opinion regarding counts-as? Is it different between conversions and paint schemes? Does it have to involve a uniquely converted model? Is okay for a casual game, but not a competition game? Etc, etc.

[Marshal Rohr]

It is unique to each situation. Converted weapons/Eldar Corsairs as Kabalites/Goliaths as Servitors? Sure. Meltaguns as plasma guns? Maybe. Ultramarines as Iron Hands? Nah. 

[Panzer]

Nothing changed about counts-as for me personally. As long as one can see what it's supposed to be it's a go.

[Slasher956]

Personally, like sfPanzer, if I can tell whats what across the table & you arent using the same model (eg plasma gun) for two seperate things (1s a plama the other a melta) then go for it...

 

Paint wise....the only thing I struggle with is where you have the same paint scheme for two separate sub factions.. ie this lot of BA are BA & this formation are IHs is a no go from me

[gideon stargreave]

Best example I've seen are migsula's alpha legion counting as ultramarines

[MARK0SIAN]

I’m very flexible. My only real rule is that things must be from the same faction/army so plasma guns being melta are fine, Blood Angels as Ultramarines are fine but Eldar models as Guardsmen are not fine. Models also need to be roughly the same size and on the correct size base too but So long as they meet those criteria and it’s clear then I’m generally fine with whatever.

[Ciler]

Same here, I don't mind count-as at all, as long as there's no risk of confusion and no base size issues.

So, say, you want to try Blood angels with flamers but all you have is blue marines with meltas, as long as all meltas are flamer that's perfectly OK.

Earlier this week I had a last minute game where I needed an additional predator (4 lascan), and all I had at hand was a razorback (2 lascan) and my opponent was more than happy to oblige.

In the long run what matters is that there's no doubt as to what is what and there's no blatant attempt to abuse the rules by substituting a much smaller model for a much taller one.

As an illustration, if I may be so bold, this is my Daemon Prince with wings and dual claws :

The wings and claws are clearly visible, and I have added the columns and raise platform on a 60 mm base in a deliberate effort to "bulk up" the model, because it was much smaller than a regular DP (esp with wing). If the issue of LoS arises, I will always give the benefit of the doubt to my opponent on this model.

[jaxom]

First, thank you all for the answers.

 

Second, that is an awesome Daemon Prince.

[Aarik]

As long as I can tell what everything is and it's internally consistent (i.e., all meltaguns are plasma guns, or all blue marines with upside down omegas on their shoulders are actually Iron Hands), then it's all gravy.  Though I would expect some reciprocal consideration if I make a mistake because of the "counts as."  For example, "ah shoot, I forgot those meltas were plasmas and thought I was out of range.  I would have have done X had I remembered; let me do X now."

 

No one holds non-power armor factions to the standard of paint schemes having to match the rules, so it's unfair to do that to power armor armies.

 

And generally, someone who primed their space marines black and picked out their eyes and some metal bits shouldn't be in a better position to play the game than someone who painted their army as one chapter/legion but wants to use another's rules.

[Dagoth Ur]

As long as it's consistent, it's fine with me. All your plasma is modelled as volkite? Cool. Your centurions are obliterators? Sure. You converted a whole Thunderwarrior army and are running it as Custodes? Hell yeah! Wanna run your Ultramarines as Iron Hands? Go for it.

 

I am here to have fun, not set arbitrary limitations. All I ask for, is consistency.

[Slasher956]

I’m very flexible. My only real rule is that things must be from the same faction/army so plasma guns being melta are fine, Blood Angels as Ultramarines are fine but Eldar models as Guardsmen are not fine. Models also need to be roughly the same size and on the correct size base too but So long as they meet those criteria and it’s clear then I’m generally fine with whatever.

One question then....what’s the correct base size for a given unit?

 

For example my GW banshees are on the bases they came with =25mm base, the new girls in the botp box are on 28mm and the data sheet has no base size on it!

[Ciler]

That's a tricky question. GWs position has always been "use the base that was provided with the model. Beyond that, what most people do is use the base size that matches the current iteration of the model (e.g. 32 mm for a marine)

[MARK0SIAN]

 

I’m very flexible. My only real rule is that things must be from the same faction/army so plasma guns being melta are fine, Blood Angels as Ultramarines are fine but Eldar models as Guardsmen are not fine. Models also need to be roughly the same size and on the correct size base too but So long as they meet those criteria and it’s clear then I’m generally fine with whatever.

One question then....what’s the correct base size for a given unit?

 

For example my GW banshees are on the bases they came with =25mm base, the new girls in the botp box are on 28mm and the data sheet has no base size on it!

The correct base size is the base size they came with. If older models were issued with one size then the new ones issued with another one then they should be on whatever they were issued with. The older models are pretty easy to identify. If they’re using counts as then I would expect them to adhere to whatever the current kit is issued with.

 

I’ll admit, I’d have to trust my opponent to be honest with it in many cases but I don’t think that’s an unreasonable expectation. Essentially I wouldn’t expect someone to use a model on a 25mm base to count as a model that’s usually on a 32mm base.

 

Especially as we are talking about counts as. If someone wants to use counts as then the emphasis is on them to make it ok by the person they’re playing against. Plasma guns counting as melta (provided I remember) isn’t going to make any difference to the outcome of a game compared them actually having models with melta guns.

 

However having models on a 32mm base compared to a 25mm or 40mm base could actually make a difference to the outcome of a match because it affects cover, pile in, combat etc.

 

In short, I know there’s no technical rule on base sizes but if someone is asking me to allow counts as models then I think I’m ok to expect an honourable approach from them regarding base sizes. To me, that means using a model on the same size base as the one you’re counting as.

[Slasher956]

I think that because of tournaments ... have posted a rules question as to if it makes a difference... personally why should I rebase my old canoness that I’ve had for years because the new ones are on 32 or 40mm bases instead of 25?

[MARK0SIAN]

I think that because of tournaments ... have posted a rules question as to if it makes a difference... personally why should I rebase my old canoness that I’ve had for years because the new ones are on 32 or 40mm bases instead of 25?

I agree with you, you definitely shouldn’t, but that’s not the same for counts as which is what I’m talking about.

[Slasher956]

 

I think that because of tournaments ... have posted a rules question as to if it makes a difference... personally why should I rebase my old canoness that I’ve had for years because the new ones are on 32 or 40mm bases instead of 25?

I agree with you, you definitely shouldn’t, but that’s not the same for counts as which is what I’m talking about.

Sorry but this is in effect a contradiction to your post before... you said if I’m proxying a canoness I have to use a 40mm base (canoness Vs model base size)as it effects cover, combat, pile in etc but it’s ok for me to use an old canoness on a 25mm base...

 

Edit - this is why I’m happy range is measured closest point to closest point as it reciprocal measurements

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

 

I’m very flexible. My only real rule is that things must be from the same faction/army so plasma guns being melta are fine, Blood Angels as Ultramarines are fine but Eldar models as Guardsmen are not fine. Models also need to be roughly the same size and on the correct size base too but So long as they meet those criteria and it’s clear then I’m generally fine with whatever.

One question then....what’s the correct base size for a given unit?

 

For example my GW banshees are on the bases they came with =25mm base, the new girls in the botp box are on 28mm and the data sheet has no base size on it!

 

 

According to GW themselves in around December 2015 when Space Marines first went to 32mm via the Blood Angels box, the answer is whichever size you want. If you have 25mm Banshees, you can keep them on 25mm. If you want to change your 25mm Banshees to 32mm, go for it. If you have new 32mm Banshees I probably wouldn't recommend going down to 25mm even though there's no real rule saying you can't, because GW has obviously intended Banshees to use 32mm from now on (though older 25mm variants are still grandfathered in and legal) and there is a line in the older rules saying use the bases provided or an appropriate base size. So that would mean the older ones use the 25mm they came with OR the "appropriate" 32mm.

 

The reason GW created 32mm? It looked better. That's literally it. There's no deeper rules or measurement reason behind it. Also note Krom Dragongaze is a 25mm/32mm model that was put on a 40mm base because his decorative base was too large. The only time GW has ever consciously designed a specifically different base is with non-Gravis Primaris HQs or aura providers, giving them a 40mm base instead of a 32mm one.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

I think that because of tournaments ... have posted a rules question as to if it makes a difference... personally why should I rebase my old canoness that I’ve had for years because the new ones are on 32 or 40mm bases instead of 25?

I agree with you, you definitely shouldn’t, but that’s not the same for counts as which is what I’m talking about.

Sorry but this is in effect a contradiction to your post before... you said if I’m proxying a canoness I have to use a 40mm base (canoness Vs model base size)as it effects cover, combat, pile in etc but it’s ok for me to use an old canoness on a 25mm base...

 

Edit - this is why I’m happy range is measured closest point to closest point as it reciprocal measurements

If you’ve got the actual old model on its original base then you’re not proxying, you’ve got the model and I’m fine with that. If though, you wanted to proxy a non-canoness model as a canoness then I would expect you to use a model on the current base size.

 

I know this is a slight discrepancy that favours people with the actual old models but I do that because I would never do anything to invalidate someone else’s collection, particularly a venerable one that is no longer in print.

 

However, the line has to be drawn (and I accept that it’s personal/subjective) that using the most recent base size for a counts as model is the best way to ensure it doesn’t affect the outcome of the game.

 

Essentially, if you already have the model I will play against whatever size it came with but if you don’t, if you want to substitute, I expect you to use the most current base size. It might seem contradictory to you and that’s fine but it makes sense to me :)

[Bryan Blaire]

IWhat is your current opinion regarding counts-as? Is it different between conversions and paint schemes? Does it have to involve a uniquely converted model? Is okay for a casual game, but not a competition game? Etc, etc.

Jaxom, when you are asking about "counts as", do you want to know about:

 

General Proxying - where one model or armament or other object stands in for a completely different model without any attempt to modify or otherwise convert the base model to actually look/be something else (for example, using a Repulsor as a Land Raider, Fire Warriors as Necron Immortals, or a red drinking cup as a drop pod)

 

Or

 

Specific "Counts As" - where a custom model made to represent a specific character or armament set is used instead of the official model (for example, the numerous custom-built Dantes from official kits and modeled on the same size bases, or a custom Seth, Grimaldus, Azrael, or even custom conversions of a specific weapon like the Fist of Dorn, Dorn's Arrow, or one of the Relics of the Chapters)?

 

The line can be blurry, as "Counts As" is always a sub-type of a proxy, while a proxy is not always "Counts As." I use these separations, because GW used to specifically acknowledge the concept of "Counts As" in the specific form due to WYSIWYG when that was a rule.

[Disruptor_fe404]

So, say, you want to try Blood angels with flamers but all you have is blue marines with meltas, as long as all meltas are flamer that's perfectly OK.

 

Earlier this week I had a last minute game where I needed an additional predator (4 lascan), and all I had at hand was a razorback (2 lascan) and my opponent was more than happy to oblige.

 

It's worth pointing out that both of these examples are proxying, not counts-as (your daemon prince model definitely is counts-as!).

[jaxom]

 

IWhat is your current opinion regarding counts-as? Is it different between conversions and paint schemes? Does it have to involve a uniquely converted model? Is okay for a casual game, but not a competition game? Etc, etc.

Jaxom, when you are asking about "counts as", do you want to know about:

 

General Proxying - where one model or armament or other object stands in for a completely different model without any attempt to modify or otherwise convert the base model to actually look/be something else (for example, using a Repulsor as a Land Raider, Fire Warriors as Necron Immortals, or a red drinking cup as a drop pod)

 

Or

 

Specific "Counts As" - where a custom model made to represent a specific character or armament set is used instead of the official model (for example, the numerous custom-built Dantes from official kits and modeled on the same size bases, or a custom Seth, Grimaldus, Azrael, or even custom conversions of a specific weapon like the Fist of Dorn, Dorn's Arrow, or one of the Relics of the Chapters)?

 

The line can be blurry, as "Counts As" is always a sub-type of a proxy, while a proxy is not always "Counts As." I use these separations, because GW used to specifically acknowledge the concept of "Counts As" in the specific form due to WYSIWYG when that was a rule.

 

 

Primarily the latter. As far as I can tell; most of our community is okay with the former on a, "I want to see if I like it/if it's worth it so I'll general proxy it in a game or two before getting the appropriate model," scale. Your reference to custom character-builds and WYSIWYG is part of why I asked for other's opinions; particularly outside the Space Marine forums. Are there Eldar players who use a counts-as Eldrad converted Farseer for their custom craftworld (which uses the Ulthwé traits), etc?

[Bryan Blaire]

Are there Eldar players who use a counts-as Eldrad converted Farseer for their custom craftworld (which uses the Ulthwé traits), etc?

Well, I don't specifically have any right now, but I've contemplated making my own version of Prince Yriel and Farsight. Other than that, I don't have any plans for Counts-As for non-Marine armies.

[Morticon]

"Counts-as" for me is a way to reward and promote good modelling and hobbying.  It's not basic proxying and interchanging of weapons and models- which in friendly's i'm totally fine with.  

I'm not sure what the official ruling is for your army's heraldry, as i play a successor chapter with a BA theme- so i've always been able to dabble. 

 

In terms of me playing vs other people, it really doesnt sit that well with me when i see colours and heraldry of one army being played as another -> UM insignia and blue marines being played as IH for example.  That being said, I wouldnt disallow it- i just dont like it. 

[Morticon]

I have to add as an addendum, that I really dont get the excuse that because they were painted one way, players will be confused.  
If you tell me i'm up against Iron Hands, I dont suddenly, halfway through the game think they can fall back and shoot because theyre painted blue. 

If you have IH units that are blue/with UM heraldry AS WELL AS Ultra Models- THATS an issue if you cant delineate....but..if its one army...you're memorizing the rules- not really linking the colouring of it.  

[Halandaar]

Just be consistent. If you want to run Bloodletter models with Plaguebearer rules, that's fine with me, but don't run some as Plaguebearers and others as Bloodletters because that's confusing. Equally, don't run some Flamers as Flamers and others as Plasmas, and don't run some blue Marines as Ultras and other blue marines as Iron Hands. But really this is "proxying" rather than true "counts-as".

 

For counts-as, the model needs to be representative of what it is being played as. Your "count-as Azrael" doesn't need to have a robe and a helmet with wings on, but it does need to have a big sword, a Combi-Plasma and a little dude on a separate base following him around.

 

The above example of a Marine in power armour counting-as a Daemon-Prince is a good one; the base size is consistent with a Daemon-Prince, extra height has been added to give it a similar size of silhouette and there are obvious items on the model that reflect the wargear. There's no confusion that this particular model is just a Sorcerer.

 

TL;DR - Do what you want, but make sure it's not confusing for your opponent.