Librarium Online Forums banner

Counts as?

1K views 11 replies 7 participants last post by  Hasten 
#1 ·
Hi all,
What is the meaning of “counts as” when referring to the wording of the 4th Ed rules?

Thanks in advance.
 
#2 ·
In part, its a stop-gap to cover all the things that fall through the WYSIWYG rule.

Like older models that display weaponry that no longer exists. Therefore the "counts-as" rule allows you to use the model to represent something from the current range.

For example a Choas Marine now comes with Boltpistol, Close combat weapon and Bolter. Most players have them modelled one way or the other. The "counts-as" rule allows us to put any of them down and say they count as a marine with all the weapons even though they are now displayed.

Only one application of course.
 
#3 ·
Hi Mate,
I thought that this answer would pop up, that’s why I stated “when referring to the wording of the 4th Ed rules.” (Chuckles to myself.)

I know about the modeling issues of “counts as” in tournaments as you have explained but was curious as to what the phrase really means in the context of the BGB and its attendant rules.

There seems to be great conflict when viewing “counts as” in rules debates, what does it mean, what does it include, and where does it apply etc.

This little generic term I believe is responsible for a lot of angst amongst players and so I thought I would ask others opinions on just how far reaching this terms gets.

Cheers.
 
#4 ·
Wicky, there's just no subtlety in your question=) I love it!

Short order, ruleswise, if something counts as, then it assumes the pertinant rules. If a broodlord counts as having a powerweapon, he doesn't need a powerweapon to ignore armour saves in close combat.

Just like scarrabs that count as jetbikes can turbo boost if they wish, gaining their invulnerable save. They may also choose to ignore terrain while flying over it, or move through it, taking terrain tests but gaining cover saves.
 
#6 ·
Hi again,
I think Tarzen is partly on the right track here, this not mean’t to be subtle at all.

Now I have always assumed that if something “counts as having” it does so in a limited sense, otherwise the statement would be “it has actually has or is.”

These two definitions of actually “having” and “counts as having” really confuse rules answers.

If we assume that a “counts as “ assumes all pertinent rules for that item then we run into huge gaming problems in the real world.

For example – “A Monstrous creature counts as 10 models,” does so in the limited sense of when outnumbering an opponent in an assault, not that it assumes the all the rules for being 10 models in an assault.

The “counts as” in the rules can and does get very confusing as it breaks away from WYSIWYG entirely. In other words you have to totally rely upon your memory when referring to anything that “counts as” because it is not obvious to the naked eye.

So when anyone answers a rules question in an area of “counts as “ I would encourage them to explain in that same sentence in which manner does it count and in which it doesn’t.

This would tend to cut straight to the truth of any matter much faster than trying to re-explain in greater detail in a later post.

Cheers.
 
#7 ·
Ok. I see what your getting at.

In all honsety before your post I have not encountered one individual who has been confused by the counts-as aspect of the game. That's why I needed you to explain what you meant.

I don't see "counts-as" as your describing as a WYSIWYG issue. I believe that GW uses it in that context for ease of explanation.

For example,

The Agoniser: Counts as a powerweapon that wounds on a 4+ ,,,,

Instead of going into the rigmorole of explaining "powerweapons" every time this effect comes up, they define "powerweapon" and then use it to reference similar items that have slightly different rules from the standard "powerweapon".
 
#8 ·
Another example. I remember at one point in an argument about mandrakes and cover saves in CC someone (actually wicky, I think it might have been you) made the claim that because it wasn't an actual cover save, and since they just "counts as" being in cover, they wasn't subject to the BGB rule that you don't get cover saves in close combat, or being ignored by flamers, because it wasn't a true cover save. It was already a moot point since the DE codex never allows them cover saves in CC, but if they "count as" being cover (which also stacks with regular cover) then they take on all aspects of being cover, and hence, all aspects of the cover save, which include not applying in CC and being ignored by flamers. If the DE codex specifically allowed mandrakes cover saves it would overrule the rulebook though.
 
#9 ·
Hi,
If that was indeed me in that previous argument then I will cop the heat for it but I honestly don’t remember it that well.
(You seem to have a very good grasp on Mandrakes so I won’t challenge you!)

The point about “counts as” I am trying to make is that the term is about adopting a limited functionality of the original ruling, not the entire ruling.
And what parts you are legally allowed to adopt are very situational.
Usually the rule of “counts as” only exists because to purely allow the original rule would conflict with the current situation in some way.

If it did adopt the entire original ruling it would simply say, “use the rules for cover” and not “it counts as using the cover rules.” This makes a huge difference when trying to decipher what to do in a game.

For example –
The previously mentioned Monstrous creature rule of “counting as 10 models” is only valid when determining who out numbers who in close combat, it only applies to that situation.
And not some twist like you get 10 wounds in close combat.

And if a model “counts as” moving 12” and doesn’t physically have to move 12” on the board it breaks WYSIWYG, in that what you see is “definitely” not what you get visually. It becomes a memory game because the effect is not visually apparent to the players. And as you can see here the model does not adopt all the rules for 12” movement but just the part that applies for that situation.

Now the point of all this is that because the “counts as” rule is very situational it can be taken out of context very easily and can be lawyered to death.

Before I get pounced on I will admit that there are some instances that “counts as” will reflect exactly what the borrowed rule set means, but then there is no point in saying “counts as” is there?

Cheers.
 
#10 ·
I am having a little trouble following you here. To me we have always assumed that if it 'counts as' a specific ruling then it adopts the wording of that ruling. I.e. 'counts as using the cover rules' is interchangeable with 'follows rules for cover'/'uses rules for cover' and if any of my opponents were that pedantic about wording then the game would degenerate and I would most likely walk away from the table, the game having lost all enjoyment for me.

But to further the argument, would you be able to give specific instances?
For the Monstrous creatures ruling I am certain that the rest of that line goes something like: "for purposes of combat resolution/outnumbering/unit size" or whatever, therefore by breaking up the sentance like that you are changing the scope entirely of the argument and it is possible to twist the words and meanings to match almost anything.

As to the point of the 'counts as' rule being situational, that is the point of it, isn't it? It is used in situations and instances where they effects or actions of the model/item differ somewhat from the core rule setting and instead of repeating vast swathes of text with a few minuscule changes it is more expedient to simply state "counts as xxyy for/also [insert effect here]".

For the agonizer example I believe it states: "counts as a power weapon that wounds on a 4+" or something to that end.
They could have worded it "Ignores armour saves and wounds on a 4+", but by doing that it wouldn't be a power weapon - even though they ignore armour saves. By stating that it 'counts as' a power weapon it allows it to overcome the rules like "feel no pain" or "we'll be back" - whereas with the other wording it wouldn't.
 
#11 ·
oh Wicky, there isisubtlety here, here is a book (BGB) with 30 or so mentions of "counts as", what does it mean?

Well of course it doesnt mean anything consistent, any single answer you get will answer severall of the occurences, but not all, you can readily pull another example out the book to agrue that the specifics of the answer is wrong!

A more skeptical mod may assume this is trolling, or perhaps Tarzen bating

Anyways, specifically why do GW use "counts as" in the rules books? in the words of Edgar Allen Poe, "Idolatry is the opiate of the masses", rather than state something at length, if there is a rule elsewhere that can be used, with or without caveats, then they use the phrase "counts as" and express any relevent caveats, hence:

Brood lords "counts as" having power weapons, as someone said, to all intents and purpose they do have, however the model doesnt, so would break wysiwyg, they could reprint the entire power weapons rules, however, this is time consuming and carries the flaw that if they change the rules to power weapons, the codex entry for brood lords will not be updated if it is stated seperatley

TMC "counts as" 10 models onld bla bla, - all those caveats?
 
#12 ·
In my opinion, "counts as" means that, subject to certain conditions, a certain thing counts as something else. Which is crazy-vague, but let me try to explain ;):

Any counts-as statement must have three distinct parts: Condition(s), Recipient(s), and Effect(s). So, to use the example of Frag Assault Launchers, "Models using a transport vehicle with this upgrade count as having frag grenades in the turn they disembark." Here we see the Recipients first - models (nice and general) - followed by the first Condition - using the transport vehicle with Frag Assault Launchers. Next up is our "count as" statement, followed immediately by the Effect - frag grenades. Last up, it states the other Condition, which is the turn that the models disembark. Within the confines of the Condition(s), the Recipient(s) receive all benefits of the Effect(s). So, in the turn that models in the transport with FALs disembark from the transport, they receive all the benefits of Frag Grenade. This means they get the initiative boost when charging into cover, as well as the ability to make a grenade attack against a vehicle.

You could break it down short form like so:
Frag Assault Launchers
Recipient: Models
Conditions: 1) using the transport vehicle with the upgrade 2) the turn that the models disembark.
Effect: "counts as" having Frag Grenades

Or we could look at the recent Skimmers Moving Fast debate the same way:
Skimmers in Assault
Recipient: Skimmer
Condition: Being assaulted by a model with a Weapon Skill
Effect: "counts as" having moved more than 6"

Sometimes a Condition will not be stated, which means that the model is always considered to have the Effect(s). For instance, the Brood Lord:
Unnaturally Strong or whatever the hell
Recipient: Brood Lord
Condition: -
Effect: "counts as" having a Power Weapon

Note that I can't quite remember the wording for this one, but the upshot is that Brood Lords receive all the benefits of having a Power Weapon without fulfilling the usual requirement (i.e. actually having a Power Weapon). So, in close-combat with Necrons, the Brood Lord would negate WBB rolls (assuming there are no Res Orbs or Tomb Spiders nearby), ignore armor saves as usual, etc.

Hopefully that makes sense. As has been noted, there are a lot of "counts as" statements out there, but I reckon you should be able to break them all down like this.

Cheers,

-H
 
  • Like
Reactions: xrix1 and Tekore
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top