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

[Panzer]

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.  

 

I mostly agree. However if it's a regular opponent that keeps switching chapters all the time it can get confusing. Especially for people who either don't play Marines themselves or not regularly, so aren't familiar with what's the units own rules and what's the added subfaction rules.

[Claws and Effect]

It varies for me depending on circumstance.

 

You have a fully painted Ultramarines army you want to play as Iron Hands to see if you like them enough to commit to building an Iron Hands army? Absolutely, let's play.

 

But if you have that same fully painted Ultramarines army that you are continually proxying as whichever chapter has the best rules at the moment, once I twig to what you're doing I'll just stop playing you. Especially if you tell me beforehand that they're Iron Hands and then switch it to Imperial Fists after you see that I'm playing Raven Guard. Not cool.

 

In short: Proxies and counts-as to help decide if you want to commit to buying and painting something is fine by me. Proxies and counts-as used to game the system and gain an unfair advantage, not fine.

[Bryan Blaire]

Especially if you tell me beforehand that they're Iron Hands and then switch it to Imperial Fists after you see that I'm playing Raven Guard. Not cool.

Dude, that’s not cool even if you didn’t have a proxy situation going on:

 

“Hey I’m going to play some Irons Hands, have my army list worked out.”

 

“Oh, cool, this will be an interesting training exercise - here’s my Raven Guard army list.”

 

*opponent puts IH army list away and pulls out an Imperial Fists list and starts setting yellow Marines up*

 

“Hopefully it’s even more interesting now against my IF...”

 

*Just how many :cuss Marine armies do you carry with you?*

 

Not cool man - put your army list on the table at game start and take them licks as they play out, be a good sport.

[Ishagu]

An amazing conversion, or a model built from multiple kits to represent something in game (eg: Using the plastic Chaos Terminator Lord kit in conjunction with the old Abaddon's sword and Talon to create a better looking Abaddon before the new model was released) could be OK, but might need to be judged on a case by case basis.

 

Using a Flamer to proxy a plasma gun, or a sword to proxy a thunder hammer, or one model to represent another? This is not OK.

 

As for army colour, this is a funny one. Let's say you have a custom chapter - you would be free to use whatever chapter rules you wanted.

On the other hand, if I see an Ultramarine army right down to unit markings and symbols, and you tell me they are Iron Hands, I find that a bit off putting as 40k is very much a visual game.

I should point out that at official GW events such as the throne of skulls you are expected to play the army as the chapter it is painted in.

 

I also want to point out that in my 22 years in the hobby, most people who proxy or use lazy counts-as to "test a unit" never go on to buy those units, and simply move on to proxying something else. You might be the exception to this, but I'll believe it when I see it.

[Soldier of Dorn]

My current opinion? My current opinion is that anything's fair game. Simple as.

The rules are an abstract, nothing more -- if you use a "canonical" set of subfaction rules for a force, that isn't any different then reframing those mechanics for a different chapter-- in my mind, at least. I don't think you stay any more true to the setting or to the lore if your Ultramarines have 6+ Feel No Pain and a boost to Overwatch instead of than +1 Leadership and shooting at -1 BS if they fell back. Too much emphasis, I think, is put on whether or not the mechanical subtleties of the game are canonically sound, and correctly reflect the aesthetic. And don't get me wrong, I do have a passionate love of the setting and the aesthetic, but at the same time, the game as a mechanism is necessarily abstract and I'm not going to fuss over what's what with an opponent if they want to play with something they consider a good choice so far as the rules go.

 

These are my general feelings about proxy/count-as, in all honesty. I used to strongly believe in WYSIWYG, but as time has gone on, I don't really want to fuss over details like that, especially as options in the game have become limited for units in this current edition of 40k. My personal approach now is nearly purely for aesthetic considerations, but I don't desire that those aesthetic considerations inhibit or impair mechanical choice -- it is still a game, after all, and I do want to be able to play it to the fullest. And I'm not going to fuss over my opponent's approach, either -- if they want to run unit with x loadout as y loadout, then I don't really care.

 

But I do think these come with a caveat, as all tabletop gaming does: that of the genteel. I don't terribly mind these things, but I do wish them to be made clear and preferably straightforward, with little worry of confusion: which is the point of things like WYSIWYG and prohibitions against proxy/count-as. Respectability in gameplay dictates that one doesn't go to the extreme end of winning at any cost, and that you give your opponent a sporting chance. This should be the primary concern of any wargamer, of making the game itself enjoyable for all parties, and it's certainly my primary concern when it comes to these things.

 

In short, I don't have an issue with proxy/count-as, but I do have a problem with what generally drives people to such things when it becomes an issue. That's the core of the problem in any extent, so that's what I seek to address.

[Trevak Dal]

I think the Try-Hardiest of the Try-Hards would make up their own army (say... The Nightblades or the Steel Pangolins or Crystal Weevils) and then buy every special unit for each space marine faction (Deathwing, Death Company, Sanguinary Guard, etc).

 

The idea being to build a collection of models painted the same, that you can use any rules with.

[Exilyth]

Counts-as are ok for me as long as they adhere to some simple guidelines:

• same base size (or the bases they came on)
• similar size (doesn't need to be 100%, but should be close. I certainly won't chastise an opponent for making models bigger, especially characters.)
• no confusion - different unit types should be visually distinct (even if it's just a different gun)
• no confusion - different weapons and equipment should be visually distinct (I tend to be very lax with minor stuff like grenades though)
• no confusion - different <subfaction>s should be painted in different colors, even if it's just base rims.

The key is consistency: It's hard enough to keep track of the rules & tactics - an army shouldn't cause memory issues on top, e.g. I wouldn't want to have to ask "What was that unit again?" for every second decision I'm making. Consistency also helps sell the theme of the army.

[Gree]

I'm generally okay with it, if only because homebrew armies and Successor Chapters are a popular part of the hobby. Our own Liber has many examples of interesting and inventive homebrew Chapters. Nor do I think somebody who plays White Consuls or Red Talons should be penalized just because their army isn't painted like the Ultramarines or Iron Hands.

[Slasher956]

Counts-as are ok for me as long as they adhere to some simple guidelines:

•  
• no confusion - different unit types should be visually distinct (even if it's just a different gun)
•  

 

This is where you come unstuck.....you're saying its not ok to use the same models for different unit types if doing counts as yet if they are the actual models then its fine!  :s

 

 

I mean lets look at space marines.... Devastators & Tactical marines are the same guys with the same weapons (boltguns & heavy weapon options)

or even funnier... Sisters of Battle where you have - Battle Sisters (troop), Domions (fast attack), retributors (heavy support) & Celestians (elite - with different stats!) all use the same models & weapons

[Halandaar]

 

This is where you come unstuck.....you're saying its not ok to use the same models for different unit types if doing counts as yet if they are the actual models then its fine!  :ss

 

No comment is made about similar official models at all, so don't put words in somebody else's mouth. The point about units being visually distinct from each other is purely about models being used on a "counts-as" (or proxy) basis.

 

Your examples of Devastators vs Tacticals and Celestians vs Battle Sisters aren't relevant because the official models are being used and therefore are not counts-as

 

There could well be some visual confusion there in certain circumstances, but that is not the outcome of proxying one kind of model as another, that's a result of the official models being very similar (or in some cases identical); a design failing of GW, if you prefer.

 

(Besides, it's usually very obvious that Devastators are not Tacticals by virtue of that fact that they have more Heavy Weapons in the unit than a Tactical Squad can legally take. Nobody is confusing 4 Marines with Lascannons for a Tactical Squad)

[Panzer]

 

Counts-as are ok for me as long as they adhere to some simple guidelines:

•  
• no confusion - different unit types should be visually distinct (even if it's just a different gun)
•  

 

This is where you come unstuck.....you're saying its not ok to use the same models for different unit types if doing counts as yet if they are the actual models then its fine!  :s

 

 

I mean lets look at space marines.... Devastators & Tactical marines are the same guys with the same weapons (boltguns & heavy weapon options)

or even funnier... Sisters of Battle where you have - Battle Sisters (troop), Domions (fast attack), retributors (heavy support) & Celestians (elite - with different stats!) all use the same models & weapons

 

 

To be fair, Devastators and Tacticals are easily to distinguish if painted according to the official heraldry provided in every Codex. :P 

[Slasher956]

 

 

This is where you come unstuck.....you're saying its not ok to use the same models for different unit types if doing counts as yet if they are the actual models then its fine!  :ss

 

No comment is made about similar official models at all, so don't put words in somebody else's mouth. The point about units being visually distinct from each other is purely about models being used on a "counts-as" (or proxy) basis.

 

Your examples of Devastators vs Tacticals and Celestians vs Battle Sisters aren't relevant because the official models are being used and therefore are not counts-as

 

There could well be some visual confusion there in certain circumstances, but that is not the outcome of proxying one kind of model as another, that's a result of the official models being very similar (or in some cases identical); a design failing of GW, if you prefer.

 

(Besides, it's usually very obvious that Devastators are not Tacticals by virtue of that fact that they have more Heavy Weapons in the unit than a Tactical Squad can legally take. Nobody is confusing 4 Marines with Lascannons for a Tactical Squad)

 

erm... my point is if I can run the same model in two separate units using official models why cant I do it with proxy/ count as?  surely if I'm running a proxy model it is as that model irrespective of the unit that the model is in?

 

My two examples are that I can use a bolter armed basic model in the multiple units I mentioned, yet I cant use my proxy models in the same unit spread as I read exilyths comment!  

 

ps domion squads are 0-4 special weapons and basic sisters are 0-2 so I can run two units with 2 special weapons in different slots.....

 

PERSONALLY if you want to proxy X model as Y then I dont care what unit its in so long as it has the right equipment. - now I admit I could be reading Exilyths comments different to how he (or she) ment them and this is a ridiculous argument... :p

[Exilyth]

 

To be fair, Devastators and Tacticals are easily to distinguish if painted according to the official heraldry provided in every Codex.

Tbh, while proper heraldry would be the proper thing to do, I tend to keep my heavy weapons slot agnostic so I can run them as devastators or as the heavy weapon in a tactical squad. And I certainly won't bat an eye if an opponent does the same.

 

Also, 5-10 infantry models with one pointy finger dude/thing and automatic rifles (and maybe one special and/or heavy weapon) vs. 5-10 infantry models with one pointy finger dude/thing and 4 heavy weapons and automatic rifles and maybe a creepy giant floating baby head spewing ammunition does look quite different on the tabletop even when *gasp* unpainted.

 

edit.

Tbh. the tacs vs. devs example is a bit silly as they both have similar statlines.

 

this is a ridiculous argument...

Yes it is: if the official model is the same for different units, the counts-as can (and most likely would) be modelled the same for such units.

 

E.g. most Astra Militarum infantry units are similar: They're all some infantry unit with lasguns which can take a special and/or heavy weapon - infantry squads are people in uniforms, conscripts are people in fresh uniforms (often signified by a stripe on the helmet), veterans are people in old uniforms with customized gear and a more realistic outlook on this whole 'martyrdom' business, scions/stormtroopers/kasrkin are people in plate armor with better equipment. (Well, for <mordians>, wearing the same uniform with just some minor variation in rank insignia would even be fluffy.)

 

In the current official model line, most guard infantry is the same cadian infantry model, differentiated only by paint job. But most conversions model infantry squads as regular troops, conscripts as troops with worse gear and veterans as troops with better gear, often adding some bling/decoration and/or using custom uniforms.

F.e. a feudal world regiment could be made using empire flagellants as conscripts (look wild and unkempt), empire troops in chainmail as line infantry (look more uniform and organized) and empire troops in steel armour as veterans (wouldn't want to waste such expensive equipment on inexperienced combatants). If one feels fancy, maybe infantry in steel armour with shields and custom heraldry as stromtroopers/scions.

 

Now, if someone where to counts-as or convert models to play an astra militarum regiment which was based on xenos/robots/other, they would have two options:

• model all such units the same and differentiate them through paint job.
• model all such units differently, e.g. all conscripts as robots with wheels, all soldiers as robots with tracks, all veterans as robots with legs. Or all regular infantry as regular spiders and all veterans as spiders with pirate hats. Or whatever.

Either would be fine for me as long as it is consistent.

 

 

TL;DR: Maybe I should have worded that differently, e.g. replace that one sentence with the following:

• no confusion - different entries for model types listed on a datasheet should be visually distinct and models from different datasheets should be visually distinct unless they share a model type entry.
• no confusion - models equipped with the same set of equipment should be visually similar, while models equipped with different sets of equipment should be visually distinct.
• no confusion - different equipment entries should be visually distinct.

 

I'll just leave this here as FAQ and errata to my previous post.

 

 

 

Slightly offftopic: with sisters getting new releases next year, they may get different models and/or rules/options for different units - but that's really something for the news&rumor section.