I'm curious what people out there think, especially with all of the new Chapter hotness coming out. How do you feel about someone who shows up with a bright green army and says they're Iron Hands, but then turns up the next weekend with the same army and says they're Raven Guard? Does it bother you?
As long as it's obvious what is what. Marines are marines. Be they ultramarines or black slayers dark as the depths of night edgelord chapter or pretty pink unicorn princesses.
As far as I can tell, the only reason to be annoyed by it is rich-guy snobbery. People shouldn't be expected to have to fork out for six different space marine armies just to satisfy someone else's hang ups.
I'm slightly more dubious about people using dudes clearly painted as ultramarines as different chapters (not enough to not play them though), but yeah. Homebrew can be anything.
It doesn't directly bother me. But it does suggest that the player doesn't care about IH or RG. So he never was IH or RG. He was just using the rules.
So he's likely a power gamer. He'll likely have a better time playing other power gamers. He's unlikely to enjoy narrative embellishments in games, or narrative setups.
That's fine. I'm not the ideal opponent for him. I'll play him, sure - but if there's other options, we might both be better off playing other people. And I wouldn't think to invite him to a 3v3 or 5-person see-what-happens game.
But that's all "seems likes" and "probablys". It's just one data point. It's suggestive, but not definitive. It could all be wrong. But ignoring the implication does noone any favors.
And it's not nearly as suggestive as "Blue Omega Iron Hands" or similar.
It's important to remember that this suggests a *different* style of player. It's not inherently bad, and that style isn't inherently bad.
To expand on it; it's like seeing a player pick Druid in D&D because he wants to be good at everything. Sure, you can do that. But if you're playing a Druid for reasons other than playing a tree-hugger (or other variant), you're not roleplaying.
Playing D&D as a dungeon hack isn't wrong. But it's not the same game as playing D&D as an RPG. Many a campaign gets destroyed because players have different interests and expectations. Ignoring the variance is a recipe for disaster. But being eliteist about your way of playing is being TFG.
Green Marines playing as black marines, fine. Lets have a conversation, and if thats all I'm good.
If it's competitive, and it's green Marines as black marines, and blue marines, then we have a problem. I have a 1 proxy per game rule.
If its not competitive, why bother. Just as long as it's not too egregious, I am fine with your coffee mug is now a daemon prince of TZeentch. Just be prepared for a slow game of, "what's this again? And it has which rules?"
EDIT: That being said 10% of the time it's lazy players who bought a SM primaris army on the ebays and just want to plop down the new hotness on the table and see what they play like. And there in is the problem. If you are casual, be casual. If you are competitive, be competitive. But don't show up trying to be the Meta-chaser Mr. Competitive with a half assed proxy army of blue Iron Hands.
Bharring wrote: It doesn't directly bother me. But it does suggest that the player doesn't care about IH or RG. So he never was IH or RG. He was just using the rules.
So he's likely a power gamer. He'll likely have a better time playing other power gamers. He's unlikely to enjoy narrative embellishments in games, or narrative setups.
That's fine. I'm not the ideal opponent for him. I'll play him, sure - but if there's other options, we might both be better off playing other people. And I wouldn't think to invite him to a 3v3 or 5-person see-what-happens game.
But that's all "seems likes" and "probablys". It's just one data point. It's suggestive, but not definitive. It could all be wrong. But ignoring the implication does noone any favors.
And it's not nearly as suggestive as "Blue Omega Iron Hands" or similar.
It's important to remember that this suggests a *different* style of player. It's not inherently bad, and that style isn't inherently bad.
It's not always about power gaming to be fair, playing your marines as anything also gives you a ton more variety in playstyles. It's easy to get bored playing one army, one way. But if for the same cost you can get six different armies, all with their own unique playstyles then that's a no brainer. Also it's kinda unfair that we apply these standards to some factions and not others. No one cares what Necron dynasty you play as, or which GSC trait you use based on your colour scheme. It's unfair to just bully the marines on this.
If it's purely to get better rules to represent his army, I'd respect the choice.
If it's purely to get better rules I respect the other player for not letting weird spooks about gaming get in the way to him having an effective army.
To put it bluntly, I don't really care and no one else should.
Bharring wrote: It doesn't directly bother me. But it does suggest that the player doesn't care about IH or RG. So he never was IH or RG. He was just using the rules.
So he's likely a power gamer. He'll likely have a better time playing other power gamers. He's unlikely to enjoy narrative embellishments in games, or narrative setups.
That's fine. I'm not the ideal opponent for him. I'll play him, sure - but if there's other options, we might both be better off playing other people. And I wouldn't think to invite him to a 3v3 or 5-person see-what-happens game.
But that's all "seems likes" and "probablys". It's just one data point. It's suggestive, but not definitive. It could all be wrong. But ignoring the implication does noone any favors.
And it's not nearly as suggestive as "Blue Omega Iron Hands" or similar.
It's important to remember that this suggests a *different* style of player. It's not inherently bad, and that style isn't inherently bad.
It's not always about power gaming to be fair, playing your marines as anything also gives you a ton more variety in playstyles. It's easy to get bored playing one army, one way. But if for the same cost you can get six different armies, all with their own unique playstyles then that's a no brainer. Also it's kinda unfair that we apply these standards to some factions and not others. No one cares what Necron dynasty you play as, or which GSC trait you use based on your colour scheme. It's unfair to just bully the marines on this.
It's certainly not always about being a power gamer. And even then, "power gamer" is more of a spectrum.
The idea that your collectin is "six different armies" with the same models is, I think, core to the distinction. My 7th Company 1st Squad Sarge is a specific model. He's not the 5th Company 3rd Squad Sarge. He's not a vet. Now, in a pinch, he can proxy those. But that's not who he is. That's how I want to play. There are people on here who make sure their models can be fielded "legally" as multiple different datasheets - so that sarge you see today has hundreds of years of experience, but tomorrow he's a neophyte who's only been alive for a few decades. So their models are tokens to track a resource, not a "person".
Both of those are completely legit. It's just different mindsets.
I think where we vary is about being "fair". It's not "unfair" to consider more power-gamey players to be more interested more in the crunch than the fluff. It is "unfair" to consider a power-gamey player as lesser because they care about the crunch. It's also "unfair" to assume someone's "power-gamey-ness" based soley on "Oh, and those blue doods are Sallys today". But it's also not "unfair" to take that into consideration when deciding who to ask for a game.
I think playing your Necrons as different dynasties is entirely the same as playing your Marines as different chapters in regards to the player themselves. But not entirely the same for whom you're playing. If my Eldar force frequently comes to the aid of the Ultramarines, and has grand plans for them, then whether they're facing UltraMarines or Iron Hands has an actual impact on the narrative. So being told "These are Raven Guard today" when they look like UM (or vice-versa) is a (minor) negative.
Being told "These UM are using RG tactics today", however, is an entirely different situation. Neither better nor worse. Now you're saying your UltraMarines are better at stealth operations and fieldcraft than my Uthwe Eldar? On the other hand, I could field a fieldcraft-focussed Uthwe warhost (using the Alaitoc trait). The rules do impact the narrative.
I realised today after playing a match with my BA against someone preparing for the new marine meta that BA/DA/SW and probably GK and DW will be getting worse each week.
I could kinda prey on others not having anything special in mind for playing marines when there were 0 marines in the meta as a BA player. But now they will have to build around marines being popular again and everything they do to build against them will make us other suffer really hard. Like if you consider marine statline models in your lines t1-2 due to RG/WS and put in some counters for that and adopt your strategy you will crush BA.
And BA against marines itself is just gonna be pathetic. Like a RG vs BA match will just be rubbing it into the BA players wounds. Cheaper, sneakier, more flexible, more durable and more killy.
In a few months time I will probably have no choice but to play as red Raven Guard if I want any wins at all at a Tournament until we get a new BA codex.
Sucks a ton since I had a homebrew chapter in red/black that Im now actually repainting to red with white wings and blood drops all over. Everything new is getting BA shoulder pads and I even learned to airbrush to make better looking red armor. Feels so "rewarded" for bothering to fix up my decade old red/black marines as shiny new BA.
I hope we get at least a few lines in CA so we can get some of the new rules like doctrines, chapter tactics on vehicles and a few reworded strats besides huge pointcosts. Dante should drop 50pts since right now I would choose Shrike at 130 over Dante that sits at 175!!!!
It bothers me that GW ties rules to paint schemes far more than it does that someone would want to use different rules than the ones that match their favorite color.
When my DG lost access to Obliterators, Raptors and Bikes in 8th edition It was clear these could only be played as Nurgle Renegades and they couldn't be anything else because that's what they're modelled and painted as. With Codex 2.0 I can now play them as either generic renegades or the Purge. I'd never think about playing them as a different legion or even a different Chaos god, because that would be proxying in my view. I don't hold the same standard for my opponent's though and I admit I don't know every Necron dynasty color and Tau fluffwize don't really have a set sept color and are always a mixture of septs, as are many Orkklans.
If you've built a green Space Marine army with lizards and scales all over, melters and/or flamers in every squad - why would you not play these as Salamanders, though? At least give me a well thought out fluff justification why these now count as Iron Hands or Imperial fists. And don't question my Vindicator with Plague spitter side sponsoons that's used as Plagueburst Crawler.
My chapter is home brew; it’s primarily green, with gold and white highlights. For the longest time I ran them as a codex-compliant chapter - I.e., Ultramarines. I only recently realized that both paint scheme-wise and backgroundwise they fit Dark Angels better, and have been running them that way since.
And my Grey Knights are painted white.
So no, I don’t think your paint scheme should limit you to a specific set of rules.
It bothers me a little bit, but mostly because I find all the super special background and rules for space marines to be the most tedious part of the game.
It is a function of GW's lunatic focus on this one faction over all others. People taking advantage of the weirdness that creates is a bit annoying but not enough to get worked up about.
Marines are cool, double digit varieties of special snowflake marines are boring.
Ishagu wrote: If it's purely to get better rules then it bothers me.
You can't be a meta chaser and lazy at the same time. Let's see some proper Iron Hands.
More or less this.
One of my biggest pet peeves is that now with Successor Chapters actually getting rules/mechanisms for building them? There is literally zero excuse to play the "X is actually Y" game.
Make up your own color scheme, then turn it into a Successor Chapter for the stuff out of the books.
If it's only the colors (e.g. red marines being played as Ultramarines), I can live with it. Just say it's a successor chapter. I will, however, expect consistency. Don't always be switching chapters.
Where it gets dodgy is when your marine army has clear chapter-specific icons or styles; e.g. Ultramarine decals, or Dark Angel robes, or Space Wolf heads; and is still being used as another chapter with better rules.
IanVanCheese wrote: As far as I can tell, the only reason to be annoyed by it is rich-guy snobbery. People shouldn't be expected to have to fork out for six different space marine armies just to satisfy someone else's hang ups.
Counterpoint: people shouldn't be arbitrarily changing their sub-faction whenever rules they like better come out. If your army is clearly Ultramarines (with decals, banners, special characters, etc.) and now Iron Hands come out and are better than your Ultramarines, I think you should keep playing them as Ultramarines. No, I'm not expecting you to buy a new army and paint them as Iron Hands; I know you're not made of money (or time). What I'm expecting you to do, is stick to your sub-faction.
Non-marine example: I play my Drukhari as Kabal of the Obsidian Rose, and have incorporated roses into their paint scheme (including rose stencils on the sails of my Raiders). As my army expanded, I began relying more on flying transports, to the point where the Kabal of the Flayed Skull would now be more advantageous to me than Obsidian Rose. But I will keep playing them as Obsidian Rose, because that is the visual theme I chose for them.
Hmmm. As long as there's something to distinguish the fact there's a difference i can happily accept this. Can have two sets of blue guys split to be red and green so long as they have something obviously uniform amongst them to tell me what's what (as in, all the ones meant to be red have a certain mark or weapon and same with green).
Don't get me wrong, if someone was to start bringing an action man or card board box with numbers and a face drawn on it to represent a Bloodthirster, after the 3rd or 4th game of it i'd probably make a point that they'd need to sort their crap out or stop using a unit they can't reasonably represent (i'd also happily reduce the game pts to accommodate such if needed) but i'd be fine if they were say, using a Lord of Change to proxy, even in the long term.
Ideally they'd have the models they intend to use or something exceptionally close to keep the submersion in the experience but it's nothing to fall out over.
I think a paintjob should be just that, and I dont think it ever deserved this place in the rules to begin with. A lot of people dont dare to invest in the lore and existing paintschemes anymore in the fear of getting forced to play subpar rules because of it. I think the subfactionrules although offering lots of options ruleswise has made army building (actual hobby stuff) more restricted and generic.
It is the current state though, but Id prefer if players stick to their lore and schemes. It displays more commitment to the hpbby than chasing some optimal rules
puma713 wrote: I'm curious what people out there think, especially with all of the new Chapter hotness coming out. How do you feel about someone who shows up with a bright green army and says they're Iron Hands, but then turns up the next weekend with the same army and says they're Raven Guard? Does it bother you?
I'm actually beyond indifferent about the color they chose. I believe that the personal expression in how one paints her/his army is important and should not influence the rules.
No. I play nids and if I had to constantly change biomorph and weapon combinations every new edition I'd have sold the army long ago. Now with these army traits I don't expect to have to repaint my entire army every addition.
I won't keep my army WYSIWYG because it's unfeasible over the long term and I don't expect anyone else to do the same with their army.
Especially since if someone shows up with grey plastic, you wouldn't restrict them to one specific ruleset. But suddenly, when they're painted and MORE EFFORT has gone into it, they have to follow one set of rules only? No, that's bull.
I might not be big on painting myself, but I can appreciate when other people put effort into it. So punishing them for painting... That's just rude.
I'd actually prefer it (I couldn't help but notice that there was no positive feeling on the poll - just bad, really bad, and neutral). Keeps games fresh and opens up options that wouldn't be there for a single color. Playing against a fast assault army one week, a tanky infantry list the next, then an armored column the following is more interesting than all-plasma-all-the-time DAs or whatever happens to be useful for a given color this cycle.
Besides, does anyone actually think that the marines, widely reputed to be led by strategic geniuses and purpose built to excel at war, are too stupid to adapt their tactics based on what's available to them? Do you envision the Whitescars 9th company, deployed in force to stop a DreadWaaagh! threatening a critical hive, screaming like morons as they charge down the field to bludgeon Orks to death with the butts of their plasma cannons instead of, you know, shooting them? Surely a Blood Angels armored force led by the chapters finest techmarines and artificers would have its vehicles operating in better form than a random predator that a tac company has had in the field for six months?
If you've painted a specific Chapter like Raven Guard then I'd slightly prefer you play that ruleset but I don't care that much as long as I know what's what.
If you've painted your own Chapter then whatever.
I'd never object, but if you're running IH who happen to be blue with a toilet seat on the right shoulder, I instantly know you care more about winning than your dudes. Which is fine, but you can tell it's likely gonna be a less enjoyable game. If it's your 'OC don't steal' chapter then whatever. Unless you've always played them as one thing then suddenly they're another thing that's the new hotness.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: I'd never object, but if you're running IH who happen to be blue with a toilet seat on the right shoulder, I instantly know you care more about winning than your dudes. Which is fine, but you can tell it's likely gonna be a less enjoyable game. If it's our OC don't steal chapter then whatever. Unless you've always played them as one thing then suddenly they're another thing that's the new hotness.
See this is actually kind of true. The people playing X as Y really are only doing it for better rules. It indicates it's what they care about ahead of anything else.
If you're not in a tournament why are you so concerned? It's not like the other chapters are bottom feeder armies lol
In a tournament with money involved, sure. WAAC it good. In a local, friendly game (even if it's competitive) - naah. Stop trying to get more advantages.
puma713 wrote: I'm curious what people out there think, especially with all of the new Chapter hotness coming out. How do you feel about someone who shows up with a bright green army and says they're Iron Hands, but then turns up the next weekend with the same army and says they're Raven Guard? Does it bother you?
I'm actually beyond indifferent about the color they chose. I believe that the personal expression in how one paints her/his army is important and should not influence the rules.
My army is beautifully painted, as are the armies of many in my local scene.
I won't refuse a game or make a huge stink, but it does undercut the experience, particularly when it's apparent it's being done for power purposes. It's a tacky thing to do that draws some of the fun out of things and starkly hits the immersion aspect. I will probably judge you for it.
Beyond that though, its hardly the end of the world.
Lets say a WS or DA player wants to play with a list full of Land Speeders. Would the game really be worse if they used UM or IH rules rather than their own so they can move and shoot without that stupid penalty etc. Not only would that player feel like he is playing a worse version of his list he would probably also feel bad for asking you to turn down your list so he doesnt get stomped.
Im gonna play my BA ad Ravenguard but Im only gonna do things I wish I could do effective with BA but cant for my rules are outdated. Im not gonna do a vehicle castle like IH and I bet most players who have painted their armies like a certain chapter wants to play it like they envision them to play. No matter which chapter name is on the actual book the rules come from. Or sometimes try out something different and not only play Jump Packs with BA even if that is what I like the most. Kinda insane that most chapters rules only allow a few playstyles to work really well instead of the main rules supporting most of them and then chapters just adding a tiny bit of flavour. Like 5-15% improvement so you dont need to "chapter hop" . Not 50-100+% like what IH does for vehicles.
I'm 100% fine with and have done it regularly. Sometimes it's because X is more powerful than Y and other's its because I want to try something different. I'm not bothered by it in the absolute least. If someone takes issue with it though that's fine to. They can enjoy their hobby the way they want to and play with who they want to and I 100% respect that. If the hobby was a ton cheaper and painting not so time consuming it might be a different story, but that's not the story we're in.
puma713 wrote: I'm curious what people out there think, especially with all of the new Chapter hotness coming out. How do you feel about someone who shows up with a bright green army and says they're Iron Hands, but then turns up the next weekend with the same army and says they're Raven Guard? Does it bother you?
I'm actually beyond indifferent about the color they chose. I believe that the personal expression in how one paints her/his army is important and should not influence the rules.
My army is beautifully painted, as are the armies of many in my local scene.
Colour matters, 100%
So are mine, and many of the people I play with. That's why it's imperative that the scheme you selected for your army doesn't affect the rules you have to use for them.
I'm going to use the rules that represent how I want my army to play [aggressive and stabby], and paint my army how I want my army to look [silver and red].
People forget that the box provides a nifty little guide for first-time players and painters to get their army started. The default scheme of Ultras or Saim-Hann have nice strong opague colors that work easily out of the box for beginners.
Once someone breaks out of the casual phase, they may find they like other rules or other army traits better. I think it's just a lot of snobbery to expect people to stay nailed to a faction that GW probably pushed them towards.
If it's really really well done, I'm good with it. If they bought the Bobby G model and have him painted tie-die, I'm gone with the psychedelic Marines being Ultramarines.
It bothers me more that this is such a hot topic on here. Everyone always preaches "they're you're models paint them how you like! " but then they dead stare the same guy "But if you play those blood angles as Ultramarines I will never play you again"
Example 1: Player likes Dawn of War and paints their Marines as Blood Ravens. In one list he uses White Scars rules and in another list uses Iron Hands. Problem with this?
Example 2: Player likes Space Marine and paints their Marines as Ultramarines. In one list he uses Ultramarine tactics because (hey there are rules for this chapter). In another list he uses Imperial Fists because those rules fit that playstyle better, he prefers that chapter tactic over the ones written for Ultras, or he power games. Problem with this?
Example 3: Player paints their Tau army teal with red accents because he likes that color scheme. Later on they find out that "red markings are Vior'la Sept colors" and they are the ones seen on the boxes typically using white armor (as Tau only identifies Septs by small markings instead of armor color like Space Marines do). He doesn't care because up until 8th the sept colors didn't mean anything and didn't even knew what Vior'la is. He uses the Tau Sept rules because (insert reason here). Problem with this?
Example 4: Person buys Grey Knights and paints them blue. Problem with this?
The answer should be no to all of these because its paint on a plastic model that the person took the time and effort to put on there themselves. Just because GW wants to assign rule sets to certain sub factions that have certain paint schemes shouldn't mean you have to use that scheme to use those rules. It also shouldn't mean you have to use a certain rule set because your models are painted a certain way.
I don't care what subfaction your army is painted as nor fielded as. Heck outside of Space marines and one or two Tyranid armies I can't tell you the subfactions for ANY other faction in the game by their paint schemes. And that's for those which have schemes with are easily told apart from each other (Jump over to AoS and the Daughters of Khaine paint schemes are quite literally just different shades of red).
GW chose to give different subforces variations in statistics for the game and I've no problem if you field a close combat army and choose to use the marine/eldar/chaos/whatever subforce that gives you the best close combat bonus. Indeed I expect it of the opponent.
NOW with marines I personally would prefer it though if you were fielding a Spacewolves unique models that they would be what they are not proxies. So if you go putting those Thunderwolf Riders down then that is what they are. I don't care if they are red, blue, pink, purple or grey plastic - they are marines riding oversized wolves.
This is a bit of a unique thing for Marines mostly because their subfactions do have totally unique models. I'm not as fussed about marines with shoulderpads (its a small enough detail a bit like if they've got seals or grenades on them); but I dislike heavily proxied armies*
Also if you've got 2 or 3 different chapters please at least have markers on the models os that different squads can easily be told apart even if they are all painted in the same scheme.
*And in a sane world if you're just testing out a new army before buying; or its just all for fun; or you're just mucking around etc.... Ergo whilst I dislike them there ARE legitimate, fun and good times to allow it where it won't diminish the fun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vankraken wrote: Example 1: Player likes Dawn of War and paints their Marines as Blood Ravens. In one list he uses White Scars rules and in another list uses Iron Hands. Problem with this?
Example 2: Player likes Space Marine and paints their Marines as Ultramarines. In one list he uses Ultramarine tactics because (hey there are rules for this chapter). In another list he uses Imperial Fists because those rules fit that playstyle better, he prefers that chapter tactic over the ones written for Ultras, or he power games. Problem with this?
Example 3: Player paints their Tau army teal with red accents because he likes that color scheme. Later on they find out that "red markings are Vior'la Sept colors" and they are the ones seen on the boxes typically using white armor (as Tau only identifies Septs by small markings instead of armor color like Space Marines do). He doesn't care because up until 8th the sept colors didn't mean anything and didn't even knew what Vior'la is. He uses the Tau Sept rules because (insert reason here). Problem with this?
Example 4: Person buys Grey Knights and paints them blue. Problem with this?
The answer should be no to all of these because its paint on a plastic model that the person took the time and effort to put on there themselves. Just because GW wants to assign rule sets to certain sub factions that have certain paint schemes shouldn't mean you have to use that scheme to use those rules. It also shouldn't mean you have to use a certain rule set because your models are painted a certain way.
Nice examples and fully agreed. Heck paint affecting rules is just daft when you consider how many subfactions come and go for armies that aren't marines. Furthermore many beginners are going to likely follow studio schemes and since GW often only shows a limited number of schemes (heck most armies barring marines only have one, perhaps two studio schemes on show); then there's a high chance that they'd all get locked into the same paint scheme. They shouldn't be punished for that.
Doesn't bother me in the slightest because motive doesn't really matter here as long as they aren't trying to deceive their opponent. Let's go through a few scenarios with different motives.
Spoiler:
Your dudes are painted like Ultramarines, but you wanna run them as Iron Hands? "Yeah, when I painted this army the Iron Hands didn't have any special rules so I painted them as Ultras so WYSWYG people wouldn't get confused."
Your dudes are painted like Iron Hands, but you wanna run them as Ultramarines? "Yeah the ultramarine tactics seem cool."
So your Hello Kitty Marines are using Imperial Fist rules? "Yeah Hello Kitty is about stationary and I can't think of a more stationary chapter."
So your black primer horde is using Iron Hands rules? "Yeah, I'm going to be painting them as I go, but wanted to try out the different tactics since they are all cool to me."
Pretend the new Codex and supplements never happened:
So you are using Ultramarine rules, but you are painted like Iron Hands? "Yeah, Iron Hands are cool, but the only viable way to play marines is with Gulliman"
You are running your ultramarines as Deathwatch? "Yeah, they are the strongest way to run tactical elite marines and I don't want to play a Gulliman gunline."
Why are your ultramarines green like Salamanders, but have Ultramarine iconography? "I want them to look like doomguy and Ultramarines are the strongest chapter"
Any of these seem like something you would be bothered by if it was an even/balanced matchup?
tldr; The real issue isn't mismatched colors once you remove "Iron Hands are bonkers strong" from the equation. Even for things like narrative you can simply call them what they look like after telling your opponent you will be using different rules. You can dance around it all you want, but if Iron Hands/New:SM were Grey Knight levels of weak this thread wouldn't exist. You turn into a jerk when you do it on purpose to stomp people which is an entirely different issue that happens regardless of paintjob. As long as it is an even matchup it should be fine.
For me it's very simple. I don't play in tournaments, nor do I have any interest in mega-competitive games. It's rather easy to tell if a person is chasing rules/power, or if they have a genuine interest in the "theme" that an army presents.
If you're the type of person swapping chapters every month or two chasing the strongest/most competitive/meta-driven rules...then we're likely not even going to have a game, which is fine. Our interests in the game don't align, so no worries.
If you profess to love a chapter you've painted...then play that chapter, simple.
Elbows wrote: For me it's very simple. I don't play in tournaments, nor do I have any interest in mega-competitive games. It's rather easy to tell if a person is chasing rules/power, or if they have a genuine interest in the "theme" that an army presents.
If you're the type of person swapping chapters every month or two chasing the strongest/most competitive/meta-driven rules...then we're likely not even going to have a game, which is fine. Our interests in the game don't align, so no worries.
If you profess to love a chapter you've painted...then play that chapter, simple.
For marines its a bit different, but what about all the other armies. Most armies that aren't marines the different subforces have very specific focuses. They might have close combat or ranged bonuses only. So the army composition changing would suggest that the player would change the subfaction as well just to get the rules. Because why should paint and a random subfaction name lock them out of bonuses that the army is clearly balanced and designed to work with.
Personally I don't see it as "power chasing" and rather just good army building. The whole power chasing element only comes into play when there's heavy imbalance in the system and that's GW's issue to deal with the balance (or house rules of course) rather than someone being "bad" and chasing power.
It would ruin immersion somewhat. I keep saying that chapter tactics and the like should have been left to narrative play (which I love). They're bound to be unbalanced and lead to this sort of weirdness.
That said, it wouldn't ruin the game or anything, I might give you some cheeky winding up over it though. All good fun, things are rarely as serious in real life as the internet.
But, it really is power chasing. Now you can blame GW 's always-mediocre rules writing for allowing gulfs to exist. The easy answer is: paint your own faction. I think the "well, we're fighting in a different fashion this battle..." is just an excuse for precisely that: power chasing. If you have 5,000 points of lovingly painted Ultramarines and you're an Ultramarine fanboy and you show up and decide you're playing as Space Wolves...yeah we're not on the same page. You are chasing rules to benefit you, regardless of how you try to mask it.
I'm not saying chasing rules to benefit you is wrong, but it's a sign that you and I have very different goals for a game/enjoyment...so it's best we don't play. That's also, completely fine. I'm an adult, you're an adult - we know what we enjoy and what we don't. There isn't one big 40K community, that's just nonsense. If you're desperate enough to win a tabletop wargame that you're chasing rules, then yeah we're not interested in the same stuff.
Playing and Painting are 2 different hobbies and painting takes an immense amount of time. Rules change all the time, playing is meant to be fun, if you are not having fun with Blue boys and what White, or Red boys, why do i care if your Red boys are painted blue?
No one questions Necrons, Tau, DE colors, they only question SM b.c its "easy to know the colors".
Elbows wrote: But, it really is power chasing. Now you can blame GW 's always-mediocre rules writing for allowing gulfs to exist. The easy answer is: paint your own faction. I think the "well, we're fighting in a different fashion this battle..." is just an excuse for precisely that: power chasing. If you have 5,000 points of lovingly painted Ultramarines and you're an Ultramarine fanboy and you show up and decide you're playing as Space Wolves...yeah we're not on the same page. You are chasing rules to benefit you, regardless of how you try to mask it.
At the same time if the army is all generic models which are not unique to Ultramarines and you put High Marshal Helbrecht and several other unique Black Templar models down then I've no problem with the whole army being Black Templars. Heck GW even shows ALL the Primaris models in Ultramarines colours even when they appear in the different chapters right on the store page. If the GW art and marketing department doesn't even bother to make an entire new force of generic space marine models to use a handful of chapter specific ones then why should gamers.
I agree if you put down Helbrecht then he should be Helbrecht and not another hero (barring a proxy game where you might be trying out another army for fun or before commiting to buy etc..).
Sgt. Cortez wrote: When my DG lost access to Obliterators, Raptors and Bikes in 8th edition It was clear these could only be played as Nurgle Renegades and they couldn't be anything else because that's what they're modelled and painted as. With Codex 2.0 I can now play them as either generic renegades or the Purge. I'd never think about playing them as a different legion or even a different Chaos god, because that would be proxying in my view. I don't hold the same standard for my opponent's though and I admit I don't know every Necron dynasty color and Tau fluffwize don't really have a set sept color and are always a mixture of septs, as are many Orkklans.
If you've built a green Space Marine army with lizards and scales all over, melters and/or flamers in every squad - why would you not play these as Salamanders, though? At least give me a well thought out fluff justification why these now count as Iron Hands or Imperial fists. And don't question my Vindicator with Plague spitter side sponsoons that's used as Plagueburst Crawler.
Which is why consolidation for the Legions is necessary, just like for the other 9 Chapters. Space Wolves...much trickier though.
The problem is that colour based subfactions with such different (and plainly poorly balanced) rules exist in the first place. Marines should just be marines.
Elbows wrote: But, it really is power chasing. Now you can blame GW 's always-mediocre rules writing for allowing gulfs to exist. The easy answer is: paint your own faction. I think the "well, we're fighting in a different fashion this battle..." is just an excuse for precisely that: power chasing. If you have 5,000 points of lovingly painted Ultramarines and you're an Ultramarine fanboy and you show up and decide you're playing as Space Wolves...yeah we're not on the same page. You are chasing rules to benefit you, regardless of how you try to mask it.
At the same time if the army is all generic models which are not unique to Ultramarines and you put High Marshal Helbrecht and several other unique Black Templar models down then I've no problem with the whole army being Black Templars. Heck GW even shows ALL the Primaris models in Ultramarines colours even when they appear in the different chapters right on the store page. If the GW art and marketing department doesn't even bother to make an entire new force of generic space marine models to use a handful of chapter specific ones then why should gamers.
I agree if you put down Helbrecht then he should be Helbrecht and not another hero (barring a proxy game where you might be trying out another army for fun or before commiting to buy etc..).
Those are some hefty goalposts you keep moving there...
Why does it need to be constantly explained Ultramarines (complete with all the livery and iconography) =/= Blue space marines?
If I saw an UM army, with all of the signifiers that imply it is an UM army then I expect to play an UM army. If I see generic blue SMs then they can be whatever they want to be.
Elbows wrote: You are chasing rules to benefit you, regardless of how you try to mask it
This is an incredibly unfair statement. Traits are basically play styles
Exactly.
I fell in love with the BA playstyle first and since red is one of my favorite colors the faction grew on me despite thinking BA were a bit over the top in some regards when it comes to looks. At first I had a homebrewn chapter that I just changed the special character of depending on what rules I used. In the end I only used BA characters since they were the most fun. Now I'm repainting my whole force as Blood Angels since I really enjoy that playstyle. I want to play aggressive with jump infantry, hero characters and dreads. Problem is that right now the best chapter for that is Ravenguard. And not just by a little bit. It's like going from playing every matchup as the underdog to having a fair chance in every matchup. I dont do it just for win% but for a more enjoyable experience. If it were only to win I would consider IH or UM too but that isnt an option.
I dont like the look on Ravenguard but the rules allow me to play my BA army better in the way I want to play them. My affection for red has never wavered nor the playstyle I like but the rules has as well as the meta. It is usually a combination of fluff, looks and playstyle that influences what chapter people like and even if the look and fluff stays the same the rules for the playstyle can shift around a lot. And on the table its the rules that matter in the end how well they will function according to their own actual fluff.
Vankraken wrote: Example 1: Player likes Dawn of War and paints their Marines as Blood Ravens. In one list he uses White Scars rules and in another list uses Iron Hands. Problem with this?
Example 2: Player likes Space Marine and paints their Marines as Ultramarines. In one list he uses Ultramarine tactics because (hey there are rules for this chapter). In another list he uses Imperial Fists because those rules fit that playstyle better, he prefers that chapter tactic over the ones written for Ultras, or he power games. Problem with this?
Example 3: Player paints their Tau army teal with red accents because he likes that color scheme. Later on they find out that "red markings are Vior'la Sept colors" and they are the ones seen on the boxes typically using white armor (as Tau only identifies Septs by small markings instead of armor color like Space Marines do). He doesn't care because up until 8th the sept colors didn't mean anything and didn't even knew what Vior'la is. He uses the Tau Sept rules because (insert reason here). Problem with this?
Example 4: Person buys Grey Knights and paints them blue. Problem with this?
The answer should be no to all of these because its paint on a plastic model that the person took the time and effort to put on there themselves. Just because GW wants to assign rule sets to certain sub factions that have certain paint schemes shouldn't mean you have to use that scheme to use those rules. It also shouldn't mean you have to use a certain rule set because your models are painted a certain way.
Nobody outside just a couple of Tau players are gonna know the color scheme associated with any rules as none of the Septs got special rules until now. Same with Necrons and Tyranids. You can't accuse them of chasing rules unless you're someone that memorized literally every paint scheme for every army ever. I certainly don't have time to do that.
Just make sure that Thunder Hammer counts-as looks like something you'd whack someone with REALLY hard and I'm good to go.
Playing and Painting are 2 different hobbies and painting takes an immense amount of time. Rules change all the time, playing is meant to be fun, if you are not having fun with Blue boys and what White, or Red boys, why do i care if your Red boys are painted blue?
No one questions Necrons, Tau, DE colors, they only question SM b.c its "easy to know the colors".
Hrm, it goes beyond just colors. SM's get a lot of product and rules support, particularly for tiny niche subfactions, often that some demand are totally necessary, for factions that often have orders of magnitude less distinction than other forces that share a codex.
Being highly visually distinct does factor into that, but does so on both ends, when people see Red marines they expect Red marine rules, not Blue or Grey marine rules, and if they're that easy to switch around then it causes people to question why we have so many distinct rule sets for them in the first place (particularly with the associated issues of power bloat and rules confusion), and does undercut the immersion factor.
Other factions also have a lot fewer subfaction specific stuff, there's no unique Vior'la suit variant or Iyanden wraithtype or unique Catachan tank model to proxy, no universally recognized distinct Cadian uniform color pallette or Genestealer Cult faction colors to rigidly identify units, no Sa'Cea unique shoulderpads, Kabal-specific troop variant kits, or Biel'tan molded heraldry. Space Marine subfactions have all that stuff, where most other factions don't (or have very little).
It shouldn't be much wonder that such mix and matching causes more consternation in that light.
Elbows wrote: You are chasing rules to benefit you, regardless of how you try to mask it
This is an incredibly unfair statement. Traits are basically play styles
Did you stop reading my post at that point in a rush to respond? I'll assume so. It's also an incredibly fair statement, by the way.
No it's really not.
If we saw plastic men going for 20-30 USD, I could maybe understand this viewpoint more. But with the latest releases being 50+ its kind of obnoxious to expect people to keep to one playstyle for an investment that will run them into the thousands. They should get as much mileage out if it as they want for that type of money.
You bought wolves, you painted wolves, you played wolves, but suddenly you are IH because they are currently more powerful, then you'll switch once another marine faction rises to the top?
Are you playing an army, or are you playing numbers here? you might as well keep your models unpainted and half-assembled at that point.
Because playing off-color marines may be totally kosher on the wargaming aspect, but it kina throws a stinker at the hobby factor.
I want wolves to be wolves, ultras to be ultras, iron hands to be iron hands, etc.
Not 50 shades of "flavor of the month" marines. your army choice flipping according to what's trending means you have zero army identity and loyalty.
You want better/stronger rules...that's not a play style. Just say "I want a stronger, better rule set for my preferred Chapter, that is why I'm using these rules." Simple. I'm not sure why people thing that's such a challenge. Stop hiding behind "flavor", "play style", etc. That's my main point of contention. Stop pretending it's about fluff, lore, style, preferred theme, etc. Just say you are using it because it's a stronger set of rules.
I doubt a single person espousing "it's not because the rules are better!" has ever changed their chapter/army/faction to a definitively worse set of rules because of their play style, or theme, etc.
Elbows wrote: You are chasing rules to benefit you, regardless of how you try to mask it
This is an incredibly unfair statement. Traits are basically play styles
Did you stop reading my post at that point in a rush to respond? I'll assume so. It's also an incredibly fair statement, by the way.
No it's really not.
If we saw plastic men going for 20-30 USD, I could maybe understand this viewpoint more. But with the latest releases being 50+ its kind of obnoxious to expect people to keep to one playstyle for an investment that will run them into the thousands. They should get as much mileage out if it as they want for that type of money.
As a general question, if you saw someone who was fielding a bunch of missile launchers, Tactical Marines and/or Redemptor Dreadnoughts, but then when you play them, tells you that all the missile launchers are lascannons or plasma guns, and all the Tactical Marines are Scouts, and all the Redemptors are actually Leviathan Siege Dreadnoughts, is that cool?
Elbows wrote: You are chasing rules to benefit you, regardless of how you try to mask it
This is an incredibly unfair statement. Traits are basically play styles
Did you stop reading my post at that point in a rush to respond? I'll assume so. It's also an incredibly fair statement, by the way.
I have over 5000 points of lovingly painted Ultramarines.
And your statement is unfair. You have no right to tell someone how to play unless they're cheating. These traits are essentially arbitrarily assigned to these factions.
Lets flip some stuff around. White scars known for bikes and such suddenly get an extra +1 to armour save for their trait in cover and imperial fists gets a trait that suddenly benefits bikes more and play better for how that person originally imagined their army.
You're telling that person that they have to use something doesn't really fit the idea of white scars?
How about this, I've been using the Ultramarines trait for over a year, I like my list and I wanna shake things up. Can I not use another trait to broaden my stratagies and get more enjoyment out of my army?
It's a game, there's give and take. I'll cut you some slack and say yes I'd stop my opponent from using different traits if it was a bunch of different traits in the same list. But otherwise it's fair game
You want better/stronger rules...that's not a play style. Just say "I want a stronger, better rule set for my preferred Chapter, that is why I'm using these rules." Simple. I'm not sure why people thing that's such a challenge. Stop hiding behind "flavor", "play style", etc. That's my main point of contention. Stop pretending it's about fluff, lore, style, preferred theme, etc. Just say you are using it because it's a stronger set of rules.
I doubt a single person espousing "it's not because the rules are better!" has ever changed their chapter/army/faction to a definitively worse set of rules because of their play style, or theme, etc.
I don't disagree with this. It's not about "you shouldn't change your faction!" it's about being honest about why you're doing it. If you're doing it to win, be honest about that. Don't give it the whole "b-b-b-but I SWEAR I'm not trying to gain an advantage" - own up to it. That's not to imply that playing to win is wrong or bad - but it is different to playing to tell a story, or just to have some non-competitive fun.
Ishagu wrote: If it's purely to get better rules then it bothers me.
You can't be a meta chaser and lazy at the same time. Let's see some proper Iron Hands.
More or less this.
One of my biggest pet peeves is that now with Successor Chapters actually getting rules/mechanisms for building them? There is literally zero excuse to play the "X is actually Y" game.
Make up your own color scheme, then turn it into a Successor Chapter for the stuff out of the books.
This is not necessarily true. For instance, if you play Sons of Medusa, you can not use Iron Hands relics. You must pay a 1 CP strategem to take a relic. Also, you cannot use Feirros. But, if you paint up a full army of Sons of Medusa and show up to a game and say, "These guys are Iron Hands." Does that pose a problem for people? It looks like it doesn't for most.
Edit: Which takes the point further, why ever play a successor chapter, by the rules? I have to pay CP for a relic (and only one) to play the same rules I could play if I said my Raptors were Raven Guard. There is an actual penalty to playing a Successor Chapter when there is no penalty for playing Counts-As.
But if I want to have a fair game then my only option might be to use different rules. Lets say that devastators, whirlwinds and techmarined were the only BA build that didnt get stomped on and jump pack units and fast vehicles were bad. Am I really powergaming if I use the RG rules for my BA even if I dont really gain much if anything in actual win %.
I would say if changing rules to fit a certain playstyle isnt powergaming in itself. It can be but I think using subpar rules only because of the paint is just stupid, leads to loopsided games and foremost breaks immersion and background a lot.
Im gonna use RG because I want a 50/50 chance to win and not 25/75. Not like I want to since I spend hours painting each of my models. I spend a few hours each even on my scouts and intercessors so its not like I dont take the hobby serious but I dont want to spend that time building and painting and then lose the game due to a bad color choice.
Elbows wrote: You are chasing rules to benefit you, regardless of how you try to mask it
This is an incredibly unfair statement. Traits are basically play styles
Did you stop reading my post at that point in a rush to respond? I'll assume so. It's also an incredibly fair statement, by the way.
No it's really not.
If we saw plastic men going for 20-30 USD, I could maybe understand this viewpoint more. But with the latest releases being 50+ its kind of obnoxious to expect people to keep to one playstyle for an investment that will run them into the thousands. They should get as much mileage out if it as they want for that type of money.
As a general question, if you saw someone who was fielding a bunch of missile launchers, Tactical Marines and/or Redemptor Dreadnoughts, but then when you play them, tells you that all the missile launchers are lascannons or plasma guns, and all the Tactical Marines are Scouts, and all the Redemptors are actually Leviathan Siege Dreadnoughts, is that cool?
In my eyes, it's the same as WYSIWYG.
Not to me. WYSIWYG has the specific intention of cutting down on confusion so people can at-a-glance their situation on the table without remembering who has the lascannon or melta/flamer, etc.
If someone just says "This game I'll be playing as Raven Guard," what confusion is there?
Playing and Painting are 2 different hobbies and painting takes an immense amount of time. Rules change all the time, playing is meant to be fun, if you are not having fun with Blue boys and what White, or Red boys, why do i care if your Red boys are painted blue?
No one questions Necrons, Tau, DE colors, they only question SM b.c its "easy to know the colors".
Wow, sorry. I originally had a "No" response, but thought the neutral response covered those opinions. Thanks for your input, though, it's good to hear that most people aren't too hung up on the colors, as long as they're representative of the correct model/weaponry.
Vankraken wrote: Example 1: Player likes Dawn of War and paints their Marines as Blood Ravens. In one list he uses White Scars rules and in another list uses Iron Hands. Problem with this?
Example 2: Player likes Space Marine and paints their Marines as Ultramarines. In one list he uses Ultramarine tactics because (hey there are rules for this chapter). In another list he uses Imperial Fists because those rules fit that playstyle better, he prefers that chapter tactic over the ones written for Ultras, or he power games. Problem with this?
Example 3: Player paints their Tau army teal with red accents because he likes that color scheme. Later on they find out that "red markings are Vior'la Sept colors" and they are the ones seen on the boxes typically using white armor (as Tau only identifies Septs by small markings instead of armor color like Space Marines do). He doesn't care because up until 8th the sept colors didn't mean anything and didn't even knew what Vior'la is. He uses the Tau Sept rules because (insert reason here). Problem with this?
Example 4: Person buys Grey Knights and paints them blue. Problem with this?
The answer should be no to all of these because its paint on a plastic model that the person took the time and effort to put on there themselves. Just because GW wants to assign rule sets to certain sub factions that have certain paint schemes shouldn't mean you have to use that scheme to use those rules. It also shouldn't mean you have to use a certain rule set because your models are painted a certain way.
Nobody outside just a couple of Tau players are gonna know the color scheme associated with any rules as none of the Septs got special rules until now. Same with Necrons and Tyranids. You can't accuse them of chasing rules unless you're someone that memorized literally every paint scheme for every army ever.
So I can't know that the "Vor'la" T'au in front of me are painted as T'au sept just because I have no idea what Hive Fleet Shadow Super Kraken The Third uses for colors? Does not follow.
I certainly don't have time to do that.
I should hope not. On the other hand, I should hope you have time to learn *more than 0* faction colors if you wanted to - it takes all of maybe thirty seconds? I'd have to try *really* hard *not* to learn one. You're just trying to confuse the construct.
You want better/stronger rules...that's not a play style. Just say "I want a stronger, better rule set for my preferred Chapter, that is why I'm using these rules." Simple. I'm not sure why people thing that's such a challenge. Stop hiding behind "flavor", "play style", etc. That's my main point of contention. Stop pretending it's about fluff, lore, style, preferred theme, etc. Just say you are using it because it's a stronger set of rules.
I doubt a single person espousing "it's not because the rules are better!" has ever changed their chapter/army/faction to a definitively worse set of rules because of their play style, or theme, etc.
Heaven forbid you have a functioning army, right? Screw the current Angels for picking the incorrect Marines, right?
<sarcasm>This is why I don't get when people get angry that I want to play my Orkz as Dark Eldar. Heaven forbid I have a functional army. Screw Orkz for picking the incorrect Old One pawns, right? </sarcasm>
Dumb Smart Guy wrote:Not to me. WYSIWYG has the specific intention of cutting down on confusion so people can at-a-glance their situation on the table without remembering who has the lascannon or melta/flamer, etc.
If someone just says "This game I'll be playing as Raven Guard," what confusion is there?
Because they've got massive Ultramarine sigils on the side, painted blue, and have "Macragge" written on their banners and armour.
I don't see how that's any less confusing than "these missiles are plasmas, my Tacticals are Scouts, and my Redemptor is a Leviathan". After all, its all about "cutting down on confusion" - but if someone just apparently says "these missiles are plasmas, my Tacticals are Scouts, and my Redemptor is a Leviathan", that removes the confusion, according to your view on colour scheme.
It's about consistency. Why is one cosmetic difference confusing, but the other isn't?
Bharring wrote: <sarcasm>This is why I don't get when people get angry that I want to play my Orkz as Dark Eldar. Heaven forbid I have a functional army. Screw Orkz for picking the incorrect Old One pawns, right? </sarcasm>
The correct comparison is "Screw the poor Snakebites players that wanted functional rules", but good one! Your terrible arguments never cease to make me laugh.
Dumb Smart Guy wrote:Not to me. WYSIWYG has the specific intention of cutting down on confusion so people can at-a-glance their situation on the table without remembering who has the lascannon or melta/flamer, etc.
If someone just says "This game I'll be playing as Raven Guard," what confusion is there?
Because they've got massive Ultramarine sigils on the side, painted blue, and have "Macragge" written on their banners and armour.
I don't see how that's any less confusing than "these missiles are plasmas, my Tacticals are Scouts, and my Redemptor is a Leviathan". After all, its all about "cutting down on confusion" - but if someone just apparently says "these missiles are plasmas, my Tacticals are Scouts, and my Redemptor is a Leviathan", that removes the confusion, according to your view on colour scheme.
It's about consistency. Why is one cosmetic difference confusing, but the other isn't?
Because one is flat out for the army, and you already know the Raven Guard rules.
Not even close to the same. If you really forget in the middle of the game your opponent was getting the bonus to their armor save when shooting from more than 12" away, you got memory issues, full stop. Maybe start carrying notecards with you to write on so you don't confuse yourself too hard?
Bharring wrote: <sarcasm>This is why I don't get when people get angry that I want to play my Orkz as Dark Eldar. Heaven forbid I have a functional army. Screw Orkz for picking the incorrect Old One pawns, right? </sarcasm>
The correct comparison is "Screw the poor Snakebites players that wanted functional rules", but good one! Your terrible arguments never cease to make me laugh.
"Screw the poor Snakebites" would have shown the same concept at the same level (proxying subfactions). Please reconsider the example as describing the same concept, but pushed to an even larger level (proxying entire factions). It's an attempt to show an extreme example of what you're advocating to show that it *is* a negative. At the level you're talking (subfactions), it's not a big deal. But if nobody ever would or should care, then nobody would or should ever care about more extreme examples. And you'd have a hard time arguing nobody would or should care about proxying entire factions.
If you don't understand a post, please take more time to read and digest it. Often, there's meaning you may miss on your first attempt.
Dumb Smart Guy wrote:Not to me. WYSIWYG has the specific intention of cutting down on confusion so people can at-a-glance their situation on the table without remembering who has the lascannon or melta/flamer, etc.
If someone just says "This game I'll be playing as Raven Guard," what confusion is there?
Because they've got massive Ultramarine sigils on the side, painted blue, and have "Macragge" written on their banners and armour.
I don't see how that's any less confusing than "these missiles are plasmas, my Tacticals are Scouts, and my Redemptor is a Leviathan". After all, its all about "cutting down on confusion" - but if someone just apparently says "these missiles are plasmas, my Tacticals are Scouts, and my Redemptor is a Leviathan", that removes the confusion, according to your view on colour scheme.
It's about consistency. Why is one cosmetic difference confusing, but the other isn't?
Because it's one universal fact about their list that you can remember for the game. Shenanigans with weapons, vehicles, models, etc are easy to forget, but I don't see how you can suddenly misremember a single fact you've been told 40 minutes beforehand
Also the argument wrt to the archetype UM guy has never been consistent. Once he's got toilet seats and free-hand "Macragge" on the banner, it's clear he cares about other things besides just winning. But he'll get a worse rep than the guy with a "custom" chapter who just has a quick base + drybrush. This characterization has never really make sense to me. People can care about presentation/fluff, while also wanting the flexibility to try different things or also wanting to win with better rulesets.
Bharring wrote: <sarcasm>This is why I don't get when people get angry that I want to play my Orkz as Dark Eldar. Heaven forbid I have a functional army. Screw Orkz for picking the incorrect Old One pawns, right? </sarcasm>
The correct comparison is "Screw the poor Snakebites players that wanted functional rules", but good one! Your terrible arguments never cease to make me laugh.
"Screw the poor Snakebites" would have shown the same concept at the same level (proxying subfactions). Please reconsider the example as describing the same concept, but pushed to an even larger level (proxying entire factions). It's an attempt to show an extreme example of what you're advocating to show that it *is* a negative. At the level you're talking (subfactions), it's not a big deal. But if nobody ever would or should care, then nobody would or should ever care about more extreme examples. And you'd have a hard time arguing nobody would or should care about proxying entire factions.
If you don't understand a post, please take more time to read and digest it. Often, there's meaning you may miss on your first attempt.
You're just relying on the fallacy of one thing going to lead to another, the same way people opposing gay marriage say it'll lead to people marrying animals. So no of course I don't buy your argument because it's honestly poorly thought out and takes very little critical thinking.
Dumb Smart Guy wrote:Not to me. WYSIWYG has the specific intention of cutting down on confusion so people can at-a-glance their situation on the table without remembering who has the lascannon or melta/flamer, etc.
If someone just says "This game I'll be playing as Raven Guard," what confusion is there?
Because they've got massive Ultramarine sigils on the side, painted blue, and have "Macragge" written on their banners and armour.
I don't see how that's any less confusing than "these missiles are plasmas, my Tacticals are Scouts, and my Redemptor is a Leviathan". After all, its all about "cutting down on confusion" - but if someone just apparently says "these missiles are plasmas, my Tacticals are Scouts, and my Redemptor is a Leviathan", that removes the confusion, according to your view on colour scheme.
It's about consistency. Why is one cosmetic difference confusing, but the other isn't?
Because one is flat out for the army, and you already know the Raven Guard rules.
"All instances of X are actually Y" is also army wide. And I'm sure he already knows the rules for Plasmas, Scouts, and Levis, too. Sure, the rule then gets applied to each unit in the army - but so does the Raven Guard rule.
Not even close to the same. If you really forget in the middle of the game your opponent was getting the bonus to their armor save when shooting from more than 12" away, you got memory issues, full stop.
Or maybe "I forgot" isn't the only failure point in this scheme? Maybe immersion or visuals might factor in to such a creative-driven hobby?
Maybe start carrying notecards with you to write on so you don't confuse yourself too hard?
Do you have to turn everything into as insulting a response as possible?
I'm sorry, I'm not the one saying "I can't remember your Marines aren't other Marines". That's a legit memory problem, and something I've seen in healthcare.
Bharring wrote: <sarcasm>This is why I don't get when people get angry that I want to play my Orkz as Dark Eldar. Heaven forbid I have a functional army. Screw Orkz for picking the incorrect Old One pawns, right? </sarcasm>
The correct comparison is "Screw the poor Snakebites players that wanted functional rules", but good one! Your terrible arguments never cease to make me laugh.
"Screw the poor Snakebites" would have shown the same concept at the same level (proxying subfactions). Please reconsider the example as describing the same concept, but pushed to an even larger level (proxying entire factions). It's an attempt to show an extreme example of what you're advocating to show that it *is* a negative. At the level you're talking (subfactions), it's not a big deal. But if nobody ever would or should care, then nobody would or should ever care about more extreme examples. And you'd have a hard time arguing nobody would or should care about proxying entire factions.
If you don't understand a post, please take more time to read and digest it. Often, there's meaning you may miss on your first attempt.
You're just relying on the fallacy of one thing going to lead to another, the same way people opposing gay marriage say it'll lead to people marrying animals. So no of course I don't buy your argument because it's honestly poorly thought out and takes very little critical thinking.
Not at all.
"Slippery Slope" is saying "If it ever reaches X, it'll reach X+1".
The argument being made is "If X*10 > 0, then X >0".
The first is a fallacy, as it assumes both (1) that X and X+1 are along a natural progression, and (2) the rate of change is clearly a unidirectional force. The second is basic scaling. They're easy to conflate if you're not clear on what "slippery slope" really means.
Dumb Smart Guy wrote:Not to me. WYSIWYG has the specific intention of cutting down on confusion so people can at-a-glance their situation on the table without remembering who has the lascannon or melta/flamer, etc.
If someone just says "This game I'll be playing as Raven Guard," what confusion is there?
Because they've got massive Ultramarine sigils on the side, painted blue, and have "Macragge" written on their banners and armour.
I don't see how that's any less confusing than "these missiles are plasmas, my Tacticals are Scouts, and my Redemptor is a Leviathan". After all, its all about "cutting down on confusion" - but if someone just apparently says "these missiles are plasmas, my Tacticals are Scouts, and my Redemptor is a Leviathan", that removes the confusion, according to your view on colour scheme.
It's about consistency. Why is one cosmetic difference confusing, but the other isn't?
Because one is flat out for the army, and you already know the Raven Guard rules.
So is the "every missile launcher is a plasma, every Tactical is a Scout, and every Redemptor is a Leviathan". There's no half measures - it's completely consistent, universal, and you "already know the rules" for all of them.
Not even close to the same. If you really forget in the middle of the game your opponent was getting the bonus to their armor save when shooting from more than 12" away, you got memory issues, full stop. Maybe start carrying notecards with you to write on so you don't confuse yourself too hard?
No, but I can forget that I'm fighting Raven Guard when I'm seeing Ultramarines, and start to wonder why these "Ultramarines" are getting a bonus to their armour save.
Likewise - if you forget in the middle of the game that your opponent's dreadnoughts have a Leviathan's profile, your opponent's missile launchers fire like plasmas, and their Tacticals are actually just Scouts, "you got memory issues, full stop. Maybe start carrying notecards with you to write on so you don't confuse yourself too hard?"
It's the same thing. WYSIWYG. If I see Ultramarines, I'm sure you can forgive me for thinking their Ultramarines, just as I'm sure you might be confused if I turn up with a plasma gunner, but he's actually a meltagunner. Be consistent.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I'm sorry, I'm not the one saying "I can't remember your Marines aren't other Marines". That's a legit memory problem, and something I've seen in healthcare.
It's not "I can't remember $proxy". It's "Proxies lessen my enjoyment".
Consider:
Or maybe "I forgot" isn't the only failure point in this scheme? Maybe immersion or visuals might factor in to such a creative-driven hobby?
When I said '"I forgot" isn't the only failure point', then suggested another, my point wasn't that "forgetting" is the only failure point. My point is *there are others*. I'm not sure how to be clearer.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I'm sorry, I'm not the one saying "I can't remember your Marines aren't other Marines". That's a legit memory problem, and something I've seen in healthcare.
Likewise "I can't remember your dreadnoughts aren't other dreadnoughts. That's a legit memory problem, and something I've seen in healthcare".
Dumb Smart Guy wrote:Not to me. WYSIWYG has the specific intention of cutting down on confusion so people can at-a-glance their situation on the table without remembering who has the lascannon or melta/flamer, etc.
If someone just says "This game I'll be playing as Raven Guard," what confusion is there?
Because they've got massive Ultramarine sigils on the side, painted blue, and have "Macragge" written on their banners and armour.
I don't see how that's any less confusing than "these missiles are plasmas, my Tacticals are Scouts, and my Redemptor is a Leviathan". After all, its all about "cutting down on confusion" - but if someone just apparently says "these missiles are plasmas, my Tacticals are Scouts, and my Redemptor is a Leviathan", that removes the confusion, according to your view on colour scheme.
It's about consistency. Why is one cosmetic difference confusing, but the other isn't?
Because one is flat out for the army, and you already know the Raven Guard rules.
So is the "every missile launcher is a plasma, every Tactical is a Scout, and every Redemptor is a Leviathan". There's no half measures - it's completely consistent, universal, and you "already know the rules" for all of them.
Not even close to the same. If you really forget in the middle of the game your opponent was getting the bonus to their armor save when shooting from more than 12" away, you got memory issues, full stop. Maybe start carrying notecards with you to write on so you don't confuse yourself too hard?
No, but I can forget that I'm fighting Raven Guard when I'm seeing Ultramarines, and start to wonder why these "Ultramarines" are getting a bonus to their armour save.
Likewise - if you forget in the middle of the game that your opponent's dreadnoughts have a Leviathan's profile, your opponent's missile launchers fire like plasmas, and their Tacticals are actually just Scouts, "you got memory issues, full stop. Maybe start carrying notecards with you to write on so you don't confuse yourself too hard?"
It's the same thing. WYSIWYG. If I see Ultramarines, I'm sure you can forgive me for thinking their Ultramarines, just as I'm sure you might be confused if I turn up with a plasma gunner, but he's actually a meltagunner. Be consistent.
So your opponent can't even use Blue for their successors to Raven Guard because you'll get confused you're not fighting Ultranarines? Have you already seen how many Chapter symbols look similar to each other?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Maybe start carrying notecards with you to write on so you don't confuse yourself too hard?
Do you have to turn everything into as insulting a response as possible?
Nah, it's cool. They're insulting their own memory in the same post - after all, if they can't understand that one type of Dreadnought is actually another type, they must obviously need notecards. /s
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I'm sorry, I'm not the one saying "I can't remember your Marines aren't other Marines". That's a legit memory problem, and something I've seen in healthcare.
Likewise "I can't remember your dreadnoughts aren't other dreadnoughts. That's a legit memory problem, and something I've seen in healthcare".
Wanna get that sorted out? A notepad, perhaps?
If I forget my opponent's regular Dread is actually being used as a Ven Dread (two separate kits ohmygod!!!) then yes I've got memory problems. Luckily I don't, huh?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So your opponent can't even use Blue for their successors to Raven Guard because you'll get confused you're not fighting Ultranarines? Have you already seen how many Chapter symbols look similar to each other?
Yeah it's your own fault.
"So your opponent can't use a cooler looking model to represent their Leviathan because you'll get confused you're not fighting a Redemptor? Have you seen how many Dreadnoughts look similar to eachother?
Yeah, it's your own fault."
Also, no-one said that painting them blue was a problem. Or that using a similar Chapter symbol was. But when I'm seeing blue Space Marines with white inverted omega symbols with the words "ULTRAMARINES" or "ULTRAMAR" or "MACRAGGE" or "ULTRA" on their heraldry?
That's a very big difference from "blue Space Marines".
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I'm sorry, I'm not the one saying "I can't remember your Marines aren't other Marines". That's a legit memory problem, and something I've seen in healthcare.
Likewise "I can't remember your dreadnoughts aren't other dreadnoughts. That's a legit memory problem, and something I've seen in healthcare".
Wanna get that sorted out? A notepad, perhaps?
If I forget my opponent's regular Dread is actually being used as a Ven Dread (two separate kits ohmygod!!!) then yes I've got memory problems. Luckily I don't, huh?
So, just to clarify, is using a Redemptor as a Leviathan a problem? Because it's happening across the army - there's no tricks, no confusion, it's a universal change.
What is most immersion breaking. Red marines not being able to use vehicles well or red marines using codex spacemarine rules that give the same vehicles chapter tactics, doctrines, more reasonable point costs and stratagems so they arent useless in comparison.
Sounds to me that those who think you shouldnt use the rules that fit the chapter background because the name, and not what the rules represent, is just WAAC gamers that hide it behind "muh fluff". They only want you to play weak armies to get easier wins since they dont care about the actual background about marines.
A Blood Angel should be capable of driving vehicles almost as good as an Iron Hand according to the fluff and those that think paint dont matter. Those that think paint matters also thinks that Blood Angels drive on the wrong side of the road.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So your opponent can't even use Blue for their successors to Raven Guard because you'll get confused you're not fighting Ultranarines? Have you already seen how many Chapter symbols look similar to each other?
Yeah it's your own fault.
"So your opponent can't use a cooler looking model to represent their Leviathan because you'll get confused you're not fighting a Redemptor? Have you seen how many Dreadnoughts look similar to eachother?
Yeah, it's your own fault."
Also, no-one said that painting them blue was a problem. Or that using a similar Chapter symbol was. But when I'm seeing blue Space Marines with white inverted omega symbols with the words "ULTRAMARINES" or "ULTRAMAR" or "MACRAGGE" or "ULTRA" on their heraldry?
That's a very big difference from "blue Space Marines".
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I'm sorry, I'm not the one saying "I can't remember your Marines aren't other Marines". That's a legit memory problem, and something I've seen in healthcare.
Likewise "I can't remember your dreadnoughts aren't other dreadnoughts. That's a legit memory problem, and something I've seen in healthcare".
Wanna get that sorted out? A notepad, perhaps?
If I forget my opponent's regular Dread is actually being used as a Ven Dread (two separate kits ohmygod!!!) then yes I've got memory problems. Luckily I don't, huh?
So, just to clarify, is using a Redemptor as a Leviathan a problem? Because it's happening across the army - there's no tricks, no confusion, it's a universal change.
As you said, there's nothing wrong with that.
I don't own a Levi but I've seen Redemptors, and they're pretty similar in size if I'm not mistaken. If there's two Gatlings on it (seeing as they probably want to do dual Autocannons), gold on my opponent for making a boring Dread with just two loadouts a little more fun. If they just wanted to do one gun arm + Fist I've got no problems with that either, as the Redemptor rules suck whereas the Levi, only being mediocre with gun + arm, can function slightly more I suppose.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:So, just to clarify, is using a Redemptor as a Leviathan a problem? Because it's happening across the army - there's no tricks, no confusion, it's a universal change.
As you said, there's nothing wrong with that.
I don't own a Levi but I've seen Redemptors, and they're pretty similar in size if I'm not mistaken. If there's two Gatlings on it (seeing as they probably want to do dual Autocannons), gold on my opponent for making a boring Dread with just two loadouts a little more fun. If they just wanted to do one gun arm + Fist I've got no problems with that either, as the Redemptor rules suck whereas the Levi, only being mediocre with gun + arm, can function slightly more I suppose.
Lovely. So do you have a problem with all the Tactical Marines models in my army playing as Scouts?
Do you have a problem with every missile launcher models actually being plasma guns?
Likewise, this is universal across the list, no tricks, no non-GW bits or conversions. Just me telling you - you know the rules for Scouts and plasma guns, right? If not, I can show you the unit entries before we play.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:So, just to clarify, is using a Redemptor as a Leviathan a problem? Because it's happening across the army - there's no tricks, no confusion, it's a universal change.
As you said, there's nothing wrong with that.
I don't own a Levi but I've seen Redemptors, and they're pretty similar in size if I'm not mistaken. If there's two Gatlings on it (seeing as they probably want to do dual Autocannons), gold on my opponent for making a boring Dread with just two loadouts a little more fun. If they just wanted to do one gun arm + Fist I've got no problems with that either, as the Redemptor rules suck whereas the Levi, only being mediocre with gun + arm, can function slightly more I suppose.
Lovely. So do you have a problem with all the Tactical Marines models in my army playing as Scouts?
Do you have a problem with every missile launcher models actually being plasma guns?
Likewise, this is universal across the list, no tricks, no non-GW bits or conversions. Just me telling you - you know the rules for Scouts and plasma guns, right? If not, I can show you the unit entries before we play.
I mean, I've used my Mk4 dudes with Shotguns in my Deathwatch as Scouts in a pinch and nobody cared. I'm working on getting some cheap Scouts + Scion heads though because I hate the bare heads on Scouts. It looks stupid.
Seeing as the ML isn't a good weapon, yeah I've got no problem with someone doing that. They clearly told me as much and, if my memory is as bad as other people in this thread, I always carry sticky notes + a pen on me. Granted that's because I could get a work call, but it has helped a couple of times.
They might want to eventually get some actual Plasma Guns or even Plasma Gun equivalents if they just hate the design of GW's, but why would I care in the meantime?
I find it can reaaaaaaaallly depend on the situation. if it's a case of "I'm toying with differant tactics etc and wanna test these out" no matter. but if the guy is simply just persuing the most powerful rules it can come off as a little cheeky.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:So, just to clarify, is using a Redemptor as a Leviathan a problem? Because it's happening across the army - there's no tricks, no confusion, it's a universal change.
As you said, there's nothing wrong with that.
I don't own a Levi but I've seen Redemptors, and they're pretty similar in size if I'm not mistaken. If there's two Gatlings on it (seeing as they probably want to do dual Autocannons), gold on my opponent for making a boring Dread with just two loadouts a little more fun. If they just wanted to do one gun arm + Fist I've got no problems with that either, as the Redemptor rules suck whereas the Levi, only being mediocre with gun + arm, can function slightly more I suppose.
Lovely. So do you have a problem with all the Tactical Marines models in my army playing as Scouts?
Do you have a problem with every missile launcher models actually being plasma guns?
Likewise, this is universal across the list, no tricks, no non-GW bits or conversions. Just me telling you - you know the rules for Scouts and plasma guns, right? If not, I can show you the unit entries before we play.
I mean, I've used my Mk4 dudes with Shotguns in my Deathwatch as Scouts in a pinch and nobody cared. I'm working on getting some cheap Scouts + Scion heads though because I hate the bare heads on Scouts. It looks stupid.
Seeing as the ML isn't a good weapon, yeah I've got no problem with someone doing that. They clearly told me as much and, if my memory is as bad as other people in this thread, I always carry sticky notes + a pen on me. Granted that's because I could get a work call, but it has helped a couple of times.
They might want to eventually get some actual Plasma Guns or even Plasma Gun equivalents if they just hate the design of GW's, but why would I care in the meantime?
Excellent.
So, in light of this - why did you post this?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Because one is flat out for the army, and you already know the Raven Guard rules.
Not even close to the same.
Now, I haven't got a problem if you think that they're all the same, and you'd happily play against someone who has an Ultramarines painted army with Tactical Marines as Scouts, missiles as plasmas, and Redemptors as Leviathans as a Raven Guard list - that's all consistent. It's when we have people saying "how your model looks isn't the same as how they look!", which is just incredibly confusing and inconsistent.
Klickor wrote: What is most immersion breaking. Red marines not being able to use vehicles well or red marines using codex spacemarine rules that give the same vehicles chapter tactics, doctrines, more reasonable point costs and stratagems so they arent useless in comparison.
Sounds to me that those who think you shouldnt use the rules that fit the chapter background because the name, and not what the rules represent, is just WAAC gamers that hide it behind "muh fluff". They only want you to play weak armies to get easier wins since they dont care about the actual background about marines.
A Blood Angel should be capable of driving vehicles almost as good as an Iron Hand according to the fluff and those that think paint dont matter. Those that think paint matters also thinks that Blood Angels drive on the wrong side of the road.
The differences between marines should be like the differences between special forces in the US military for example. I'm pretty sure a field operator is proficient to the point they are an expert at literally everything they do. Marines are even more so specialized with implants and special organs ect. The difference between marines is much smaller than is being portrayed in the rules of this game and to me that is immersion breaking...if iron hands were really this strong chapters would stop wanting to be like/look up to ultras and start cutting of limbs because iron hands are the true way to be a marine as proven by being way more effective in combat LOL.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:So, just to clarify, is using a Redemptor as a Leviathan a problem? Because it's happening across the army - there's no tricks, no confusion, it's a universal change.
As you said, there's nothing wrong with that.
I don't own a Levi but I've seen Redemptors, and they're pretty similar in size if I'm not mistaken. If there's two Gatlings on it (seeing as they probably want to do dual Autocannons), gold on my opponent for making a boring Dread with just two loadouts a little more fun. If they just wanted to do one gun arm + Fist I've got no problems with that either, as the Redemptor rules suck whereas the Levi, only being mediocre with gun + arm, can function slightly more I suppose.
Lovely. So do you have a problem with all the Tactical Marines models in my army playing as Scouts?
Do you have a problem with every missile launcher models actually being plasma guns?
Likewise, this is universal across the list, no tricks, no non-GW bits or conversions. Just me telling you - you know the rules for Scouts and plasma guns, right? If not, I can show you the unit entries before we play.
I mean, I've used my Mk4 dudes with Shotguns in my Deathwatch as Scouts in a pinch and nobody cared. I'm working on getting some cheap Scouts + Scion heads though because I hate the bare heads on Scouts. It looks stupid.
Seeing as the ML isn't a good weapon, yeah I've got no problem with someone doing that. They clearly told me as much and, if my memory is as bad as other people in this thread, I always carry sticky notes + a pen on me. Granted that's because I could get a work call, but it has helped a couple of times.
They might want to eventually get some actual Plasma Guns or even Plasma Gun equivalents if they just hate the design of GW's, but why would I care in the meantime?
Excellent.
So, in light of this - why did you post this?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Because one is flat out for the army, and you already know the Raven Guard rules.
Not even close to the same.
Now, I haven't got a problem if you think that they're all the same, and you'd happily play against someone who has an Ultramarines painted army with Tactical Marines as Scouts, missiles as plasmas, and Redemptors as Leviathans as a Raven Guard list - that's all consistent. It's when we have people saying "how your model looks isn't the same as how they look!", which is just incredibly confusing and inconsistent.
I posted it because the complaints are NOT the same and would require different schools of thought. You were merely asking how I would treat models, which is a different subject from paint. Nobody has any right to complain about paying and designs, whereas you'd have more a leg to stand on when it comes to models.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:So, just to clarify, is using a Redemptor as a Leviathan a problem? Because it's happening across the army - there's no tricks, no confusion, it's a universal change.
As you said, there's nothing wrong with that.
I don't own a Levi but I've seen Redemptors, and they're pretty similar in size if I'm not mistaken. If there's two Gatlings on it (seeing as they probably want to do dual Autocannons), gold on my opponent for making a boring Dread with just two loadouts a little more fun. If they just wanted to do one gun arm + Fist I've got no problems with that either, as the Redemptor rules suck whereas the Levi, only being mediocre with gun + arm, can function slightly more I suppose.
Lovely. So do you have a problem with all the Tactical Marines models in my army playing as Scouts?
Do you have a problem with every missile launcher models actually being plasma guns?
Likewise, this is universal across the list, no tricks, no non-GW bits or conversions. Just me telling you - you know the rules for Scouts and plasma guns, right? If not, I can show you the unit entries before we play.
I mean, I've used my Mk4 dudes with Shotguns in my Deathwatch as Scouts in a pinch and nobody cared. I'm working on getting some cheap Scouts + Scion heads though because I hate the bare heads on Scouts. It looks stupid.
Seeing as the ML isn't a good weapon, yeah I've got no problem with someone doing that. They clearly told me as much and, if my memory is as bad as other people in this thread, I always carry sticky notes + a pen on me. Granted that's because I could get a work call, but it has helped a couple of times.
They might want to eventually get some actual Plasma Guns or even Plasma Gun equivalents if they just hate the design of GW's, but why would I care in the meantime?
Excellent.
So, in light of this - why did you post this?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Because one is flat out for the army, and you already know the Raven Guard rules.
Not even close to the same.
Now, I haven't got a problem if you think that they're all the same, and you'd happily play against someone who has an Ultramarines painted army with Tactical Marines as Scouts, missiles as plasmas, and Redemptors as Leviathans as a Raven Guard list - that's all consistent. It's when we have people saying "how your model looks isn't the same as how they look!", which is just incredibly confusing and inconsistent.
I posted it because the complaints are NOT the same and would require different schools of thought. You were merely asking how I would treat models, which is a different subject from paint. Nobody has any right to complain about paying and designs, whereas you'd have more a leg to stand on when it comes to models.
Could you elaborate on how proxying say, an UltraMarine with inverted-Omega bits on it as an Iron Hands marine is different and requires a "different school(s) of thought" than proxying something like an Assault Marine as a Vanguard Vet Marine?
Sgt_Smudge wrote:So, just to clarify, is using a Redemptor as a Leviathan a problem? Because it's happening across the army - there's no tricks, no confusion, it's a universal change.
As you said, there's nothing wrong with that.
I don't own a Levi but I've seen Redemptors, and they're pretty similar in size if I'm not mistaken. If there's two Gatlings on it (seeing as they probably want to do dual Autocannons), gold on my opponent for making a boring Dread with just two loadouts a little more fun. If they just wanted to do one gun arm + Fist I've got no problems with that either, as the Redemptor rules suck whereas the Levi, only being mediocre with gun + arm, can function slightly more I suppose.
Lovely. So do you have a problem with all the Tactical Marines models in my army playing as Scouts?
Do you have a problem with every missile launcher models actually being plasma guns?
Likewise, this is universal across the list, no tricks, no non-GW bits or conversions. Just me telling you - you know the rules for Scouts and plasma guns, right? If not, I can show you the unit entries before we play.
I mean, I've used my Mk4 dudes with Shotguns in my Deathwatch as Scouts in a pinch and nobody cared. I'm working on getting some cheap Scouts + Scion heads though because I hate the bare heads on Scouts. It looks stupid.
Seeing as the ML isn't a good weapon, yeah I've got no problem with someone doing that. They clearly told me as much and, if my memory is as bad as other people in this thread, I always carry sticky notes + a pen on me. Granted that's because I could get a work call, but it has helped a couple of times.
They might want to eventually get some actual Plasma Guns or even Plasma Gun equivalents if they just hate the design of GW's, but why would I care in the meantime?
Excellent.
So, in light of this - why did you post this?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Because one is flat out for the army, and you already know the Raven Guard rules.
Not even close to the same.
Now, I haven't got a problem if you think that they're all the same, and you'd happily play against someone who has an Ultramarines painted army with Tactical Marines as Scouts, missiles as plasmas, and Redemptors as Leviathans as a Raven Guard list - that's all consistent. It's when we have people saying "how your model looks isn't the same as how they look!", which is just incredibly confusing and inconsistent.
I posted it because the complaints are NOT the same and would require different schools of thought. You were merely asking how I would treat models, which is a different subject from paint. Nobody has any right to complain about paying and designs, whereas you'd have more a leg to stand on when it comes to models.
Could you elaborate on how proxying say, an UltraMarine with inverted-Omega bits on it as an Iron Hands marine is different and requires a "different school(s) of thought" than proxying something like an Assault Marine as a Vanguard Vet Marine?
Sure. One is a paint job and design and has literally no impact on what is going on in the game. One might be a dual Chainsword Vanguard being proxied as an Assault Marine (for whatever God forsaken reason you would do that), which dictates army composition.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Because one is flat out for the army, and you already know the Raven Guard rules.
Not even close to the same.
Now, I haven't got a problem if you think that they're all the same, and you'd happily play against someone who has an Ultramarines painted army with Tactical Marines as Scouts, missiles as plasmas, and Redemptors as Leviathans as a Raven Guard list - that's all consistent. It's when we have people saying "how your model looks isn't the same as how they look!", which is just incredibly confusing and inconsistent.
I posted it because the complaints are NOT the same and would require different schools of thought.
How on earth is "your model looks different from what I'd expect it to be" any different from "your model looks different from what I'd expect it to be"?
You were merely asking how I would treat models, which is a different subject from paint. Nobody has any right to complain about paying and designs, whereas you'd have more a leg to stand on when it comes to models.
Models can be painted. I don't see a difference at all between "your model is built in a different way" or "your model is painted in a different way".
Please - if you're the judge on what people have "a right to complain about" - why is there a difference?
Are you going to complain if someone paints their Ultramarines black, including the new Calgar model (with the helmet of course), which makes him slightly harder to point out?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Sure. One is a paint job and design and has literally no impact on what is going on in the game.
Yes it does - I see an Ultramarine, and expect to be fighting an Ultramarine.
In the same vein, a plasma gun's design is only aN aesthetic. It has "literally no impact on what it going on in game".
One might be a dual Chainsword Vanguard being proxied as an Assault Marine (for whatever God forsaken reason you would do that), which dictates army composition.
But if your memory was any good, you'd be able to figure out what was going on. Maybe break out that notepad you mentioned.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:So, just to clarify, is using a Redemptor as a Leviathan a problem? Because it's happening across the army - there's no tricks, no confusion, it's a universal change.
As you said, there's nothing wrong with that.
I don't own a Levi but I've seen Redemptors, and they're pretty similar in size if I'm not mistaken. If there's two Gatlings on it (seeing as they probably want to do dual Autocannons), gold on my opponent for making a boring Dread with just two loadouts a little more fun. If they just wanted to do one gun arm + Fist I've got no problems with that either, as the Redemptor rules suck whereas the Levi, only being mediocre with gun + arm, can function slightly more I suppose.
Lovely. So do you have a problem with all the Tactical Marines models in my army playing as Scouts?
Do you have a problem with every missile launcher models actually being plasma guns?
Likewise, this is universal across the list, no tricks, no non-GW bits or conversions. Just me telling you - you know the rules for Scouts and plasma guns, right? If not, I can show you the unit entries before we play.
I mean, I've used my Mk4 dudes with Shotguns in my Deathwatch as Scouts in a pinch and nobody cared. I'm working on getting some cheap Scouts + Scion heads though because I hate the bare heads on Scouts. It looks stupid.
Seeing as the ML isn't a good weapon, yeah I've got no problem with someone doing that. They clearly told me as much and, if my memory is as bad as other people in this thread, I always carry sticky notes + a pen on me. Granted that's because I could get a work call, but it has helped a couple of times.
They might want to eventually get some actual Plasma Guns or even Plasma Gun equivalents if they just hate the design of GW's, but why would I care in the meantime?
Excellent.
So, in light of this - why did you post this?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Because one is flat out for the army, and you already know the Raven Guard rules.
Not even close to the same.
Now, I haven't got a problem if you think that they're all the same, and you'd happily play against someone who has an Ultramarines painted army with Tactical Marines as Scouts, missiles as plasmas, and Redemptors as Leviathans as a Raven Guard list - that's all consistent. It's when we have people saying "how your model looks isn't the same as how they look!", which is just incredibly confusing and inconsistent.
I posted it because the complaints are NOT the same and would require different schools of thought. You were merely asking how I would treat models, which is a different subject from paint. Nobody has any right to complain about paying and designs, whereas you'd have more a leg to stand on when it comes to models.
Could you elaborate on how proxying say, an UltraMarine with inverted-Omega bits on it as an Iron Hands marine is different and requires a "different school(s) of thought" than proxying something like an Assault Marine as a Vanguard Vet Marine?
Sure. One is a paint job and design and has literally no impact on what is going on in the game. One might be a dual Chainsword Vanguard being proxied as an Assault Marine (for whatever God forsaken reason you would do that), which dictates army composition.
Those inverted-Omega bits might just be "design", but then where do you draw the line between "design" and "function"? That inverted-omega is "design" that clearly demonstrates UltraMarines, in much the same way that a Signum represents "I can tell my squaddies how to shoot gud" - both represent specific subsets of individuals in the game (the first, Ultramarines, and the second, Dev Sarges). I wouldn't bat an eye at a Signum-toting Tac Sarge, if it were obvious (next to 3 Squaddies and a Special, for instance), but it's still proxying.
I'd agree that it's *less impactful* proxying, a much lower level, but how is it not proxying?
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for no impact on the game - playing with a bunch of chess pieces or poker chips has no crunch impact on the game, too. But most people don't do that.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Sure. One is a paint job and design and has literally no impact on what is going on in the game.
Yes it does - I see an Ultramarine, and expect to be fighting an Ultramarine.
In the same vein, a plasma gun's design is only aN aesthetic. It has "literally no impact on what it going on in game".
One might be a dual Chainsword Vanguard being proxied as an Assault Marine (for whatever God forsaken reason you would do that), which dictates army composition.
But if your memory was any good, you'd be able to figure out what was going on. Maybe break out that notepad you mentioned.
If I were stupid I'd probably have to jot it down, sure, because nobody in their right mind runs Vanguard as Pistol + Chainsword. If the other three are the basic loadout for Assault Marines and then whatever the Sarge is loaded out with (perhaps an Eviscerator), I think I can probably figure out with just a SMALL amount of critical thinking which squad it is. He, if someone wanted to do an Assault Squad but one guy is going cowboy with the Bolt Pistols and the other guy is going akimbo with dual Chainswords, that's awesome.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Sure. One is a paint job and design and has literally no impact on what is going on in the game.
Yes it does - I see an Ultramarine, and expect to be fighting an Ultramarine.
In the same vein, a plasma gun's design is only aN aesthetic. It has "literally no impact on what it going on in game".
One might be a dual Chainsword Vanguard being proxied as an Assault Marine (for whatever God forsaken reason you would do that), which dictates army composition.
But if your memory was any good, you'd be able to figure out what was going on. Maybe break out that notepad you mentioned.
If I were stupid I'd probably have to jot it down, sure, because nobody in their right mind runs Vanguard as Pistol + Chainsword. If the other three are the basic loadout for Assault Marines and then whatever the Sarge is loaded out with (perhaps an Eviscerator), I think I can probably figure out with just a SMALL amount of critical thinking which squad it is. He, if someone wanted to do an Assault Squad but one guy is going cowboy with the Bolt Pistols and the other guy is going akimbo with dual Chainswords, that's awesome.
But equally, couldn't you figure out what they were if they were numbered poker chips?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Are you going to complain if someone paints their Ultramarines black, including the new Calgar model (with the helmet of course), which makes him slightly harder to point out?
Sgt_Smudge wrote:So, just to clarify, is using a Redemptor as a Leviathan a problem? Because it's happening across the army - there's no tricks, no confusion, it's a universal change.
As you said, there's nothing wrong with that.
I don't own a Levi but I've seen Redemptors, and they're pretty similar in size if I'm not mistaken. If there's two Gatlings on it (seeing as they probably want to do dual Autocannons), gold on my opponent for making a boring Dread with just two loadouts a little more fun. If they just wanted to do one gun arm + Fist I've got no problems with that either, as the Redemptor rules suck whereas the Levi, only being mediocre with gun + arm, can function slightly more I suppose.
Lovely. So do you have a problem with all the Tactical Marines models in my army playing as Scouts?
Do you have a problem with every missile launcher models actually being plasma guns?
Likewise, this is universal across the list, no tricks, no non-GW bits or conversions. Just me telling you - you know the rules for Scouts and plasma guns, right? If not, I can show you the unit entries before we play.
I mean, I've used my Mk4 dudes with Shotguns in my Deathwatch as Scouts in a pinch and nobody cared. I'm working on getting some cheap Scouts + Scion heads though because I hate the bare heads on Scouts. It looks stupid.
Seeing as the ML isn't a good weapon, yeah I've got no problem with someone doing that. They clearly told me as much and, if my memory is as bad as other people in this thread, I always carry sticky notes + a pen on me. Granted that's because I could get a work call, but it has helped a couple of times.
They might want to eventually get some actual Plasma Guns or even Plasma Gun equivalents if they just hate the design of GW's, but why would I care in the meantime?
Excellent.
So, in light of this - why did you post this?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Because one is flat out for the army, and you already know the Raven Guard rules.
Not even close to the same.
Now, I haven't got a problem if you think that they're all the same, and you'd happily play against someone who has an Ultramarines painted army with Tactical Marines as Scouts, missiles as plasmas, and Redemptors as Leviathans as a Raven Guard list - that's all consistent. It's when we have people saying "how your model looks isn't the same as how they look!", which is just incredibly confusing and inconsistent.
I posted it because the complaints are NOT the same and would require different schools of thought. You were merely asking how I would treat models, which is a different subject from paint. Nobody has any right to complain about paying and designs, whereas you'd have more a leg to stand on when it comes to models.
Could you elaborate on how proxying say, an UltraMarine with inverted-Omega bits on it as an Iron Hands marine is different and requires a "different school(s) of thought" than proxying something like an Assault Marine as a Vanguard Vet Marine?
Sure. One is a paint job and design and has literally no impact on what is going on in the game. One might be a dual Chainsword Vanguard being proxied as an Assault Marine (for whatever God forsaken reason you would do that), which dictates army composition.
Those inverted-Omega bits might just be "design", but then where do you draw the line between "design" and "function"? That inverted-omega is "design" that clearly demonstrates UltraMarines, in much the same way that a Signum represents "I can tell my squaddies how to shoot gud" - both represent specific subsets of individuals in the game (the first, Ultramarines, and the second, Dev Sarges). I wouldn't bat an eye at a Signum-toting Tac Sarge, if it were obvious (next to 3 Squaddies and a Special, for instance), but it's still proxying.
I'd agree that it's *less impactful* proxying, a much lower level, but how is it not proxying?
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for no impact on the game - playing with a bunch of chess pieces or poker chips has no crunch impact on the game, too. But most people don't do that.
If the Poker chips are different colors for the different pieces, I see no reason it can't be done. Hell I'm sure some people that don't have good chess sets like I do do some sorta makeshift thing like that to play, and they have my respects.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Are you going to complain if someone paints their Ultramarines black, including the new Calgar model (with the helmet of course), which makes him slightly harder to point out?
Sgt_Smudge wrote:So, just to clarify, is using a Redemptor as a Leviathan a problem? Because it's happening across the army - there's no tricks, no confusion, it's a universal change.
As you said, there's nothing wrong with that.
I don't own a Levi but I've seen Redemptors, and they're pretty similar in size if I'm not mistaken. If there's two Gatlings on it (seeing as they probably want to do dual Autocannons), gold on my opponent for making a boring Dread with just two loadouts a little more fun. If they just wanted to do one gun arm + Fist I've got no problems with that either, as the Redemptor rules suck whereas the Levi, only being mediocre with gun + arm, can function slightly more I suppose.
Lovely. So do you have a problem with all the Tactical Marines models in my army playing as Scouts?
Do you have a problem with every missile launcher models actually being plasma guns?
Likewise, this is universal across the list, no tricks, no non-GW bits or conversions. Just me telling you - you know the rules for Scouts and plasma guns, right? If not, I can show you the unit entries before we play.
I mean, I've used my Mk4 dudes with Shotguns in my Deathwatch as Scouts in a pinch and nobody cared. I'm working on getting some cheap Scouts + Scion heads though because I hate the bare heads on Scouts. It looks stupid.
Seeing as the ML isn't a good weapon, yeah I've got no problem with someone doing that. They clearly told me as much and, if my memory is as bad as other people in this thread, I always carry sticky notes + a pen on me. Granted that's because I could get a work call, but it has helped a couple of times.
They might want to eventually get some actual Plasma Guns or even Plasma Gun equivalents if they just hate the design of GW's, but why would I care in the meantime?
Excellent.
So, in light of this - why did you post this?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Because one is flat out for the army, and you already know the Raven Guard rules.
Not even close to the same.
Now, I haven't got a problem if you think that they're all the same, and you'd happily play against someone who has an Ultramarines painted army with Tactical Marines as Scouts, missiles as plasmas, and Redemptors as Leviathans as a Raven Guard list - that's all consistent. It's when we have people saying "how your model looks isn't the same as how they look!", which is just incredibly confusing and inconsistent.
I posted it because the complaints are NOT the same and would require different schools of thought. You were merely asking how I would treat models, which is a different subject from paint. Nobody has any right to complain about paying and designs, whereas you'd have more a leg to stand on when it comes to models.
Could you elaborate on how proxying say, an UltraMarine with inverted-Omega bits on it as an Iron Hands marine is different and requires a "different school(s) of thought" than proxying something like an Assault Marine as a Vanguard Vet Marine?
Sure. One is a paint job and design and has literally no impact on what is going on in the game. One might be a dual Chainsword Vanguard being proxied as an Assault Marine (for whatever God forsaken reason you would do that), which dictates army composition.
Those inverted-Omega bits might just be "design", but then where do you draw the line between "design" and "function"? That inverted-omega is "design" that clearly demonstrates UltraMarines, in much the same way that a Signum represents "I can tell my squaddies how to shoot gud" - both represent specific subsets of individuals in the game (the first, Ultramarines, and the second, Dev Sarges). I wouldn't bat an eye at a Signum-toting Tac Sarge, if it were obvious (next to 3 Squaddies and a Special, for instance), but it's still proxying.
I'd agree that it's *less impactful* proxying, a much lower level, but how is it not proxying?
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for no impact on the game - playing with a bunch of chess pieces or poker chips has no crunch impact on the game, too. But most people don't do that.
If the Poker chips are different colors for the different pieces, I see no reason it can't be done. Hell I'm sure some people that don't have good chess sets like I do do some sorta makeshift thing like that to play, and they have my respects.
And you see nothing wrong with asserting that nobody could or would ever care that you're using poker chips instead of models in 40k?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Sure. One is a paint job and design and has literally no impact on what is going on in the game.
Yes it does - I see an Ultramarine, and expect to be fighting an Ultramarine.
In the same vein, a plasma gun's design is only aN aesthetic. It has "literally no impact on what it going on in game".
One might be a dual Chainsword Vanguard being proxied as an Assault Marine (for whatever God forsaken reason you would do that), which dictates army composition.
But if your memory was any good, you'd be able to figure out what was going on. Maybe break out that notepad you mentioned.
If I were stupid I'd probably have to jot it down, sure, because nobody in their right mind runs Vanguard as Pistol + Chainsword. If the other three are the basic loadout for Assault Marines and then whatever the Sarge is loaded out with (perhaps an Eviscerator), I think I can probably figure out with just a SMALL amount of critical thinking which squad it is. He, if someone wanted to do an Assault Squad but one guy is going cowboy with the Bolt Pistols and the other guy is going akimbo with dual Chainswords, that's awesome.
But equally, couldn't you figure out what they were if they were numbered poker chips?
And as I pointed out, that's fine if there's no chess pieces and you're stuck with just checkers for whatever reason. I'm guessing you're too high and mighty to do a chess game like that?
Sgt_Smudge wrote:So, just to clarify, is using a Redemptor as a Leviathan a problem? Because it's happening across the army - there's no tricks, no confusion, it's a universal change.
As you said, there's nothing wrong with that.
I don't own a Levi but I've seen Redemptors, and they're pretty similar in size if I'm not mistaken. If there's two Gatlings on it (seeing as they probably want to do dual Autocannons), gold on my opponent for making a boring Dread with just two loadouts a little more fun. If they just wanted to do one gun arm + Fist I've got no problems with that either, as the Redemptor rules suck whereas the Levi, only being mediocre with gun + arm, can function slightly more I suppose.
Lovely. So do you have a problem with all the Tactical Marines models in my army playing as Scouts?
Do you have a problem with every missile launcher models actually being plasma guns?
Likewise, this is universal across the list, no tricks, no non-GW bits or conversions. Just me telling you - you know the rules for Scouts and plasma guns, right? If not, I can show you the unit entries before we play.
I mean, I've used my Mk4 dudes with Shotguns in my Deathwatch as Scouts in a pinch and nobody cared. I'm working on getting some cheap Scouts + Scion heads though because I hate the bare heads on Scouts. It looks stupid.
Seeing as the ML isn't a good weapon, yeah I've got no problem with someone doing that. They clearly told me as much and, if my memory is as bad as other people in this thread, I always carry sticky notes + a pen on me. Granted that's because I could get a work call, but it has helped a couple of times.
They might want to eventually get some actual Plasma Guns or even Plasma Gun equivalents if they just hate the design of GW's, but why would I care in the meantime?
Excellent.
So, in light of this - why did you post this?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Because one is flat out for the army, and you already know the Raven Guard rules.
Not even close to the same.
Now, I haven't got a problem if you think that they're all the same, and you'd happily play against someone who has an Ultramarines painted army with Tactical Marines as Scouts, missiles as plasmas, and Redemptors as Leviathans as a Raven Guard list - that's all consistent. It's when we have people saying "how your model looks isn't the same as how they look!", which is just incredibly confusing and inconsistent.
I posted it because the complaints are NOT the same and would require different schools of thought. You were merely asking how I would treat models, which is a different subject from paint. Nobody has any right to complain about paying and designs, whereas you'd have more a leg to stand on when it comes to models.
Could you elaborate on how proxying say, an UltraMarine with inverted-Omega bits on it as an Iron Hands marine is different and requires a "different school(s) of thought" than proxying something like an Assault Marine as a Vanguard Vet Marine?
Sure. One is a paint job and design and has literally no impact on what is going on in the game. One might be a dual Chainsword Vanguard being proxied as an Assault Marine (for whatever God forsaken reason you would do that), which dictates army composition.
Those inverted-Omega bits might just be "design", but then where do you draw the line between "design" and "function"? That inverted-omega is "design" that clearly demonstrates UltraMarines, in much the same way that a Signum represents "I can tell my squaddies how to shoot gud" - both represent specific subsets of individuals in the game (the first, Ultramarines, and the second, Dev Sarges). I wouldn't bat an eye at a Signum-toting Tac Sarge, if it were obvious (next to 3 Squaddies and a Special, for instance), but it's still proxying.
I'd agree that it's *less impactful* proxying, a much lower level, but how is it not proxying?
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for no impact on the game - playing with a bunch of chess pieces or poker chips has no crunch impact on the game, too. But most people don't do that.
If the Poker chips are different colors for the different pieces, I see no reason it can't be done. Hell I'm sure some people that don't have good chess sets like I do do some sorta makeshift thing like that to play, and they have my respects.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Are you going to complain if someone paints their Ultramarines black, including the new Calgar model (with the helmet of course), which makes him slightly harder to point out?
Obvious strawman is obvious.
No, it isn't. This is the core of the issue.
And you see nothing wrong with asserting that nobody could or would ever care that you're using poker chips instead of models in 40k?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Sure. One is a paint job and design and has literally no impact on what is going on in the game.
Yes it does - I see an Ultramarine, and expect to be fighting an Ultramarine.
In the same vein, a plasma gun's design is only aN aesthetic. It has "literally no impact on what it going on in game".
One might be a dual Chainsword Vanguard being proxied as an Assault Marine (for whatever God forsaken reason you would do that), which dictates army composition.
But if your memory was any good, you'd be able to figure out what was going on. Maybe break out that notepad you mentioned.
If I were stupid I'd probably have to jot it down, sure, because nobody in their right mind runs Vanguard as Pistol + Chainsword. If the other three are the basic loadout for Assault Marines and then whatever the Sarge is loaded out with (perhaps an Eviscerator), I think I can probably figure out with just a SMALL amount of critical thinking which squad it is. He, if someone wanted to do an Assault Squad but one guy is going cowboy with the Bolt Pistols and the other guy is going akimbo with dual Chainswords, that's awesome.
But equally, couldn't you figure out what they were if they were numbered poker chips?
And as I pointed out, that's fine if there's no chess pieces and you're stuck with just checkers for whatever reason. I'm guessing you're too high and mighty to do a chess game like that?
I think there's been a massive goalpost shift here.
We're arguing that we'd rather play chess with chess pieces than poker chips. You're arguing that the only reason we'd ever care is because we're not "smart enough" to handle the substitutions. That if we have any preference for chess pieces, we're obviously so dumb we need to seek medical attention.
I want people to paint their models, this game should be played with beautifully painted models. Punishing people for painting their army is insane. Please let's not do that.
The subfaction rules change all the time and for many armies didn't even exist until very recently. It is completely unreasonable to expect people's rule choices to be bound by colour choices that were possibly made before the said rules even existed.
Furthermore, it is pretty random whether or not subfaction rules actually support the playstyle the faction is known for. Catachan trait encourages bringing lots of thanks, whilst Ultramarines makes a better swift and mobile marine army than the White Scars.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Are you going to complain if someone paints their Ultramarines black, including the new Calgar model (with the helmet of course), which makes him slightly harder to point out?
In what way "black" are we talking?
Are we talking "undercoated black with no paint details?" - No issues. They're not masquerading as something else.
Are we talking "black paint, but the Ultramarine symbols are still present on every model?" - No issues. They could be any Chapter.
Are we talking "fully painted black, no Ultramarine icons, and no symbols or scripture of another canon Chapter?" - No issues. They're a custom Chapter.
Are we talking "fully painted black, another Ultramarine successor Chapter's symbols and scripture, but Calgar present?" - No issues. They're Ultramarine successors, but I'll let it go.
Are we talking "fully painted black, a non-Ultramarine successor Chapter's symbols and scripture, but Calgar present?" - Slight issues, but if that Calgar model is being played AS Calgar, then he's got to be an Ultramarine.
Are we talking "fully painted black, a non-Ultramarine successor Chapter's symbols and scripture, and no Ultramarine specific characters?" - Issues. They don't look anything like Ultramarines, look identifiable as another canon Chapter, and have no markers that would tell me they're Ultramarines.
Would you complain if someone builds their plasma gun as a meltagun?
Grimtuff wrote: How is Calgar being black harder to make out? You really are flailing around for justification with that one.
But just continue with your absolute statements like you're the king of 40k or something.
Because he's not blue like an Ultramarine should be. If they're all painted Raven Guard black, as pointed out in this thread, it would be too difficult to really play because they're not painted like Ultramarines and they might forget, instead thinking they're playing against Raven Guard or Iron Hands.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Sure. One is a paint job and design and has literally no impact on what is going on in the game.
Yes it does - I see an Ultramarine, and expect to be fighting an Ultramarine.
In the same vein, a plasma gun's design is only aN aesthetic. It has "literally no impact on what it going on in game".
One might be a dual Chainsword Vanguard being proxied as an Assault Marine (for whatever God forsaken reason you would do that), which dictates army composition.
But if your memory was any good, you'd be able to figure out what was going on. Maybe break out that notepad you mentioned.
If I were stupid I'd probably have to jot it down, sure, because nobody in their right mind runs Vanguard as Pistol + Chainsword. If the other three are the basic loadout for Assault Marines and then whatever the Sarge is loaded out with (perhaps an Eviscerator), I think I can probably figure out with just a SMALL amount of critical thinking which squad it is. He, if someone wanted to do an Assault Squad but one guy is going cowboy with the Bolt Pistols and the other guy is going akimbo with dual Chainswords, that's awesome.
But equally, couldn't you figure out what they were if they were numbered poker chips?
And as I pointed out, that's fine if there's no chess pieces and you're stuck with just checkers for whatever reason. I'm guessing you're too high and mighty to do a chess game like that?
I think there's been a massive goalpost shift here.
We're arguing that we'd rather play chess with chess pieces than poker chips. You're arguing that the only reason we'd ever care is because we're not "smart enough" to handle the substitutions. That if we have any preference for chess pieces, we're obviously so dumb we need to seek medical attention.
People with early onset dementia are not dumb. That's an insult to a legit medical problem.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Are you going to complain if someone paints their Ultramarines black, including the new Calgar model (with the helmet of course), which makes him slightly harder to point out?
In what way "black" are we talking?
Are we talking "undercoated black with no paint details?" - No issues. They're not masquerading as something else.
Are we talking "black paint, but the Ultramarine symbols are still present on every model?" - No issues. They could be any Chapter.
Are we talking "fully painted black, no Ultramarine icons, and no symbols or scripture of another canon Chapter?" - No issues. They're a custom Chapter.
Are we talking "fully painted black, another Ultramarine successor Chapter's symbols and scripture, but Calgar present?" - No issues. They're Ultramarine successors, but I'll let it go.
Are we talking "fully painted black, a non-Ultramarine successor Chapter's symbols and scripture, but Calgar present?" - Slight issues, but if that Calgar model is being played AS Calgar, then he's got to be an Ultramarine.
Are we talking "fully painted black, a non-Ultramarine successor Chapter's symbols and scripture, and no Ultramarine specific characters?" - Issues. They don't look anything like Ultramarines, look identifiable as another canon Chapter, and have no markers that would tell me they're Ultramarines.
Would you complain if someone builds their plasma gun as a meltagun?
Calgar has a gaint hand where the toilet seat should be. It's the same model but not an Ultramarine, but being played like an Ultramarine.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Are you going to complain if someone paints their Ultramarines black, including the new Calgar model (with the helmet of course), which makes him slightly harder to point out?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Sure. One is a paint job and design and has literally no impact on what is going on in the game.
Yes it does - I see an Ultramarine, and expect to be fighting an Ultramarine.
In the same vein, a plasma gun's design is only aN aesthetic. It has "literally no impact on what it going on in game".
One might be a dual Chainsword Vanguard being proxied as an Assault Marine (for whatever God forsaken reason you would do that), which dictates army composition.
But if your memory was any good, you'd be able to figure out what was going on. Maybe break out that notepad you mentioned.
If I were stupid I'd probably have to jot it down, sure, because nobody in their right mind runs Vanguard as Pistol + Chainsword.
Well, this guy does. Better get out your notepad.
If the other three are the basic loadout for Assault Marines and then whatever the Sarge is loaded out with (perhaps an Eviscerator), I think I can probably figure out with just a SMALL amount of critical thinking which squad it is. He, if someone wanted to do an Assault Squad but one guy is going cowboy with the Bolt Pistols and the other guy is going akimbo with dual Chainswords, that's awesome.
Lovely. But that doesn't answer my question.
If painting a model is only an aesthetic choice, and building a model with a plasma gun is only an aesthetic choice, why is one good and the other bad?
The aesthetic choice for model building affects actual rules. If someone uses all their Melta Guns as Plasma Guns I'm perfectly fine with it, because Plasma Guns are good, Melta Guns are fething awful, and unfortunately Melta Guns look pretty darn cool.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Are you going to complain if someone paints their Ultramarines black, including the new Calgar model (with the helmet of course), which makes him slightly harder to point out?
Obvious strawman is obvious.
How is that a strawman?
Because the argument is whether proxing models assembled/painted as UltraMarines as RavenGuard. The strawman is about a typically-UM model painted black, but as UM. So it's about "proxying" UM as UM - which isn't proxying at all.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Are you going to complain if someone paints their Ultramarines black, including the new Calgar model (with the helmet of course), which makes him slightly harder to point out?
Obvious strawman is obvious.
How is that a strawman?
Because the argument is whether proxing models assembled/painted as UltraMarines as RavenGuard. The strawman is about a typically-UM model painted black, but as UM. So it's about "proxying" UM as UM - which isn't proxying at all.
Then we get down to Brass Tax. Someone converted their Aggressor with a bunch of bling as a Calgar stand-in. They're painted all Black and have a hand as their Chapter symbol. They're Ultramarine successors. How do you act?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Are you going to complain if someone paints their Ultramarines black, including the new Calgar model (with the helmet of course), which makes him slightly harder to point out?
In what way "black" are we talking?
Are we talking "undercoated black with no paint details?" - No issues. They're not masquerading as something else.
Are we talking "black paint, but the Ultramarine symbols are still present on every model?" - No issues. They could be any Chapter.
Are we talking "fully painted black, no Ultramarine icons, and no symbols or scripture of another canon Chapter?" - No issues. They're a custom Chapter.
Are we talking "fully painted black, another Ultramarine successor Chapter's symbols and scripture, but Calgar present?" - No issues. They're Ultramarine successors, but I'll let it go.
Are we talking "fully painted black, a non-Ultramarine successor Chapter's symbols and scripture, but Calgar present?" - Slight issues, but if that Calgar model is being played AS Calgar, then he's got to be an Ultramarine.
Are we talking "fully painted black, a non-Ultramarine successor Chapter's symbols and scripture, and no Ultramarine specific characters?" - Issues. They don't look anything like Ultramarines, look identifiable as another canon Chapter, and have no markers that would tell me they're Ultramarines.
Would you complain if someone builds their plasma gun as a meltagun?
Calgar has a gaint hand where the toilet seat should be. It's the same model but not an Ultramarine, but being played like an Ultramarine.
So, we're looking at a black painted Calgar, with all his Ultramarine iconography removed and replaced with another Chapter's icon, being played as Calgar? Yeah, that's fine, because that's the only way of playing a Gravis-armoured model with two power fists with underslung bolters in game.
Remove Calgar, or resculpt him with something that ceases to look like a Gravis model with twin power fists? Then I'm not so fine with it.
If painting a model is only an aesthetic choice, and building a model with a plasma gun is only an aesthetic choice, why is one good and the other bad?
It is because paint is just paint. Like you could literally paint a Formula One Ferrari car blue, and it would perform the same. (Unless the old Ork belief applies to F1 racing too..)
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The aesthetic choice for model building affects actual rules.
And likewise, the aesthetic choice for painting affects actual rules. Or are you implying that subfaction rules don't exist? Do you need a notepad? to remind you?
Why are paint schemes any less of an aesthetic choice than what kind of gun I like to have modelled?
If painting a model is only an aesthetic choice, and building a model with a plasma gun is only an aesthetic choice, why is one good and the other bad?
It is because paint is just paint. Like you could literally paint a Formula One Ferrari car blue, and it would perform the same. (Unless the old Ork belief applies to F1 racing too..)
And plastic's just plastic. Why is there a difference?
If painting a model is only an aesthetic choice, and building a model with a plasma gun is only an aesthetic choice, why is one good and the other bad?
It is because paint is just paint. Like you could literally paint a Formula One Ferrari car blue, and it would perform the same. (Unless the old Ork belief applies to F1 racing too..)
An inverted omega symbol bit, for example, is not just paint.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Are you going to complain if someone paints their Ultramarines black, including the new Calgar model (with the helmet of course), which makes him slightly harder to point out?
Obvious strawman is obvious.
How is that a strawman?
Because the argument is whether proxing models assembled/painted as UltraMarines as RavenGuard. The strawman is about a typically-UM model painted black, but as UM. So it's about "proxying" UM as UM - which isn't proxying at all.
Then we get down to Brass Tax. Someone converted their Aggressor with a bunch of bling as a Calgar stand-in. They're painted all Black and have a hand as their Chapter symbol. They're Ultramarine successors. How do you act?
"That's some really cool work you did there!" I'm not sure why you'd even ask.
Because the argument is whether proxing models assembled/painted as UltraMarines as RavenGuard. The strawman is about a typically-UM model painted black, but as UM. So it's about "proxying" UM as UM - which isn't proxying at all.
What? You're arguing that you must use the rules associated with your colour scheme. Ultramarine colour scheme is blue not black.
Because the argument is whether proxing models assembled/painted as UltraMarines as RavenGuard. The strawman is about a typically-UM model painted black, but as UM. So it's about "proxying" UM as UM - which isn't proxying at all.
What? You're arguing that you must use the rules associated with your colour scheme. Ultramarine colour scheme is blue not black.
I think this is where the disconnect is coming from. I'm arguing that there's value in fielding the models as they're built.
Now, typically, that matches a well-known scheme. But not always. Hobbyist investment and creativity being the most important thing (Rule of Cool is rule#1).
And plastic's just plastic. Why is there a difference?
Because in universe is not just plastic, it is completely different piece of equipment. However, the paint is paint even in the fiction of the game.
Also, another reason why a lot of people apply WYSIWYG to models and gear but not paint is that this is how it was defined when it actually was a written rule in the game.
Because the argument is whether proxing models assembled/painted as UltraMarines as RavenGuard. The strawman is about a typically-UM model painted black, but as UM. So it's about "proxying" UM as UM - which isn't proxying at all.
What? You're arguing that you must use the rules associated with your colour scheme. Ultramarine colour scheme is blue not black.
I think this is where the disconnect is coming from. I'm arguing that there's value in fielding the models as they're built.
Now, typically, that matches a well-known scheme. But not always. Hobbyist investment and creativity being the most important thing (Rule of Cool is rule#1).
If there really WAS value, then there would be no point in ever painting an official Chapter because you're stuck if you get bad rules.
I think this is where the disconnect is coming from. I'm arguing that there's value in fielding the models as they're built.
You may think that, even I might think that, but I'm not gonna tell someone that they should think that and I certainly will not refuse a game because of it.
Now, typically, that matches a well-known scheme. But not always. Hobbyist investment and creativity being the most important thing (Rule of Cool is rule#1).
Yes. And if someone really loves the Imperial Fists colour scheme and Ultramarine rules I'm not gonna tell them that they're doing it wrong.
And plastic's just plastic. Why is there a difference?
Because in universe is not just plastic, it is completely different piece of equipment. However, the paint is paint even in the fiction of the game.
But how that equipment looks is just "fiction of the game".
Who *says* that a plasma gun has to look the way GW says it does?
Look, I haven't got a problem with people saying "yeah, I don't care how your models look, they can represent what they like!" - but please be consistent.
Also, another reason why a lot of people apply WYSIWYG to models and gear but not paint is that this is how it was defined when it actually was a written rule in the game.
And now it's not.
There also weren't subfaction rules. There haven't been for the last three editions before this one. But times, they are a-changin'.
Because the argument is whether proxing models assembled/painted as UltraMarines as RavenGuard. The strawman is about a typically-UM model painted black, but as UM. So it's about "proxying" UM as UM - which isn't proxying at all.
What? You're arguing that you must use the rules associated with your colour scheme. Ultramarine colour scheme is blue not black.
I think this is where the disconnect is coming from. I'm arguing that there's value in fielding the models as they're built.
Now, typically, that matches a well-known scheme. But not always. Hobbyist investment and creativity being the most important thing (Rule of Cool is rule#1).
If there really WAS value, then there would be no point in ever painting an official Chapter because you're stuck if you get bad rules.
If you only cared about the game, perhaps. If you cared more about something else, perhaps not.
Again, that's fine to care more about the game than anything else. Just be honest about it.
My time is far to valuable to be wasted on meta chasers.
To all those who want to play Iron Hands with your obviously not Iron Hands models and subsequently whine like a petulant child because my point of view is different from yours... stop trying to force your prejudice onto me. I wont have it. Take your insolence somewhere else.
My game experience is equally as important and I want to have an immersive one. For me that means models are GW and their color schemes are correct.
I think this is where the disconnect is coming from. I'm arguing that there's value in fielding the models as they're built.
You may think that, even I might think that, but I'm not gonna tell someone that they should think that and I certainly will not refuse a game because of it.
I believe we can both agree with this: There's value, to some people, in armies in their game being fielded as they're built
Is that fair?
Now, typically, that matches a well-known scheme. But not always. Hobbyist investment and creativity being the most important thing (Rule of Cool is rule#1).
Yes. And if someone really loves the Imperial Fists colour scheme and Ultramarine rules I'm not gonna tell them that they're doing it wrong.
I wouldn't tell someone who's playing 40k with poker chips that they're doing it wrong. It's not what I want to do. I'm not excited to play against them. But it's not wrong if they (and their opponent) are enjoying themselves.
A lot of the back and forth comes from being told that the only reason I'd rather not play with poker chips is because I'm not capable enough to remember what's what. It's insulting and dismissive, so obviously it gets responses.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But how that equipment looks is just "fiction of the game".
Who *says* that a plasma gun has to look the way GW says it does?
This is not what I'm saying at all. The fiction matters. But Space marine in black armour could easily paint their armour differently in the fictional setting too. Why would they do it? To confuse the enemy, it's a Halloween party, I don't know? But they easily could.
Similarly the subfaction traits are just fighting styles in the setting. I can easily imagine that Vanguard Marines of Imperial Fists tenth company could employ tactics similar to those favoured by Raven Guard. However a meltagun suddenly starting to operate like a plasma gun is a much bigger stretch.
I believe we can both agree with this: There's value, to some people, in armies in their game being fielded as they're built
Is that fair?
Yes.
I wouldn't tell someone who's playing 40k with poker chips that they're doing it wrong.
I totally would.
It's not what I want to do. I'm not excited to play against them. But it's not wrong if they (and their opponent) are enjoying themselves.
A lot of the back and forth comes from being told that the only reason I'd rather not play with poker chips is because I'm not capable enough to remember what's what. It's insulting and dismissive, so obviously it gets responses.
Well, that's silly argument on their part, and I never implied anyone was dumb. I understand why one might prefer the rules to match their colour schemes for thematic reasons. In theory I'd prefer that too, but the truth is that the official rules do not necessarily reflect the fluff well anyway. And of course the power differences can be pretty drastic. One doesn't need to be a WAAC tryhard to at some point get tired of being constantly curbstomped. And even if it wasn't that, people might want to try different rules without having to paint a completely new army.
And yes, your'e perfectly within your rights to reuse the game for any reason, but please think about what the message actually will be. If it would be common that people would insist on correct colour schemes, then it would encourage people not to paint their models. And this is the last thing I want to see. Models being painted in 'wrong' colour is at least to me way (WAY!) lesser dealbreaker than the models not being painted at all.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But how that equipment looks is just "fiction of the game". Who *says* that a plasma gun has to look the way GW says it does?
This is not what I'm saying at all. The fiction matters. But Space marine in black armour could easily paint their armour differently in the fictional setting too. Why would they do it? To confuse the enemy, it's a Halloween party, I don't know? But they easily could.
And these plasma guns just happen to be built from a certain STC that makes them look similar to meltaguns. Or they're disguised as meltaguns, to confuse the enemy.
That makes even more sense than Iron Hands going into battle carrying the inverted omega, blue power armour, codex colour markings, and the words "Ultramarines/Ultramar/Ultra/Macragge" or similar festooning their armour.
The fiction matters, except when it doesn't, eh?
Similarly the subfaction traits are just fighting styles in the setting. I can easily imagine that Vanguard Marines of Imperial Fists tenth company could employ tactics similar to those favoured by Raven Guard.
And the model of a plasma gun is just an aesthetic design! I'm sure there could easily be a plasma weapon that has a conical vented muzzle and a casing that encloses the plasma coils. Oh, it looks a lot like a meltagun now. But it's not!
However a meltagun suddenly starting to operate like a plasma gun is a much bigger stretch.
I disagree. Clearly the meltagun is either a heavily modified version, or it's just a variant plasma gun casing, that happens to look like a meltagun one!
See? How something looks isn't important to how it functions on tabletop, right?
Crimson wrote: Well, Imperium just doesn't treat tech like that.
Not true. It's a big Imperium - I'm sure there could be something out there. You're telling me that there's no chance that there's a plasma gun design in the Imperium that looks like a meltagun?
And the Iron Hands don't just wear Ultramarines armour like that. When was the last time you saw a proud son of Ferrus Manus bedecked in Ultimas, blue armour, and waving pennants devoted to Macragge?
Elbows wrote: You are chasing rules to benefit you, regardless of how you try to mask it
This is an incredibly unfair statement. Traits are basically play styles
Did you stop reading my post at that point in a rush to respond? I'll assume so. It's also an incredibly fair statement, by the way.
I have over 5000 points of lovingly painted Ultramarines.
And your statement is unfair. You have no right to tell someone how to play unless they're cheating. These traits are essentially arbitrarily assigned to these factions.
Lets flip some stuff around. White scars known for bikes and such suddenly get an extra +1 to armour save for their trait in cover and imperial fists gets a trait that suddenly benefits bikes more and play better for how that person originally imagined their army.
You're telling that person that they have to use something doesn't really fit the idea of white scars?
How about this, I've been using the Ultramarines trait for over a year, I like my list and I wanna shake things up. Can I not use another trait to broaden my stratagies and get more enjoyment out of my army?
It's a game, there's give and take. I'll cut you some slack and say yes I'd stop my opponent from using different traits if it was a bunch of different traits in the same list. But otherwise it's fair game
He isn't telling anyone how to play. He's pointing out that chasing strongewr rules is... chasing stronger rules. Also your example here whilst fine theoretically makes no sense, as the traits irl match the themes of the chapters in the lore. RG are sneaky, WS are good on bikes, IH are tough, apparently really fething tough. So no he isn't telling someone to p;lay their army in a way that runs counter to their desired theme. Indeed, if you'd read the post, you'd see he doesn't think you shouldn't, just be honest about the fact you''re chasing the win, and that's not the kind of game he personally would play.
Again, "Can I not use another trait to broaden my strategies and get more enjoyment out of my army?" yes of course. You're still chasing the win though. You could also play IK with IGCP farm to broaden your strategies and have fun. Still chasing the win.
Crimson wrote: Well, Imperium just doesn't treat tech like that.
Not true. It's a big Imperium - I'm sure there could be something out there. You're telling me that there's no chance that there's a plasma gun design in the Imperium that looks like a meltagun?
And the Iron Hands don't just wear Ultramarines armour like that. When was the last time you saw a proud son of Ferrus Manus bedecked in Ultimas, blue armour, and waving pennants devoted to Macragge?
I dunno, the Red Talons might have colors that might confuse you with Blood Angels or Ravens so who knows?
Crimson wrote: Well, Imperium just doesn't treat tech like that.
Not true. It's a big Imperium - I'm sure there could be something out there. You're telling me that there's no chance that there's a plasma gun design in the Imperium that looks like a meltagun?
And the Iron Hands don't just wear Ultramarines armour like that. When was the last time you saw a proud son of Ferrus Manus bedecked in Ultimas, blue armour, and waving pennants devoted to Macragge?
They're the Ultramarine Armoury Guard. They're led by the Ultramarine Master of the Forge (counts as Feirros) and composed mostly of vehicles from the Armour and those marines who aspire to be Techmarines or otherwise show special affinity to the machines. Their fighting style differs from typical Ultramarine forces and resemble more of that of the Iron Hands.
Anyway, I know that you will never budge from your position, nor will you ever accept that people disagreeing with you could have a valid point. I am not particularly interested in engaging with your false equivalencies.
Personally I always use custom colour schemes for my armies. Not for rule-hopping purposes, but because I like creating my own thing. Nevertheless, with this colour-strict interpretation, this opens me a possibility to switch rules at whim (though with my previous custom IF successor chapter I never did.) I really wouldn't feel comfortable telling someone who had painted their army in official colours that they couldn't pick the rules they like, while I myself could. It would feel like a total dick move. I want to encourage an environment where people paint their models however they like, were it an official scheme or custom, and use whatever rules they personally feel most suitable.
Now, people chasing the most powerful rules possible certainly can be annoying, but I really don't think that getting repeatedly tabled by Iron Hands would feel any less frustrating if they were painted black instead of blue. Hell, perhaps some players with armies painted as IH will get tired of having no challenge at some point and might want to use their army with a weaker set of rules. (Personally I have intentionally chosen suboptimal traits against less experienced people even with the old codex.)
oni wrote: My time is far to valuable to be wasted on meta chasers.
To all those who want to play Iron Hands with your obviously not Iron Hands models and subsequently whine like a petulant child because my point of view is different from yours... stop trying to force your prejudice onto me. I wont have it. Take your insolence somewhere else.
My game experience is equally as important and I want to have an immersive one. For me that means models are GW and their color schemes are correct.
Hear hear!
Still have to play a guy who has an IW painted army for 30k with primaris elements for 40k that he's now running as IH this weekend. In a friendly tournament set up by the university RPG soc. Although he was kind last time we played a friendly, he only used his FW tanks, leviathan and one repulsor executionor with the special character. As opposed to taking three repulsor executioners.
Now I'm not saying everyone who takes IH in suspiciously non IH colours never had any interest in the lore and suddenly made the switch because they can't handle losing, but I that's exactly the shameless stuff these people are pulling.
I'm sorry but as a neutral wistander without a horse in this race, the "Paint matters" crown don't do any favours to their cause when to demostrate how paint matters they use the argument that models matter.
Yeah we all know models matter. Demonstrate that paint really matters, not go the lazy way, and try to make the two things be the same when they aren't.
Because it is not the same to play with an army of bases than with an army of built and unpainted models. It has never been in 40 years of hobby. In no reasonable way, shape or form, has the same impact on a game of warhammer, nor competitively, nor narratively, and not even socially.
But for all the "You only change subfaction rules to be more powerfull" crown I have to say that you are flat out wrong: As a Tau Player my subfactions are so specific that they basically dictate the list you are gonna build. And I use them all in different lists whenever I want to try something new because I have a very big Tau army to play any kind of lists I want. Assault ones, long range based firepower ones, short range movile ones, Auxiliary based ones, etc... and I'll chose the rules they best work with the list I have in mind, of course.
Of course I could do a list with a theme and then take subfactions rules that don't work at all with that theme but... why? I wouldn't be different than making a... I don't know... full shooting Imperial Guard army and then take a general that gives buff to meele units. It will detrimentaly impact my enjoyement of a fair and balanced game with my opponent.
Galas wrote: I'm sorry but as a neutral wistander without a horse in this race, the "Paint matters" don't do any favours to their cause when to demostrate how paint matters they use the argument that models matter.
Yeah we all know models matter. Demonstrate that paint really matters, not go the lazy way, and try to make the two things be the same when they aren't.
Because it is not the same to play with an army of bases than with an army of built and unpainted models. It has never been in 40 years of hobby.
Legally the paint doesn't matter. But the question is does it bother you, not should it be allowed. And yeah it bothers me, it's just shameless meta chasing, and that's not what I engage with 40k for. The IH players who first heard about them last month but have been playing for 5 years can duke it out between each other all they like, but if I can avoid playing them I will.
Galas wrote: I'm sorry but as a neutral wistander without a horse in this race, the "Paint matters" don't do any favours to their cause when to demostrate how paint matters they use the argument that models matter.
Yeah we all know models matter. Demonstrate that paint really matters, not go the lazy way, and try to make the two things be the same when they aren't.
Because it is not the same to play with an army of bases than with an army of built and unpainted models. It has never been in 40 years of hobby.
Legally the paint doesn't matter. But the question is does it bother you, not should it be allowed. And yeah it bothers me, it's just shameless meta chasing, and that's not what I engage with 40k for. The IH players who first heard about them last month but have been playing for 5 years can duke it out between each other all they like, but if I can avoid playing them I will.
TBH whats the problem with meta chasing for those that do it? I mean... I have knew a couple of dicks that tell others to "git gud" but in most cases what I have seen are ... "I'm totally casual guys trust me" guys giving gak to pleople that play competitively.
If is not a play style you like, why do you have to add a moral and subjetive value to their actions? Lets not kid ourselves. All this "If you play blue IH , do it, but be honest and say you are doing it to win!" are just passive aggresive ways of claiming the moral high ground. Is a very, very toxic attitude.
And I say this being a giant casual gamer. I mean... I'm one of those that regularly plays with 3-4 giants in his fantasy armies... that should tell you everything.
Anything GW writes is just counts as with more authority.
How many different versions of an assault cannon has existed since the game started. Same model, different rules.
The irony of this argument is that it's only possible because marine factions aren't really factions, they're different playstyles for the same miniatures.
When you can build a legal army with 100% the same models across 6 different army books, you don't have different factions at all.
I absolutely have no problem with people changing what ruleset their army is using - I'm even happy for people to use completely different codexes to play their army - who cares if your plastic toys use necron rules or Ork rules? GW certainly isn't precious because they keep changing how rules for an army work anyway...
People convert non GW models to be part of their armies, by some of this logic those models don't have rules at all and are invisible on the table.
I wish my Eldar had a tenth the variety of play styles that my space Wolves or salamanders have.
Half the time I'm tempted to just count them as which ever marine chapter GW decided needed to do a xenos army better than the aliens could.
Why saim Hann when I can play white scars?
I'm waiting for the day GW releases a horde marine army to out horde Orks...
Galas wrote: I'm sorry but as a neutral wistander without a horse in this race, the "Paint matters" don't do any favours to their cause when to demostrate how paint matters they use the argument that models matter.
Yeah we all know models matter. Demonstrate that paint really matters, not go the lazy way, and try to make the two things be the same when they aren't.
Because it is not the same to play with an army of bases than with an army of built and unpainted models. It has never been in 40 years of hobby.
Legally the paint doesn't matter. But the question is does it bother you, not should it be allowed. And yeah it bothers me, it's just shameless meta chasing, and that's not what I engage with 40k for. The IH players who first heard about them last month but have been playing for 5 years can duke it out between each other all they like, but if I can avoid playing them I will.
TBH whats the problem with meta chasing for those that do it? I mean... I have knew a couple of dicks that tell others to "git gud" but in most cases what I have seen are ... "I'm totally casual guys trust me" guys giving gak to pleople that play competitively.
If is not a play style you like, why do you have to add a moral and subjetive value to their actions? Lets not kid ourselves. All this "If you play blue IH , do it, but be honest and say you are doing it to win!" are just passive aggresive ways of taking the high ground. Is a very, very toxic attitude.
And I say this being a giant casual gamer. I mean... I'm one of those that regularly plays with 3-4 giants in his fantasy armies... that should tell you everything.
Personally I've seen more casual players complaining about competitive players than vice versa that's for sure
Galas wrote: I'm sorry but as a neutral wistander without a horse in this race, the "Paint matters" don't do any favours to their cause when to demostrate how paint matters they use the argument that models matter.
Yeah we all know models matter. Demonstrate that paint really matters, not go the lazy way, and try to make the two things be the same when they aren't.
Because it is not the same to play with an army of bases than with an army of built and unpainted models. It has never been in 40 years of hobby.
Legally the paint doesn't matter. But the question is does it bother you, not should it be allowed. And yeah it bothers me, it's just shameless meta chasing, and that's not what I engage with 40k for. The IH players who first heard about them last month but have been playing for 5 years can duke it out between each other all they like, but if I can avoid playing them I will.
TBH whats the problem with meta chasing for those that do it? I mean... I have knew a couple of dicks that tell others to "git gud" but in most cases what I have seen are ... "I'm totally casual guys trust me" guys giving gak to pleople that play competitively.
If is not a play style you like, why do you have to add a moral and subjetive value to their actions? Lets not kid ourselves. All this "If you play blue IH , do it, but be honest and say you are doing it to win!" are just passive aggresive ways of taking the high ground. Is a very, very toxic attitude.
And I say this being a giant casual gamer. I mean... I'm one of those that regularly plays with 3-4 giants in his fantasy armies... that should tell you everything.
Personally I've seen more casual players complaining about competitive players than vice versa that's for sure
See, they only want to win on their own terms. So when you decide to create a better army list, they get mad.
Galas wrote: I'm sorry but as a neutral wistander without a horse in this race, the "Paint matters" don't do any favours to their cause when to demostrate how paint matters they use the argument that models matter.
Yeah we all know models matter. Demonstrate that paint really matters, not go the lazy way, and try to make the two things be the same when they aren't.
Because it is not the same to play with an army of bases than with an army of built and unpainted models. It has never been in 40 years of hobby.
Legally the paint doesn't matter. But the question is does it bother you, not should it be allowed. And yeah it bothers me, it's just shameless meta chasing, and that's not what I engage with 40k for. The IH players who first heard about them last month but have been playing for 5 years can duke it out between each other all they like, but if I can avoid playing them I will.
TBH whats the problem with meta chasing for those that do it? I mean... I have knew a couple of dicks that tell others to "git gud" but in most cases what I have seen are ... "I'm totally casual guys trust me" guys giving gak to pleople that play competitively.
If is not a play style you like, why do you have to add a moral and subjetive value to their actions? Lets not kid ourselves. All this "If you play blue IH , do it, but be honest and say you are doing it to win!" are just passive aggresive ways of taking the high ground. Is a very, very toxic attitude.
And I say this being a giant casual gamer. I mean... I'm one of those that regularly plays with 3-4 giants in his fantasy armies... that should tell you everything.
Personally I've seen more casual players complaining about competitive players than vice versa that's for sure
See, they only want to win on their own terms. So when you decide to create a better army list, they get mad.
But I don't want to win, I want to have fun. If I win in the process, great, if I lose, so be it. It just rather be beaten by their skill or their luck, being beaten in the wallet department just isn't fun. Honestly I don't have too much problem with playing blue IH, it's when you go and buy a bunch of new models to milk the brand new rules as far as you can, then take your tournament level list to a casual game. (and carry on painting them blue with toilet seats) Like yeah, you're gonna win, well done, let's take that as read and go home.
As someone that religiously paints everything and never puts an unpainted model on the table, I'm amazed how many people are sore over this
I'm even more amazed that the only possible reason anyone can think of for why you would want to play a Chapter Tactic is to win harder. Even then, as some people have said, if its the only way to have a decent chance at having a fighting chance to begin with a tournament or even just in pick-up games, I can totally understand it.
Especially in an army like Marines, where even with the new Codex update, a lot of hobbitmarine units are absolutely awful, and there's no worse case of this than with Tactical Marines, where GW was so lost for how to fix them that they gave them an extra attack and reduced them to their lowest ever cost at 12ppm and they're still terrible. GW shot them in the kneecaps already by doubling the mandatory transport tax by increasing the cost of Rhinos and Drop Pods to 70~ pts and making the Storm Raven dropship cost more than getting two more full Tactical Squads at minimum. Seriously, 3 editions ago a full squad of 10 with no upgrades costed 170 pts, the same squad now costs 120 pts, has double the firepower, (effective) attacks and can get extra AP by USR, and they're still objectively far worse relatively than they were in 5th at that former cost.
I took a look at the new Codex after all the hype, briefly had a few ideas to bring my homebrew hobbitmarines out, and then in my first game I realized that the new Litanies of Battle and the old re-roll to hit bubble for Chaplains can't be used in a turn where you disembark from a transport or deepstrike. In an army where the whole theme is mobility, lightning assaults and flexibility, you have to eat a whole shooting phase before you can say some prayers and make your dudes hit as hard as they used to last edition, when they were mediocre at best.
I could go on all day about the pains of trying to make mechanised Marines work in the last 3 editions, but I'll be brief. At various times I played my homebrew with the 4th ed Black Templar codex, the 6th ed Dark Angels Codex, and the 5th ed Space Wolves Codex. This was partly to still have an enjoyable experience when you have a meta where few people hold back from making competitive lists and older rules force you into a very narrow field of viable lists which are usually unfluffy and boring as hell anyways. This was partly because for some reason I liked the idea of my supposedly superhuman regular Marines I had spent so much effort painting being actually respectable in melee (5th Edition Grey Hunters) or actually able to hold down a position against oncoming hordes with bolter fire (Standard of Devastation in DA 6thE) when otherwise lumped with rules which have always been bone-achingly boring compared to every other army.
Remember combat tactics? You got to automatically fail morale and retreat the 1-2 dudes that didn't get minced after getting charged by a melee unit. Yeah, that was real compelling stuff, wasn't it? Yawn.
It was also partly because half the fun of the game is experimenting and toying with new ideas on the gaming side of things and trying bizarre and impractical lists with interesting gimmicks. Yeah, you bet I've played my Cadians as all-infantry Tallarn to have the thrill of running an army that can infiltrate 40+ infantry across the board on turn 2. Just as I've run BT Marine hordes, tried out mechanised for all those codexes I mentioned, and tested their special characters just to see how they feel to play amongst many other things. And not once have I ever felt guilty or bad about it.
So tl;dr, if you're truly a purist that feels entitled to sneer at other people for what they do with their property and art, you're not only being just a tad silly, you'd be shooting yourself in the foot if everyone had to be chapter-accurate. Those players then may have to take boring Primaris-Hobbitmarine soup, aggressor spam, minimal/basic troops, cliché and mandatory rambo/smash characters, rule-salad deathstars, etc just to compete against stuff like triple Jetbike Shieldcaptains, Triptide castles, Custodes grav-tank/dreadnought abuse, one-trick-pony IG gunlines, etc. Does that sound lore friendly, immersive and fun to you? Or would you rather play against someone that has taken a different chapter tactic because it may make those fluffy and less gimmicky lists with more Tactical Marines, Intercessors and a balance of interesting units actually viable. And yes, everything I just mentioned in this paragraph I saw at a one-day tournament this weekend just gone. I should know, I was the guy flaunting the one-trick IG gunline having failed to come up with a viable 8.5 hobbitmarine Mech list to bring.
I want to say it matters. But at the same time, it really sucks that my Deathwatch Primaris have gotten nothing but the executioner at this point. I'm sure that we'll eventually get the Vanguard/Phobos stuff, but I'm not going to paint up an entire second Space Marines army just to play them. At this point I'd guess it'll be late 2020 at best before Deathwatch is updated.
I'd just rather paint up a new, non-SM army in general (which is what I'm doing).
If someone is just running it as a one-off for variety, or to test before sinking funds into the new army, I'm cool with it.
If they're playing Ultramarines as one of the others because they think they got a better supplement, I'm going to sprain my eyes rolling them so hard.
I played Ultras when they were fourth out of four for Marine armies. I still play Ultras while they're an unknown standing in the supplement rankings.
Basically if they're play testing, I'm fine with it. Some people can visualize, some people can't. There are times I can, there are times I can't. My spatial imagination for things like furniture in a room sucks. I can get it when someone can't visualize how an army will play enough before they buy.
People who play blue Iron Hands to chase the Flavor Of The Month are far too likely to have other play issues to make me look forward to that kind of game.
This just makes me think of the casual players that Where nasty when they find out you play elder when they where the top stuff.
Ohh your army that you play for 10 years, your a meta chaser.
Was funny, so often space marine players. Oh you got screwed by rules, we don’t care, don’t bring it up in our no negativity meta :p
If people painting there models can screw them on rules, expect them to put less care into the story and the fluff you care about.
As a general rule of thumb, when a person says to me they are playing as Ultramarines, I don't need their entire army painted in those chapter colours to remind me of this.
One of the best thing with Marines is the ability to make your own colour scheme and put your own stamp of individuality on it. Remember this hobby isn't just the game, it's the collecting, assembling and painting of models as well.
SPE825 wrote: I want to say it matters. But at the same time, it really sucks that my Deathwatch Primaris have gotten nothing but the executioner at this point. I'm sure that we'll eventually get the Vanguard/Phobos stuff, but I'm not going to paint up an entire second Space Marines army just to play them. At this point I'd guess it'll be late 2020 at best before Deathwatch is updated.
I'd just rather paint up a new, non-SM army in general (which is what I'm doing).
Basically this.
I like the new primaris stuff but I cant really play it because my main army right now is Deathwatch.
Now therefore Im building up sort of a „training chapter“ for PRIMARIS that want to join the Deathwatch. Usually Im using 3 chapter tactics depending on the list but mainly its the Imperial Fist one. According to some elitists here I would t be allowed to play them painted as deathwatch because they dont have the new Primaris stuff...
Playing and Painting are 2 different hobbies and painting takes an immense amount of time. Rules change all the time, playing is meant to be fun, if you are not having fun with Blue boys and what White, or Red boys, why do i care if your Red boys are painted blue?
No one questions Necrons, Tau, DE colors, they only question SM b.c its "easy to know the colors".
Hrm, it goes beyond just colors. SM's get a lot of product and rules support, particularly for tiny niche subfactions, often that some demand are totally necessary, for factions that often have orders of magnitude less distinction than other forces that share a codex.
Being highly visually distinct does factor into that, but does so on both ends, when people see Red marines they expect Red marine rules, not Blue or Grey marine rules, and if they're that easy to switch around then it causes people to question why we have so many distinct rule sets for them in the first place (particularly with the associated issues of power bloat and rules confusion), and does undercut the immersion factor.
Other factions also have a lot fewer subfaction specific stuff, there's no unique Vior'la suit variant or Iyanden wraithtype or unique Catachan tank model to proxy, no universally recognized distinct Cadian uniform color pallette or Genestealer Cult faction colors to rigidly identify units, no Sa'Cea unique shoulderpads, Kabal-specific troop variant kits, or Biel'tan molded heraldry. Space Marine subfactions have all that stuff, where most other factions don't (or have very little).
It shouldn't be much wonder that such mix and matching causes more consternation in that light.
If you see blue you should ask what they are playing and not assume what they are playing, maybe they are red colorblind and want blue blood angels (i literally know someone that did this for this reason). Who are you to say why they have to play with red guys?
And other some other armies does have more traits, its called successor chapters for a reason, all factions has them, are we supposed to remember 400 subfaction color schemes?
Poll is rather lackluster in options, so not voting.
Homebrew chapters have been a thing since Rogue Trader, so no issue there. Switching out what chapter it's based off of to find the best fit is normal as well, just as much as the powergamers chasing the meta and looking for easiest EASY button.
All perfectly acceptable.
It's when they try to do soup with no way to discern the multiple chapters presented and those designated units seem to be exactly where they need to be for what abilities they have that I have an issue. It's no different than the people who don't lable or differentiate which Rhino has what unit in them.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:I dunno, the Red Talons might have colors that might confuse you with Blood Angels or Ravens so who knows?
In case I didn't make it clear enough (or you're just blatantly misrepresenting my argument), there's more than just colours that make up what a Space Marine Chapter looks like.
The colour is one thing, but alone, means nothing. The Chapter badge, likewise, is another, but the Ultramarine sigil over a red surface? They could be the Imperius Reavers Chapter, a canon Ultramarine succcessor, but still a Chapter that could be used for anything. It's when you have the colour, the sigil, AND things like "Macragge" or "Ultramarines" across your army (say, a banner bearer, or on shoulder pads) that you really lose any doubt that these are supposed to look like Ultramarines first and foremost.
In the Red Talons case, while they have red armour (but not like the Blood Ravens, who have bone coloured pauldrons, and slightly dissimilar to the Blood Angels, who commonly have a black chest aquila instead of silver), it's their chapter badge that would set them apart from the aforementioned, and practically every other red coloured Chapter out there. Not to mention if they had the words "Talons" or "Ferrus" written everywhere. If they were genuinely just "red marines" that's cool IMO, because they're not identifiable as another Chapter immediately.
Crimson wrote:They're the Ultramarine Armoury Guard. They're led by the Ultramarine Master of the Forge (counts as Feirros) and composed mostly of vehicles from the Armour and those marines who aspire to be Techmarines or otherwise show special affinity to the machines. Their fighting style differs from typical Ultramarine forces and resemble more of that of the Iron Hands.
Okay, that's cool. And these models armed with what look like meltaguns are actually carrying Mediant-Pattern Plasma Guns, because my Chapter is supplied by the Forge World Mediant. They have an extended barrel with horizontal heat dispersion slits to additionally cool the weapon, because the plasma coils aren't exposed on this variant.
So - paint and modelling can both be fluffed away, yes?
Anyway, I know that you will never budge from your position, nor will you ever accept that people disagreeing with you could have a valid point. I am not particularly interested in engaging with your false equivalencies.
Why are they false equivalences? I fail to see how playing count-as with one aspect of how the model looks is any different from doing it with another! It would be like saying "oh, yeah, I'm cool with you having regular Space Marines pretending to be CSM, but you can't pretend those meltas are actually plasma guns".
It's about consistency. If paint scheme should be allowed to be ignored to allow someone to try out something else (which I'm not saying is *wrong*), then how something is modelled should also be allowed to be given the same freedom.
I want to encourage an environment where people paint their models however they like, were it an official scheme or custom, and use whatever rules they personally feel most suitable.
And in their same vein, I would like people to be able to model their guys however they like, using the official weapons or custom, and use whatever rules they personally feel most suitable.
Of course, if they were doing that purely to gain more power, then I'm probably not going to play them because I don't really gel with that attitude. But if it's for a genuine fluff reason and I'm sure they're not doing it so they can chase the meta (like in your Master of the Forge example): yeah, I can let that slide - and I'd do the same for their modelled choice of weapons.
Because as much as your concerns are for the person who paints their army without knowing what the rules will be for them, why not show the same concern for the person who builds their model with a weapon that might not be suitable?
Now, people chasing the most powerful rules possible certainly can be annoying, but I really don't think that getting repeatedly tabled by Iron Hands would feel any less frustrating if they were painted black instead of blue. Hell, perhaps some players with armies painted as IH will get tired of having no challenge at some point and might want to use their army with a weaker set of rules. (Personally I have intentionally chosen suboptimal traits against less experienced people even with the old codex.)
Oh, the paint scheme alone wouldn't make the game any more or less frustrating - but I can at least sort out a bunch of players who I wouldn't want to play before I even play them based on it. Of course, there's exceptions (like your example above), but just the initial response to "hey, your guys are painted as Ultramarines, but being used as Iron Hands - is there a narrative reason for that? I'd be interested in playing a narrative game with you" should be able to give me an idea if I actually want to play them.
I'd have no problem with it, so long as they don't have a problem with me bringing the hardest list I can because they are obviously just chasing the fotm.
SPE825 wrote: I want to say it matters. But at the same time, it really sucks that my Deathwatch Primaris have gotten nothing but the executioner at this point. I'm sure that we'll eventually get the Vanguard/Phobos stuff, but I'm not going to paint up an entire second Space Marines army just to play them. At this point I'd guess it'll be late 2020 at best before Deathwatch is updated.
I'd just rather paint up a new, non-SM army in general (which is what I'm doing).
Basically this.
I like the new primaris stuff but I cant really play it because my main army right now is Deathwatch.
Now therefore Im building up sort of a „training chapter“ for PRIMARIS that want to join the Deathwatch. Usually Im using 3 chapter tactics depending on the list but mainly its the Imperial Fist one. According to some elitists here I would t be allowed to play them painted as deathwatch because they dont have the new Primaris stuff...
Not a SINGLE person said that.
There is a world apart between "these deathwatch guys are temporary using IF rules as deathwatch didn't get updated with these models yet" and "these 15 years old ultra marines are actually iron hands in disguise"
One is obviously making ends means, the other is obvious power grabbing.
Anyone pretending not to see the difference is either trolling, or just dense.
Everyone's all up in arms about Iron hands they refuse to even consider that people just want to play other tactics for reasons beyond being a waac player. Just because you have your own biases doesn't make it true.
Galas wrote: I'm sorry but as a neutral wistander without a horse in this race, the "Paint matters" don't do any favours to their cause when to demostrate how paint matters they use the argument that models matter.
Yeah we all know models matter. Demonstrate that paint really matters, not go the lazy way, and try to make the two things be the same when they aren't.
Because it is not the same to play with an army of bases than with an army of built and unpainted models. It has never been in 40 years of hobby.
Legally the paint doesn't matter. But the question is does it bother you, not should it be allowed. And yeah it bothers me, it's just shameless meta chasing, and that's not what I engage with 40k for. The IH players who first heard about them last month but have been playing for 5 years can duke it out between each other all they like, but if I can avoid playing them I will.
TBH whats the problem with meta chasing for those that do it? I mean... I have knew a couple of dicks that tell others to "git gud" but in most cases what I have seen are ... "I'm totally casual guys trust me" guys giving gak to pleople that play competitively.
If is not a play style you like, why do you have to add a moral and subjetive value to their actions? Lets not kid ourselves. All this "If you play blue IH , do it, but be honest and say you are doing it to win!" are just passive aggresive ways of taking the high ground. Is a very, very toxic attitude.
And I say this being a giant casual gamer. I mean... I'm one of those that regularly plays with 3-4 giants in his fantasy armies... that should tell you everything.
Personally I've seen more casual players complaining about competitive players than vice versa that's for sure
See, they only want to win on their own terms. So when you decide to create a better army list, they get mad.
Oh the irony. "Of course casual players complain more; they only care about winning, so get angry when they don't win"?
Perhaps we are complaining more than competitive players in this thread. But that's because we're saying "Competitive players aren't necessarily who I want to play against", and competitive players are saying "Casual players are just bad competitive players".
Do you really expect people not to complain when you keep saying "You're actually just like us, but are trying to hide the fact that you're not as good as us"?
fraser1191 wrote: Everyone's all up in arms about Iron hands they refuse to even consider that people just want to play other tactics for reasons beyond being a waac player. Just because you have your own biases doesn't make it true.
You don't need to switch Chapters to switch tactics.
fraser1191 wrote: Everyone's all up in arms about Iron hands they refuse to even consider that people just want to play other tactics for reasons beyond being a waac player. Just because you have your own biases doesn't make it true.
You don't need to switch Chapters to switch tactics.
I'd rather play blue UltraMarines that represent their Armory (aspiring tech marines and all) over blue Iron Hands that look like they're wearing toilet seats.
Those are two very different things. But use the same exact rules.
There is a world apart between "these deathwatch guys are temporary using IF rules as deathwatch didn't get updated with these models yet" and "these 15 years old ultra marines are actually iron hands in disguise"
One is obviously making ends means, the other is obvious power grabbing.
Anyone pretending not to see the difference is either trolling, or just dense.
It isn't always so black or white. And in any case, it seems that you really have no problem with marines being played with rules not corresponding to their paint, you have problem with meta-chasing power gamers.
There is a world apart between "these deathwatch guys are temporary using IF rules as deathwatch didn't get updated with these models yet" and "these 15 years old ultra marines are actually iron hands in disguise"
One is obviously making ends means, the other is obvious power grabbing.
Anyone pretending not to see the difference is either trolling, or just dense.
It isn't always so black or white. [...]
Of course not. "Ultra Hands" are black and *blue*. Black and white are former "White Scars".
puma713 wrote: I'm curious what people out there think, especially with all of the new Chapter hotness coming out. How do you feel about someone who shows up with a bright green army and says they're Iron Hands, but then turns up the next weekend with the same army and says they're Raven Guard? Does it bother you?
It would not bother me at all.
Here are two other examples of things I would not be bothered by, if the size of the proxies matches the original one:
- Someone using his ork minis to play them as Iron Hands.
- Someone using differently colored wooden playing bricks to play them as Iron Hands.
If there is an overpowered meta to hunt, that's something which would bother me and I would be annoyed again by the delivered product.
SPE825 wrote: I want to say it matters. But at the same time, it really sucks that my Deathwatch Primaris have gotten nothing but the executioner at this point. I'm sure that we'll eventually get the Vanguard/Phobos stuff, but I'm not going to paint up an entire second Space Marines army just to play them. At this point I'd guess it'll be late 2020 at best before Deathwatch is updated.
I'd just rather paint up a new, non-SM army in general (which is what I'm doing).
Basically this.
I like the new primaris stuff but I cant really play it because my main army right now is Deathwatch.
Now therefore Im building up sort of a „training chapter“ for PRIMARIS that want to join the Deathwatch. Usually Im using 3 chapter tactics depending on the list but mainly its the Imperial Fist one. According to some elitists here I would t be allowed to play them painted as deathwatch because they dont have the new Primaris stuff...
Not a SINGLE person said that.
There is a world apart between "these deathwatch guys are temporary using IF rules as deathwatch didn't get updated with these models yet" and "these 15 years old ultra marines are actually iron hands in disguise"
One is obviously making ends means, the other is obvious power grabbing.
Anyone pretending not to see the difference is either trolling, or just dense.
There IS no difference. Imperial Fists got an update that gives them a lot more goodies than Deathwatch.
Playing and Painting are 2 different hobbies and painting takes an immense amount of time. Rules change all the time, playing is meant to be fun, if you are not having fun with Blue boys and what White, or Red boys, why do i care if your Red boys are painted blue?
No one questions Necrons, Tau, DE colors, they only question SM b.c its "easy to know the colors".
Hrm, it goes beyond just colors. SM's get a lot of product and rules support, particularly for tiny niche subfactions, often that some demand are totally necessary, for factions that often have orders of magnitude less distinction than other forces that share a codex.
Being highly visually distinct does factor into that, but does so on both ends, when people see Red marines they expect Red marine rules, not Blue or Grey marine rules, and if they're that easy to switch around then it causes people to question why we have so many distinct rule sets for them in the first place (particularly with the associated issues of power bloat and rules confusion), and does undercut the immersion factor.
Other factions also have a lot fewer subfaction specific stuff, there's no unique Vior'la suit variant or Iyanden wraithtype or unique Catachan tank model to proxy, no universally recognized distinct Cadian uniform color pallette or Genestealer Cult faction colors to rigidly identify units, no Sa'Cea unique shoulderpads, Kabal-specific troop variant kits, or Biel'tan molded heraldry. Space Marine subfactions have all that stuff, where most other factions don't (or have very little).
It shouldn't be much wonder that such mix and matching causes more consternation in that light.
If you see blue you should ask what they are playing and not assume what they are playing, maybe they are red colorblind and want blue blood angels (i literally know someone that did this for this reason). Who are you to say why they have to play with red guys?
And other some other armies does have more traits, its called successor chapters for a reason, all factions has them, are we supposed to remember 400 subfaction color schemes?
you're being a wee bit obtuse here, when I'm referring to colors here I'm using shorthand to refer to specific subfactions (Blood Angels, Ultramarines, Space Wolves, etc), hence my talk about faction specific subunits and iconography and identifiable color schemes. These things are much more distinctive with marines than most other armies, hence why it causes a level of consternation.
If someone wants to play a successor chapter, fine. If someone hops codexes every week or every new release though, or is playing with an army with Blood Angels iconography and paintjobs all over everything and using rules from another codex, it's understandable that it causes irritation.
And ultimately, I'm not saying they can't play whatever they want, I'm certainly not the plastic army man police or berate anyone over it. But it's not unwarranted for others to be bothered by that either, or to question why they have or need so many different subfaction rulesets as a result if it's so easy to switch.
SPE825 wrote: I want to say it matters. But at the same time, it really sucks that my Deathwatch Primaris have gotten nothing but the executioner at this point. I'm sure that we'll eventually get the Vanguard/Phobos stuff, but I'm not going to paint up an entire second Space Marines army just to play them. At this point I'd guess it'll be late 2020 at best before Deathwatch is updated.
I'd just rather paint up a new, non-SM army in general (which is what I'm doing).
fraser1191 wrote: Everyone's all up in arms about Iron hands they refuse to even consider that people just want to play other tactics for reasons beyond being a waac player. Just because you have your own biases doesn't make it true.
You don't need to switch Chapters to switch tactics.
My Ultramarines are tactical geniuses so they'll use whatever tactics that they deem necessary for their upcoming battle
No. When I play the game, what I want to know is what the dudes do. You can bring your IH tactics tanks against me even if they are painted red with blood symbols as long as you just tell me what the rules are. What saves does that unit have etc. I would like to know is if we should go with tournament level list building or not, so we could have reasonably balanced game. And I don't mean whether you are bringing IH or BA army, but rather are you bringing 100 guardsmen + Knights or something else.
I don't usually care even if the you have multiple chapter tactics (or your faction equivalent) in the army, again as long as I know what that specific unit does. If need be, I will ask does that specific ork boyz unit have a +1 to charge or not, and all I expect is for you to keep to it (not change it during the match).
I don't even require the minis to be painted (I prefer painted and do paint mine before playing), but that will not affect my feelings about playing the game.
The most I comment on someones paint job is admire if something is really nicely done or some kind of technique has been used (example: that wet blending or light sources).
fraser1191 wrote: Everyone's all up in arms about Iron hands they refuse to even consider that people just want to play other tactics for reasons beyond being a waac player. Just because you have your own biases doesn't make it true.
You don't need to switch Chapters to switch tactics.
My Ultramarines are tactical geniuses so they'll use whatever tactics that they deem necessary for their upcoming battle
I honestly was hoping Ultras would get a new tactic that worked kind of like this. LIke they could use a new space marine CT every turn but they would have to change them every turn. That would have been really cool and require a lot of strategy. Nope - all other chapters which already had superior CT got better CT and Ultras terrible tactic remained unchanged.
The problem is the CAAC guys just not coming out and saying they don't want to play against competitive guys.
I doubt Smudge would enjoy playing against a properly painted/badged/based IH competitive list anymore than he would enjoy playing that same list if it was made of UM. The paint job really isn't his point of contention, it's just that it wouldn't be a good game between an optimized competitive list vs a fluffy list. Some people are not willing to jump through all the hoops GW puts up to play a competitive game.
That's fine. Just come out and say it. Implying things about people character who are willing to jump through those hoops is where the whole CAAC group comes across as holier than thou gatekeepers which we do not need in our hobby.
Bringing a double executioner + levi dread list to a casual/narrative game is a jerk move regardless of the paint scheme. Showing up to game night and judging me because I want to play my blue marines as sneaky boys is just as much of a jerk move (and just as damaging to the hobby as clubbing new seals with your netlist).
This argument never is about painted right vs wrong. It's about the different things people want from this game (which is why I only play tournaments because of bad experiences I've had with the CAAC crowd). If both sides would just approach the discussion with a little honesty instead of trying to win an internet argument we wouldn't be on the 40th thread of basically the same argument...
The models absolutely should be painted. And this is why I abhor a convention that would punish people who paint their models 'wrong'! Such a practice will just lead to people being hesitant to paint their models in the first place.
SPE825 wrote: I want to say it matters. But at the same time, it really sucks that my Deathwatch Primaris have gotten nothing but the executioner at this point. I'm sure that we'll eventually get the Vanguard/Phobos stuff, but I'm not going to paint up an entire second Space Marines army just to play them. At this point I'd guess it'll be late 2020 at best before Deathwatch is updated.
I'd just rather paint up a new, non-SM army in general (which is what I'm doing).
Basically this.
I like the new primaris stuff but I cant really play it because my main army right now is Deathwatch.
Now therefore Im building up sort of a „training chapter“ for PRIMARIS that want to join the Deathwatch. Usually Im using 3 chapter tactics depending on the list but mainly its the Imperial Fist one. According to some elitists here I would t be allowed to play them painted as deathwatch because they dont have the new Primaris stuff...
Not a SINGLE person said that.
There is a world apart between "these deathwatch guys are temporary using IF rules as deathwatch didn't get updated with these models yet" and "these 15 years old ultra marines are actually iron hands in disguise"
One is obviously making ends means, the other is obvious power grabbing.
Anyone pretending not to see the difference is either trolling, or just dense.
There IS no difference. Imperial Fists got an update that gives them a lot more goodies than Deathwatch.
But deathwatch does not have ANY counterpart to the new phobos marines.
Not a "not as optimal" counterpart, but not at all. and we all know it will come eventually, so using "basic marines" as stand in for your phobos deathwatch is cool.
Moving from one chapter to another, while you have a totally viable set of rules of your own, is being a prick and chasing power. if you didn't do it JUST for power you wouldn't care that your "own" chapter might be a bit suboptimal.
For referance, my Tau.
I'm a Kel'shen player. we don't have rules yet, so I borrow other septs. but when I'll finally get Ke'lshen rules, I'd freaking play Ke'lshen rule-even if they turn out not-quite-as-good.
My Thousands sons stay as thousand sons-despite the codex being rather blah and getting out-magicked by codex marines. our biggest upside is some crutch underpriced HQs that hold up an otherwise poor codex. My rubrics are not alpha-rubrics just to milk some more power, because I'm a sons player, with a sons army.
SPE825 wrote: I want to say it matters. But at the same time, it really sucks that my Deathwatch Primaris have gotten nothing but the executioner at this point. I'm sure that we'll eventually get the Vanguard/Phobos stuff, but I'm not going to paint up an entire second Space Marines army just to play them. At this point I'd guess it'll be late 2020 at best before Deathwatch is updated.
I'd just rather paint up a new, non-SM army in general (which is what I'm doing).
Basically this.
I like the new primaris stuff but I cant really play it because my main army right now is Deathwatch.
Now therefore Im building up sort of a „training chapter“ for PRIMARIS that want to join the Deathwatch. Usually Im using 3 chapter tactics depending on the list but mainly its the Imperial Fist one. According to some elitists here I would t be allowed to play them painted as deathwatch because they dont have the new Primaris stuff...
Not a SINGLE person said that.
There is a world apart between "these deathwatch guys are temporary using IF rules as deathwatch didn't get updated with these models yet" and "these 15 years old ultra marines are actually iron hands in disguise"
One is obviously making ends means, the other is obvious power grabbing.
Anyone pretending not to see the difference is either trolling, or just dense.
There IS no difference. Imperial Fists got an update that gives them a lot more goodies than Deathwatch.
But deathwatch does not have ANY counterpart to the new phobos marines.
Not a "not as optimal" counterpart, but not at all. and we all know it will come eventually, so using "basic marines" as stand in for your phobos deathwatch is cool.
Moving from one chapter to another, while you have a totally viable set of rules of your own, is being a prick and chasing power. if you didn't do it JUST for power you wouldn't care that your "own" chapter might be a bit suboptimal.
For referance, my Tau.
I'm a Kel'shen player. we don't have rules yet, so I borrow other septs. but when I'll finally get Ke'lshen rules, I'd freaking play Ke'lshen rule-even if they turn out not-quite-as-good.
My Thousands sons stay as thousand sons-despite the codex being rather blah and getting out-magicked by codex marines. our biggest upside is some crutch underpriced HQs that hold up an otherwise poor codex. My rubrics are not alpha-rubrics just to milk some more power, because I'm a sons player, with a sons army.
Do you really know it'll come eventually? What's your source?
The models absolutely should be painted. And this is why I abhor a convention that would punish people who paint their models 'wrong'! Such a practice will just lead to people being hesitant to paint their models in the first place.
Want to use your Word Bearers models and not lose? HAHAHAHAHA TOO BAD SCRUB
I honestly was hoping Ultras would get a new tactic that worked kind of like this. LIke they could use a new space marine CT every turn but they would have to change them every turn. That would have been really cool and require a lot of strategy. Nope - all other chapters which already had superior CT got better CT and Ultras terrible tactic remained unchanged.
Well food for thought BolS had an article about how Fly is too powerful and probably should be nerf, which I agree with. So if jump pack units suddenly can't fall back and shoot at full BS then UM will get a significant boost
bananathug wrote: The problem is the CAAC guys just not coming out and saying they don't want to play against competitive guys.
Calling those who prefer an army is played as it's modeled/painted "CAAC" is like calling those who'd rather proxy their UM modeled/painted army as IH "WAAC". It's a massive overstatement. "Power Gamer" is certainly a more loaded word than we'd want - as many posts have attempted to fix. But even it's most loaded form isn't a WAAC.
This argument never is about painted right vs wrong. It's about the different things people want from this game
Very much agree.
If both sides would just approach the discussion with a little honesty instead of trying to win an internet argument we wouldn't be on the 40th thread of basically the same argument...
It would help to be a bit more evenhanded (using "CAAC" vs "casual", or "WAAC" vs "power gamer").
The other thing that would help is if people would realize that there's some nuance. I'll stick by "I'd rather play IH played as IH than UM proxied as IH". But I' m not saying "You're a terrible person if you' proxy your UM as IH". I'm not saying "You shouldn't be allowed to play if you're proxying...". I'm not even saying "I won't enjoy a game if I'm playing against UM proxied as IH".
I'm saying "There is negative value produced by proxing UM as IH".
And that's fine.
Nothing is ever perfect. No opponent or army is 100% what you want to face. Sometimes you're facing an Eldar list where they throw their Honored Dead around like they're expendable. Sometimes you're facing a model with a Melta Gun that's really a Flamer. Sometimes you're facing a gray dood. And sometimes you're facing UM proxied as IH. None of these are ideal, but they don't make the other guy a bad guy. They don't stop the game from being fun. They just reduce how much fun it is (for some players).
So stop reading "I'd rather play well-painted armies without proxies" as "You're going to hell if you ever want to change Chapter Tactics".
The models absolutely should be painted. And this is why I abhor a convention that would punish people who paint their models 'wrong'! Such a practice will just lead to people being hesitant to paint their models in the first place.
Painted units fielded as painted/modeled > painted units fielded as modeled > painted units fielded with proxied equipment > painted units fielded as proxies for other units > unpainted units fielded as modeled > unpainted units fielded with proxied equipment > unpainted units fielded as proxies for other units > playing with poker chips.
Once again, in saying "I prefer playing against painted units fielded as they are modeled/painted" is *not* the same thing as saying "You cannot play with models that are not fielded as they are modeled/painted".
bananathug wrote:The problem is the CAAC guys just not coming out and saying they don't want to play against competitive guys.
I doubt Smudge would enjoy playing against a properly painted/badged/based IH competitive list anymore than he would enjoy playing that same list if it was made of UM. The paint job really isn't his point of contention, it's just that it wouldn't be a good game between an optimized competitive list vs a fluffy list. Some people are not willing to jump through all the hoops GW puts up to play a competitive game.
Quite right. It's not that it's the simple act of playing the "wrong" Chapter - it's *why* you're doing it.
And I think you're very right about being honest about what you want from the game. (Foreword, I'll use the phrases WAAC and CAAC - they are not meant as derogative, purely as shorthand, my apologies if they offend)
If you are CAAC, make that aware. Don't try and force people to tone down their list, or expect them to adhere to narrative convention or stuff like that. Be honest with what you want from the game - casual fun.
If you are WAAC, make that aware. Don't try and force people to play against your meta-chasing list, or expect them to tolerate a list that is tailored for maximum winning potential. Be honest with what you want from the game - competitive fun.
This argument never is about painted right vs wrong. It's about the different things people want from this game (which is why I only play tournaments because of bad experiences I've had with the CAAC crowd). If both sides would just approach the discussion with a little honesty instead of trying to win an internet argument we wouldn't be on the 40th thread of basically the same argument...
Agreed. I don't play tournaments because I hate the environment, but I won't say that it's wrong or bad. It's just different.
It's a big hobby, and there isn't a right or wrong way to enjoy it. And while some things might be a problem for enjoying the game in one way and not the other, I suppose the least we can do is accept we all have different preferences.
I'd say it goes beyond just what we want from the game. I'd say how we come out on this debate has a lot to do with what we get from the social aspect of the game as well.
At least in my personal situation fielding the bleeding edge competitive army is a form of virtue signaling to the guys I play with that I play the game the same way as them. That I am a competitive gamer, that I am up on the meta, that the game is important enough for me to spend cash on the new hotness, that I am invested enough to figure out some non-net-list combos and at a major I'm shooting for 4-2 with my slightly off-meta snowflake list. It is important to me that I am seen as fielding a competitive list for my social standing in my chosen play group.
I could imagine similar pressure on the other side of the coin to have proper field markings, lore compliant army construction and codex compliant paint jobs in order to "belong" with their group of players in the way they enjoy the hobby.
I imagine CAAC players would feel the same way showing up to a tourney with their carefully constructed 5th company as I'd feel showing up to a narrative event with WAAC green and blue iron hands.
All that being said, I'd be perfectly willing to tone down my WAAC list if you'd be willing to overlook my BT pauldrons that I've painted blue and black on my blood claws without a lick of yellow or red on them...
Why is proxying a chapter a form of "meta chasing"? ive seen this argument come up many times in this thread and i disagree with it.
We're in a period where Marines see plenty of changes, i think its just normal to want to try them out and figure out which chapter fits my playstyle the most, should i repaint it between games?
If you want to be "immersed by the experience of your match", is playing against black ultras, green BA or yellow raven guard that immersion breaking? Youre still playing against a fully painted army, and nothing in the lore says that imperial fists don't know how to sneak around when they need to.
Now, if we change it to another faction with less known color scheme, would you have the same reaction?
I painted my Admech army with the lucius scheme because when i started, it was the forgeworld that i liked the most for its deepstrike stratagem (that was before i knew anything about the game, and when the stygies infiltration was still a strictly bettre version of lucius's). Now i feel that my aggresive playstyle if better suited with stygies's dogma. Am i a meta chaser?
Also, the difference between most forgeworld is minimal, Mars, Graia, Agripiina and lucius all have basically the same scheme when looked from 3" on the tabletop.
I know im using specific examples but thats still my feeling on the issue of "is paint part of wysiwyg".
When i started 40k last year, i had no idea about the background, i picked the army i liked the most visually and went online for painting tutorials. Surprise surprise, the official GW one for painting skitariis demonstrated the mars scheme, i thought the lucius one was better and lucky for me, it was just about swapping 2 colors. If i started playing marines and did the same procedure when i started, i probably wouldve been stuck with ultramarines as a color scheme. Would i have been a meta chaser then?
Playing and Painting are 2 different hobbies and painting takes an immense amount of time. Rules change all the time, playing is meant to be fun, if you are not having fun with Blue boys and what White, or Red boys, why do i care if your Red boys are painted blue?
No one questions Necrons, Tau, DE colors, they only question SM b.c its "easy to know the colors".
Hrm, it goes beyond just colors. SM's get a lot of product and rules support, particularly for tiny niche subfactions, often that some demand are totally necessary, for factions that often have orders of magnitude less distinction than other forces that share a codex.
Being highly visually distinct does factor into that, but does so on both ends, when people see Red marines they expect Red marine rules, not Blue or Grey marine rules, and if they're that easy to switch around then it causes people to question why we have so many distinct rule sets for them in the first place (particularly with the associated issues of power bloat and rules confusion), and does undercut the immersion factor.
Other factions also have a lot fewer subfaction specific stuff, there's no unique Vior'la suit variant or Iyanden wraithtype or unique Catachan tank model to proxy, no universally recognized distinct Cadian uniform color pallette or Genestealer Cult faction colors to rigidly identify units, no Sa'Cea unique shoulderpads, Kabal-specific troop variant kits, or Biel'tan molded heraldry. Space Marine subfactions have all that stuff, where most other factions don't (or have very little).
It shouldn't be much wonder that such mix and matching causes more consternation in that light.
If you see blue you should ask what they are playing and not assume what they are playing, maybe they are red colorblind and want blue blood angels (i literally know someone that did this for this reason). Who are you to say why they have to play with red guys?
And other some other armies does have more traits, its called successor chapters for a reason, all factions has them, are we supposed to remember 400 subfaction color schemes?
you're being a wee bit obtuse here, when I'm referring to colors here I'm using shorthand to refer to specific subfactions (Blood Angels, Ultramarines, Space Wolves, etc), hence my talk about faction specific subunits and iconography and identifiable color schemes. These things are much more distinctive with marines than most other armies, hence why it causes a level of consternation.
If someone wants to play a successor chapter, fine. If someone hops codexes every week or every new release though, or is playing with an army with Blood Angels iconography and paintjobs all over everything and using rules from another codex, it's understandable that it causes irritation.
And ultimately, I'm not saying they can't play whatever they want, I'm certainly not the plastic army man police or berate anyone over it. But it's not unwarranted for others to be bothered by that either, or to question why they have or need so many different subfaction rulesets as a result if it's so easy to switch.
K, so if someone got UW and after a few a year of playing them didnt find them fun anymore and wanted to play WS, he should repaint his full army now just to play with new rules? Thats stupid and you know it. My DE, Quins, CWE, etc.. dont need to do that and no one expects me to do that.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Why is proxying a chapter a form of "meta chasing"? ive seen this argument come up many times in this thread and i disagree with it.
We're in a period where Marines see plenty of changes, i think its just normal to want to try them out and figure out which chapter fits my playstyle the most, should i repaint it between games?
If you want to be "immersed by the experience of your match", is playing against black ultras, green BA or yellow raven guard that immersion breaking? Youre still playing against a fully painted army, and nothing in the lore says that imperial fists don't know how to sneak around when they need to.
Now, if we change it to another faction with less known color scheme, would you have the same reaction?
I painted my Admech army with the lucius scheme because when i started, it was the forgeworld that i liked the most for its deepstrike stratagem (that was before i knew anything about the game, and when the stygies infiltration was still a strictly bettre version of lucius's). Now i feel that my aggresive playstyle if better suited with stygies's dogma. Am i a meta chaser?
Also, the difference between most forgeworld is minimal, Mars, Graia, Agripiina and lucius all have basically the same scheme when looked from 3" on the tabletop.
I know im using specific examples but thats still my feeling on the issue of "is paint part of wysiwyg".
When i started 40k last year, i had no idea about the background, i picked the army i liked the most visually and went online for painting tutorials. Surprise surprise, the official GW one for painting skitariis demonstrated the mars scheme, i thought the lucius one was better and lucky for me, it was just about swapping 2 colors. If i started playing marines and did the same procedure when i started, i probably wouldve been stuck with ultramarines as a color scheme. Would i have been a meta chaser then?
Good post.
Personally I have used the army traits to fine tune the competitiveness of my army. Like for tournaments I might use the most optimal traits whereas for more casual games I might use worse ones.
I find if "fluff" matters to you at all, you will pick an established chapter and try to play it to whatever rules are out there for them, with a more competitive streak, you will leverage what you can.
It gets in the way a tiny bit to play them differently than the chapter portrayed, less WYSIWYG.
I find if "competitive" matters to you, you will make your own army with no known ties to the "fluff" and then you can pick or choose all you want.
Mind, the Codex SM tries to address successor chapters with their own rules if you are not wearing the "right" colours.
I have a strong respect for anyone that can paint an army to a better than tabletop standard AND keep up with the latest "hotness".
They have more skill, time, dedication and money than me.
I have been assembly-line painting my long-backlogged Primaris exclusive army as good old Ultramarines primarily 2nd company.
Painting up 30 joe-troopers (Intercessors) to codex proper paint scheme has been hard work.
I got another 60 models of all the other stuff to do.
I am up to some 15 different paints/shades on each model (about 3 types for each colour: red, blue, steel, trim, leather / purity ribbon).
I may have missed the boat completely already for the Ultramarine Supplement meta.
There is only one cure for this thread: "Gotta collect them all", I will soon have two chapters to my name, I just need to collect and build the rest!
In all honesty, I think your own custom chapter is the best way to go as a first army, or something to have as your base.
I honestly was hoping Ultras would get a new tactic that worked kind of like this. LIke they could use a new space marine CT every turn but they would have to change them every turn. That would have been really cool and require a lot of strategy. Nope - all other chapters which already had superior CT got better CT and Ultras terrible tactic remained unchanged.
Well food for thought BolS had an article about how Fly is too powerful and probably should be nerf, which I agree with. So if jump pack units suddenly can't fall back and shoot at full BS then UM will get a significant boost
Yes - that would be a big deal. Right now though it is literally a benefit handed out for free on a lot of units. Still though - it is quite conditional. A chapter tactic should have an effect on every game IMO. Like for example kraken gets 3d6 advance and can fall back and charge (a much more useful ability IMO) plus 3d6 advance is pretty amazing. Plus 1 LD though might as well not exist. Really the tactic would still need to improve with a fly keyword nerf IMO. At least give me - fall back and shoot at -1 and units can heroically intervene like characters or something.
Another potential cure: Play the faction and rules you want.
If you don't want to play the army as what you've assembled/painted them as, that's fine. The people that bothers enough to not want to play you probably don't want to play you for other (likely related) reasons. So doing so doesn't really change things.
As for who the people who are bothered enough to not want to play you are, that depends on how far you go. "My UltraMarines are Iron Hands today" isn't enough to stop most people from enjoying a game with you. On the other hand "Poker chips 1-10 are Tac Squad 1, and..." is certainly enough for many people to not want to play.
It's totally fine if we don't all have the same goals, standards, or breakevens.
Proxing your army as something else is a negative, sure. But when do you ever see games with no negatives? Perhaps the other guy talks a little more than he should. Or not enough. Perhaps the other guy isn't taking it seriously enough. Or too seriously. Perhaps he's not sharp enough to challenge you. Or too competitive and you're not enjoying the curbstomping. Perhaps he cares too little for the fluff. Or too much. It's a continuum. If the worst thing I can say about you is "he plays his UM as IH", you're a saint.
Playing and Painting are 2 different hobbies and painting takes an immense amount of time. Rules change all the time, playing is meant to be fun, if you are not having fun with Blue boys and what White, or Red boys, why do i care if your Red boys are painted blue?
No one questions Necrons, Tau, DE colors, they only question SM b.c its "easy to know the colors".
Hrm, it goes beyond just colors. SM's get a lot of product and rules support, particularly for tiny niche subfactions, often that some demand are totally necessary, for factions that often have orders of magnitude less distinction than other forces that share a codex.
Being highly visually distinct does factor into that, but does so on both ends, when people see Red marines they expect Red marine rules, not Blue or Grey marine rules, and if they're that easy to switch around then it causes people to question why we have so many distinct rule sets for them in the first place (particularly with the associated issues of power bloat and rules confusion), and does undercut the immersion factor.
Other factions also have a lot fewer subfaction specific stuff, there's no unique Vior'la suit variant or Iyanden wraithtype or unique Catachan tank model to proxy, no universally recognized distinct Cadian uniform color pallette or Genestealer Cult faction colors to rigidly identify units, no Sa'Cea unique shoulderpads, Kabal-specific troop variant kits, or Biel'tan molded heraldry. Space Marine subfactions have all that stuff, where most other factions don't (or have very little).
It shouldn't be much wonder that such mix and matching causes more consternation in that light.
If you see blue you should ask what they are playing and not assume what they are playing, maybe they are red colorblind and want blue blood angels (i literally know someone that did this for this reason). Who are you to say why they have to play with red guys?
And other some other armies does have more traits, its called successor chapters for a reason, all factions has them, are we supposed to remember 400 subfaction color schemes?
you're being a wee bit obtuse here, when I'm referring to colors here I'm using shorthand to refer to specific subfactions (Blood Angels, Ultramarines, Space Wolves, etc), hence my talk about faction specific subunits and iconography and identifiable color schemes. These things are much more distinctive with marines than most other armies, hence why it causes a level of consternation.
If someone wants to play a successor chapter, fine. If someone hops codexes every week or every new release though, or is playing with an army with Blood Angels iconography and paintjobs all over everything and using rules from another codex, it's understandable that it causes irritation.
And ultimately, I'm not saying they can't play whatever they want, I'm certainly not the plastic army man police or berate anyone over it. But it's not unwarranted for others to be bothered by that either, or to question why they have or need so many different subfaction rulesets as a result if it's so easy to switch.
K, so if someone got UW and after a few a year of playing them didnt find them fun anymore and wanted to play WS, he should repaint his full army now just to play with new rules? Thats stupid and you know it. My DE, Quins, CWE, etc.. dont need to do that and no one expects me to do that.
Sorry, which factions are we talking about here exactly with UW and WS? I genuinely don't know entirely which factions you are referring to there. Might be a brainfart on my part.
If you mean Ultramarines and then White Scars? I would expect that at some point you'd repaint your army eventually if that's a long term decision, because those color schemes very much are tied to rules in ways that don't necessarily hold true for other factions, at least to anything near the same degree. I have zero problem calling an army painted in Ultramarines colors with UM iconography running White Scars rules "tacky". I have in fact repainted multiple models myself for this exact reason. I have two different guard armies with two different model lines (DKoK and Cadians with converted heads) and don't mix them in the same army as the same faction for much the same reasons.
When people see a Space Marine in Ultramarine blue with Ultra shoulderpads, that has a dramatically different connotation, in terms of rules and gameplay, than say a Harlie Troupe's colors that most people couldn't pick out of a lineup if their life depended on it (assuming they even have such), particularly when so many Eldar units have their own (non faction related) color schemes as well.
That said, beyond some mild eye rolling, it's not like I'm going to make a huge deal out of it, or that there's much I even could do about it, people can do and paint whatever they want, but lets not pretend that there's *nothing* objectionable at all about codex/faction hopping with an army painted one way using rules from another, particularly when color scheme is intentionally such a huge part of Space Marine visualization and rules.
My bright green army is Iron Hands though: Sons of Medusa.
I only ever play them as "Bright green Iron Hands" when I want to field Feirros though, usually they remain(and pay CPs for relics as) Iron Hands successors.
Doesn't really have any effect as I only have to pay the 1 CP "Bequeathed by the Iron Council" when fielding a Librarian for Mindforge. I don't often use the Ironstone.
Playing and Painting are 2 different hobbies and painting takes an immense amount of time. Rules change all the time, playing is meant to be fun, if you are not having fun with Blue boys and what White, or Red boys, why do i care if your Red boys are painted blue?
No one questions Necrons, Tau, DE colors, they only question SM b.c its "easy to know the colors".
Hrm, it goes beyond just colors. SM's get a lot of product and rules support, particularly for tiny niche subfactions, often that some demand are totally necessary, for factions that often have orders of magnitude less distinction than other forces that share a codex.
Being highly visually distinct does factor into that, but does so on both ends, when people see Red marines they expect Red marine rules, not Blue or Grey marine rules, and if they're that easy to switch around then it causes people to question why we have so many distinct rule sets for them in the first place (particularly with the associated issues of power bloat and rules confusion), and does undercut the immersion factor.
Other factions also have a lot fewer subfaction specific stuff, there's no unique Vior'la suit variant or Iyanden wraithtype or unique Catachan tank model to proxy, no universally recognized distinct Cadian uniform color pallette or Genestealer Cult faction colors to rigidly identify units, no Sa'Cea unique shoulderpads, Kabal-specific troop variant kits, or Biel'tan molded heraldry. Space Marine subfactions have all that stuff, where most other factions don't (or have very little).
It shouldn't be much wonder that such mix and matching causes more consternation in that light.
If you see blue you should ask what they are playing and not assume what they are playing, maybe they are red colorblind and want blue blood angels (i literally know someone that did this for this reason). Who are you to say why they have to play with red guys?
And other some other armies does have more traits, its called successor chapters for a reason, all factions has them, are we supposed to remember 400 subfaction color schemes?
you're being a wee bit obtuse here, when I'm referring to colors here I'm using shorthand to refer to specific subfactions (Blood Angels, Ultramarines, Space Wolves, etc), hence my talk about faction specific subunits and iconography and identifiable color schemes. These things are much more distinctive with marines than most other armies, hence why it causes a level of consternation.
If someone wants to play a successor chapter, fine. If someone hops codexes every week or every new release though, or is playing with an army with Blood Angels iconography and paintjobs all over everything and using rules from another codex, it's understandable that it causes irritation.
And ultimately, I'm not saying they can't play whatever they want, I'm certainly not the plastic army man police or berate anyone over it. But it's not unwarranted for others to be bothered by that either, or to question why they have or need so many different subfaction rulesets as a result if it's so easy to switch.
K, so if someone got UW and after a few a year of playing them didnt find them fun anymore and wanted to play WS, he should repaint his full army now just to play with new rules? Thats stupid and you know it. My DE, Quins, CWE, etc.. dont need to do that and no one expects me to do that.
Sorry, which factions are we talking about here exactly with UW and WS? I genuinely don't know entirely which factions you are referring to there. Might be a brainfart on my part.
If you mean Ultramarines and then White Scars? I would expect that at some point you'd repaint your army eventually if that's a long term decision, because those color schemes very much are tied to rules in ways that don't necessarily hold true for other factions, at least to anything near the same degree. I have zero problem calling an army painted in Ultramarines colors with UM iconography running White Scars rules "tacky". I have in fact repainted multiple models myself for this exact reason. I have two different guard armies with two different model lines (DKoK and Cadians with converted heads) and don't mix them in the same army as the same faction for much the same reasons.
When people see a Space Marine in Ultramarine blue with Ultra shoulderpads, that has a dramatically different connotation, in terms of rules and gameplay, than say a Harlie Troupe's colors that most people couldn't pick out of a lineup if their life depended on it (assuming they even have such), particularly when so many Eldar units have their own (non faction related) color schemes as well.
That said, beyond some mild eye rolling, it's not like I'm going to make a huge deal out of it, or that there's much I even could do about it, people can do and paint whatever they want, but lets not pretend that there's *nothing* objectionable at all about codex/faction hopping with an army painted one way using rules from another, particularly when color scheme is intentionally such a huge part of Space Marine visualization and rules.
Scheme has never been tied to rules. Visualization sure, but not rules.
Or do you honestly think to yourself 'wow, that army's blue, it must be able to retreat and shoot!' Before games?
Also, this is super hypocritical/egotistical. Oh, the color schemes of marines are just SOOOOO much more important than other armies color schemes because of how SUPER SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE every marine chapter is. I mean, you absolutely MUST know the difference between ravenguard and Ironhands, even if you don't play marines because of how SUPER SPECIAL marines are.
Plenty of people neither know nor care what the difference is between marine factions (outside of rules). If I didn't play marines myself I guarantee you I couldn't tell an IH army apart from an RG army without hearing what their CT did.
Scheme has never been tied to rules. Visualization sure, but not rules.
Or do you honestly think to yourself 'wow, that army's blue, it must be able to retreat and shoot!' Before games?
Also, this is super hypocritical/egotistical. Oh, the color schemes of marines are just SOOOOO much more important than other armies color schemes because of how SUPER SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE every marine chapter is. I mean, you absolutely MUST know the difference between ravenguard and Ironhands, even if you don't play marines because of how SUPER SPECIAL marines are.
Plenty of people neither know nor care what the difference is between marine factions (outside of rules). If I didn't play marines myself I guarantee you I couldn't tell an IH army apart from an RG army without hearing what their CT did.
When they're the poster boys of the line, in bright primary colors often tied directly to their name, and with a plethora of distinct products for each, yeah I kinda expect that most people know each on sight and know that there are differences because that's what my experience with other players has been in playing this game over five editions now, in a dozen different towns and dozens of tournaments and events.
People may not all know exactly what the microdetails of each are, but I have never once met anyone who was simply completely unaware of any differences, didnt know the broad strokes of rules of differentiation (e.g. blood angels like stuff that flies and go chop chop more than Ultramarines), or who couldnt tell an Ultramarine from a Blood Angel or a Space Wolf or Imperial Fist or Raven Guard on sight if painted in Chapter colors.
More fundamentally, Space Marines are by far the biggest faction we see people do this with, hence why we're largely only talking about Space Marines. Nobody shows up with an army of Catachan models and tries to run them as Valhallans for example, and I've never seen an Iyanden painted army trying to run with Ulthwe rules. EDIT: that is not to say the sentiment does not apply, only that the issue is dramatically less widespread and the faction connections to color schemes are not as tight.
More fundamentally, Space Marines are by far the biggest faction we see people do this with, hence why we're largely only talking about Space Marines. Nobody shows up with an army of Catachan models and tries to run them as Valhallans for example, and I've never seen an Iyanden painted army trying to run with Ulthwe rules.
Of course not. All Eldar armies regardless of colour are run as Alaitoc! In case of non-marine armies this is not an issue, because no one gives a feth nor even know what their colour schemes let alone rules are.
More fundamentally, Space Marines are by far the biggest faction we see people do this with, hence why we're largely only talking about Space Marines. Nobody shows up with an army of Catachan models and tries to run them as Valhallans for example, and I've never seen an Iyanden painted army trying to run with Ulthwe rules.
Of course not. All Eldar armies regardless of colour are run as Alaitoc! In case of non-marine armies this is not an issue, because no one gives a feth nor even know what their colour schemes let alone rules are.
Plenty of people do. If by no-one you mean "a minority" then you might be right but you should probably say that.
For the record I'd find that just as much an immersion breaker as with marines. You couldn't have picked a worse example I don't think as the Eldar Craftworld colours would be known to most who've been in the game a while or who read the fluff, If you'd picked pretty much any other army I'd agree.
One army I'd let is slide (i'd let is slide with anyone...maybe I should say be more understanding) with is Guard due to the fact the models have existed before and now don't.
Yes, the Craftworlds are definitely the best known after various Marines. But even with them people may know their colours but they rarely do know what their subfaction rules actually do, so they won't get confused by the 'wrong' rules being used. And outside Marines and Craftworlds people have even less of a clue.
More fundamentally, Space Marines are by far the biggest faction we see people do this with, hence why we're largely only talking about Space Marines. Nobody shows up with an army of Catachan models and tries to run them as Valhallans for example, and I've never seen an Iyanden painted army trying to run with Ulthwe rules.
Of course not. All Eldar armies regardless of colour are run as Alaitoc! In case of non-marine armies this is not an issue, because no one gives a feth nor even know what their colour schemes let alone rules are.
Plenty of people do. If by no-one you mean "a minority" then you might be right but you should probably say that.
For the record I'd find that just as much an immersion breaker as with marines. You couldn't have picked a worse example I don't think as the Eldar Craftworld colours would be known to most who've been in the game a while or who read the fluff, If you'd picked pretty much any other army I'd agree.
One army I'd let is slide (i'd let is slide with anyone...maybe I should say be more understanding) with is Guard due to the fact the models have existed before and now don't.
I never claimed to be consistent.
Oh please. You can't possibly say that Eldar, Dark Eldar, and Tyranids color schemes are close to as well known as the 18 Legions.
More fundamentally, Space Marines are by far the biggest faction we see people do this with, hence why we're largely only talking about Space Marines. Nobody shows up with an army of Catachan models and tries to run them as Valhallans for example, and I've never seen an Iyanden painted army trying to run with Ulthwe rules.
Of course not. All Eldar armies regardless of colour are run as Alaitoc! In case of non-marine armies this is not an issue, because no one gives a feth nor even know what their colour schemes let alone rules are.
Plenty of people do. If by no-one you mean "a minority" then you might be right but you should probably say that.
For the record I'd find that just as much an immersion breaker as with marines. You couldn't have picked a worse example I don't think as the Eldar Craftworld colours would be known to most who've been in the game a while or who read the fluff, If you'd picked pretty much any other army I'd agree.
One army I'd let is slide (i'd let is slide with anyone...maybe I should say be more understanding) with is Guard due to the fact the models have existed before and now don't.
I never claimed to be consistent.
Oh please. You can't possibly say that Eldar, Dark Eldar, and Tyranids color schemes are close to as well known as the 18 Legions.
There's a world of difference between "As common knowledge as UltraMarine's color scheme" and "Knowledge more than just a couple ultra-fluffbunnies know". Many Craftworld Eldar color schemes are known by significant portions of the playerbase. Probably even moreso than some of the lesser-known legion colors. Most players pick up stuff like this in passing.
I only know Ulthwe is Black (And I only know the Alaitoc rules) I believe after marines orks have the more well known colours and thats just for Sunz and Moonz.
Really people you have a big dissonance in how invested in the fluff is your average player compared with people on forums. The factura one is online talking about warhammer marks him or he as someone above the average in his commitement of the hobby.
This is all just an opinion piece at the end of the day anyways. There is no right or wrong just right or wrong in the eyes of the individual.
Let me go into a touch of detail. It's like honor, or what we as individuals call honor. You can be an honorable man, or woman, but not always a right one. You can do what is right by you but not to another. It doesn't make you right or wrong but to yourself.
Such is what this whole thing boils down to. Some are casual, some are power gamers, neither side is wrong yet both to some level or another feel the other side is just wrong.
You can debate the points till the cows come home but at the end of it neither side will budge and neither side can because you won't find a winner. You can't when they are both right and both wrong.
Do i think it's fine to run your painted marines as whatever ? Yes I do. Would I do it ? No not really. Do I think its power gamey ? Hell yes I do and if we're being honest with ourselves we'd all agree to that. Is this the games fault for making some choices just hands down better ? Yes indeed.
It's a matter of honor to the person. Some just want to win, or want the best chance to win and thats fine. Some want to win but not sacrifice the love of the army they have to do it, and that is equally fine.
Lets stop the fighting with each other over it. Just realize you won't see eye to eye with someone who doesn't agree on that and move on. Otherwise you're just wasting your time when both sides are correct.
That said, beyond some mild eye rolling, it's not like I'm going to make a huge deal out of it, or that there's much I even could do about it, people can do and paint whatever they want, but lets not pretend that there's *nothing* objectionable at all about codex/faction hopping with an army painted one way using rules from another, particularly when color scheme is intentionally such a huge part of Space Marine visualization and rules.
Um, I'll bite.
There is nothing objectively objectionable about faction hopping. Whether the colour scheme is well known or not is irrelevant.
If you object to it on the grounds that it makes your stomach upset to draw the mental link between what abstract universal rules bonus your opponent has and what colour the models are in front of you, that's purely your prerogative. Same goes for the people flexing about how they judge others and avoid them over it on principle. Just don't pretend that you're not playing a game system where if you're playing with strangers like most people, you're going to be playing Imperials vs Imperials often enough to think that happens every Tuesday on every planet in the Imperium.
I couldn't care less if I'm playing against someone with an army on the level of Kaldor Dayglow's Draigowing or a Space Marine chapter themed on the colour palette of Nestlé
Smarties, which yes, I have actually seen, and yes that made for a fascinating conversation. On the aesthetic level I'm always far more interested in the quality of painting, amount of painted stuff and any conversions my opponent has.
Bottom line is this; I would far rather play against someone with the sense of humour needed to come up with something like Kaldor Dayglow or an army themed around the Angry Marines, than someone who is so fixated on immersion that they get in a silent twist over what the colour scheme of your army is.
Edit:
I'm too lazy to dig up the post that made the false equivalence of using the "wrong" colour scheme with attempting to fluff-splain why all your plasma guns are melta guns, but no, that's not a valid argument. Having the wrong weapons modelled on your units due to not meeting basic WYSIWIG can present an actual issue of clarity and potential advantage in competitive/tournament settings. Having a non WYSIWIG faction setup doesn't present any realistic problem when you're always going to get a verbal rundown on your opponent's list, get to read it, or get the oppurtunity to straight up ask before a game anyway.
Oh please. You can't possibly say that Eldar, Dark Eldar, and Tyranids color schemes are close to as well known as the 18 Legions.
Craftworlds are. Probably more so than the '18' (actually 20 with BTs and CF). I couldn't actually tell you which very specific combinations of Red and a minor color or various shades of Blue distinguish roughly half the SM legions/chapters. Or which Black armored chapter is which at a distance.
I'd say Orks are equally well known, though it gets a bit fuzzy when you get to snakebites and freebooterz (as snakebites were less characterized by color than 'not having the good stuff,' other than 'vaguely brownish'). And blood axes were known more for their uniforms, which have vanished from the range. But Red=Evil Suns, Yellow= Bad Moons, Blue =Deff Skulls and Black=Goffs shouldn't escape many if any people who've played longer than a year.
But of course DE and Tyranids aren't as well known. They didn't even have set color schemes until last year.
That said, beyond some mild eye rolling, it's not like I'm going to make a huge deal out of it, or that there's much I even could do about it, people can do and paint whatever they want, but lets not pretend that there's *nothing* objectionable at all about codex/faction hopping with an army painted one way using rules from another, particularly when color scheme is intentionally such a huge part of Space Marine visualization and rules.
Um, I'll bite.
There is nothing objectively objectionable about faction hopping. Whether the colour scheme is well known or not is irrelevant.
If you object to it on the grounds that it makes your stomach upset to draw the mental link between what abstract universal rules bonus your opponent has and what colour the models are in front of you, that's purely your prerogative. Same goes for the people flexing about how they judge others and avoid them over it on principle. Just don't pretend that you're not playing a game system where if you're playing with strangers like most people, you're going to be playing Imperials vs Imperials often enough to think that happens every Tuesday on every planet in the Imperium.
I couldn't care less if I'm playing against someone with an army on the level of Kaldor Dayglow's Draigowing or a Space Marine chapter themed on the colour palette of Nestlé
Smarties, which yes, I have actually seen, and yes that made for a fascinating conversation. On the aesthetic level I'm always far more interested in the quality of painting, amount of painted stuff and any conversions my opponent has.
Bottom line is this; I would far rather play against someone with the sense of humour needed to come up with something like Kaldor Dayglow or an army themed around the Angry Marines, than someone who is so fixated on immersion that they get in a silent twist over what the colour scheme of your army is.
You're assuming a far more vehement mention reaction on my part than I think I'm intending to imply. I might do the same with a clearly copy-pasted min-3-color slapped-together netlist, opponent's who don't know their rules, badly over-meme'd angry marines army #1928398847, and any number of other things. We all do that to some degree or another, and anyone who says they don't isn't being honest with themselves
I'm not going to refuse the game, or make the game unpleasant, or be rude, or anything like that, I probably won't even mention it. If someone throws down Kaldor Dayglow, I'll probably giggle at it with everyone else. But if someone is ostensibly trying to play a themed force, and that force has rules, but they're using those of another force, I might smirk when reading the army list. That's probably less judgement than most of us feel in the checkout at the grocery store and that sort of ribbing is pretty commonplace in game stores.
Really what it does is make me wonder what value there is in having so many distinct niche sublists more than anything else.
Playing and Painting are 2 different hobbies and painting takes an immense amount of time. Rules change all the time, playing is meant to be fun, if you are not having fun with Blue boys and what White, or Red boys, why do i care if your Red boys are painted blue?
No one questions Necrons, Tau, DE colors, they only question SM b.c its "easy to know the colors".
Hrm, it goes beyond just colors. SM's get a lot of product and rules support, particularly for tiny niche subfactions, often that some demand are totally necessary, for factions that often have orders of magnitude less distinction than other forces that share a codex.
Being highly visually distinct does factor into that, but does so on both ends, when people see Red marines they expect Red marine rules, not Blue or Grey marine rules, and if they're that easy to switch around then it causes people to question why we have so many distinct rule sets for them in the first place (particularly with the associated issues of power bloat and rules confusion), and does undercut the immersion factor.
Other factions also have a lot fewer subfaction specific stuff, there's no unique Vior'la suit variant or Iyanden wraithtype or unique Catachan tank model to proxy, no universally recognized distinct Cadian uniform color pallette or Genestealer Cult faction colors to rigidly identify units, no Sa'Cea unique shoulderpads, Kabal-specific troop variant kits, or Biel'tan molded heraldry. Space Marine subfactions have all that stuff, where most other factions don't (or have very little).
It shouldn't be much wonder that such mix and matching causes more consternation in that light.
If you see blue you should ask what they are playing and not assume what they are playing, maybe they are red colorblind and want blue blood angels (i literally know someone that did this for this reason). Who are you to say why they have to play with red guys?
And other some other armies does have more traits, its called successor chapters for a reason, all factions has them, are we supposed to remember 400 subfaction color schemes?
Blue Armor with Red Blood Drop iconography isn't Ultramarines. Blue Armor with White Omega symbols probably aren't Blood Angels painted blue because someone is red color blind.
Most people in here don't throw a conniption when a DIY chapter scheme uses a known chapter rule set. They eyeroll when one known Chapter iconography is used in a Counts As another known chapter rule set to chase the new hotness.
I honestly was hoping Ultras would get a new tactic that worked kind of like this. LIke they could use a new space marine CT every turn but they would have to change them every turn. That would have been really cool and require a lot of strategy. Nope - all other chapters which already had superior CT got better CT and Ultras terrible tactic remained unchanged.
Well food for thought BolS had an article about how Fly is too powerful and probably should be nerf, which I agree with. So if jump pack units suddenly can't fall back and shoot at full BS then UM will get a significant boost
Yes - that would be a big deal. Right now though it is literally a benefit handed out for free on a lot of units. Still though - it is quite conditional. A chapter tactic should have an effect on every game IMO. Like for example kraken gets 3d6 advance and can fall back and charge (a much more useful ability IMO) plus 3d6 advance is pretty amazing. Plus 1 LD though might as well not exist. Really the tactic would still need to improve with a fly keyword nerf IMO. At least give me - fall back and shoot at -1 and units can heroically intervene like characters or something.
I wouldn't call the UM trait useless, but I'd call it the weakest. I think that crown belongs to farsight enclaves, you can't even use it when you drop in with crisis suits
You can actively use the Ultramarines tactic if you're aggressive instead of just pure gunline like Xeno is stubborn to do. The worst two tactics are Crimson Fists (who are dependent on the opponents actual army composition) and Salamanders (one reroll does nothing compared to getting more with the HQs in the first place).
If someone one has painted their faction (not just space marines) in one faction but play them as a different faction it does bother me. At the same time, that player probably isn't going to know as I am not going to even bring it up. Much like it bothers me when a player doesn't paint their models. And to quickly address Slayer-Fan123's comment, I wish it was just new players learning to paint that only had unpainted models. I have known players going on 5 years with their entire army still unpainted. I don't bring it up since I don't want to seem rude, and it doesn't really bother me enough not to get in a game.
I believe it was Voss that said tactics playing the subfaction you have your stuff painted in. I also agree with that. It might not be as optimal, but its not like every Rusted Claw army is always going to have bikers in it. Sometimes they won't. They make due with what they do have. Most of my kill teams are painted in some the worst subfaction traits for the their faction in my opinion. Stygies VIII and Hive Fleet Jorgmandgandr ability to be obscured is all but lost on the dense boards I play on. Bad Moons getting Shooting re-roll of ones when pretty much the entire game I am looking to hit on a 6 is kinda sad. I even find Rusted Claw a mixed bad in that in my meta as it comes up all the time, but it seems to disproportionately affect the Marines (Primaris/Deathwatch mostly) and Necron players while doing nothing against anyone else. Not that keeping a 5+ save is all that impressive to begin with. Even in full 40k, I always play my Black Legion as Black Legion despite me barely ever making use anything save the Murder Sword. Those paint colors are just important to the rules those models have as the shape the plastic takes as weapons in their hands.
Of course, count-as/proxy models/war gear only bother me as much as unpainted/different paint schemed subfactions do. One can certainly argue that remembering one's opponent is playing this subfaction instead of another is much easier that even remembering that all Intercessors Sergeants without an obvious melee weapon have a chainsword. It is just neither really bother me more than the other. They both bother me a little bit, but not enough to make any fuss about unless I am directly asked like this thread.
Don't get me wrong, I completely get their reasons for not playing a particular subfaction even if the army is painted in those colors. Wanting to try something different, the army was painted before subfaction traits were a thing, being colorblind and not ever reading the paint pot color, etc. In fact, I on occasion play differing subfactions to what they are meant to be. Fairly recently, I played my GSC kill team as Pauper Princes (the next closest subfaction based on my headcannon for them) simply because I was playing a new marine player, and I didn't want to make it seem like I was directly targeting his Bolt Rifle Intercessors which made up half his team (the other half being Reivers who wouldn't get the full effect of their Heavy Bolt Pistols either). I can't say that still didn't bother me a little even if I was the one doing it. Again, much like if I use only partly painted models. I don't like it. It certainly isn't preferable. But life isn't always ideal.
The game isn't as fun, but it is fun enough not to make an issue out of it.
You know, if the traits were made generic rather than tied to a specific chapter, this arguement wouldnt occur. Traits called Codex Discipline, siege masters, forged in battle etc etc makes more sense than getting a bit silly over the colour of our man dollies and using the tactics of a different coloured set of man dollies.
Mr.Omega wrote: I'm too lazy to dig up the post that made the false equivalence of using the "wrong" colour scheme with attempting to fluff-splain why all your plasma guns are melta guns, but no, that's not a valid argument.
Why not?
They're both aesthetic representations of in-game abilities. Why is paint not considered just as important in this?
Having the wrong weapons modelled on your units due to not meeting basic WYSIWIG can present an actual issue of clarity and potential advantage in competitive/tournament settings.
As does being painted in a different faction's colour scheme. If I see this:
Spoiler:
, I'm going to assume those are Ultramarines and will be expecting to be fighting against Ultramarines, same as if I saw this:
Spoiler:
, I'm going to assume that's a Space Marine carrying a plasma gun, and will be expecting to be fighting against a plasma gun. They're both presenting issues of clarity and potential advantage in competitive games - they're things behaving in ways that their aesthetic representation does not correlate with.
Why is one aesthetic choice not important for WYSIWYG, but the other is? Especially when WYSIWYG isn't even a rule in the core rules anymore.
Having a non WYSIWIG faction setup doesn't present any realistic problem when you're always going to get a verbal rundown on your opponent's list, get to read it, or get the oppurtunity to straight up ask before a game anyway.
Cool - but you'd get the same with any weapons loadouts. Your opponent gives you the "verbal rundown" on how all their meltaguns are actually plasmas, or you can read their list and see that every squad modelled with meltaguns is actually armed with plasma on their datasheet.
So, to repeat the point - is having modelling discrepancies the same as having colour scheme discrepancies, and if not, why?
(I'd like to emphasise that I honestly don't care if you do or don't allow proxying weapons or paint scheme or even models - as long as it's consistent. This whole "nah, paint doesn't matter at all! but god help you if you think I'll let you pretend that energy gun is representing another type of energy gun" that rubs me up the wrong way, because it's fundamentally the same thing. If we're going use the argument of "I wanted to paint my guys in this colour scheme because I think it looks cool, but I also want my army to be strong/have this effect in game", why is that any different to "I wanted to build my guys with this weapon because I think it looks cool, but I also want my army to be strong/have this effect in game"?)
Casti wrote: You know, if the traits were made generic rather than tied to a specific chapter, this arguement wouldnt occur. Traits called Codex Discipline, siege masters, forged in battle etc etc makes more sense than getting a bit silly over the colour of our man dollies and using the tactics of a different coloured set of man dollies.
The Catch-22 of this is that if they were generic and any subfaction could take any trait, they probably wouldn't exist. For a very long time a significant portion of the player base wanted actual rules the separated Ultramarines from Iron Hands or any other subfaction from another so they were more than the paint and model choices made by the player.
oni wrote: My time is far to valuable to be wasted on meta chasers.
To all those who want to play Iron Hands with your obviously not Iron Hands models and subsequently whine like a petulant child because my point of view is different from yours... stop trying to force your prejudice onto me. I wont have it. Take your insolence somewhere else.
My game experience is equally as important and I want to have an immersive one. For me that means models are GW and their color schemes are correct.
Let's say you and I play a game on Saturday. I use my loving-realized (if not very well) Dark Angels force with decals and squad numbers. I will now offer three different scenarios:
a. The next Saturday we have another game, but I tell you that my Dark Angels are now Iron Hands. All weapons and models are what they are - no proxies.
b. The next Saturday we have another game, and I show up with the same army as the week before but painted as Iron Hands.
c. Both games I have the same army painted black (but with eye lenses painted and scenic bases etc). The first week I call them Dark Angels and the next I call them Iron Hands.
What's not okay is the attitude-you're perfectly allowed to enjoy your games however you want, but you shouldn't be crapping on other people for enjoying it differently.
What's not okay is the attitude-you're perfectly allowed to enjoy your games however you want, but you shouldn't be crapping on other people for enjoying it differently.
Agreed. If someone doesn't want to play you, you can't expect them to. Similarly, just because you don't want to play with someone doesn't mean that they're inferior, or enjoy the game incorrectly.
I feel there needs to be a strong "No" in the poll. I only play casually for the most part, so if your blue marines are using Iron Hands rules for this game, I am definitely cool with it.
I honestly was hoping Ultras would get a new tactic that worked kind of like this. LIke they could use a new space marine CT every turn but they would have to change them every turn. That would have been really cool and require a lot of strategy. Nope - all other chapters which already had superior CT got better CT and Ultras terrible tactic remained unchanged.
Well food for thought BolS had an article about how Fly is too powerful and probably should be nerf, which I agree with. So if jump pack units suddenly can't fall back and shoot at full BS then UM will get a significant boost
Yes - that would be a big deal. Right now though it is literally a benefit handed out for free on a lot of units. Still though - it is quite conditional. A chapter tactic should have an effect on every game IMO. Like for example kraken gets 3d6 advance and can fall back and charge (a much more useful ability IMO) plus 3d6 advance is pretty amazing. Plus 1 LD though might as well not exist. Really the tactic would still need to improve with a fly keyword nerf IMO. At least give me - fall back and shoot at -1 and units can heroically intervene like characters or something.
I wouldn't call the UM trait useless, but I'd call it the weakest. I think that crown belongs to farsight enclaves, you can't even use it when you drop in with crisis suits
Yup, but at least its funny to run a vanguard of a quad-fusion coldstar with the blades and 3x3 flamer suits that jump around and roast people unexpectedly.
567 points of hilarious "what just happened" for your casual games against people expecting Tau to....Tau.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You can actively use the Ultramarines tactic if you're aggressive instead of just pure gunline like Xeno is stubborn to do. The worst two tactics are Crimson Fists (who are dependent on the opponents actual army composition) and Salamanders (one reroll does nothing compared to getting more with the HQs in the first place).
Just the 6's generating extra hits on bolters is superior to the ultras trait. Sometimes hitting on 2's is just a free bonus which will come into effect in any game where units of 20 are being fielded on the other side. You can't objectively state that the ultras trait wasn't already the weakest before this codex. Now it's just flat out hilarious to anyone that isn't just a pure Ultras hater.
I honestly was hoping Ultras would get a new tactic that worked kind of like this. LIke they could use a new space marine CT every turn but they would have to change them every turn. That would have been really cool and require a lot of strategy. Nope - all other chapters which already had superior CT got better CT and Ultras terrible tactic remained unchanged.
Well food for thought BolS had an article about how Fly is too powerful and probably should be nerf, which I agree with. So if jump pack units suddenly can't fall back and shoot at full BS then UM will get a significant boost
Yes - that would be a big deal. Right now though it is literally a benefit handed out for free on a lot of units. Still though - it is quite conditional. A chapter tactic should have an effect on every game IMO. Like for example kraken gets 3d6 advance and can fall back and charge (a much more useful ability IMO) plus 3d6 advance is pretty amazing. Plus 1 LD though might as well not exist. Really the tactic would still need to improve with a fly keyword nerf IMO. At least give me - fall back and shoot at -1 and units can heroically intervene like characters or something.
I wouldn't call the UM trait useless, but I'd call it the weakest. I think that crown belongs to farsight enclaves, you can't even use it when you drop in with crisis suits
I was just speaking about space marines traits. World eaters have the worst trait overall. Farsight isn't that bad it's just only good for certain units. Crisis, piranhas, commanders, breachers. They really suffer from crisis suits being weak. IMO crisis need to not have to give up a gun to take a support system and probably drop another 5 points and then they would be really good and we might actually see something other than tau sept.
oni wrote: My time is far to valuable to be wasted on meta chasers.
To all those who want to play Iron Hands with your obviously not Iron Hands models and subsequently whine like a petulant child because my point of view is different from yours... stop trying to force your prejudice onto me. I wont have it. Take your insolence somewhere else.
My game experience is equally as important and I want to have an immersive one. For me that means models are GW and their color schemes are correct.
Let's say you and I play a game on Saturday. I use my loving-realized (if not very well) Dark Angels force with decals and squad numbers.
Cool! +100 points of Awesome.
I will now offer three different scenarios:
a. The next Saturday we have another game, but I tell you that my Dark Angels are now Iron Hands. All weapons and models are what they are - no proxies.
-2 points of Awesome. And only half your "Cool DA Army" points count today (You're proxying the army as a very-close fit, with each wargear/kit being accurate). So I'm facing +48 points of Awesome. Good times!
b. The next Saturday we have another game, and I show up with the same army as the week before but painted as Iron Hands.
You keep 10% of your "Cool DA Army" points indefinitely. That army was awesome.
You get +50 points of Awesome. A whole painted army is awesome, but you've already gotten points for the models before. The models are still WYSWIG and no real problem with them, but they were originally intended as something else. So only another 25 points of Awesome.
So I'm facing +85 points of Aweome today. Great.
c. Both games I have the same army painted black (but with eye lenses painted and scenic bases etc). The first week I call them Dark Angels and the next I call them Iron Hands.
So a "meh" punted paint scheme, where it's ambigious what they really are? Painted with a lot of detail, but obviously missing any defining details? I'd give this 45 points of awesome? Good times, but certainly suboptimal.
Also, I'd like to add Option D: You field your Dark Angels as Dark Angel's Armor Reserve. What you assembled and painted them as.
Full, painted army, built to be a specific force: +100 Awesome points
Counts-as for other rules, without variations to the force to fit: -5 Awesome points
So I now have a game at +90 points. Great.
Note how this is superior to everything but the "As Expected" initial case, even the full repaint case. And much better than the mechanically-identical "My Dark Angels are Iron Hands today".
Are you OK playing me in these situations?
Certainly. You're awesome. Your army is awesome. Some cases are more awesome than others. In none of these cases, however, were you anywere *close* to breakeven. The army-shifting will certainly a negative to many, but this is nothing compared to grey models, or proxied kit.
(And those are nothing compared to behavior-related issues.)
Edit: Disclaimer - points shown are only directionally accurate.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You can actively use the Ultramarines tactic if you're aggressive instead of just pure gunline like Xeno is stubborn to do. The worst two tactics are Crimson Fists (who are dependent on the opponents actual army composition) and Salamanders (one reroll does nothing compared to getting more with the HQs in the first place).
Just the 6's generating extra hits on bolters is superior to the ultras trait. Sometimes hitting on 2's is just a free bonus which will come into effect in any game where units of 20 are being fielded on the other side. You can't objectively state that the ultras trait wasn't already the weakest before this codex. Now it's just flat out hilarious to anyone that isn't just a pure Ultras hater.
I honestly was hoping Ultras would get a new tactic that worked kind of like this. LIke they could use a new space marine CT every turn but they would have to change them every turn. That would have been really cool and require a lot of strategy. Nope - all other chapters which already had superior CT got better CT and Ultras terrible tactic remained unchanged.
Well food for thought BolS had an article about how Fly is too powerful and probably should be nerf, which I agree with. So if jump pack units suddenly can't fall back and shoot at full BS then UM will get a significant boost
Yes - that would be a big deal. Right now though it is literally a benefit handed out for free on a lot of units. Still though - it is quite conditional. A chapter tactic should have an effect on every game IMO. Like for example kraken gets 3d6 advance and can fall back and charge (a much more useful ability IMO) plus 3d6 advance is pretty amazing. Plus 1 LD though might as well not exist. Really the tactic would still need to improve with a fly keyword nerf IMO. At least give me - fall back and shoot at -1 and units can heroically intervene like characters or something.
I wouldn't call the UM trait useless, but I'd call it the weakest. I think that crown belongs to farsight enclaves, you can't even use it when you drop in with crisis suits
I was just speaking about space marines traits. World eaters have the worst trait overall. Farsight isn't that bad it's just only good for certain units. Crisis, piranhas, commanders, breachers. They really suffer from crisis suits being weak. IMO crisis need to not have to give up a gun to take a support system and probably drop another 5 points and then they would be really good and we might actually see something other than tau sept.
They didn't even have set color schemes until last year.
Wrong, they both had them for a very long time, my old 4th nids and 5th DE codex has color schemes in them for different factions.
Thats just to show no one knows them outside of those playing the factions.
Bingo. So why do people hold Marines to a greater standard? It's very hypocritical.
Where are you seeing the greater standard?
You don't care if Marines lists are painted one way and played another way. You don't care if DE lists are painted one way and played another. That's the same standard.
I'm slightly nonplussed if a Marine list is painted one way and played another. I'm slightly nonplussed if a DE list is painted one way and played another. That's the same standard.
They didn't even have set color schemes until last year.
Wrong, they both had them for a very long time, my old 4th nids and 5th DE codex has color schemes in them for different factions.
Thats just to show no one knows them outside of those playing the factions.
Bingo. So why do people hold Marines to a greater standard? It's very hypocritical.
Where are you seeing the greater standard?
You don't care if Marines lists are painted one way and played another way. You don't care if DE lists are painted one way and played another. That's the same standard.
I'm slightly nonplussed if a Marine list is painted one way and played another. I'm slightly nonplussed if a DE list is painted one way and played another. That's the same standard.
Except it is a different standard, because you cannot say that people know the colors of Hive Fleets or Craftworlds or Kabals or even Forge Worlds/Creeds (as both those armies were just released in the previous two editions) as well as the Space Marine ones. So these threads ONLY pop up when it comes to Marines if you hadn't noticed.
They didn't even have set color schemes until last year.
Wrong, they both had them for a very long time, my old 4th nids and 5th DE codex has color schemes in them for different factions.
Thats just to show no one knows them outside of those playing the factions.
Bingo. So why do people hold Marines to a greater standard? It's very hypocritical.
Where are you seeing the greater standard?
You don't care if Marines lists are painted one way and played another way. You don't care if DE lists are painted one way and played another. That's the same standard.
I'm slightly nonplussed if a Marine list is painted one way and played another. I'm slightly nonplussed if a DE list is painted one way and played another. That's the same standard.
Except it is a different standard, because you cannot say that people know the colors of Hive Fleets or Craftworlds or Kabals or even Forge Worlds/Creeds (as both those armies were just released in the previous two editions) as well as the Space Marine ones. So these threads ONLY pop up when it comes to Marines if you hadn't noticed.
Seems to me that you're answering your own question. The reason some people have a problem with it for Marines is because the color schemes are widely recognized.
Casti wrote: You know, if the traits were made generic rather than tied to a specific chapter, this arguement wouldnt occur. Traits called Codex Discipline, siege masters, forged in battle etc etc makes more sense than getting a bit silly over the colour of our man dollies and using the tactics of a different coloured set of man dollies.
The Catch-22 of this is that if they were generic and any subfaction could take any trait, they probably wouldn't exist. For a very long time a significant portion of the player base wanted actual rules the separated Ultramarines from Iron Hands or any other subfaction from another so they were more than the paint and model choices made by the player.
...and now players have learned the folly of that wish. Literally a case of "be careful what you wish for".
They didn't even have set color schemes until last year.
Wrong, they both had them for a very long time, my old 4th nids and 5th DE codex has color schemes in them for different factions.
Thats just to show no one knows them outside of those playing the factions.
Bingo. So why do people hold Marines to a greater standard? It's very hypocritical.
Where are you seeing the greater standard?
You don't care if Marines lists are painted one way and played another way. You don't care if DE lists are painted one way and played another. That's the same standard.
I'm slightly nonplussed if a Marine list is painted one way and played another. I'm slightly nonplussed if a DE list is painted one way and played another. That's the same standard.
Except it is a different standard, because you cannot say that people know the colors of Hive Fleets or Craftworlds or Kabals or even Forge Worlds/Creeds (as both those armies were just released in the previous two editions) as well as the Space Marine ones. So these threads ONLY pop up when it comes to Marines if you hadn't noticed.
Seems to me that you're answering your own question. The reason some people have a problem with it for Marines is because the color schemes are widely recognized.
They didn't even have set color schemes until last year.
Wrong, they both had them for a very long time, my old 4th nids and 5th DE codex has color schemes in them for different factions.
Thats just to show no one knows them outside of those playing the factions.
Bingo. So why do people hold Marines to a greater standard? It's very hypocritical.
Where are you seeing the greater standard?
You don't care if Marines lists are painted one way and played another way. You don't care if DE lists are painted one way and played another. That's the same standard.
I'm slightly nonplussed if a Marine list is painted one way and played another. I'm slightly nonplussed if a DE list is painted one way and played another. That's the same standard.
Except it is a different standard, because you cannot say that people know the colors of Hive Fleets or Craftworlds or Kabals or even Forge Worlds/Creeds (as both those armies were just released in the previous two editions) as well as the Space Marine ones.
It's not a "double standard" to say you're more nonplussed by proxied armies when you immediately recognize them as what they're made as. It'd only be a double standard if we devalued the proxying player more for proxying well-known Marines over proxying obscure Hive Fleets. But recognizing the negative impact on ourselves is not the same as assigning a negative value on someone else.
Besides, I have the same "standards" regardless - building/painting your guys to a more cohesive, evocative, fluffy force that fits the narrative is better. If I don't know you're counts-as some other Hive Fleet, perhaps it doesn't drive negative value. But the standard isn't "Is the exact right paint scheme per book X". The standard is "cohesive, evocative, fluffy force that fits the narrative". "My Kraken are Behemoth today" is just as good/bad as "My UM are IH" today" as far as "Are you proxying your army" is concerned. But that's not the standard.
You are mistaking "Play an army as it's painted" as the standard.
So these threads ONLY pop up when it comes to Marines if you hadn't noticed.
Seems like someone doesn't remember all the "everyone is Alaitoc" complaints. Or "Blood-red Khorne Berzerkers of Alpha Legion" complaints.
Most of the noise about Marines proxying as other armies has been in the form of complaints *about the complaints* - relatively little noise about Marines has been in the form of complaints themselves.
They didn't even have set color schemes until last year.
Wrong, they both had them for a very long time, my old 4th nids and 5th DE codex has color schemes in them for different factions.
Thats just to show no one knows them outside of those playing the factions.
Bingo. So why do people hold Marines to a greater standard? It's very hypocritical.
Where are you seeing the greater standard?
You don't care if Marines lists are painted one way and played another way. You don't care if DE lists are painted one way and played another. That's the same standard.
I'm slightly nonplussed if a Marine list is painted one way and played another. I'm slightly nonplussed if a DE list is painted one way and played another. That's the same standard.
Except it is a different standard, because you cannot say that people know the colors of Hive Fleets or Craftworlds or Kabals or even Forge Worlds/Creeds (as both those armies were just released in the previous two editions) as well as the Space Marine ones.
It's not a "double standard" to say you're more nonplussed by proxied armies when you immediately recognize them as what they're made as. It'd only be a double standard if we devalued the proxying player more for proxying well-known Marines over proxying obscure Hive Fleets. But recognizing the negative impact on ourselves is not the same as assigning a negative value on someone else.
Besides, I have the same "standards" regardless - building/painting your guys to a more cohesive, evocative, fluffy force that fits the narrative is better. If I don't know you're counts-as some other Hive Fleet, perhaps it doesn't drive negative value. But the standard isn't "Is the exact right paint scheme per book X". The standard is "cohesive, evocative, fluffy force that fits the narrative". "My Kraken are Behemoth today" is just as good/bad as "My UM are IH" today" as far as "Are you proxying your army" is concerned. But that's not the standard.
You are mistaking "Play an army as it's painted" as the standard.
So these threads ONLY pop up when it comes to Marines if you hadn't noticed.
Seems like someone doesn't remember all the "everyone is Alaitoc" complaints. Or "Blood-red Khorne Berzerkers of Alpha Legion" complaints.
Most of the noise about Marines proxying as other armies has been in the form of complaints *about the complaints* - relatively little noise about Marines has been in the form of complaints themselves.
...Alpha Legion are Space Marines. Did you forget that?
Also the complaints about Alaitoc were always the rules. Not once did I see a complaint about color scheme though.
They didn't even have set color schemes until last year.
Wrong, they both had them for a very long time, my old 4th nids and 5th DE codex has color schemes in them for different factions.
Thats just to show no one knows them outside of those playing the factions.
Bingo. So why do people hold Marines to a greater standard? It's very hypocritical.
Where are you seeing the greater standard?
You don't care if Marines lists are painted one way and played another way. You don't care if DE lists are painted one way and played another. That's the same standard.
I'm slightly nonplussed if a Marine list is painted one way and played another. I'm slightly nonplussed if a DE list is painted one way and played another. That's the same standard.
Except it is a different standard, because you cannot say that people know the colors of Hive Fleets or Craftworlds or Kabals or even Forge Worlds/Creeds (as both those armies were just released in the previous two editions) as well as the Space Marine ones.
It's not a "double standard" to say you're more nonplussed by proxied armies when you immediately recognize them as what they're made as. It'd only be a double standard if we devalued the proxying player more for proxying well-known Marines over proxying obscure Hive Fleets. But recognizing the negative impact on ourselves is not the same as assigning a negative value on someone else.
Besides, I have the same "standards" regardless - building/painting your guys to a more cohesive, evocative, fluffy force that fits the narrative is better. If I don't know you're counts-as some other Hive Fleet, perhaps it doesn't drive negative value. But the standard isn't "Is the exact right paint scheme per book X". The standard is "cohesive, evocative, fluffy force that fits the narrative". "My Kraken are Behemoth today" is just as good/bad as "My UM are IH" today" as far as "Are you proxying your army" is concerned. But that's not the standard.
You are mistaking "Play an army as it's painted" as the standard.
So these threads ONLY pop up when it comes to Marines if you hadn't noticed.
Seems like someone doesn't remember all the "everyone is Alaitoc" complaints. Or "Blood-red Khorne Berzerkers of Alpha Legion" complaints.
Most of the noise about Marines proxying as other armies has been in the form of complaints *about the complaints* - relatively little noise about Marines has been in the form of complaints themselves.
...Alpha Legion are Space Marines. Did you forget that?
Also the complaints about Alaitoc were always the rules. Not once did I see a complaint about color scheme though.
If you want to be pedantic, most of Alpha Legion forces are non-marine pawns, not Marines themselves. If you don't want to be pedantic, all these "Why is this a big deal now" complaints center on the loyalist SM book. The Alpha Legion Berserkers thing was a big deal years ago.
"Marines" are nearly *half* of the factions in the game. Gone by army listings on GW's site, I count 16 of 34 factions are "Marines". The vast majority of players play or played some form of Marines. The most popular faction is a Marine faction. Most games of 40k played include Marines on one or more sides. Almost any aspect of the hobby involves Marines more than non-marines. So of course you hear more about it with Marines.
Just because you didn't see (or more likely, remember) complaints about black&bone or red or green&white Alaitoc doesn't mean they didn't happen.
But you're also confusing the volume and tone, here. Most people aren't complaining about Marines. Just look at this poll. In a thread specific to Marine chapters, roughly 1 in 6 said they think armies shouldn't be proxied that way, and that it impacts their experience (where I sit). Roughly 1 in 4 said such proxies bother them, but not enough to matter. Well over half said chose the don't-care route. Do you really think significantly less than *one in six* would say Eldar armies shouldn't be proxied? Or DE? Or Nids?
You're imagining this thread as saying "Everyone hates proxied Marine armies, and the players behind them". That's not what it's saying. It's saying "A minority of us are impacted, and most of those aren't impacted significantly".
They didn't even have set color schemes until last year.
Wrong, they both had them for a very long time, my old 4th nids and 5th DE codex has color schemes in them for different factions.
Thats just to show no one knows them outside of those playing the factions.
Bingo. So why do people hold Marines to a greater standard? It's very hypocritical.
Where are you seeing the greater standard?
You don't care if Marines lists are painted one way and played another way. You don't care if DE lists are painted one way and played another. That's the same standard.
I'm slightly nonplussed if a Marine list is painted one way and played another. I'm slightly nonplussed if a DE list is painted one way and played another. That's the same standard.
Except it is a different standard, because you cannot say that people know the colors of Hive Fleets or Craftworlds or Kabals or even Forge Worlds/Creeds (as both those armies were just released in the previous two editions) as well as the Space Marine ones. So these threads ONLY pop up when it comes to Marines if you hadn't noticed.
Seems to me that you're answering your own question. The reason some people have a problem with it for Marines is because the color schemes are widely recognized.
Ergo it's a different standard and hypocritical.
It's not hypocritical if there's demonstrable difference, which there is.
Depends on the heraldry. Colours don't matter, as successors can have Inheritors of the Primarch, but counting a bunch of guys with Salamander decals on their shoulders as Iron Hands is just unfun.
Ginjitzu wrote: Depends on the heraldry. Colours don't matter, as successors can have Inheritors of the Primarch, but counting a bunch of guys with Salamander decals on their shoulders as Iron Hands is just unfun.
But those are the Iron Salamanders! A successor chapter that some mad admech guy created in secret by combining IH & Salamander geneseed.
Ginjitzu wrote: Depends on the heraldry. Colours don't matter, as successors can have Inheritors of the Primarch, but counting a bunch of guys with Salamander decals on their shoulders as Iron Hands is just unfun.
But those are the Iron Salamanders! A successor chapter that some mad admech guy created in secret by combining IH & Salamander geneseed.
Cool, then they should use bespoke tactics and traits to reflect their combined heritage, and maybe modify their heraldry as well, so as not to seem like they are just Salamanders with the wrong rules!
Do people really play w40k like that, they buy more same models to play an army that is different only, because it is painted in a different way, but has the same smash captins, troops, tanks , support models etc?
Karol wrote: Do people really play w40k like that, they buy more same models to play an army that is different only, because it is painted in a different way, but has the same smash captins, troops, tanks , support models etc?
Some do. Some don't.
You have to remember this is more a continuum, and neither direction is inherently better than the other. Some will never play a particular squad sergeant as anyone other than that sergeant - not even a different squad leader with the same kit. Others model and paint their guys so that they aren't WYSIWYG to any one dataslate *for the express purpose of using them as multiple different units in different games*. Some don't paint at all.
I prefer playing with more WYSIWYG-oriented players, because it tends to lead to better immersion and narratives for me. Others - like Ratius below you - could not care less.
Still others somehow care that people like me (or, alternatively, Ratius) are out there, and are deeply offended by us existing, apparently. Even without playing against us. That's the only group that's really "wrong" in this conversation.
Addendum: I'd rather a more WYSIWYG-oriented player with a less WYSIWYG army than a less WYSIWYG-oriented player with a more WYSIWYG army.
The more "oriented" player is going to care a lot more about the fluff, narrative, and immersion. They won't always have a more-WYSIWYG army for a variety of reasons (time/cost constraints, trying a new army, not done painting, compared to the other guy might have just Ebay'ed the army, or commissions or just has the time to do it himself), although they'll tend to.
I'd rather face a guy who's engaged in his "Captain Bob" with his First and Second Tac squads from company 3 of SomeCustomChapter backed by a grey Rhino and Dev squad than some Golden Demon-quality "SM Captain with powerfist" with "Two Tac squads" and backup. The second might look nicer on the table, but without that investment, Captain Bob's force is going to be more fun.
And Captain Bob is an UltraMarine (or Iron Hand). He's not some unnamed blue Iron Hand captain.
I prefer playing with more WYSIWYG-oriented players,
Hell, I dont even remove the mould lines from my models
And I don't have a problem with that.
Would you be offended if you knew I'd rather play the guy who's named each member of his Company, and have you play that other guy who's prepping for a tournament?
I would imagine that other guy who's prepping for a tournament would rather those matchups, too.
(Now, just saying to your face "Mould lines? I'd rather not play you" *is* insulting, and you should take offense - but the above concept shouldn't be offensive.)
Ginjitzu wrote: Depends on the heraldry. Colours don't matter, as successors can have Inheritors of the Primarch, but counting a bunch of guys with Salamander decals on their shoulders as Iron Hands is just unfun.
I wouldn't blame the Salamanders player whatsoever for doing that though because the Salamanders rules are pretty damn terrible.
Ginjitzu wrote: Depends on the heraldry. Colours don't matter, as successors can have Inheritors of the Primarch, but counting a bunch of guys with Salamander decals on their shoulders as Iron Hands is just unfun.
I wouldn't blame the Salamanders player whatsoever for doing that though because the Salamanders rules are pretty damn terrible.
No, salamander rules are DECENT. and they didn't even get their supplement yet.
Their are just not as overpowered as IH, and somehow this is a problem for someone not playing WAAC?
Playing for the win is fine and dandy, but pretending you are playing another army just because that other army is the flavor of the month is being WAAC, and many people prefer playing fluffier, more relaxed 40k.
TBH there was official fluff of two space marine chapters with the same name, colours and heraldy existing at the same time in two different parts of the Imperium without one knowing the existence of the other because bureocracy.
Galas wrote: TBH there was official fluff of two space marine chapters with the same name, colours and heraldy existing at the same time in two different parts of the Imperium without one knowing the existence of the other because bureocracy.
That's a far cry from a loyalist Chapter being created with blue armor and a white toiletseat based on a battlebarge named "Maccrage" being an Iron Hands offshoot, with nobody knowing what "UltraMarines" are...
Since I last posted I have seen people running a random hodge-podge of units as Iron Hands and I'm definitely doubling down on what I said originally.
If you're a power game that's perfectly fine, but your lazy meta chasing habits cannot come at the expense of my immersion or enjoyment in the tabletop experience.
Ginjitzu wrote: Depends on the heraldry. Colours don't matter, as successors can have Inheritors of the Primarch, but counting a bunch of guys with Salamander decals on their shoulders as Iron Hands is just unfun.
Why though? It's literally no different from using mismatched colors. Let's go through a few reasons for mismatched colors/symbols.
Let's take an army of completely Iron Hands in everything but symbol only and no unique characters from either army. Every single symbol has been replaced with a Salamanders Dragon.
Starting with the non-40k reasons:
Spoiler:
"Why are your Salamanders black and silver?" Cause I like the Oakland Raiders. Is this unfun?
Now let's take the exact same army and ask "Why do your Iron Hands have Salamander Dragons on their shoulders?" Cause I like dragons. Is this unfun?
Should either instance require the player to use different rules than the ones they want just because they like football and/or dragons? No right?
Now let's give that army a fluffy reason instead.
Spoiler:
"I like the way the Shattered Legions fought beside each other after Istvaan V. These marines never rejoined their legions and have been hunting down traitors relentlessly since the Heresy. They use combined heraldry to symbolize their new bonds of brotherhood."
This is where the different army rules come into play. Choose your own adventure:
Salamander Rules: The Iron Hand marines in my forces were ashamed of Ferrus Mannus' weakness and chose to adopt Salamander tactics to try to overcome that weakness. They did not abandon the colors of their heritage as a reminder of how Ferrus has stained their honor with his weakness. Is this unfun?
Iron Hands Rules: The Salamander marines in my forces were ashamed of Vulkan falling back to allow the reinforcements at Istvaan V a chance at glory. His naivety and emotion blinded him from the now obvious trap that broke their legions so they have adopted Iron Hand tactics to remove that weakness. They keep the Salamander on their shoulder as a reminder that soft weak compassion must be hammered into hard remorseless fury if they were to have their vengeance. Is this unfun?
tldr; regardless of the reason people give the end result is the same. If motive is what makes it acceptable, then players could simply lie to pass their opponents background check on if their army is acceptable or not. I find this much more toxic and damaging than simply applying a standard of "Is it consistent across the entire army? All matching marines have the same tactics? Did you make the tactic clear before the game started?"
Ginjitzu wrote: Depends on the heraldry. Colours don't matter, as successors can have Inheritors of the Primarch, but counting a bunch of guys with Salamander decals on their shoulders as Iron Hands is just unfun.
Why though? It's literally no different from using mismatched colors. Let's go through a few reasons for mismatched colors/symbols.
Let's take an army of completely Iron Hands in everything but symbol only and no unique characters from either army. Every single symbol has been replaced with a Salamanders Dragon.
If this is how they're painted, then they're not "Samalanders" or "Iron Hands", and wouldn't be identifiable as any major Chapter - therefore, I wouldn't have a problem with you using whatever rules you wanted for them. Of course, I would prefer if you used either the "Inheritors of the Primarch" or a combination of the two Chapters' tactics from the successor tactics options (if you were using the lore you had about them being a mixed force), but that's a far lesser concern.
What my personal issue would be is if those Marines were painted green, with black pauldrons, flame imagery, the Salamander symbol, and things like "Nocturne" or "Vulkan" or "Salamanders" written on their heraldry. They are clearly Salamanders Marines, and as per WYSIWYG, I would be expecting to fight Salamanders, same as if I saw what GW sell as a plasma gun on a model, I would expect that model to be armed with a plasma gun.
I know that's not what your hypothetical mentions - I don't have a problem with that hypothetical. I can't speak for Ginjitzu, but it's not about the symbol or colours alone that's the problem - it's the two combined, and paired with other indicators of heraldry (such as homeworld names, iconography, and other sigils).
Karol wrote: Do people really play w40k like that, they buy more same models to play an army that is different only, because it is painted in a different way, but has the same smash captins, troops, tanks , support models etc?
Some do. Some don't.
You have to remember this is more a continuum, and neither direction is inherently better than the other. Some will never play a particular squad sergeant as anyone other than that sergeant - not even a different squad leader with the same kit. Others model and paint their guys so that they aren't WYSIWYG to any one dataslate *for the express purpose of using them as multiple different units in different games*. Some don't paint at all.
I prefer playing with more WYSIWYG-oriented players, because it tends to lead to better immersion and narratives for me. Others - like Ratius below you - could not care less.
Still others somehow care that people like me (or, alternatively, Ratius) are out there, and are deeply offended by us existing, apparently. Even without playing against us. That's the only group that's really "wrong" in this conversation.
Aha okey. Is painting considered by of what you see ? Because there is no arment difference between a salamander unit names the same way as an Iron Hands one. tacticals will be tacticals, tanks will be tanks, captin with a hammer will be capting with hammer.
I mean I get something doing something very confusing, like puting a termintor army down and inform the opponent that they are all custodes bikes. And some of them are custodes HQs and other are regular dudes, but look the same.
Would you be offended if you knew I'd rather play the guy who's named each member of his Company, and have you play that other guy who's prepping for a tournament?
I would imagine that other guy who's prepping for a tournament would rather those matchups, too.
(Now, just saying to your face "Mould lines? I'd rather not play you" *is* insulting, and you should take offense - but the above concept shouldn't be offensive.)
I took no offense at all mate, Im just saying Im fairly casual with these things to the point of a bit lazy
40k is a game and hobby built around its lore. Nobody would play 40k without it. The game just isn't that attractive as a game, as far as that aspect goes it's an awful example of game design and a total failure of a tactical combat sim, nobody would use any edition of 40k ruleset for something like a WW2 mini game for example because it's really bad as an actual wargame ruleset. What it is is a framework for people to play with their toy soldiers and give life to the background universe. GW lives and dies by their IP above and beyond everything else.
In that sense, heraldry and symbols and colors do matter. Hell, there are and have been rules tied explicitly to color and heraldry (Red Ones Go Faster! Take Pride In Your Colors, etc). These symbols and heraldry and color schemes are deeply tied to specific factions by GW and in some cases have largely been all that served to justify their existence as distinct factions. To say they don't matter is to monstrously misunderstand the product and value proposition of the hobby, because the game and rules exist to express the setting and are largely garbage for any other purpose. That's not to say there isn't wiggle room for people to do their own thing, there obviously is and that's intentional, but that doesn't mean that symbols and heraldry and colors are irrelevant.
And yes, motive matters too to many people (just as it often does in law), as it speaks to the mindset and expectation of the game experience. Humans pretty naturally react based on perceptions of motives and to pretend that isn't the case is to tilt at windmills, same way people often react negatively to seeing basic barebones 3 color copy-pasted netlists and the like.
Karol wrote: Do people really play w40k like that, they buy more same models to play an army that is different only, because it is painted in a different way, but has the same smash captins, troops, tanks , support models etc?
Some do. Some don't.
You have to remember this is more a continuum, and neither direction is inherently better than the other. Some will never play a particular squad sergeant as anyone other than that sergeant - not even a different squad leader with the same kit. Others model and paint their guys so that they aren't WYSIWYG to any one dataslate *for the express purpose of using them as multiple different units in different games*. Some don't paint at all.
I prefer playing with more WYSIWYG-oriented players, because it tends to lead to better immersion and narratives for me. Others - like Ratius below you - could not care less.
Still others somehow care that people like me (or, alternatively, Ratius) are out there, and are deeply offended by us existing, apparently. Even without playing against us. That's the only group that's really "wrong" in this conversation.
Aha okey. Is painting considered by of what you see ? Because there is no arment difference between a salamander unit names the same way as an Iron Hands one. tacticals will be tacticals, tanks will be tanks, captin with a hammer will be capting with hammer.
There's a big difference between "Captain Andicar of Wings of Dawn 7th Company" and "SM Captain with Relic Blade and Combi-Melta". The first should never be fielded as Iron Hands or Salamanders. The second could be fielded as anything. The first is narrative, the second is crunch.
What they're painted at is *certainly* part of what you see. So running Captain Andicar as an Iron Hands captain would feel wrong to me. But then, running him as an Iron Hands captain isn't the same thing as running him as Wings of Dawn using the Iron Hands rules. Again, the first is narrative, the second is crunch.
I mean I get something doing something very confusing, like puting a termintor army down and inform the opponent that they are all custodes bikes. And some of them are custodes HQs and other are regular dudes, but look the same.
Yes.
The way it lines up is that the *closer* to WYSIWYG you get, the less of a negative it is. Most people seem to grasp this intuitively; proxying a Melta Gun Marine as a Plasmagun Marine is better than proxying an Ork Boy as a Plasmagun Marine. Proxying your UltraMarines as Iron Hands is a less negative than proxying your Melta Gun Marine as a PlasmaGun Marine. But it's more than 0 negative.
Would you be offended if you knew I'd rather play the guy who's named each member of his Company, and have you play that other guy who's prepping for a tournament?
I would imagine that other guy who's prepping for a tournament would rather those matchups, too.
(Now, just saying to your face "Mould lines? I'd rather not play you" *is* insulting, and you should take offense - but the above concept shouldn't be offensive.)
I took no offense at all mate, Im just saying Im fairly casual with these things to the point of a bit lazy
That's totally fine. I'm the same way. Not everything I've fielded is even painted.
(What is painted isn't painted well, but that's a question of skill, not laziness.)
The difference is whether you'd rather invest the time you do spend on the narrative or the crunch. Either answer is fine. So is anything in between.
Karol wrote:Is painting considered by of what you see ? Because there is no arment difference between a salamander unit names the same way as an Iron Hands one. tacticals will be tacticals, tanks will be tanks, captin with a hammer will be capting with hammer.
For me, it is. If a model is identifably painted as something, then I would expect to be playing against that, much like I would expect a Captain with a hammer to be a Captain with a hammer.
Of course, this only applies for very obviously assigned Chapters. Just being blue doesn't make you any more of an Ultramarine than it makes you a Fulminator, or being black makes you any more of an Iron Hand than it does a Raven Guard or Black Dragon.
I mean I get something doing something very confusing, like puting a termintor army down and inform the opponent that they are all custodes bikes. And some of them are custodes HQs and other are regular dudes, but look the same.
That's pretty much how I see it, yeah. They're not what I'm seeing on the tabletop, and if I get the feeling that you're saying they're something else so that you get an advantage, I'm not going to enjoy that game.
Of course, that's just what I expect from a game, but I won't make out that this is the One True Way.
Ginjitzu wrote: Depends on the heraldry. Colours don't matter, as successors can have Inheritors of the Primarch, but counting a bunch of guys with Salamander decals on their shoulders as Iron Hands is just unfun.
Why though? It's literally no different from using mismatched colors. Let's go through a few reasons for mismatched colors/symbols.
Let's take an army of completely Iron Hands in everything but symbol only and no unique characters from either army. Every single symbol has been replaced with a Salamanders Dragon.
If this is how they're painted, then they're not "Samalanders" or "Iron Hands", and wouldn't be identifiable as any major Chapter - therefore, I wouldn't have a problem with you using whatever rules you wanted for them. Of course, I would prefer if you used either the "Inheritors of the Primarch" or a combination of the two Chapters' tactics from the successor tactics options (if you were using the lore you had about them being a mixed force), but that's a far lesser concern.
What my personal issue would be is if those Marines were painted green, with black pauldrons, flame imagery, the Salamander symbol, and things like "Nocturne" or "Vulkan" or "Salamanders" written on their heraldry. They are clearly Salamanders Marines, and as per WYSIWYG, I would be expecting to fight Salamanders, same as if I saw what GW sell as a plasma gun on a model, I would expect that model to be armed with a plasma gun.
I know that's not what your hypothetical mentions - I don't have a problem with that hypothetical. I can't speak for Ginjitzu, but it's not about the symbol or colours alone that's the problem - it's the two combined, and paired with other indicators of heraldry (such as homeworld names, iconography, and other sigils).
Makes a lot of sense if the opposing player does recognize the heraldry although it can also mean that learning all the paint schemes for every army gives you a distinct advantage. Especially if this standard was applied to all armies. As a Tau player I know banana eldar are -1 to hit so until PA drops I could theoretically memorize the Eldar schemes and only play against -1 to hit eldar if they are painted yellow or using a custom scheme. "That's pretty distinctly Biel Tan stop ruining my immersion etc" If they are yellow and not using the Alaitoc I simply keep quiet. Personally, playing against identity theft marines is the lesser of two evils once you take that into account.
On a side note, what about armies that don't really have set paint schemes or has different rules for interpreting paint schemes? For example, I have a fire warrior with red armor, white antenna, and has lava for basing. Strictly following paint scheme rules for Tau that could be either Farsight Enclaves or Tau Sept since only the Sept markings matter (antenna visor etc) and Tau are known to repaint their armor to match their environment. Tau sept markings are white and Farsight Enclaves markings are bone white. Really isn't fair if the standard is uniquely applied to marines.
On a side note, what about armies that don't really have set paint schemes or has different rules for interpreting paint schemes? For example, I have a fire warrior with red armor, white antenna, and has lava for basing. Strictly following paint scheme rules for Tau that could be either Farsight Enclaves or Tau Sept since only the Sept markings matter (antenna visor etc) and Tau are known to repaint their armor to match their environment. Tau sept markings are white and Farsight Enclaves markings are bone white. Really isn't fair if the standard is uniquely applied to marines.
When Septs start getting extensive rules and addons and are strongly differentiated by intentionally readily identifiable bright primary color schemes and heraldry, often directly reflected by their niche subfaction names, then it may be more of an issue. Within the context of marines the issue is dramatically more blatant and widespread. It's not unique to marines, but is orders of magnitude more common and noticeable than with other factions.
DominayTrix wrote:Makes a lot of sense if the opposing player does recognize the heraldry although it can also mean that learning all the paint schemes for every army gives you a distinct advantage. Especially if this standard was applied to all armies. As a Tau player I know banana eldar are -1 to hit so until PA drops I could theoretically memorize the Eldar schemes and only play against -1 to hit eldar if they are painted yellow or using a custom scheme. "That's pretty distinctly Biel Tan stop ruining my immersion etc" If they are yellow and not using the Alaitoc I simply keep quiet. Personally, playing against identity theft marines is the lesser of two evils once you take that into account.
This is arguably WHY we should enforce "play as the Chapter you're painted as", because then we would all be able to recognise "hey, this paint scheme of Eldar has this effect in game, by association, I can now associate that paint scheme with those rules!". In that way, it would basically become the same as standard WYSIWYG - we all know what a plasma gun looks like because we've associated the look of the plasma gun to the concept of it.
Basically, if I can memorise what various weapons look like and tie that to how they function, should I not expect the same for colour schemes? After all, if I'm seeing one thing but being told it's another, isn't that just as confusing, both on modelling and paint scheme?*
On a side note, what about armies that don't really have set paint schemes or has different rules for interpreting paint schemes? For example, I have a fire warrior with red armor, white antenna, and has lava for basing. Strictly following paint scheme rules for Tau that could be either Farsight Enclaves or Tau Sept since only the Sept markings matter (antenna visor etc) and Tau are known to repaint their armor to match their environment. Tau sept markings are white and Farsight Enclaves markings are bone white. Really isn't fair if the standard is uniquely applied to marines.
If they're easily identifiable as something, then WYSIWYG should kick in. If I can't recognise what gun a certain model is carrying, but I can recognise the gun another one carries, that doesn't mean that I shouldn't be applying WYSIWYG on the gun I do recognise. Take a venom cannon and a plasma gun - even if I can't recognise what a venom cannon looks like, should I not expect my opponent to have their plasma guns modelled?
Basically, the fact that Marines have such an iconic choice of colours schemes (and again, it's not just in the colours, it's the heraldry and symbols too) doesn't mean that I should have to ignore that because other factions don't have the same iconic colours.
*of course, if people don't care about modelling WYSIWYG as well, then this point is moot - it's just about consistency. If you want everyone's models to look accurate, then I don't see why colour scheme should be any different. If they're not obviously something, then they can be whatever you like! If they're obviously something, then I would expect them to be used as that, especially if I can see that you want to use them as something else for a competitive advantage. Of course, these are just my views on it.
fraser1191 wrote:Are colour blind people blatantly allowed to swap chapters at will?
This point has actually been mentioned before, and my answer is the same - being colour blind is one thing, but even if you're colour blind, I'm sure you can see that you're applying the Ultramarine logo to something, and writing 'Macragge', 'Guilliman', or 'Ultramarines' on your banners.
Again, I'm not sure what people are missing about "it's not about what colour you painted them in, it's that they have all the colours, heraldry and symbols of X Chapter". An Iron Hand isn't just a Black Armoured Space Marine. An Iron Hand has various cog icons, doesn't follow Codex iconography, has a hand icon on their pauldron, might have various words associated with the Iron Hands written on their banners and scrolls, or have lots of cybernetic enhancements, which is very different from a Raven Guard, which is also a Black Armoured Space Marine.
So with all due respect, no, unless those colour blind people are also blind to the outlines and shapes of symbols and words, I think they should be able to tell the difference between a Black Armoured Space Marine and an Iron Hands Space Marine.
Up till now how available were all of these noteworthy pieces of iconography?
I don't think there was an iron hands upgrade sprue until this year unless you shelled out for the forge world ones. Which personally I wouldn't buy($24 Cdn for 10 pads? No way) and not everyone has the means to make transfers.
So I now have 2 questions:
The iron hands players that do not go back and either maul there marines to put these new pads on, or put the transfers on. Can they not use them as iron hands? There are a lot of people that either don't put on iconography or don't have the means to(bits, transfers)
Also immersion is important I'd never say otherwise, but at the same time can people not be friendly enough to humor someone? Everybody makes this hypothetical player as some guy that's just trying to nab a turn 1 win, which at a tournament sure because it's a more competitive scene where you are obligated to play that person. But no, this is either a local shop where you know a majority of the people or a group of friends.
So my actual second question is would you play someone you know personally from your shop/group if they chose to play Iron hands instead of X that night?
Ginjitzu wrote: Depends on the heraldry. Colours don't matter, as successors can have Inheritors of the Primarch, but counting a bunch of guys with Salamander decals on their shoulders as Iron Hands is just unfun.
I wouldn't blame the Salamanders player whatsoever for doing that though because the Salamanders rules are pretty damn terrible.
No, salamander rules are DECENT. and they didn't even get their supplement yet.
Their are just not as overpowered as IH, and somehow this is a problem for someone not playing WAAC?
Playing for the win is fine and dandy, but pretending you are playing another army just because that other army is the flavor of the month is being WAAC, and many people prefer playing fluffier, more relaxed 40k.
LOL no they're terrible. Even ignoring the Supplements they're easily the worst Chapter Tactic outside Crimson Fists. I would not fault my opponent for fielding their Crimson Fists with the original Imperial Fists rules like they SHOULD have either.
NurglesR0T wrote: It's amazing how 40k has somehow gotten to a point where people are basically being punished for painting their army.
How so?
If you mean what I think you mean, it should have been easy to see as people have been punished for playing the wrong faction pretty much every edition. The paint color is really just an extension of that issue.
fraser1191 wrote: Up till now how available were all of these noteworthy pieces of iconography?
I don't think there was an iron hands upgrade sprue until this year unless you shelled out for the forge world ones. Which personally I wouldn't buy($24 Cdn for 10 pads? No way) and not everyone has the means to make transfers.
So I now have 2 questions:
The iron hands players that do not go back and either maul there marines to put these new pads on, or put the transfers on. Can they not use them as iron hands? There are a lot of people that either don't put on iconography or don't have the means to(bits, transfers)
Also immersion is important I'd never say otherwise, but at the same time can people not be friendly enough to humor someone? Everybody makes this hypothetical player as some guy that's just trying to nab a turn 1 win, which at a tournament sure because it's a more competitive scene where you are obligated to play that person. But no, this is either a local shop where you know a majority of the people or a group of friends.
So my actual second question is would you play someone you know personally from your shop/group if they chose to play Iron hands instead of X that night?
I hand painted every Crimson Fists symbol onto 5,000 points of Crimson Fists back in 3rd because no other options really existed. I'd expect Iron Hands players to do the same.
If a SM player's army is non committal, I have precious little to say about what rules they use as long as they're consistent. Soup makes this damn near impossible. If a local player spams 3 Chapters simultaneously under a plain black paint job, I simply wouldn't play them. Too much hassle.
Now a few questions for you, since I see the whole "colorblind" round of questioning as some sort of "AHA" moment to excuse bad gaming behavior:
Are you colorblind? Do you switch your Chapter rules to chase the meta? One of these isn't an indicator of power gaming, and the other is the kind of guy who would argue the first point solely to normalize TFG actions.
It can be, if you're using a tournament-winning netlist against a newbie player, but if you're throwing down against another experienced player with a wide collection to draw from, why NOT try to make the game as tight and competitive as possible?
I can see reasons for that (say, your opponent is a GK player) but if that's the case, what if you've been playing Iron Hands for decades? Wouldn't it make a better game to switch to, say, Salamanders Tactics for this game? You're not playing what you're colored as, but you're also nerfing yourself for a better game.
I feel like once we get more settled info for the last two supplements we'll all go round and round about this somewhere. Maybe with all kinds of rainbow marines running around as IH, IF and maybe even Salamanders, wouldn't that be cool ? I can't wait.
To point out, this is meant to be a joke. I think what really annoys people with it is it feels like people chasing the next big thing. Some don't care, to some it feels like shameless bandwagon jumping. It feels worse if you always played that faction and then see all these " I've always loved IH, Iron everywhere, heck yeah ". Yet you know those same people will be whatever the next hotness is and be all about that.
I really don't care anymore, I used to but all you need to know is just have fun for you. Don't let anyone elses choices take the fun away as any choice made just by power will change as soon as the seas shift, which they always do.
Will make me laugh when IH get nerfed, or fall out of favor and then you are told " Only an idiot would play IH ". It's just a matter of time as the power creep rolls on.
DominayTrix wrote: If motive is what makes it acceptable, then players could simply lie to pass their opponents background check on if their army is acceptable or not. I find this much more toxic and damaging than simply applying a standard of "Is it consistent across the entire army? All matching marines have the same tactics? Did you make the tactic clear before the game started?"
Just to be clear, I have never once given my opponent a background check before a game. I like to get to know everyone at my local game store well in advance of playing a game. Some of them love building lists for narrative reasons like myself, others love manipulating synergies in the rules to make brutal combinations, but all of them are a great bunch of guys and I will play them all. But, I will play the fluffy guys more frequently, because I enjoy those games more. If the title of this thread had been, "Would you refuse to play someone using a counts-as chapter?" I'd have said no, but if I were to say that proxying doesn't bother me at all, I'd just be lying, because that's just how I feel. Neither approach to the game is more valid than the other, and I will facilitate both, but I prefer one.
NurglesR0T wrote: It's amazing how 40k has somehow gotten to a point where people are basically being punished for painting their army.
How so?
If you mean what I think you mean, it should have been easy to see as people have been punished for playing the wrong faction pretty much every edition. The paint color is really just an extension of that issue.
Well there is a difference though, and a big one. If someone buys models that could make a good army, but is forced to play it with bad rules, then it is better to never paint the models at all, because you are being punished for painting them. This is drasticly different from someone buying a bad army and not being able to use it as anything else.
I do think this does explain why so many armies are unpainted. For example on facebook all Polish trade sites have "on sprue or unpainted, will accept painted, but then price is lower" no wonder most people don't go further then undercoat on their armies. Only people that play tournaments or like painting very much, seem to have painted armies. Everyone else doesn't even bother with it. Painting does cost a lot of time and money.
Also people really do put those decals on their models? Everyone here just sells them off or throws them away.
I honestly think eventually GW will place actual rules down for using the army you have them painted as or set up as. I can feel it coming and can't wait to see how fans spin it as GW helping us with such a rule. As opposed to just balancing factions better at least within the same faction, that really shouldn't be so hard to do when its all from the same book.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I honestly think eventually GW will place actual rules down for using the army you have them painted as or set up as. I can feel it coming and can't wait to see how fans spin it as GW helping us with such a rule. As opposed to just balancing factions better at least within the same faction, that really shouldn't be so hard to do when its all from the same book.
They wont, b.c its way to alienating and hurtful to the image of the game, if they require a paint scheme NO ONE would paint their armies any of the iconic colors and just use their own colors.
Maybe, but it also would move to push people to get new armies. I mean sure you can not paint, but if you play in a tournament you have to paint. As for those who won't pain outside tournaments they will eventually get peer pressured to do so. GW does a lot to make the community be the bad guy by giving recommendations and knowing players take it as gospel.
Like if they say in tournaments it has to be painted as those exact schemes and chapters to use the rules. They can say its a recommendation for tournament play. Though most players will look at that as a hard and fast rule and not just a side idea. Let us push it for them and they are all clean. Forces people to lock in certain factions, and if they wish to chase the meta even in faction they'll need to get and paint more of the same models again.
Only time will tell, but I mean who could have imagined that they'd squat a whole game system and replace it with a system with no points. That in the process they'd literally squat whole armies that had been revamped maybe a year ago. Who could imagine they may be wanting to squat one of their long time best sellers, Marines for new more expensive marine armies.
I really put nothing past these people at this point. They have little to no care of alienation and hurtful image as they alienated a whole player base that while not as massive as 40k, was still probably larger than most mini games have for an active player base.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Maybe, but it also would move to push people to get new armies. I mean sure you can not paint, but if you play in a tournament you have to paint. As for those who won't pain outside tournaments they will eventually get peer pressured to do so. GW does a lot to make the community be the bad guy by giving recommendations and knowing players take it as gospel.
Like if they say in tournaments it has to be painted as those exact schemes and chapters to use the rules. They can say its a recommendation for tournament play. Though most players will look at that as a hard and fast rule and not just a side idea. Let us push it for them and they are all clean. Forces people to lock in certain factions, and if they wish to chase the meta even in faction they'll need to get and pain more of the same models again.
Only time will tell, but I mean who could have imagined that they'd squat a whole game system and replace it with a system with no points. That in the process they'd literally squat whole armies that had been revamped maybe a year ago. Who could imagine they may be wanting to squat one of their long time best sellers, Marines for new more expensive marine armies.
I really put nothing past these people at this point. They have little to no care of alienation and hurtful image as they alienated a whole player base that while not massive, was still probably larger than most mini games have as an audience.
And then you get my country, where only tournament players and comission painters have painted armies, and everyone else why strickt on WYSIWYG does not touch the army with paint, because it lowers the resell value. People maybe playing tournament armies or tournament like armies, but not everyone plays big tournaments. And at stores if the owner said only painted armies can play in the event, he would get 6 people playing in it, and 20+ not playing. Kind of a hard to get decent prizes with 6 people, or the entry would have to be huge. But I doubt with 6 people people would like to see a huge entry fee, when only top 1-3 get stuff from it. Even with 20+ people when you get nothing it ain't much for to pay for other people prizes, but at least tables are free then. No one is going to pay half a box in money to get nothing, unless they are 100% sure they can get in to top 1-3.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Maybe, but it also would move to push people to get new armies. I mean sure you can not paint, but if you play in a tournament you have to paint. As for those who won't pain outside tournaments they will eventually get peer pressured to do so. GW does a lot to make the community be the bad guy by giving recommendations and knowing players take it as gospel.
Like if they say in tournaments it has to be painted as those exact schemes and chapters to use the rules. They can say its a recommendation for tournament play. Though most players will look at that as a hard and fast rule and not just a side idea. Let us push it for them and they are all clean. Forces people to lock in certain factions, and if they wish to chase the meta even in faction they'll need to get and paint more of the same models again.
Only time will tell, but I mean who could have imagined that they'd squat a whole game system and replace it with a system with no points. That in the process they'd literally squat whole armies that had been revamped maybe a year ago. Who could imagine they may be wanting to squat one of their long time best sellers, Marines for new more expensive marine armies.
I really put nothing past these people at this point. They have little to no care of alienation and hurtful image as they alienated a whole player base that while not as massive as 40k, was still probably larger than most mini games have for an active player base.
Tournaments would allow custom paint colors tho, remember tournaments only work if players go to them.
Yet again, GW is the biggest game in town. People won't not go to compete just because of paint rules. How many players buy thousands of dollars worth of things just to keep up every year ? More than respond here. How many care a lot about base size ? More than I'd like.
I mean you can feel they won't do it, but when they do, even if its just a suggestion, it'll ripple down. If it becomes the in house GW game standard small venues can not follow it but many will and many will just shrug and accept it. The only way to see how we'll respond is to watch what happens. I see it coming at some point. I mean players even supported the AoS mess without points or clear rules and just smashing models into each other as genius and visionary and if you didn't like it you were too dumb to understand the beauty.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Yet again, GW is the biggest game in town. People won't not go to compete just because of paint rules. How many players buy thousands of dollars worth of things just to keep up every year ? More than respond here. How many care a lot about base size ? More than I'd like.
I mean you can feel they won't do it, but when they do, even if its just a suggestion, it'll ripple down. If it becomes the in house GW game standard small venues can not follow it but many will and many will just shrug and accept it. The only way to see how we'll respond is to watch what happens. I see it coming at some point. I mean players even supported the AoS mess without points or clear rules and just smashing models into each other as genius and visionary and if you didn't like it you were too dumb to understand the beauty.
You are forgetting that most tournaments are not GW ran or GT's but independent local ones and local stores are a lot more lax b.c they rather have happy players and make sales than run off 1/2 the players b.c of "you have the wrong color paint"
I'm not forgetting most tournaments aren't GW. However GW have their hooks in some of the larger ones now and support by little or large a lot of the movers and shakers in those scenes.
Small tournaments would be fine, but even if just GW doing this in their own tournaments became common practice. Just that happening would give players a reason to call out people for doing otherwise as power gamers or that guy. Like I said though, we'll see this is just a feeling I have.
Also, before you say larger tournaments don't trickle down to smaller ones that's not so. Especially for players who want to go to those large venues during the year.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I'm not forgetting most tournaments aren't GW. However GW have their hooks in some of the larger ones now and support by little or large a lot of the movers and shakers in those scenes.
Small tournaments would be fine, but even if just GW doing this in their own tournaments became common practice. Just that happening would give players a reason to call out people for doing otherwise as power gamers or that guy. Like I said though, we'll see this is just a feeling I have.
Also, before you say larger tournaments don't trickle down to smaller ones that's not so. Especially for players who want to go to those large venues during the year.
It doesn't "trickle down", larger tournaments right now require painted models and have been fore years, many smaller local store don't have that requirement.
For those worried about the iron hand of iconography requirement I would like to mention that those who are die- and tryhard iconography fans are generally a minority. I have yet to meet a person in real life that would have the same attitude as some of the most vocal people here in this thread. Most people just want to have fun and play a game with good people.
fraser1191 wrote:Up till now how available were all of these noteworthy pieces of iconography?
I don't think there was an iron hands upgrade sprue until this year unless you shelled out for the forge world ones. Which personally I wouldn't buy($24 Cdn for 10 pads? No way) and not everyone has the means to make transfers.
Freehand? Transfers? If those were too difficult (and I totally get that, I tried freehanding an Iron Hands symbol on a Deathwatch terminator once, wasn't easy), then just leave it blank. As I've said, if you leave it blank, they're not representing any known Chapter, so they can be played as whatever you like, by my books.
So I now have 2 questions:
The iron hands players that do not go back and either maul there marines to put these new pads on, or put the transfers on. Can they not use them as iron hands? There are a lot of people that either don't put on iconography or don't have the means to(bits, transfers)
I don't quite understand your point. You don't need icons to play as Iron Hands (although they're preferable in my eyes, I'm not that strict). You don't even need to have black armour.
It's if you have a faction which is painted, marked, and embellished as another major Chapter that's not going to fly.
A long term Iron Hands player who has a black armoured Space Marine but no Iron Hands iconography is fine, because they're not trying to get away with putting down blue armoured Marines with white Ultima symbols and the words "Macragge/Ultra/Guiliman" on their armour.
Also immersion is important I'd never say otherwise, but at the same time can people not be friendly enough to humor someone? Everybody makes this hypothetical player as some guy that's just trying to nab a turn 1 win, which at a tournament sure because it's a more competitive scene where you are obligated to play that person. But no, this is either a local shop where you know a majority of the people or a group of friends.
So my actual second question is would you play someone you know personally from your shop/group if they chose to play Iron hands instead of X that night?
How personally do I know them? Are they a friend I've been playing narrative games with for years, always plays to a narrative and wants to switch out for what I can sense is a genuine reason (whatever that might be)? Yeah, sure, but I'll probably joke about if this will be a regular thing, and if it is, are they going to do anything about it.
If I've known them personally to prioritise winning and making the most effective army? No, I won't, because that's not the kind of 40k I want to play.
Again, it depends on their motivation for doing it, and knowing them personally for some time, I think I would have a good idea of what they wanted. I'm not saying either of them are right or wrong, but one of them is going to give me far more enjoyment for that evening.
NurglesR0T wrote:It's amazing how 40k has somehow gotten to a point where people are basically being punished for painting their army.
Question: do you play WYSIWYG? Do you expect your opponents to? Just to put it to you another way:
"It's amazing how 40k has somehow gotten to a point where people are basically being punished for building their army."
Of course, if you don't believe in WYSIWYG, disregard this, but I'm purely asking to see if you're at least being consistent.
That aside, if my personal preference of not playing someone who cares more about getting stronger rules than embracing their models is "punishing", then what would be your solution? I shouldn't have any expectations or personal preferences on who I play? I should just drop my army and be ready to play at anyone's beck and call? I'm not allowed to choose who I want to play?
I don't think anyone is advocating that "play as what you paint" should be a forced compulsory rule everyone should abide by - rather, they're saying "this is my preference, and is important to my enjoyment of the game". Unless you genuinely think that people shouldn't be allowed to enjoy the game how they see fit, why is that a problem?
JNAProductions wrote:Why is playing with the most powerful rules TFG?
It can be, if you're using a tournament-winning netlist against a newbie player, but if you're throwing down against another experienced player with a wide collection to draw from, why NOT try to make the game as tight and competitive as possible?
Because that's less important to me personally than playing against what I'm seeing on the board. I don't think anyone's saying it's TFG, of course not, but that doesn't mean it 100% fine by everyone, and that's fine too.
Again, the game being more tightly balanced and competitive isn't what everyone wants from their opponent - there's nothing wrong with whatever way you prefer though.
Daba wrote:This. Thanks to all of these variants. It's almost as if marine variant rules are a mistake.
Honestly, yeah - this the problem. If subfaction rules didn't exist, then this literally wouldn't be a problem, because there would be no difference between what I'd expect an Ultramarine to do compared to an Iron Hand.
It's if you have a faction which is painted, marked, and embellished as another major Chapter that's not going to fly.
Why? The how the army looks doesn't matter in game terms. Otherwise nice painted stuff would be better on the table, then painted by something who is bad at it or doesn't want to paint their army, but is forced to do it. If the opponent says he plays X it is X as long as it is WYSIWYG, painting or symbols on the armour aren't part of it, at least from what I have been told. Just like you don't have to put all grenades, pistols etc on models that have them.
Other wise the army investment would be super restrictive. People start marines, because they can change armies with no or little investment. If they would have to rebuy all the models again, or repaint them , which is just as bad because it maybe costs less, but takes more time up, a lot of people wouldn't be starting to play at all.
It's if you have a faction which is painted, marked, and embellished as another major Chapter that's not going to fly.
Why? The how the army looks doesn't matter in game terms.
So you can play whatever faction you like with whatever models you like, so long as they're roughly the same size? Would you be okay with me playing Chaos Space Marine Terminators as Grey Knights? How about WYSIWYG?
(Note - this isn't supposed to be a loaded of accusatory question. I genuinely am asking if that's considered fine with you, because then I get an idea of what your personal standards are, and you're not being contradictory).
Otherwise nice painted stuff would be better on the table, then painted by something who is bad at it or doesn't want to paint their army, but is forced to do it. If the opponent says he plays X it is X as long as it is WYSIWYG, painting or symbols on the armour aren't part of it, at least from what I have been told. Just like you don't have to put all grenades, pistols etc on models that have them.
Okay, but do you expect a unit armed with a plasma gun to have a model carrying a plasma gun in it?
Sure, you don't need all the grenades and pistols - in the same way that my preference of painting doesn't mean you need to have blue Space Marines with Ultima symbols in order to play Ultramarines. As long as you're not obviously looking like something else, play as what you like. So, to compare that to modelling, I don't care if you don't have every weapon modelled, just don't expect me to be 100% fine with your missile launcher pretending to be a plasma gun (if I can tell you're clearly doing it just to win harder).
Other wise the army investment would be super restrictive. People start marines, because they can change armies with no or little investment. If they would have to rebuy all the models again, or repaint them , which is just as bad because it maybe costs less, but takes more time up, a lot of people wouldn't be starting to play at all.
Or, maybe, just paint a custom Chapter. Or just don't put Chapter specific icons on. Or just bite the bullet and play a slightly less powerful list.
You seem to imply that you should always strive for the most powerful, most optimised list, and compromising on that is out of the question. Why? It's not like if you don't get to play your models as Iron Hands, you'll never get to play. Just play with how you painted them, and if that's out of the question, apply a different transfer or paint scheme, or just play someone else who's more on your wavelength.
NurglesR0T wrote: It's amazing how 40k has somehow gotten to a point where people are basically being punished for painting their army.
How so?
If you mean what I think you mean, it should have been easy to see as people have been punished for playing the wrong faction pretty much every edition. The paint color is really just an extension of that issue.
Well there is a difference though, and a big one. If someone buys models that could make a good army, but is forced to play it with bad rules, then it is better to never paint the models at all, because you are being punished for painting them. This is drasticly different from someone buying a bad army and not being able to use it as anything else.
I do think this does explain why so many armies are unpainted. For example on facebook all Polish trade sites have "on sprue or unpainted, will accept painted, but then price is lower" no wonder most people don't go further then undercoat on their armies. Only people that play tournaments or like painting very much, seem to have painted armies. Everyone else doesn't even bother with it. Painting does cost a lot of time and money.
I think you are missing my point. Before subfactions were a thing a person could buy models that make a bad army. Heck, they could simply pick a faction that was plain bad. Chaos Space Marines weren't all that good from 5th to about the end of 7th with most of that time the legion they were or weren't painted being bad. Orks have also struggled many editions. Depending on how WYSIWYG your group is you were stuck with it. At least paint can be stripped and re-painted. That is much cheaper than buying a whole new army or even magnetizing/changing weapons.
The paint job a person picks for their army is no different to me than the weapons they carry of the full model they are. Like I said, I don't have to have everything WYSIWYG so if a player wants to play one subfaction over another just like saying all meltaguns are plasmaguns is the same level of bother to me. A minor annoyance that I would prefer they not do, but not enough to not get in a game.
I would also like to mention I don't believe that picking one subfaction over another is going to make any given army good yet picking a different subfaction for that same army suddenly make it bad. It is just not as optimized. I am not convinced that even with the space marine supplements that these extras have that radical effect. Yes, Word Bearers have poor subfaction rules, but I don't really think suddenly playing them as Red Corsairs is going suddenly turn them into a powerhouse. They will be better sure, but I don't think they are suddenly be next level from it. And if they are, you can bet your bottom dollar they won't be next year.
This being an excuse for why armies aren't painting is incredibly weak. First, I think few in IRL are bothered enough to say anything anyways. If they were the sort to be bothered by it, there is a very high chance they would be more bothered by an unpainted army. No, I think the reason most armies aren't painted are far more likely to be they buys the whole army all at once and gets overwhelmed/bored, are afraid their painting skills aren't good enough, or lacks a paint space to quickly an easily get painting in here and there.
But most people don't paint their armies at all, as that lowers the army resell value, when they quit or want to play something else. And most of those that do paint do it, because they play at tournaments or the large stores in big cities when they force people to paint stuff, or they don't get tables to play on.
As the subfaction goes, I don't think you are right on that one. There is a huge difference between playing Word Beares and and lets say any of the also red renegade chapters.
Same with imperial marines, there is a huge difference between playing IH,RG or Ultramarines, and playing a DA successor or even DA themselfs. The quality of rules is , in my opinion, impossible to compare. It is like having a second and third set of extra rules for same kind of models.
And here very few people buy an army in one go, because it costs too much. It has to either be a deal, or they are trading other stuff for it along side cash like MtG cards, or something like that.
But from what I was told by someone, people in western countries sometimes buy a new army every 2-3 months, so I guess it can be different.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
So you can play whatever faction you like with whatever models you like, so long as they're roughly the same size? Would you be okay with me playing Chaos Space Marine Terminators as Grey Knights? How about WYSIWYG?
Well no one here plays GK, other then me, so I don't know. But considering WYSIWYG is enforced here, and I couldn't play GK as any other army, because there is no army GK can be counts as, I would say no. The weapons are wrong and the size of the models is wrong.
Okay, but do you expect a unit armed with a plasma gun to have a model carrying a plasma gun in it?
yes, otherwise you can't play here. Only options are buy multiple box, and no one does that, or buy 3d party or recast. The third happens most often.
As long as you're not obviously looking like something else, play as what you like.
Okey, so lets say someone bought a BA army, because he could get it for cheaper, and he finds out it is really bad. Or it can be good, but he won't use most of the things, and he has to spend another 400$ on knights and other soup stuff, and they don't have the cash for it. They wouldn't be able to just play them as, any of the good marine armies, that use the same models just because maybe some of his are painted red, am assuming he bought a tournament army, as the problem wouldn't exist if he wasn't buying just a regular one, as chance of that one being painted and sold is zero. As those who paint their armies and don't play tournaments, don't sell their armies. They also generaly don't play much, just sit at the store and do commissions.
Or, maybe, just paint a custom Chapter. Or just don't put Chapter specific icons on. Or just bite the bullet and play a slightly less powerful list.
okey, but this again means one would have to model and paint an army and lock oneself in to it. The army could be master class painted, and it would sell for less by virtue of having paint on it.
You seem to imply that you should always strive for the most powerful, most optimised list, and compromising on that is out of the question. Why? It's not like if you don't get to play your models as Iron Hands, you'll never get to play. Just play with how you painted them, and if that's out of the question, apply a different transfer or paint scheme, or just play someone else who's more on your wavelength.
From what little expiriance I have, the most powerful is rarely marines, and if it is marines then it is either something like characters. If lets say ahriman suddenly becomes utter trash replacing him with something is much easier, then replacing a 700$ or more army that went bad. the obligation to paint and mark armies seems to me, very restrictive. It locks one in to an army, costs extra money and time to do. And on top of it all one may just not like painting.
Now I don't have such problems as my army came prepainted, when I bought it. But If I was unpainted and now to play I would have to spend money and time to paint, an army that isn't fun to play, I wouldn't feel good about it at all.
Buying and painting ton of new models because of color obsessives: 1000s of dollars and 1000s of hours
Painting your old models because of color obsessives: Throwing away 1000s of hours to spend 1000s of hours.
Ignoring the color obsessives and just play the game with good and fun people: 0$ (unless you want to buy snacks for people. Always recommend buying snacks for people. Nothing bonds people more than food)
People just need to chill and play the game and have fun with good people. Ignore the haters and just have fun.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Or, maybe, just paint a custom Chapter. Or just don't put Chapter specific icons on.
I wish more people woud create custom chapters. I really love when someone has put a lot of thought into creating a colour scheme, symbols, markings and background for their custom chapter, Much more interesting than copying the stock studio paint job. But still, this is something people should do because they lake the creativity it allows, not for some rule benefit. And I certainly can't imagine telling to an opponent that has painted their marines in official colours that they couldn't use the rules they want while simultaneously I with my custom chapter could. That is a TFG move, and I really don't want custom chapters to be associated with that sort of WAAC mentality.
Or just bite the bullet and play a slightly less powerful list.
You seem to imply that you should always strive for the most powerful, most optimised list, and compromising on that is out of the question. Why? It's not like if you don't get to play your models as Iron Hands, you'll never get to play. Just play with how you painted them, and if that's out of the question, apply a different transfer or paint scheme, or just play someone else who's more on your wavelength.
First: at this point the differences in power level are not slight, they're massive. I really don't think Blood Angels or even White Scars have much of a chance against the Iron Hands.
Second: it is not always the power, it can be about the playstyle. Even if different chapters were balanced properly (which they even remotely aren't) they play differently. And people might want to experiment with different playstyles without buying and painting a full new army. And I think it can be reasonably fluffy. An Armoury force lead by the Master of the Forge using Iron Hand rules, Tenth Company force using Raven Guard rules etc. Chapter rules are fighting styles, and a section of a chapter could easily utilise a fighting style that is usually associated with another chapter.
I can very well remember 5th edition when a new guy was introduced into our playing group who - through the months - showed up with Space Wolves, Blood Angels and finally Grey Knights. He actually did have seperate / correct models for everything with a crude paint job on it, so from a certain point of view you really could not complain about this guy always bringing the latest Marine codex to the table. That doesn't mean his WAAC attitude was any more enjoyable.
On the other hand I cant count the evenings when we proxied Monoliths with Hard Drive cases or Drop Pods with beer bottles (which came in in the same rounds as we finished them ) and everyone involved had a great time, regardless of which rules the casual (and a bit quirky) Space Marine player was using on that night.
What I want to show is that intention/attitude matters just as much as your actions, when it comes to how enjoyable the game is going to be for you and your opponent.
I have a genuine question to people who don't like their opponents using rules that do not match the respective color scheme:
How do you feel about playing against a Marine player who keeps switching his two successor traits every game?
If this is not a problem for you, what is the difference between this and changing the chapter?
If this is a problem for you, does it concern you as well that my SM Captain used a Relic Blade last week and this week it is a regular power sword, despite using the same model?
The power difference right now is massive. A SM supplement chapter can tailor from 20+ chapter traits and a list of 6 successors for traits/etc.
A SM chapter has twice the stratagems of BA, twice the warlord traits and relics And can use 3 warlord traits and more/cheaper relics. 6 more powers for your librarians. Cheaper units. Extra AP from doctrines + a super doctrine. And chapter tactics works on their vehicles as well.
It is not like SM is only 10% stronger than BA right now. Each of those advantages adds up and multiplies. Having better strats with better units is better than just having them separately. IH /RG is probably 50% better or more than BA right now. A vehicle heavy IH list vs a vehicle heavy BA list is probably 95+% in favor of the IH player winning regardless of scenario. Unless both players play with loaded dice, I cant see BA winning. Not even enough if BA player cheats with good dice the IH player needs to roll far below average too.
It's if you have a faction which is painted, marked, and embellished as another major Chapter that's not going to fly.
Why? The how the army looks doesn't matter in game terms.
Neither does playing with numbered poker chips. Crunch-wise, there's no difference between that and a fully rendered Golden Demon quality army.
Crunch isn't the only thing that matters. I wouldn't play this game with poker chips, as it wouldn't be engaging for me. In other words, the crunch alone isn't enough for me.
Now, there's a mile of difference between "Non-WYSIWYG painting" and "Poker Chips" in terms of quality, of course. But only in magnitude; one is just a much more extreme version of non-WYSIWYG.
Looks matter a lot. I want encourage people to paint their models at the best standard they're capable of. That's why I don't want to place any unnecessary hurdles that would discourage people from doing so. This is very simple.
Honestly, if the entire army is painted, respect. I don't care what you want to call them, I understand it gets boring playing the same thing week after week. I'm guilty of this myself, I'll change what guard regiment I play just to mix things up. Granted, I don't mix and match regiments and am somewhat opposed if someone were mixing and matching space Marine chapters to be super competitive and they were all the same colors.
" but then they dead stare the same guy "But if you play those blood angles as Ultramarines I will never play you again"
and that sort of ribbing is pretty commonplace in game stores.
