# 'Counts-As' Chapters: Really?



## Baron Spikey (Mar 26, 2008)

Is anyone else getting a little tired of the horde of counts-as Marine armies out there?

Sometimes it makes perfect sense to use a Codex that isn't the force's own, but for the most part I feel like people should be using the correct Codex. A prime example is the Blood Ravens and using Codex: Blood Angels to represent them- why? Other than Librarian Dreadnoughts the BA have nothing else that represents the Ravens better than Codex: Space MArines, in fact with the Red Thirst/Black Rage, Descent of Angels et al special rules the Blood Angels really don't suit the background of the Blood Ravens.

Would you really be willing to sacrifice the rest of your Army'sbackground just to fulfil 1 small piece of it (and it's not exactly a major part saying they have Librarian Dreads!).

Please people explain to me why you do these things?
Or if you agree with me post up some craziness you've come across.


----------



## Orochi (Jan 28, 2009)

Well I do agree that the likes of Codex: BA could represent the Night Lord CSM legion. Black rage/Red thirst is quite Chaos like.

Codex Space wolves Is pretty good for CSM all round, it gives for more depth other than lash/oblit/pm spam.

Codex Space marines does well for Iron warrior CSM.

I have been using CE for my DE recentally to give me a bit more to play with (I have lots of conversions)

I have seen someone who used Code Tyrands for a Necron Army, again, he had the conversions to match up, and it was really good fun to play.

And I have also seen someone use a lost and the damned army using Codex Tyranids, he used the Warhammer Giant with some serious mutating as a Hive tyrant, I thought it was pretty clever.


----------



## VanitusMalus (Jun 27, 2009)

I can see Codex Eldar being used for DE and as long as the fluff fit the models I could handle pretty much any count as, but I'd prefer if the models actually were put together and painted. I use to hate playing against the unpainted, unassembled count as army so every few turns you're like what are those? He responds with the name of the count as unit, you reply with but in codex what are they and so on and so forth, that's a real pain in the ass.

Just to add it's even worse when the models being used aren't even the proper unit. So you got the legs of a space marine, that's suppose to be a raptor, that has the rules of an assault squad marine from Codex: Blood Angels.


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

I use codex SW to represent my Red Corsairs. I don't see any problem with it as long as people tell me what each model represents and there is some consistency in similar wargear.

I've also occasionally used codex CA to represent my DE, but I missed my RJBs and DLs.


----------



## Whizzwang (Dec 31, 2008)

what does it matter what models + colours your army uses as long as you use one and only one codex. It's irrelevent.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Im all for it, its much better than facing home brew rules, the minis might be painted a little strangely but you know(rules wise) what your facing, plus you can always wind up your opponent by calling his army what ever codex hes using, so if hes lovingly painted his models as blood ravens and is using the blood angels codex,just keep referring to them as blood angels, or say things like "its such a pity that your chapter isnt important enough to have its own codex" or say you wont play them until they have tipexed out the word "angels" and replaced it with "ravens" on every page.


----------



## Deneris (Jul 23, 2008)

Whizzwang said:


> what does it matter what models + colours your army uses as long as you use one and only one codex. It's irrelevent.


Colors I'm fine with, but I'd REALLY like to see actual models on the table, and preferably models of the same scale as the rest; I HAVE played against people that used hordes of dollar-store chess pieces to represent their armies, with pawns being troopers, sarges had a paper hat, and various assault/heavy troops were squads of knights/rooks/bishops. "Transport vehicles" were the upside-down boxtops of the Chess games... :nono:

So as long as I can see ACTUAL models on the tabletop, I'm fine with whatever Codex you're using. Even better if you have some cool conversions, of course... k:


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Baron Spikey said:


> Is anyone else getting a little tired of the horde of counts-as Marine armies out there?


I am fine with someone taking the time to remap all of the units in a Codex and come up a paint scheme and model choice to match; it shows they have actually put some thought into their marines rather than just playing Ultra-smurfs or whatever is latest off the marine line at GW.



Baron Spikey said:


> Would you really be willing to sacrifice the rest of your Army's background just to fulfil 1 small piece of it (and it's not exactly a major part saying they have Librarian Dreads!).


This annoys me.

I can accept different levels of fluff in an army (I would not play Typhus leading entirely Thousand Sons myself but it is legal); however choosing a Codex for a fluff point when the rest of the Codex does not fit, always seems to lead to working around the rules.

If you want librarian dreadnoughts (or the bunny slippers of Alpharius) because they fit the fluff of your army then ask me if I mind you taking them in a vanilla Codex army; if you want them because they are Chuck Norris on speed then stop using fluff to justify wanting to win.


----------



## Warlock in Training (Jun 10, 2008)

Personally when GW gives CSM Players 3.5 Dex Legions again, we will keep using DA/SW/BT/SM/BA dexes to fit OUR fluff. Its not fair and its BS that SM get all the Fluff and rules and everyone else Dex gets one Dex worth. 

The Lost and the Damn as Nids sounds clever. As long as the fluff and represetation fits, its AOK. Infact I encourage the Hobby side to customise their army and work within the fluff.

Now if they make Blood Ravens army with just Psyker Dreads is preatty lame. I always thought the BAs make for great Pre Heresy TS army. Psykers leading Psyker Dreads on the battlefield. The Priest make for great Psykers that boost the combat potential of the Marines their attach to. Yes I think BAs can work for Blood Raven (since they're hinted at being TS successor) if done right.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

I'm absolutely fine with it as long as people are honest about the reason for doing it. If someone is using say, Codex: Space Wolves for their Chaos Space Marines because it offers more variety and depth that's absolutely fine as long as they aren't telling everyone that it's for fluff reasons.


----------



## morfangdakka (Dec 31, 2006)

I don't have a problem with it if people use different codex's to offer their army more variety instead of using the same cookie cutter army list.

It is a lot better than people using ork miniatures to represent Grey Knights like one guy I ran across. He wanted to use ork models but didn't like the codex.


----------



## hungryugolino (Sep 12, 2009)

Well, that's actually funny enough that I'd play against it.

Nothing wrong with counts-as, especially if it means fewer people paint up Ultramarines. Never can have too little bright blue.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

I've had my Sanguine Spectres BA successor since I started the hobby, all the way back in 3rd edition. I didn't want to have a firetruck as an army so I painted them differently. I have fluff aroudn them that is Spectres and not a rehash of someone else's ( I hope not anyway ) I did buy the BA characters because 1. they look the business. and 2. I had Custom fluff as to why they had a similar level of power to the BA characters. Now though recently I have been making custom Characters for my army ( see my Lord Reevan/Mephiston Conversion) Hell I even have a few characters from other chapters in my army. Lysander is my lightning claw armed terminator captain 

So I think to add your personal mark to your army it's all well and good but doing it every time a codex comes out to get the newest power buff I really dislike.


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

i dont use a stereotypical count as SM army. i just use my DIY army with a special character (yes the actual model & painted) from BT, DA, BA, SW...and boom insta-marines


----------



## coalheartly (Jul 24, 2009)

As long as it isn't too outrageous. Like if I was to face a count as vulkan, I would want him to have representatives of the spear, the cape, and the flamer glove. One kid I pplayed tried to convinve me that his plague marine that was painted ALL bright green, was typhus....


----------



## Marneus Calgar (Dec 5, 2007)

Hmmm... 

I don't like seeing Chaos Marines being used in an imperial codex, thats just me though... 

I don't however mind seeing Codex: Space Marine chapters being used with other Marine rules (Ie. Ultramarines with Dark Angels rules), I'm thinking about doing that myself. I think that if its not too "out the way" then I'd be happy with it...


----------



## Tzeen Qhayshek (May 4, 2010)

Personally -

If you want to do a nameless DIY chapter: use Codex: Space Marines. Don't use Codex: BA or Codex: DA. Use the Codex for what it is meant for.

GW made entire model lines meant for the above - use them if you want that army. Don't use them if you don't.


----------



## jams (Sep 19, 2009)

i don't mind it as long as it makes some sort of sense, i.e SW codex for pre-heresy world eaters.

conversely, how to people feel about using select complimentary units from a particular codex with the main bulk of the army coming from another?

for example, taking a C:SM salamanders army with a flamestorm armed baal pred? or a ravenguard army taking a stormraven?


----------



## fynn (Sep 19, 2008)

jams said:


> i don't mind it as long as it makes some sort of sense, i.e SW codex for pre-heresy world eaters.
> 
> conversely, how to people feel about using select complimentary units from a particular codex with the main bulk of the army coming from another?
> 
> for example, taking a C:SM salamanders army with a flamestorm armed baal pred? or a ravenguard army taking a stormraven?


as in building an army useing 2 different books? umm that be a no from me, unless your army has allie rules like DH/WH. but to build an army useing the SM codex, then adding units you like from say C:SW or C:BA is a no-no, becourse you can really take the piss by doing that


----------



## Tzeen Qhayshek (May 4, 2010)

I would definitely say no to that. The rules are there for a reason, after all.


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

Maybe in a friendly game, if it was for fluff reasons.


----------



## Bindi Baji (Apr 23, 2009)

For most normal people I have no problem with this, sometimes it actually works better (WE using SW)
However I have seen a few, erm people with all the marine codexes so they can decide which to use that day.

I was invited to play against one of these, shall we say gits?, 
and whilst I can't remember my exact comments at the time, I vaguely remember offering to shove the codexes down the gits throat under the context that the first one that come back out would be the codex he used.

He declined.........


----------



## Svartmetall (Jun 16, 2008)

I have no problem at all with people using one particular Codex's rules to represent either a force that has no official GW rules of their own or a homebrewed...whatever. As long as you're following the rules and your opponent knows what you're using to represent what, where's the problem? The only thing I wouldn't agree with is cherry-picking units and characters from different Codices just to make 'I win' combinations; that's just blatant powergaming, and lamer than a Uwe Boll season on Movie Channel. 

I would suggest that anything that encourages creativity and out-of-the-box thinking has to be a good thing. I've been having a lot of fun working out what will count as what for my upcoming Traitor Guard army, using the IG Codex and inventing whole families of Chaos-pattern tanks and armoured vehicles to count as the various Guard units. I'm actually planning to create in-character Departmento Munitorum-style enemy identification charts to give to my opponent, showing the profiles (as in an actual profile of the counts-as model they'll see on the table) and names of the vehicles I'm using and also which exact thing out of the Codex they actually are on the table.

Example: my counts-as model for the Medusa is going to be the WW2 *Sturmpanzer IV 'Brummbär'* assault gun; in-character as a Chaos-pattern vehicle I'm calling it the 'Torturer' self-propelled siege gun, so on the chart will be a profile of the model (as the final conversion will appear including the counts-as-Medusa-cannon main gun etc.) and then some text along the lines of: 
"Self-propelled heavy siege gun, believed from interrogation of prisoners to be known as the 'Torturer'; this appears to be a self-propelled mounting of the 'Tormentor'-pattern towed siege gun. (counts as Medusa)"

This way I get to make a nice fluffy document that just adds flavour to the whole thing, and my opponent has no trouble knowing what's what in the army he's about to utterly destroy because I suck :biggrin:


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

I have no problem with counts as, as long as it makes some frigging sense, seeing someone play dark angels and using the basic marine codex makes sense, as its actually closer to a DA army than the DA codex, but seeing someone want to use the BA codex for there DA's while also making up there own character that costs 50pts and has maxed out stats just makes me want to punch a small child in the face.....twice since the first punch is just because punching children is fun.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

jams said:


> conversely, how to people feel about using select complimentary units from a particular codex with the main bulk of the army coming from another?
> 
> for example, taking a C:SM salamanders army with a flamestorm armed baal pred? or a ravenguard army taking a stormraven?


As long as we're playing a friendly game and my opponent is nice enough to ask me permission first, sure. Why not?


----------



## rodmillard (Mar 23, 2010)

I'm a little guilty of this - my homebrew SM Chapter (Storm Legion) has, over the years, used the IA list for whitescars, C: SM 4 ed (with chapter traits), C: DA, and I'm currently experimenting with builds using C: SW.

I have also seen at my uni club craftworld eldar played using the DE codex (because the guy hated the DE models) and a pure Thousand Sons army counts as Necrons (because he hated what they did to cult armies in the new codex). I have no problem with anything like this - this is an expensive enough hobby without being a jerk about using "correct" models in friendly games, or insisting someone go out and buy a whole new army because GW ****** up his codex.

That said, I hate it when people mess around with WYSIWYG in terms of models. I once played against a guy whose Cadians were all modelled up with Grenade launchers in the squads, but apparently platoon A had plasma gunners and Platoon B had flamers (but his command squads actually had grenade launchers). Now, I would have no problem if he said "all the grenade launchers are actually plasma guns", but trying to keep track of which squad had what was a nightmare...


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

For DIY chapter I have no problem with it. But if you have a codex for a faction or if you have something like the sals and the ravenguard, you have what you need in C:SM! Use it. If you are a chaos faction use the chaos dex and if you are a codex chapter use the C:SM. I heard of a guy who was using the wolf codex for Smurfs. Pissed my off. Just use your dex people, come on.

Rant fin.


----------



## Bindi Baji (Apr 23, 2009)

gen.ahab said:


> I heard of a guy who was using the wolf codex for Smurfs. Pissed my off. Just use your dex people, come on.


u must be very easy to piss off, u didn't even meet this guy, 
I hate to imagine what would happen if you discovered it was someone you knew


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

It's the motives behind it. It was a switch that said "to hell with fluff I just want to win." If you like Smurfs use their codex. The wolf codex makes no sense for an ultra army.


----------



## VanitusMalus (Jun 27, 2009)

well like I gave in my earlier opinion it's all good until you try and use 3 codexes because you want a variety of vehicle and unit options or you got a bunch of legs on bases and you have a tiny red paint mark to mark which ones have special weapons, nah that's not going to fly.

Now it's understandable that it's expensive to buy new armies and all that but that's sort of the game and to lessen confusion which could lead to arguments and perhaps even violence it's best to get as close to the actual army using the models themselves and the approproate rules as possible.

@Svart: that's clever I'd play against that anyday. I like when people bring a huge amount of creativity to their army.


----------



## Giant Fossil Penguin (Apr 11, 2009)

Once I got established in the hobby, I realised that I wasn't going to held back by what colour I'd decided to paint my Marines. There are so many cool options and toys to play with and I want to play with them. I couldn't give a toss about what is new or effective, I just want to play with everything, be it Loyalist of Traitor.
So, I've tried to make my paintscheme and fluff flexible enough so that I can my make mine a 'flex-Chapter'. If I want to play a 1st Co list, them I'll go DA Deathwing or maybe a Loganwing (because I just love the models you can use with that). Do I want to play 7th/8th Co? Then I'll use the DA's Ravenwing. The characters in the 'nilla 'dex give me loads of options. 
BAs is going to be an EC and WE pre/post-ish Heresy mix. I'll probably just add some Tac squads of SoH and various others, as well as Possessed so that I can use the Chaos 'dex. I haven't really worked out how I'm going to fit in the BTs, but I hope to at some point.
I see absolutely no reason to limit myself by something as artificial as what colour my toys are. Why does it have to be an issue? Maybe if all anyone does is play in an environment where winning is the goal it could be a point, but away from this, in a more narrative style of play, one where winning is not the real point but a nice bonus, then what Codex anyone wants to use really shouldn't make a difference.
If anyone has an issue with playing one of my counts-as armies, then I can't see how I've lost out. If the colour of the army is a problem, then I'm not sure the game promises to be that enjoyable.

GFP


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

Good call GFP. 

I for one starkly refuse to play as any codex chapter as it appears on the cover. My nids are bright blue, there is NOT A DROP of metallic paint on my necrons, and my marines, though similar to Blood Ravens, are not. I swear.

I will confess my only transgression to this rule. My Eldar are painted in the colours of BielTan, but to salve my own ego, I used a different shade of green, Light grey instead of white, and reversed the colours wherever possible. A mostly white-ish Wave Serpent looks pretty sweet.

I also have this obsessive compulsion to never use something unless I have the model and it is wysiwyg. As well as this, I tend to avoid metal models wherever I can, so my armies are sometimes less than viable (making victory that much sweeter).

As for playing against, it generally doesn`t bother me, but I do enjoy seeing a fully painted army across the table. And as long as we are both clear on the codex used and what is what, I am generally okay with counts as armies. It may be a little easier for me than some, since I pretty much know every codex off by heart. 


No life...


----------

