Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Hail fellow 40k players. Thought I'd see what you guys think about an issue some friends and I were discussing the other day. The topic way "Theme Armies". For those of you who don't know, a "themed" army is an original army using the rules of another to make it playable. As long as the rules are taken in full effect this type of army is fully legal. Each unit would follow the "counts as" rule. For example a squat with a blastgun might "count as" a traitor with a lasgun or an imperial guard with a lasgun.
In fact, White Dwarf (as some may already know) published examples of "counts as" armies. For example the mag featured an incredible Adeptus Mechanicus army using LaTD rules. Tech Guard "counted as" traitors, Servitors were big mutants, the Magus was an Arch Heretic, the defiler was a big machine thing, etc. Now, GW also gave other example theme armies like hrud, squats, and a few others. Most were recomended to use LaTD rules, Imperial Guard rules, or whatever.
Basically the whole idea is to build a unique and normally unplayable army (like squats) and making them perfectly legal to play. I personally think it's a great idea (thoguh some disagree). I feel that they are perfectly valid in official games like RTT's and such, as long as they satisfy the normal requirements for GW models, etc. What do you guys think? I ask this because I think the WD didn't say how legal they were tourny wise (don't have the mag near me so I'm not sure). But one of the GW reps for Florida said he saw the Mechanicus army that was in the WD actually competing in one of the Games Days (though this is more of a he said, she said).
What do you guys think about the validity of a themed army in official games?
Also, there was a question of how far you could go with it. One of the idea's was using Tyranid rules, to represent an entire army of daemons. Though this would be done within reason. Carni's and Tyrants would be big daemons, zoans would be like tzeentch daemons (on disks or whatever), rippers would be gibbering hordes or nurglings, and genestealers would be daemonetts. I wasen't to sure about this, though the list wouldn't get to confusing (using gaunts and stuff) I kinda sympathise with this idea since there is no longer any way you can field an entire daemon army in 40k like you can in fantasy. Even though this occurs in the fluff sometimes. You know, legions upon legions of daemons just pouring out of the warp and wiping the floor with stuff. The argument that kinda swayed me was the fact that this kind of army would technically be no worse than using LaTD rules or nid rules to represent a genestealer cult army.
It follows an establihed rules set/codex that is legal. Should work great. It is an awesome way to personalize an army and re-invent old non-fourth edition forces.
The only caveat to the whole thing,which should be obvious,is that your opponent should know that your demon horde is based on the tyranid codex. Now that I have stated the completely obvious.......
Hmmm... well even though it is technically legal, what do you think about themed armies like the nid/daemon one for official games like RTT's?
Personally I really want to see an army of daemons become codex legal.
... only triumph could turn pooing his pants into a good thing..
I think the greatest obstacle you will have is trying to use an army that already has an established codex (like your daemon army)
I think some organisers will shy away from it as it can become very confusing for an opponent and that could be conscrued as an advantage to you.
Last edited by sanguinary lord; May 21st, 2006 at 11:33.
In an hour of darkness a blind man is the best guide. In an age of insanity look to the madman to show the way.
Im a big fan of themed armys.As long as the opponent is not confused by your unit choices and you represent the models properly, i dont think its a problem.
I wouldn't have a problem playing against a themed army. I could see a tournie ref be reluctant to have one though. Imagine how slow the game could get if you had to keep asking whether those deamons there were gaunts or gargoyles every turn. The Adeptus Mechanicus army mentioned above might be better off since it seems the difference between what the model is and what the model represents isn't as great.
Maybe if you did a themed army, figure out a way to work bits of the model they are representing into the actual model. So maybe put a Tyrinnd Gaunt arm or leg on each of the deamons that use the Gaunt rules.
"The internet perceives censorship as damage, and routes around it."
Yeah I'm a big fan of building an army with cool models that are fun to build and paint, and I've gotten disappointed in the past when a great collection of models I'm enjoying painting (in this case, SM vets straight outta the box, no conversions) turn out to not be very useful on the table. I like the idea of making an army out of what you WANT to paint and build, then making it "legal," but I gotta agree with Magnet_Man; it'd be a little confusing, I think, with some of the people I've played against. I think I'd have to play against a themed army a few times, get used to the idea that, say, that defiler model is really only a dreadnought/whatever when it comes to stats.
I see what you guys are saying. And I agree. My friends argument, however, was that it wouldn't be too confusing because he wouldn't use units like guants and gargoyles. For example the only troops in such an army would be genestealers, represented by daemonetts, and ripper swarms that would be nurglings. When I asked what units like carnifexes would be, he said he'd make it simple by converting a chaos spawn to be holding a venomcannon, or have a bunch of sything talons coming off it to represent a cc fex with sything talons. A broodlord could be represented by the greator daemon of slaanesh model with minimal converting work.
I think that would be cool. And if the army is converted like that, with everything well represented, I don't see the problem in using one in an RTT. I'd actually give you more points of originality and I think it'd actually be fun to play against.