I used to play flames Of War and even they, many of whom are extreme history buffs, never hated on anyone because their troops weren't painted perfect, or for using late war schemes with early war models.

Anyone who won't play against legal rules because of the paint job probably would be fun to play against anyway.

 Elbows wrote:
I suppose I'm more curious as to why it's a big deal to someone, if an unrelated person to them is "refusing" to play another player. How does this impact you?

Is this going to become another "think of the community!" argument? Because there isn't a GW gaming community, never has been. There's a heap of sub-sects of types of gamers who happen to play the same game. As we discussed in the "perfect zone" for playing 40K, the game is entirely dependent on who you're gaming with.

I attended an Apocalypse game yesterday. They had 13 players and wanted a 14th, but I didn't feel like playing, so I refused. Am I somehow ruining the community or breaking peoples hearts because I chose not to participate in something I didn't think I'd enjoy? No. I'm an adult and can make decisions of my own.

What does it matter if someone won't play another player? You could avoid playing someone because of their body-odour, choice of t-shirts, political affiliation, height, type of shoes they wear, gender etc....who cares? It's a hobby. Play it however you wish. If you want to cheese out as hard as possible, sure, go nuts - find someone who enjoys that type of game and have at it.

If you want to play only painted models, go nuts, do your thing. If you want to push armless grey plastic around and your opponent is game - go for it. But don't pretend to criticize someone because they want something different out of the game than you. We're not vikings, you don't come in and challenge someone and they HAVE to play you in a game of 40K, lol.

This is, I suppose, the beauty of the internet. We have the luxury of being outraged over the gaming habits of someone we don't know, likely on the other side of the planet. Genius.

I think it started as an attempt to explain the thought process behind "do whatever, it's your army" and ended in angry protests at the misapplication of terms like "That Guy" and "powergame".

Asmodios wrote:
I understand these are my lines and not everyone will use them but i cant understand why people are so upset that my line doesn't match theirs and that i would rather not play you if your doing this.

Because your line is absurd rivet counting and paranoia about "WAAC powergamers", except you can't even have the decency to be right about your rivet counting. Your whole position is based on ignorance of the IG fluff. It's like if you were playing a WWII game and refused to play against anyone who didn't paint their German tanks bright pink to match the "fluff" of the German army.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
I understand these are my lines and not everyone will use them but i cant understand why people are so upset that my line doesn't match theirs and that i would rather not play you if your doing this.

Because your line is absurd rivet counting and paranoia about "WAAC powergamers", except you can't even have the decency to be right about your rivet counting. Your whole position is based on ignorance of the IG fluff. It's like if you were playing a WWII game and refused to play against anyone who didn't paint their German tanks bright pink to match the "fluff" of the German army.

Or suggesting that grey panthers is Germans and any other colour is homebrew (when germans painted their tanks brown, tan, white, etc. as required for the environment like everyone else).

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
I understand these are my lines and not everyone will use them but i cant understand why people are so upset that my line doesn't match theirs and that i would rather not play you if your doing this.

Because your line is absurd rivet counting and paranoia about "WAAC powergamers", except you can't even have the decency to be right about your rivet counting. Your whole position is based on ignorance of the IG fluff. It's like if you were playing a WWII game and refused to play against anyone who didn't paint their German tanks bright pink to match the "fluff" of the German army.

Or suggesting that grey panthers is Germans and any other colour is homebrew (when germans painted their tanks brown, tan, white, etc. as required for the environment like everyone else).

Or that if you paint your Hetzers tan/green they have to use German rules. Despite the Hungarians having them.

 Elbows wrote:
I suppose I'm more curious as to why it's a big deal to someone, if an unrelated person to them is "refusing" to play another player. How does this impact you?

Is this going to become another "think of the community!" argument? Because there isn't a GW gaming community, never has been. There's a heap of sub-sects of types of gamers who happen to play the same game. As we discussed in the "perfect zone" for playing 40K, the game is entirely dependent on who you're gaming with.

I attended an Apocalypse game yesterday. They had 13 players and wanted a 14th, but I didn't feel like playing, so I refused. Am I somehow ruining the community or breaking peoples hearts because I chose not to participate in something I didn't think I'd enjoy? No. I'm an adult and can make decisions of my own.

What does it matter if someone won't play another player? You could avoid playing someone because of their body-odour, choice of t-shirts, political affiliation, height, type of shoes they wear, gender etc....who cares? It's a hobby. Play it however you wish. If you want to cheese out as hard as possible, sure, go nuts - find someone who enjoys that type of game and have at it.

If you want to play only painted models, go nuts, do your thing. If you want to push armless grey plastic around and your opponent is game - go for it. But don't pretend to criticize someone because they want something different out of the game than you. We're not vikings, you don't come in and challenge someone and they HAVE to play you in a game of 40K, lol.

This is, I suppose, the beauty of the internet. We have the luxury of being outraged over the gaming habits of someone we don't know, likely on the other side of the planet. Genius.

There is indeed a GW gaming community. Its a big tent, but its still a community. I have travelled the world and played 40K while doing so. Not everybody sees the game exactly the same way, but most can find a way to get a game in against somebody else with a 40K army.

There is a world of difference between you declining a large Apocalypse Game because you were not feeling it and somebody refusing a game against somebody else at 40K Night because they don't like the guy's army. Surely you realize that, just like you realize that declining a game because of somebody's gender, height etc, etc is ridiculous. Declining a game because you have played that person and found them to be overbearing/cheating etc is a different story.

So, I have a question. Is this just usual forum talk, or is this actually happening in stores?

I started out twenty years ago, and haven't been able to play for the past ten or so. I've kept up with fluff and peeked in on forums, even bought a few Forge World items. With 8th I've been prepping my army to get back in and start playing. Hearing this kind of stuff online-if this kind of mindset is actually happening in public, that's just scary.

I understand wanting to avoid WAAC players if that's not your cup of tea. It's certainly not mine. They were there twenty years ago, I'm sure they're there today, and you can bet they'll be there twenty years from now. There are hundreds of ways that someone can show you what type of player they are by how they conduct themselves and treat you during the game, and I understand wanting to avoid those people after you learn who they are. But making arbitrary rules to pre-judge someone before they've even rolled their first dice? Come on now. This does nothing for our hobby. Well, nothing good anyways.

I play a mix of Mordians and Praetorians. According to some of the arguments on here, the fact that I liked those models and chose to use the same shade of blue that GW did means that I'm stuck using Mordian traits, and if I don't, I'm the most horrible type of player-desperately trying to manipulate the odds to get whatever little advantage I can. Nevermind the fact that every Guard Codex that I'm aware of has shown these models representing different planetary forces with completely different names. Nevermind that my play style has been influenced by what models I thought were fun before these traits were invented. Nevermind that I want to use official rules to find a play style that I enjoy.

What irks me the most is that the two most vocal people have created a list of rules that conveniently don't apply to them.
One person says that using certain models with certain paint schemes dictates what rules I have to use, and then proceeds to post about using third party models-meaning he can pick whatever traits he wants. Another actually made a list of conversions that he would find "allowable" to reflect what force you would be allowed to play. Again, the rules don't apply to him, he already converted his army. These are examples from this thread! Do you realize how you sound? Whats to stop everyone else adopting the mindset of "since you don't use the exact models and paint schemes, you don't get to use any traits?" Its the exact same argument, and by that I mean its an absolutely horrible one.


Is the hobby still enjoyable if you find that you aren't able to withhold judgement on someone until after you've started playing the game with them?

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
I understand these are my lines and not everyone will use them but i cant understand why people are so upset that my line doesn't match theirs and that i would rather not play you if your doing this.

Because your line is absurd rivet counting and paranoia about "WAAC powergamers", except you can't even have the decency to be right about your rivet counting. Your whole position is based on ignorance of the IG fluff. It's like if you were playing a WWII game and refused to play against anyone who didn't paint their German tanks bright pink to match the "fluff" of the German army.

Except no one is saying that, at any point of time, this is a total straw man.


The point is, and always was "if your dudes look like X and play like Y, and you are using the OBVIOUSLY X scheme, than you have thrown fluff completely off and are just gaming for advantage here with the pieces being irrelevant"

Because TECHNICALLY, no rule forbids me from using SW rules with CSM models, or ork models with GSC rules, or even fantasy skinks for guardsmen. none of these is different from playing tallaran as cadian (random example). the two each has thier own "correct" models and apperance, using another's is straying, and if you stray and don't look your part and you do it "just because rules X are better", its definition powergaming. you collect army X but you play army Y.

You want to be tallaran, there are official models for it. expensive, and harder to get (and at some cases require hard wepon conversions), so its far more forgivable and easy to navigate around than most "count as" out there. (like marine "imperial fists who happen to be salamandars with iron hand tech dreads" cases)
Don't want/cant afford/don't like the models/whatever issue-well at the very least bother making your cadians not obvious cadians with cadian paint and cadian unit marking following all the cadian standard appearance, because that's no different from playing CSM models using SW codex. its technically legal, but that's defiantly not the spirit of a friendly game.
And not every game is a money-on-the-table tournament, if you can't bring yourself into having an army that matches appearances and play it says something about your personality, attitude towards the game, and how the match is going to play, and knowing I'll probably not have any fun I'll find another opponent. no biggie. not like I am confiscating your stuff and burning it down.

And before you jump back to the "but not every cadian is the same" shtick, well yea. they also don't all LOOK the same.
Bother making your appearance match your choice of off-standard ruleset, and not even the most carrot loving fluff bunny would bat an eye.
Do a decent conversion of something, and you'd probably be praised, assuming said conversion looks the part.

The soup however, outside an outright tournament, I see as rather unforgiveable.
Yea, in the tiny local engagement out of the massive war going all around, there just so happens to be a bland of units from different regiments who each has a distinct fighting style and each just happens to have the very unit they excel at as the units they have right here right now.
Sorry, its just being cheesy. its just as technically legal as spamming the same unit over and over, but its annoying and I'd rather play somebody else.
And for the love of god, souping different regiments while using a SINGLE UNIFORM APPEARANCE for all of them, that's crossing the path form a healthy doze of powergaming to an unhealthy doze of TFG.


And I'm saying this as someone who is on both sides of this bridge.
I min-max and go into powergaming when the opponent and setting is right, squessing every bit of power available with cherry picking units, upgrades, etc. but I also have a large number of not-quite-usual models, outright conversions and count-as models.

Good god. If you don't want to play someone who has the nerve to use a different army/regiment/chapter's rules from the army they modeled, that is of course your prerogative. But can we knock it off with making sweeping generalizations about other players based on the notion that you can look into their soul through a coat of paint on their miniatures?

Yeah, if I want to play my Ravenwing as White Scars that certainly does say something about me alright... what that is I couldn't tell you though. Maybe I just wanted to try it out. Maybe I was bored with my army but didn't want to paint a wholly new one just to satisfy you. Maybe *GASP* I wanted to play the game to the best of my strategic ability including making an optimal and efficient list!

THE HUMANITY! What kind of gak for a soul monster could ever conceive of doing something like that! Who, when playing a board game, doesn't adhere to fluff first and foremost, even at the possible expense of a challenging and stimulating match!?

A few people have already said this, but it really is the only solution to this problem you'll ever need: god forbid you talk to people and be forthcoming with your expectations about what is and is not a fun game before you judge the very fiber of their character based on the congruence between their army's paint job and the list they're using that day!

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
I understand these are my lines and not everyone will use them but i cant understand why people are so upset that my line doesn't match theirs and that i would rather not play you if your doing this.

Because your line is absurd rivet counting and paranoia about "WAAC powergamers", except you can't even have the decency to be right about your rivet counting. Your whole position is based on ignorance of the IG fluff. It's like if you were playing a WWII game and refused to play against anyone who didn't paint their German tanks bright pink to match the "fluff" of the German army.

Except no one is saying that, at any point of time, this is a total straw man.


The point is, and always was "if your dudes look like X and play like Y, and you are using the OBVIOUSLY X scheme, than you have thrown fluff completely off and are just gaming for advantage here with the pieces being irrelevant"

Because TECHNICALLY, no rule forbids me from using SW rules with CSM models, or ork models with GSC rules, or even fantasy skinks for guardsmen. none of these is different from playing tallaran as cadian (random example). the two each has thier own "correct" models and apperance, using another's is straying, and if you stray and don't look your part and you do it "just because rules X are better", its definition powergaming. you collect army X but you play army Y.

You want to be tallaran, there are official models for it. expensive, and harder to get (and at some cases require hard wepon conversions), so its far more forgivable and easy to navigate around than most "count as" out there. (like marine "imperial fists who happen to be salamandars with iron hand tech dreads" cases)
Don't want/cant afford/don't like the models/whatever issue-well at the very least bother making your cadians not obvious cadians with cadian paint and cadian unit marking following all the cadian standard appearance, because that's no different from playing CSM models using SW codex. its technically legal, but that's defiantly not the spirit of a friendly game.
And not every game is a money-on-the-table tournament, if you can't bring yourself into having an army that matches appearances and play it says something about your personality, attitude towards the game, and how the match is going to play, and knowing I'll probably not have any fun I'll find another opponent. no biggie. not like I am confiscating your stuff and burning it down.

And before you jump back to the "but not every cadian is the same" shtick, well yea. they also don't all LOOK the same.
Bother making your appearance match your choice of off-standard ruleset, and not even the most carrot loving fluff bunny would bat an eye.
Do a decent conversion of something, and you'd probably be praised, assuming said conversion looks the part.

The soup however, outside an outright tournament, I see as rather unforgiveable.
Yea, in the tiny local engagement out of the massive war going all around, there just so happens to be a bland of units from different regiments who each has a distinct fighting style and each just happens to have the very unit they excel at as the units they have right here right now.
Sorry, its just being cheesy. its just as technically legal as spamming the same unit over and over, but its annoying and I'd rather play somebody else.
And for the love of god, souping different regiments while using a SINGLE UNIFORM APPEARANCE for all of them, that's crossing the path form a healthy doze of powergaming to an unhealthy doze of TFG.


And I'm saying this as someone who is on both sides of this bridge.
I min-max and go into powergaming when the opponent and setting is right, squessing every bit of power available with cherry picking units, upgrades, etc. but I also have a large number of not-quite-usual models, outright conversions and count-as models.

Really? What is so hard to accept about an Imperial Guard player wanting his collection to have some flexibility? Being able to go between Valhallan one week and Catachan the next does not make somebody a bad person.

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
I understand these are my lines and not everyone will use them but i cant understand why people are so upset that my line doesn't match theirs and that i would rather not play you if your doing this.

Because your line is absurd rivet counting and paranoia about "WAAC powergamers", except you can't even have the decency to be right about your rivet counting. Your whole position is based on ignorance of the IG fluff. It's like if you were playing a WWII game and refused to play against anyone who didn't paint their German tanks bright pink to match the "fluff" of the German army.

Except no one is saying that, at any point of time, this is a total straw man.


The point is, and always was "if your dudes look like X and play like Y, and you are using the OBVIOUSLY X scheme, than you have thrown fluff completely off and are just gaming for advantage here with the pieces being irrelevant"

Except that's not throwing fluff completely out the window. Not all Imperial Guard regiments fight identically. Even those from the same world.

You want to be tallaran, there are official models for it. expensive, and harder to get (and at some cases require hard wepon conversions), so its far more forgivable and easy to navigate around than most "count as" out there. (like marine "imperial fists who happen to be salamandars with iron hand tech dreads" cases)
Don't want/cant afford/don't like the models/whatever issue-well at the very least bother making your cadians not obvious cadians with cadian paint and cadian unit marking following all the cadian standard appearance, because that's no different from playing CSM models using SW codex. its technically legal, but that's defiantly not the spirit of a friendly game.

So, do you require the official models for the official rules or not? You're contradicting yourself here.

And before you jump back to the "but not every cadian is the same" shtick, well yea. they also don't all LOOK the same.
Bother making your appearance match your choice of off-standard ruleset, and not even the most carrot loving fluff bunny would bat an eye.
Do a decent conversion of something, and you'd probably be praised, assuming said conversion looks the part.

You can't just ignore that. Why do Cadian mechanized regiments need conversions to use Steel Legion rules even if they are more appropriate? To satisfy some arbitrary requirement to look different?

The soup however, outside an outright tournament, I see as rather unforgiveable.
Yea, in the tiny local engagement out of the massive war going all around, there just so happens to be a bland of units from different regiments who each has a distinct fighting style and each just happens to have the very unit they excel at as the units they have right here right now.

The Imperial Guard is a vast and diverse fighting force drawn from across the galaxy. A regiment on this part of the line may be completely different from a regiment just a few feet over down the line. Even if they are from the same planet! And your second point is irrelevant as list tailoring is a separate issue.

Sorry, its just being cheesy. its just as technically legal as spamming the same unit over and over, but its annoying and I'd rather play somebody else.
And for the love of god, souping different regiments while using a SINGLE UNIFORM APPEARANCE for all of them, that's crossing the path form a healthy doze of powergaming to an unhealthy doze of TFG.

I think I would rather play someone who didn't police other people's modelling choices with a half baked understanding of Imperial Guard lore.

ConvincingJohn wrote:
So, I have a question. Is this just usual forum talk, or is this actually happening in stores?

The forums are a conglomerate of different people and ideas from around the world. Everyone's local meta will be different, and require knowledge of it to make that determination. But is this actually happening somewhere in 'real life'? Yes. Without a shadow of a doubt.

ConvincingJohn wrote:
I started out twenty years ago, and haven't been able to play for the past ten or so. I've kept up with fluff and peeked in on forums, even bought a few Forge World items. With 8th I've been prepping my army to get back in and start playing. Hearing this kind of stuff online-if this kind of mindset is actually happening in public, that's just scary.

Welcome to humanity. I have a low opinion of it, but at least it's not too harmful in the grand scheme of things. Scary is the sort of nutbag stuff people are willing to kill and be killed for.

ConvincingJohn wrote:
I understand wanting to avoid WAAC players if that's not your cup of tea. It's certainly not mine. They were there twenty years ago, I'm sure they're there today, and you can bet they'll be there twenty years from now. There are hundreds of ways that someone can show you what type of player they are by how they conduct themselves and treat you during the game, and I understand wanting to avoid those people after you learn who they are. But making arbitrary rules to pre-judge someone before they've even rolled their first dice? Come on now. This does nothing for our hobby. Well, nothing good anyways.

It's interesting to note, that there's a subset of WAAC players called CAAC (casual at all costs). They're just as interested in winning, but require their own little subset of the game to be adhered to in order to do so. Failure to follow their 'vision' of the game is a clear sign that you're a 'bad' person. Their vision of the game may be based on fluff, the colour you paint your army, or something *really* out there. But they hate 'those WAACers' and are clearly better than them. Apparently.

ConvincingJohn wrote:
I play a mix of Mordians and Praetorians. According to some of the arguments on here, the fact that I liked those models and chose to use the same shade of blue that GW did means that I'm stuck using Mordian traits, and if I don't, I'm the most horrible type of player-desperately trying to manipulate the odds to get whatever little advantage I can. Nevermind the fact that every Guard Codex that I'm aware of has shown these models representing different planetary forces with completely different names. Nevermind that my play style has been influenced by what models I thought were fun before these traits were invented. Nevermind that I want to use official rules to find a play style that I enjoy.

Yep.

ConvincingJohn wrote:
What irks me the most is that the two most vocal people have created a list of rules that conveniently don't apply to them.
One person says that using certain models with certain paint schemes dictates what rules I have to use, and then proceeds to post about using third party models-meaning he can pick whatever traits he wants. Another actually made a list of conversions that he would find "allowable" to reflect what force you would be allowed to play. Again, the rules don't apply to him, he already converted his army. These are examples from this thread! Do you realize how you sound? Whats to stop everyone else adopting the mindset of "since you don't use the exact models and paint schemes, you don't get to use any traits?" Its the exact same argument, and by that I mean its an absolutely horrible one.

Yep.

ConvincingJohn wrote:
Is the hobby still enjoyable if you find that you aren't able to withhold judgement on someone until after you've started playing the game with them?

Depends what you define as the hobby.

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
I understand these are my lines and not everyone will use them but i cant understand why people are so upset that my line doesn't match theirs and that i would rather not play you if your doing this.

Because your line is absurd rivet counting and paranoia about "WAAC powergamers", except you can't even have the decency to be right about your rivet counting. Your whole position is based on ignorance of the IG fluff. It's like if you were playing a WWII game and refused to play against anyone who didn't paint their German tanks bright pink to match the "fluff" of the German army.

Except no one is saying that, at any point of time, this is a total straw man.


The point is, and always was "if your dudes look like X and play like Y, and you are using the OBVIOUSLY X scheme, than you have thrown fluff completely off and are just gaming for advantage here with the pieces being irrelevant"

Because TECHNICALLY, no rule forbids me from using SW rules with CSM models, or ork models with GSC rules, or even fantasy skinks for guardsmen. none of these is different from playing tallaran as cadian (random example). the two each has thier own "correct" models and apperance, using another's is straying, and if you stray and don't look your part and you do it "just because rules X are better", its definition powergaming. you collect army X but you play army Y.

You want to be tallaran, there are official models for it. expensive, and harder to get (and at some cases require hard wepon conversions), so its far more forgivable and easy to navigate around than most "count as" out there. (like marine "imperial fists who happen to be salamandars with iron hand tech dreads" cases)
Don't want/cant afford/don't like the models/whatever issue-well at the very least bother making your cadians not obvious cadians with cadian paint and cadian unit marking following all the cadian standard appearance, because that's no different from playing CSM models using SW codex. its technically legal, but that's defiantly not the spirit of a friendly game.
And not every game is a money-on-the-table tournament, if you can't bring yourself into having an army that matches appearances and play it says something about your personality, attitude towards the game, and how the match is going to play, and knowing I'll probably not have any fun I'll find another opponent. no biggie. not like I am confiscating your stuff and burning it down.

And before you jump back to the "but not every cadian is the same" shtick, well yea. they also don't all LOOK the same.
Bother making your appearance match your choice of off-standard ruleset, and not even the most carrot loving fluff bunny would bat an eye.
Do a decent conversion of something, and you'd probably be praised, assuming said conversion looks the part.

The soup however, outside an outright tournament, I see as rather unforgiveable.
Yea, in the tiny local engagement out of the massive war going all around, there just so happens to be a bland of units from different regiments who each has a distinct fighting style and each just happens to have the very unit they excel at as the units they have right here right now.
Sorry, its just being cheesy. its just as technically legal as spamming the same unit over and over, but its annoying and I'd rather play somebody else.
And for the love of god, souping different regiments while using a SINGLE UNIFORM APPEARANCE for all of them, that's crossing the path form a healthy doze of powergaming to an unhealthy doze of TFG.


And I'm saying this as someone who is on both sides of this bridge.
I min-max and go into powergaming when the opponent and setting is right, squessing every bit of power available with cherry picking units, upgrades, etc. but I also have a large number of not-quite-usual models, outright conversions and count-as models.

Great post! So great I exalted it. This is exactly what I've been saying this entire time. You covered it so well there's no need for me to even post.

The person complaining about using space wolf rules with CSM models is apparently unaware of one of the more popular model options for thunder wolves was khornste bezerkers on bloodcrushers. Saw quite a few of those when I was first getting into the hobby actually. One fellow in my area had an entire khornate space wolf army, wonderfully converted and painted. Was actually one of the best armies I've ever seen overall.

It really does amuse me the sort of weird gatekeeping people try to justify at times. I'm sure my GSC being run as mutated chaos cultists would cause some people around here to have a stroke.

Actually, I'm curious how many people do convert models to a small or large degree, vs using them out of the box? I always considered myself lazy in that regard compared to everyone in my area, but I'm feeling positively cutting edge going by the lack of variety some people in this thread seem to have been exposed to.

SilverAlien wrote:
The person complaining about using space wolf rules with CSM models is apparently unaware of one of the more popular model options for thunder wolves was khornste bezerkers on bloodcrushers. Saw quite a few of those when I was first getting into the hobby actually. One fellow in my area had an entire khornate space wolf army, wonderfully converted and painted. Was actually one of the best armies I've ever seen overall.

It really does amuse me the sort of weird gatekeeping people try to justify at times. I'm sure my GSC being run as mutated chaos cultists would cause some people around here to have a stroke.

Actually, I'm curious how many people do convert models to a small or large degree, vs using them out of the box? I always considered myself lazy in that regard compared to everyone in my area, but I'm feeling positively cutting edge going by the lack of variety some people in this thread seem to have been exposed to.

The absolute state of tfg

 Carl wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
The person complaining about using space wolf rules with CSM models is apparently unaware of one of the more popular model options for thunder wolves was khornste bezerkers on bloodcrushers. Saw quite a few of those when I was first getting into the hobby actually. One fellow in my area had an entire khornate space wolf army, wonderfully converted and painted. Was actually one of the best armies I've ever seen overall.

It really does amuse me the sort of weird gatekeeping people try to justify at times. I'm sure my GSC being run as mutated chaos cultists would cause some people around here to have a stroke.

Actually, I'm curious how many people do convert models to a small or large degree, vs using them out of the box? I always considered myself lazy in that regard compared to everyone in my area, but I'm feeling positively cutting edge going by the lack of variety some people in this thread seem to have been exposed to.

The absolute state of tfg

Absolutely. Fluff and conversions and the weapons of TFG.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Carl wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
The person complaining about using space wolf rules with CSM models is apparently unaware of one of the more popular model options for thunder wolves was khornste bezerkers on bloodcrushers. Saw quite a few of those when I was first getting into the hobby actually. One fellow in my area had an entire khornate space wolf army, wonderfully converted and painted. Was actually one of the best armies I've ever seen overall.

It really does amuse me the sort of weird gatekeeping people try to justify at times. I'm sure my GSC being run as mutated chaos cultists would cause some people around here to have a stroke.

Actually, I'm curious how many people do convert models to a small or large degree, vs using them out of the box? I always considered myself lazy in that regard compared to everyone in my area, but I'm feeling positively cutting edge going by the lack of variety some people in this thread seem to have been exposed to.

The absolute state of tfg

Absolutely. Fluff and conversions and the weapons of TFG.

I think he's referring to how cool custom schemes, paint jobs, conversions have all been discussed as generally fine in this thread. But you are purposefully using a straw man that nobody is referring to to try to make a point. We're not saying some beautifully painted and converted x model can be used in army Y. What people are saying is X model painted as X model should not be used for Y model. For example a black templar painted as a black templar should not be used as a salamander. If you had a black templar emperors champion model converted and painted as a salamander to use as a commander or something nobody would care

Why do people even care? How does it affect you that someone else is using Salamander's rules for Black Templars? Does it really break the game that the Black Templars can reroll a single to hit/wound die now?

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Why do people even care? How does it affect you that someone else is using Salamander's rules for Black Templars? Does it really break the game that the Black Templars can reroll a single to hit/wound die now?

Why does it matter that I don't want to play against it? The thread was asking if people were going to be strict about people using there models as in and simply it is for me and clearly several other people. I simply stated that yes it would matter to me and wouldn't be playing against people that do that. It's that simple and there's really no need to get upset about it. I'm sure everyone who agrees with me has different reasons as to why as I stated there are a couple reasons personally for me.
1. What I feel like the type of person who feels the need to play a black templar army as Salamanders to gain a small advantage is going to be like to play against (I could be wrong by my judgments but as I ushually only get a game or so I'm a week if I feel like right off the bat someone is power gaming and bending fluff/ codex entry's to gain an advantage I don't want to play it)
2. It ruins my immersion
3. I'm a stickler for the rules. When there is a book with black templars that says this is how black templars fight. They don't fight like ultra marines or Salamanders or space wolves. Just use them for what they are

Once again these are all personal. If you wanna use black templars as Salamanders that's fine I really do hope you have no problems finding a game. I just really don't want to be part of that game and I don't see why that matters to you so much

So, did you get stomped into the ground by black templars being run as salamanders or something? Because you come back to that example really often. Or you are just hoping someone will make a "just because they are black doesn't make them salamanders" joke if you bring it up often enough?

i also never did get an answer on whether or not using salamanders with white scars tactics to better model an army of pyromaniacs running down the field with flamer and melta weapons was alright, as it was clearly inferior to just playing salamanders normally.

Honestly, the best solution to this problem? Buy RG and paint him up in whatever color the rest of your army is. Clearly RG indicates your army is a ultramarines successor or the ultramarines themselves in camouflage, and they all have one paint job as well. What are you going to do, tell them they painted a 100$ model wrong and can never use it?

SilverAlien wrote:
So, did you get stomped into the ground by black templars being run as salamanders or something? Because you come back to that example really often. Or you are just hoping someone will make a "just because they are black doesn't make them salamanders" joke if you bring it up often enough?

i also never did get an answer on whether or not using salamanders with white scars tactics to better model an army of pyromaniacs running down the field with flamer and melta weapons was alright, as it was clearly inferior to just playing salamanders normally.

Honestly, the best solution to this problem? Buy RG and paint him up in whatever color the rest of your army is. Clearly RG indicates your army is a ultramarines successor or the ultramarines themselves in camouflage, and they all have one paint job as well. What are you going to do, tell them they painted a 100$ model wrong and can never use it?

Seriously why the need for personal attacks? Is someone not wanting to play you that upsetting? Nope I actually haven't fought Salamanders or Black Templars yet this edition but one day will have a Black templar army of my own.

If I understand your question correctly you want to know if I'm ok with using one chapter as a different chapter? That's a silly question as I've stated just use what you painted. If it's unique/ doesn't have a designated rule you choose what applies. If it has specific rules use those.

Seriously relax man I'm sure plenty of people will gladly play against your Black templars that are Salamanders now :p

Asmodios wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Why do people even care? How does it affect you that someone else is using Salamander's rules for Black Templars? Does it really break the game that the Black Templars can reroll a single to hit/wound die now?

Why does it matter that I don't want to play against it? The thread was asking if people were going to be strict about people using there models as in and simply it is for me and clearly several other people. I simply stated that yes it would matter to me and wouldn't be playing against people that do that. It's that simple and there's really no need to get upset about it. I'm sure everyone who agrees with me has different reasons as to why as I stated there are a couple reasons personally for me.
1. What I feel like the type of person who feels the need to play a black templar army as Salamanders to gain a small advantage is going to be like to play against (I could be wrong by my judgments but as I ushually only get a game or so I'm a week if I feel like right off the bat someone is power gaming and bending fluff/ codex entry's to gain an advantage I don't want to play it)
2. It ruins my immersion
3. I'm a stickler for the rules. When there is a book with black templars that says this is how black templars fight. They don't fight like ultra marines or Salamanders or space wolves. Just use them for what they are

Once again these are all personal. If you wanna use black templars as Salamanders that's fine I really do hope you have no problems finding a game. I just really don't want to be part of that game and I don't see why that matters to you so much

It matters to me because you've been expressing this viewpoint throughout the thread. It just seems like a weird hangup because it's a really minor rules difference. Especially something to judge your opponent for.

And for the record I collect Salamanders and I'll run them using Salamanders/Ultramarines chapter tactics. I figure since the Salamanders are a Codex Compliant chapter, and the only thing notable about the Ultramarines is that they follow the codex and nothing else, it's totally fluffy to run Ultras CTs.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Why do people even care? How does it affect you that someone else is using Salamander's rules for Black Templars? Does it really break the game that the Black Templars can reroll a single to hit/wound die now?

Why does it matter that I don't want to play against it? The thread was asking if people were going to be strict about people using there models as in and simply it is for me and clearly several other people. I simply stated that yes it would matter to me and wouldn't be playing against people that do that. It's that simple and there's really no need to get upset about it. I'm sure everyone who agrees with me has different reasons as to why as I stated there are a couple reasons personally for me.
1. What I feel like the type of person who feels the need to play a black templar army as Salamanders to gain a small advantage is going to be like to play against (I could be wrong by my judgments but as I ushually only get a game or so I'm a week if I feel like right off the bat someone is power gaming and bending fluff/ codex entry's to gain an advantage I don't want to play it)
2. It ruins my immersion
3. I'm a stickler for the rules. When there is a book with black templars that says this is how black templars fight. They don't fight like ultra marines or Salamanders or space wolves. Just use them for what they are

Once again these are all personal. If you wanna use black templars as Salamanders that's fine I really do hope you have no problems finding a game. I just really don't want to be part of that game and I don't see why that matters to you so much

It matters to me because you've been expressing this viewpoint throughout the thread. It just seems like a weird hangup because it's a really minor rules difference. Especially something to judge your opponent for.

And for the record I collect Salamanders and I'll run them using Salamanders/Ultramarines chapter tactics. I figure since the Salamanders are a Codex Compliant chapter, and the only thing notable about the Ultramarines is that they follow the codex and nothing else, it's totally fluffy to run Ultras CTs.

I'm sure it seems weird to you.... we have different opinions. That's great I hope you have great games and tons of fun running your Salamanders who are really ultra mariens. I'll simply be playing against Salamanders who are Salamanders. I've got to duck out though if you have any pressing questions about my viewpoints I'll check in tomorrow.

Asmodios wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Why do people even care? How does it affect you that someone else is using Salamander's rules for Black Templars? Does it really break the game that the Black Templars can reroll a single to hit/wound die now?

Why does it matter that I don't want to play against it? The thread was asking if people were going to be strict about people using there models as in and simply it is for me and clearly several other people. I simply stated that yes it would matter to me and wouldn't be playing against people that do that. It's that simple and there's really no need to get upset about it. I'm sure everyone who agrees with me has different reasons as to why as I stated there are a couple reasons personally for me.
1. What I feel like the type of person who feels the need to play a black templar army as Salamanders to gain a small advantage is going to be like to play against (I could be wrong by my judgments but as I ushually only get a game or so I'm a week if I feel like right off the bat someone is power gaming and bending fluff/ codex entry's to gain an advantage I don't want to play it)
2. It ruins my immersion
3. I'm a stickler for the rules. When there is a book with black templars that says this is how black templars fight. They don't fight like ultra marines or Salamanders or space wolves. Just use them for what they are

Once again these are all personal. If you wanna use black templars as Salamanders that's fine I really do hope you have no problems finding a game. I just really don't want to be part of that game and I don't see why that matters to you so much

It matters to me because you've been expressing this viewpoint throughout the thread. It just seems like a weird hangup because it's a really minor rules difference. Especially something to judge your opponent for.

And for the record I collect Salamanders and I'll run them using Salamanders/Ultramarines chapter tactics. I figure since the Salamanders are a Codex Compliant chapter, and the only thing notable about the Ultramarines is that they follow the codex and nothing else, it's totally fluffy to run Ultras CTs.

I'm sure it seems weird to you.... we have different opinions. That's great I hope you have great games and tons of fun running your Salamanders who are really ultra mariens. I'll simply be playing against Salamanders who are Salamanders. I've got to duck out though if you have any pressing questions about my viewpoints I'll check in tomorrow.

I guess you missed the part where I said I'd be using Salamanders CTs. And just disregarded my lore explanation for it. But I guess rules trumps fluff, right?

Asmodios wrote:
Seriously why the need for personal attacks? Is someone not wanting to play you that upsetting? Nope I actually haven't fought Salamanders or Black Templars yet this edition but one day will have a Black templar army of my own.

If I understand your question correctly you want to know if I'm ok with using one chapter as a different chapter? That's a silly question as I've stated just use what you painted. If it's unique/ doesn't have a designated rule you choose what applies. If it has specific rules use those.

Seriously relax man I'm sure plenty of people will gladly play against your Black templars that are Salamanders now :p

Me joking around isn't me making personal attacks, I'm in a good mood right now actually. This is me being friendly even.

Again, the point I was driving at is that, as far as it goes, unless they are running their army as ultramarines with a RG parking lot they aren't picking a chapter because they want to win. They just think those tactics would be fun. If they wanted to win the chapter tactic for a marine army would be largely irrelevant because if you are taking many units that benefit from your chapter tactic, as in infantry, bikers and dreadnoughts, you clearly aren't playing to win. Playing salamanders to gain an advantage is like sawing off your leg to run faster.

That's really all I want you to admit. It isn't about limiting power gaming, as you claimed multiple times.

We've already established nothing in the thread applies to me, because I don't have enough patience to paint my armies in an official color scheme and generally find the most minimal and quick option. Which honestly should annoy a fluff player as well and it's weird to me it doesn't.

Asmodios wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Why do people even care? How does it affect you that someone else is using Salamander's rules for Black Templars? Does it really break the game that the Black Templars can reroll a single to hit/wound die now?

Why does it matter that I don't want to play against it? The thread was asking if people were going to be strict about people using there models as in and simply it is for me and clearly several other people. I simply stated that yes it would matter to me and wouldn't be playing against people that do that. It's that simple and there's really no need to get upset about it. I'm sure everyone who agrees with me has different reasons as to why as I stated there are a couple reasons personally for me.
1. What I feel like the type of person who feels the need to play a black templar army as Salamanders to gain a small advantage is going to be like to play against (I could be wrong by my judgments but as I ushually only get a game or so I'm a week if I feel like right off the bat someone is power gaming and bending fluff/ codex entry's to gain an advantage I don't want to play it)
2. It ruins my immersion
3. I'm a stickler for the rules. When there is a book with black templars that says this is how black templars fight. They don't fight like ultra marines or Salamanders or space wolves. Just use them for what they are

Once again these are all personal. If you wanna use black templars as Salamanders that's fine I really do hope you have no problems finding a game. I just really don't want to be part of that game and I don't see why that matters to you so much

It matters to me because you've been expressing this viewpoint throughout the thread. It just seems like a weird hangup because it's a really minor rules difference. Especially something to judge your opponent for.

And for the record I collect Salamanders and I'll run them using Salamanders/Ultramarines chapter tactics. I figure since the Salamanders are a Codex Compliant chapter, and the only thing notable about the Ultramarines is that they follow the codex and nothing else, it's totally fluffy to run Ultras CTs.

I'm sure it seems weird to you.... we have different opinions. That's great I hope you have great games and tons of fun running your Salamanders who are really ultra mariens. I'll simply be playing against Salamanders who are Salamanders. I've got to duck out though if you have any pressing questions about my viewpoints I'll check in tomorrow.

It only matters for 2 reasons.

1) Over the course of this conversation it has been mentioned many times that using painted black templar as salamanders is a way for a player to be min maxing. Which is insane. Because by the same token black templars painted orange could be played as any chapter tactic and everyone would be cool with it. It's never considered that a player might be looking for variety or trying out different lists. Or just doing something different on a lark. It's min maxing and that guy is now TFG. This point is bull gak.

2) When a player is not breaking the rules you are denying them games because of arbitrary crap. Granted... you could deny any player games for any reason! You are free to do that. You can choose the color of the models. Whether or not they are painted. The color of their skin/eyes/hair. You can deny a player games for ANY reason. But none of those reasons are valid and all of them are equally petty reasons. (Petty... I am not saying denying a person a game because they have red hair is as equally as bad as for paint scheme. I am saying it's equally petty and insignificant.)

You are free to be as big of a dick as you want to be. But there is something wrong with people being dicks for the sake of pettiness. There always is. In every situation where someones petty garbage is the reason they decide to make someone elses day worse. In a very similar way that you accuse people of attempting to min max and power game without any evidence for it, I say any person who shows up to play games and then denies their opponents purely on the grounds of this nonsensical BS there is absolutely something wrong with it.

It's poor sportsmanship. It's a crap attitude. It penalizes people while they follow the rules. It very easily can make a persons day worse because of pettiness. Can you really see nothing wrong with that?

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

Nothing in the rules tell you whether or not you actually require the correct models to use doctrines, but then again, nothing in the rules require you to play the game. If someone does not want to play with your Winter Cadians, then they don't have to.

FWIW, I would allow anything as long as its perfectly clear who is who (Blue Cadians are Catachans, White are Valhallans, Red are Vostroyans...).

 Aenarian wrote:
Nothing in the rules tell you whether or not you actually require the correct models to use doctrines, but then again, nothing in the rules require you to play the game. If someone does not want to play with your Winter Cadians, then they don't have to.

FWIW, I would allow anything as long as its perfectly clear who is who (Blue Cadians are Catachans, White are Valhallans, Red are Vostroyans...).

This game more than others is about compromise, and how much you want others to compromise for you. The more you want to dictate your opponents army choices the more issues come up, and it does go both ways.

The way GW has done it is kinda bleh to me, Regiments of the IG are supposed to be huge and on the tabletop is a small part of this bigger war and battle. It is not hard to think that a Commander would send specialist units to different positions if they have them available.
Really as long as the player themselves can keep there units in order, it shouldn't be more than a problem than most marine units that can look similar but have different rules(or any other army for that matter)

This would likely be less of an issue if all the models were as available as the Cadians are.

So, now your argument is that I'm being a dick if I pass on having a game I know I wouldn't enjoy?

And once again it's not "magically OK" when you use a custom paint job and suddenly not powergaming
It's just not obvious on a glance you are, especially if your entire army is properly one regiment. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. I wouldn't know until mid game probably, and at that point I wouldn't quit, I'll just probably not bother playing that guy again.


Powergaming is a scale, both in practice, and in how easy it is not notice in advance.
If I notice it before I even played you once, such as you got your very obviously Black Templar playing as Salamanders, and we ALL know that's strictly a powergaming choice, than you are probably higher on the scale than I'm comfortable with for a casual friday evening relaxing game.
If your models perfectly match your rules, it dosent mean you CAN'T be just as power gaming, it just that I lack the obvious indication.

For example, my buddy started collecting blood ravens.
For now, they got no rules so he's playing whatever marines.
Once they get rules, I'd expect him to play by them, be them weak or overpowered.

So "powergaming" is just anyone that doesn't play by your self-imposed rules.

It's a game, why are some people making it sound like it's repulsive to actually try to win it?

 BoomWolf wrote:
So, now your argument is that I'm being a dick if I pass on having a game I know I wouldn't enjoy?

And once again it's not "magically OK" when you use a custom paint job and suddenly not powergaming
It's just not obvious on a glance you are, especially if your entire army is properly one regiment. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. I wouldn't know until mid game probably, and at that point I wouldn't quit, I'll just probably not bother playing that guy again.


Powergaming is a scale, both in practice, and in how easy it is not notice in advance.
If I notice it before I even played you once, such as you got your very obviously Black Templar playing as Salamanders, and we ALL know that's strictly a powergaming choice, than you are probably higher on the scale than I'm comfortable with for a casual friday evening relaxing game.
If your models perfectly match your rules, it dosent mean you CAN'T be just as power gaming, it just that I lack the obvious indication.

For example, my buddy started collecting blood ravens.
For now, they got no rules so he's playing whatever marines.
Once they get rules, I'd expect him to play by them, be them weak or overpowered.

Gaming time is a limited resource, and I understand that we can and do make choices about how we spend that time. If you have played somebody (assuming this is an open games club or store) and you truly did not enjoy the experience then by all means avoid playing that person. If he was a cheat (subtle or not) or was overbearing/swearing etc then I totally get you not wanting to play him again. If its because you lost to a list that you didn't like then perhaps you need to reflect on how you judge your opponents? I realize, though, that there are some lists that are just not a ton of fun to play against (the Assassin list going around for example) and that there are also times you look at a match-up and realize that you have no chance. In the latter case, though, I find its best to tough it out and then analyze my own list to see what I could have done differently.

I certainly prefer playing with and against painted models, and I always play my Dark Angels as Dark Angels. I get that some folks would, given the choice, chose to play against painted models and not play against an army of unpainted plastic. I am not fussed, though, about players who use lists from the same book as alternatives with the same models. Your Ultramarines are Ravenguard this week? Cool! It adds variety at no cost and says nothing about their character. At a tournament you might get docked on the Army score, but play on sir! My Imperial Guard force has a very checkered past - they've been all sorts of unsavoury things.

Cheers

I have a decent sized army of Imperial Guard, pretty much entirely Cadian models because it is the most economically viable and, in my opinion, the best looking regiment. However, I run them as my own regiment, the Tvashtan 422nd. Looking through the new doctrines I do not think that the Cadian ones suit my fluff at all. Tvashtar is a giant volcanic wasteland, so mobile armoured companies are the way they fight. The Cadian rules lead to a very static playstyle, with all of the bonuses to not moving. I have never liked gunline Guard so much as I find it a bit boring. However, the Tallarn rules seem to suit my regimental ideas perfectly, as they are really mobile.

Cadian pattern arms and armour have been described in the fluff as very prolific, available all over the galaxy. So why shouldn't I be able to have my random world equipped with them, using their own combat style which fits closely into the "Tallarn" achetype?

A separate issue is mixing several regiments into the same army without properly differentiating them from each other. However, I think that you can still get different regiments from the same world using different doctrines. Say, for instance, I formed the Tvashtan 423rd. This regiment was raised quickly and has a large amount of conscripts and hastily constructed vehicles. Therefore, the Valhallan doctrines would suite them perfectly. They have lots of men to thrown at the enemy and their vehicles are more ramshakle, able to take damage but not as maneuverable. As long as the markings are suitably different it should be fine.

So, when making your "Tvashtan" regiment, what symbolism and marking you used for them?
Their own with the 422 and 423 having some differences, even if subtle, or exactly by-the-book cadian that are marked as if they were one unit?

Because the two are miles apart. Even small touches makes a force "your dudes" and are a huge difference when done tastefully.

You are not really running cadian any more are you? You run your own regiment that you named, got a story of sorts for, and (theoretically) made some sort of visual distinction for.

And as mentioned, cadian models in spesific get far more leeway, has the fact collecting anything else IS difficult.
I expect you to do the bare minimum of bothering to keep something akin to a nerrative (a hated word by those who are deep into powergaming and treat models as nothing more than game pieces), not that you keep to the most strict guidelines of having only one eight way.

Basically you can put it down simply as "you don't have to adhere spesifically to X looks to play X-you just need to look the part, but if you look exactly like existing rules Y, use them."

My own TS use castellax achea as helbrutes. Should the achea get 40k rules, I'd use them instead, regardless of if they are better or worse, because I'm not playing the helbrute, I'm playing the achea and the helbrute is the closest thing I got in the rules.

I refuse to accept that someone in the real world would turn down a game because someone's Cadian army is being run as a Valhallan army.

I guess everyone plays the game they want and you have the right to refuse a game, but that's about as petty as I could imagine.

Certainly makes an argument for me to ensure my not-Mordians are visually distinct enough that I'm allowed to run them as different regiments based on the type of force I'm running that day. Not that I'd ever play against someone who would make an issue about something like that.

 Blacksails wrote:
I refuse to accept that someone in the real world would turn down a game because someone's Cadian army is being run as a Valhallan army.

I guess everyone plays the game they want and you have the right to refuse a game, but that's about as petty as I could imagine.

Certainly makes an argument for me to ensure my not-Mordians are visually distinct enough that I'm allowed to run them as different regiments based on the type of force I'm running that day. Not that I'd ever play against someone who would make an issue about something like that.

Like I said before, I would find it distasteful but thats the extent of it.

But lets inject some common sense into this, I only apply this reasoning to armies with the models to actually pull this off, for example, guard do not have the models to make these other regiments properly, so I dont really mind as much, but it would irk me if I see an ultramarines army using Raven Guard just because the trait is better, bbuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuutttttt, if you are using a home brew army and want to use any chapter trait you want, no problems, I suppose it comes down to this, use the bloody rules for the army you have chosen to play, if for no other reason it stops confusion.

 BoomWolf wrote:
So, when making your "Tvashtan" regiment, what symbolism and marking you used for them?
Their own with the 422 and 423 having some differences, even if subtle, or exactly by-the-book cadian that are marked as if they were one unit?

Because the two are miles apart. Even small touches makes a force "your dudes" and are a huge difference when done tastefully.

You are not really running cadian any more are you? You run your own regiment that you named, got a story of sorts for, and (theoretically) made some sort of visual distinction for.

And as mentioned, cadian models in spesific get far more leeway, has the fact collecting anything else IS difficult.
I expect you to do the bare minimum of bothering to keep something akin to a nerrative (a hated word by those who are deep into powergaming and treat models as nothing more than game pieces), not that you keep to the most strict guidelines of having only one eight way.

Basically you can put it down simply as "you don't have to adhere spesifically to X looks to play X-you just need to look the part, but if you look exactly like existing rules Y, use them."

My own TS use castellax achea as helbrutes. Should the achea get 40k rules, I'd use them instead, regardless of if they are better or worse, because I'm not playing the helbrute, I'm playing the achea and the helbrute is the closest thing I got in the rules.

Exactly this ^
lets use a really easy example. You buy a bunch of Ultra mariens because you like the roman look but you make them your own and have unique markings across your army (let's say it's some red dragon used). It's clear to me that these aren't and were never intended to be ultra mariens so when you say they fight like Black templars that's cool to me I have no problem with that because no roman looking space mariens with dragons as a marking have their own book. But let's say you have a fully painted Minotaur army (never seen one in person but would love to) and they get a new codex in a week. Those Minotaurs will fight as per their official rule book now dictates.

Once again I understand that this is 100% my choice and there's no reason you can't take your Black Templar army and use it as a stand in for the new FOTM every time you play. I just don't want to play against it for the three reasons I listed before
1.preceved reasons for the change
2.immersion into the game
3. Playing the rules as written

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
I suppose I'm more curious as to why it's a big deal to someone, if an unrelated person to them is "refusing" to play another player. How does this impact you?

Is this going to become another "think of the community!" argument? Because there isn't a GW gaming community, never has been. There's a heap of sub-sects of types of gamers who happen to play the same game. As we discussed in the "perfect zone" for playing 40K, the game is entirely dependent on who you're gaming with.

I attended an Apocalypse game yesterday. They had 13 players and wanted a 14th, but I didn't feel like playing, so I refused. Am I somehow ruining the community or breaking peoples hearts because I chose not to participate in something I didn't think I'd enjoy? No. I'm an adult and can make decisions of my own.

What does it matter if someone won't play another player? You could avoid playing someone because of their body-odour, choice of t-shirts, political affiliation, height, type of shoes they wear, gender etc....who cares? It's a hobby. Play it however you wish. If you want to cheese out as hard as possible, sure, go nuts - find someone who enjoys that type of game and have at it.

If you want to play only painted models, go nuts, do your thing. If you want to push armless grey plastic around and your opponent is game - go for it. But don't pretend to criticize someone because they want something different out of the game than you. We're not vikings, you don't come in and challenge someone and they HAVE to play you in a game of 40K, lol.

This is, I suppose, the beauty of the internet. We have the luxury of being outraged over the gaming habits of someone we don't know, likely on the other side of the planet. Genius.

There is indeed a GW gaming community. Its a big tent, but its still a community. I have travelled the world and played 40K while doing so. Not everybody sees the game exactly the same way, but most can find a way to get a game in against somebody else with a 40K army.

There is a world of difference between you declining a large Apocalypse Game because you were not feeling it and somebody refusing a game against somebody else at 40K Night because they don't like the guy's army. Surely you realize that, just like you realize that declining a game because of somebody's gender, height etc, etc is ridiculous. Declining a game because you have played that person and found them to be overbearing/cheating etc is a different story.

We're not arguing whether something is ridiculous or not. We're arguing why Person A's opinion about what Person B does matters. I'm a big believer in doing what you want (even if that includes being an donkey-cave). You'll pay for the decisions you make (either in the positive or the negative). The only say you get is when said person does something that impacts you. This is not the case here on an internet forum. As is usual for an internet forum, we state opinions as facts and don't ever clarify a statement with "Well, I believe that's a poor way to handle..." instead it's "You're a crazy idiot, and that's madness!".

Does this 12 page discussion just really boil down to the question:
'do you have a way that a player looking at the table can tell that Unit A of Detachment X is different from Unit B of Detachment Y?'.

And this can be applied to everyone, AdMech, marines, Choas, etc. If there's a way to differentiate detachments on the table what's the issue?

BroodSpawn wrote:
Does this 12 page discussion just really boil down to the question:
'do you have a way that a player looking at the table can tell that Unit A of Detachment X is different from Unit B of Detachment Y?'.

And this can be applied to everyone, AdMech, marines, Choas, etc. If there's a way to differentiate detachments on the table what's the issue?

12 pages is nothing. Wait until another FW book comes out and we get a 76 page FW legality thread.

BroodSpawn wrote:
Does this 12 page discussion just really boil down to the question:
'do you have a way that a player looking at the table can tell that Unit A of Detachment X is different from Unit B of Detachment Y?'.

And this can be applied to everyone, AdMech, marines, Choas, etc. If there's a way to differentiate detachments on the table what's the issue?

No, you've missed the actual discussion. It boils down which of these people are you:
A) Does not think a paint scheme should dictate what you play your models as, and will happily play it as it makes no difference if you play your Imperial Fist-painted army as Raven Guard.
B) Thinks if you painted your models in the Cadian colours, you have to play them as Cadians, or you're a powergamer and should be ridiculed.

I'm still here, sitting, not understanding why the only reason someone would switch chapter/regiment/legion tactics is because they are min/maxing, and not because maybe after 2-3 months playing with the exact same rules they want a little of variation in their game without needing to buy a whole new army.

I'm the only one that gets bored pretty fast playing the same list with the same bonuses and rules month after month? The way I solved that problem was basically having a ton of units from the same army so I could change my list all the time with pretty strong themes so every game feel I'm having a total different experience. Like, a full boar cavalry with boar chariots greenskin army. A Goblin horde with trolls, etc...

But if GW offers me another layer of rules to add spicy and variation to my games, the hell I'm gonna take it.
This "You should pick a rules-bonus and STICK to it NO MATTER WHAT", with all the "I'll be OK if they use another bonus but only if they stick to it" is making me confused.
Did really people enjoy playing the same list, with the same bonuses, month after month?

Pretty much, that's what I've gathered.

Its either a purely aesthetic fluff issue or you're surely a powergamer for wanting to try something other than what your army is painted up as.

No chance in hell you aren't, even if you choose to gimp yourself in the process and play a less powerful regiment.

PLus, for people arguing that "If you have cadian models you should be played as Cadians"





Learn your fluff!

 Purifier wrote:

BroodSpawn wrote:
Does this 12 page discussion just really boil down to the question:
'do you have a way that a player looking at the table can tell that Unit A of Detachment X is different from Unit B of Detachment Y?'.

And this can be applied to everyone, AdMech, marines, Choas, etc. If there's a way to differentiate detachments on the table what's the issue?

No, you've missed the actual discussion. It boils down which of these people are you:
A) Does not think a paint scheme should dictate what you play your models as, and will happily play it as it makes no difference if you play your Imperial Fist-painted army as Raven Guard.
B) Thinks if you painted your models in the Cadian colours, you have to play them as Cadians, or you're a powergamer and should be ridiculed.

But neither of these options really answer the question about strictness, just about how far along the spectrum of being TFG someone is? I'm honestly confused at this point because, well, I take the fairly sensible approach* that as long as something can be easily identified on the table then it shouldn't be an issue no matter what rules you play.

I mean if people are having this much... fun... think of the discussion that's gonna happen when the 'Nids get Hive Fleets?

*Personal opinion I know, sensibility is in the eye of the individual

 Galas wrote:
PLus, for people arguing that "If you have cadian models you should be played as Cadians"





Learn your fluff!

This is great - it clarifies a lot:

- If you want to run a regiment using your own fluff, but looking like Cadians, then that's because Cadian equipment, TACTICS and TRAINING have been emulated on many many worlds. Thus, presumably, the Snowhounds use Cadian tactics and training? I mean that's literally what it says on that page.

- If you want to run Mordians, depicted right there in the picture, you can convert them out of existing plastics to LOOK like Mordians.

- If you convert them out of existing plastics to look like something totally different (like the Savlar or Ventrillians there) I guess you can pick whatever you want.

GW, siding with what I've been saying all along - that clear, unconfusing appearance is everything. If they look like Cadians, they play like Cadians. If you want them to play like Mordians, convert them to look like Mordians. If they look like a unique regiment, there's no chance for confusion so pick whatever tactics you want! I wonder if Armageddon Ork Hunters are meant to be run as Catachans, which would work because they totally look right for that and there's no chance of confusing them for Steel Legion.

I like this because it works a bit like the Heresy does - you can take a rite which gives you an all jetbike army in any Legion, but White Scars and Dark Angels have special rites which give them really GOOD jetbike rites. If you want to run Blood Angels Jetbike Company, you don't 'run them as White Scars' - you just take the regular jetbike rite. Because while BA have jetbike formations, they're not as good as WS or DA. This actually gives you more graded levels of unique army - every single jetbike army doesn't just use the same White Scars rules - they all function a bit differently because of their Legion traits.

Similarly, Cadian tactics can be applied to 'hunting and sniping' units like the Snowhounds (or the 'Cadian XXII Rangers' or whatever) but that doesn't mean they suddenly become, say, as good light infantry as Tallarns. They just take the Cadian doctrine as usual, but with a bias towards snipers in the army. This, again, gives more breadth. A Cadian (or Cadian-inspired) Light Infantry company will play differently to a Tallarn one, rather than every single Light Infantry-themed army using the same rules. This is a good thing.

Cadian models mean Cadian tactics. Learn your fluff!!


.

 Galas wrote:
PLus, for people arguing that "If you have cadian models you should be played as Cadians"

Spoiler:

Learn your fluff!

I was honestly flabbergasted to see this topic had gone on for this many pages. But this, in so many words.

Cadian armour is ubiquitous across the Imperium. That's the fluff. Let your opponent know what regiment you're running, and in the case of multiple regiments in one army make the distinction clear, there's no reason to sulk over someone's decades long collection not adhering to the newest codex's smallest detail.

Arb, that's not what they're saying at all. They're saying here's alternate colour schemes for Cadian models (without tying them to a rule set), not that because you have a Cadian model you must use Cadian rules.

It's worth mentioning that in the fluff blurb they mention Cadian TACTICS and TRAINING as well, which will be used by the naysayers to say "look, even GW says Cadian doctrine for cadian models..."

 Galas wrote:
PLus, for people arguing that "If you have cadian models you should be played as Cadians"





Learn your fluff!

This is actually kinda making my point. Right there you have tons of examples of using Cadian style models from all sorts of worlds. Notice that the ones from different worlds look different and or have different marking that makes them not from Cadia. So if you didn't want the to be Cadia guys you shouldn't have painted them the exact colors and symobls of Cadia. If you don't want ultra mariens doing paint them as exactly ultra mariens. If you don't want Salamanders don't paint them exactly as Salamanders. If your regiment does not have a specific codex entry it tells you to pick what applies but when you have X army painted as X army and X army has rules that say how X army fights then use the rules for X army and you will never have an issue.

People seem to be getting the Cadia model confused for what we are saying. I'm saying if you bought the Cadian models and painted them as Cadian you should use those rules. If you have those models but painted them as a world without rules by all means pick the one that fits your fluff. If you buy a generic SM model don't paint it exactly like a blood angel if you don't want it to be one on the board

And when have anyone ever said that "because you have a Cadian model you must use Cadian rules."?

We said, from the first post, you need to at the very least LOOK different.
Guess what a different paint job is doing? LOOKING DIFFERENT.
I've set the bar so low as freaking not outright denoting cadia (with the cadian symbols and whatnot) on the uniform, and somehow even that is too much for you. you need to be the most authentic actual pure cadian in look, but to not play by their rules.
"TheGuardsmen below are made using Cadian Shock Troops range of Citadel Miniatures, with VARIANT COLOR AND ICONOGRAPHY specific to each of their home worlds"
That's EXACTLY what I said I was looking for. not some elaborate conversion or only old metal models at 10$ a piece.

If only there was some sort of other army that had a similar concept for years now, something like marines in space, who has different coloring and iconography for units of different origin and training, despite using the very same models.


Seriously, putting up a picture to "prove me wrong" about having to look different, while the picture is showcasing exactly HOW DIFFERENT THEY LOOK, and referring to the Cadian widespread gear in the very same sentence that mentioned the Cadian tactics being spread in the same way, as if the the two are somehow connected, and the people who supply the gear and training are the same guys.

"Learn your fluff!" you say, armmagedon originating regiments playing like catachan is defiantly a thing, like the ork hunters! I'll prove it by showcasing a picture refering to the ork hunters, who looks nothing like actual steel legion and is in fact converted from catachans to begin with.

I'm getting fussed here the number or people who keep straw-manning me (and my likes) while attacking points we never made and opinions we don't hold, for example:

 Purifier wrote:


No, you've missed the actual discussion. It boils down which of these people are you:
A) Does not think a paint scheme should dictate what you play your models as, and will happily play it as it makes no difference if you play your Imperial Fist-painted army as Raven Guard.
B) Thinks if you painted your models in the Cadian colours, you have to play them as Cadians, or you're a powergamer and should be ridiculed.

Really, "should be ridiculed"? when did anyone say anything even REMOTELY like that?
Yes, we said if you paint, model, and mark one way than play another you are powergaming (because you are) and we are likely to refuse a game, but unless refusing to personally spend time with you is considered ridiculing in your world, you just made up a strawman.
Again.

 BoomWolf wrote:
And when have anyone ever said that "because you have a Cadian model you must use Cadian rules."?

We said, from the first post, you need to at the very least LOOK different.
Guess what a different paint job is doing? LOOKING DIFFERENT.
I've set the bar so low as freaking not outright denoting cadia (with the cadian symbols and whatnot) on the uniform, and somehow even that is too much for you. you need to be the most authentic actual pure cadian in look, but to not play by their rules.
"TheGuardsmen below are made using Cadian Shock Troops range of Citadel Miniatures, with VARIANT COLOR AND ICONOGRAPHY specific to each of their home worlds"
That's EXACTLY what I said I was looking for. not some elaborate conversion or only old metal models at 10$ a piece.

If only there was some sort of other army that had a similar concept for years now, something like marines in space, who has different coloring and iconography for units of different origin and training, despite using the very same models.


Seriously, putting up a picture to "prove me wrong" about having to look different, while the picture is showcasing exactly HOW DIFFERENT THEY LOOK, and referring to the Cadian widespread gear in the very same sentence that mentioned the Cadian tactics being spread in the same way, as if the the two are somehow connected, and the people who supply the gear and training are the same guys.

"Learn your fluff!" you say, armmagedon originating regiments playing like catachan is defiantly a thing, like the ork hunters! I'll prove it by showcasing a picture refering to the ork hunters, who looks nothing like actual steel legion and is in fact converted from catachans to begin with.

I'm getting fussed here the number or people who keep straw-manning me (and my likes) while attacking points we never made and opinions we don't hold, for example:

 Purifier wrote:


No, you've missed the actual discussion. It boils down which of these people are you:
A) Does not think a paint scheme should dictate what you play your models as, and will happily play it as it makes no difference if you play your Imperial Fist-painted army as Raven Guard.
B) Thinks if you painted your models in the Cadian colours, you have to play them as Cadians, or you're a powergamer and should be ridiculed.

Really, "should be ridiculed"? when did anyone say anything even REMOTELY like that?
Yes, we said if you paint, model, and mark one way than play another you are powergaming (because you are) and we are likely to refuse a game, but unless refusing to personally spend time with you is considered ridiculing in your world, you just made up a strawman.
Again.

Yeah I don't get where he was going with that either that picture is a perfect representation of what we have been saying this whole time. That's also why I'm so suprised because literally SM have been doing this for years and over never seen someone trying to play Ultra mariens as blood angels

BroodSpawn wrote:
Arb, that's not what they're saying at all. They're saying here's alternate colour schemes for Cadian models (without tying them to a rule set), not that because you have a Cadian model you must use Cadian rules.

I disagree - it seems they're showing you that many, many units across the galaxy use Cadian tactics, even if they're from a different planet. Thus, giving you the ability to make up your own planet and colour scheme, but consistently tying rules to models.

I made my case very clear in my first response in the thread, but it seems two sides are arguing along different lines without actually addressing each other. A lot of arguments here being made against ghost arguments which were never made prior...(as usual on Dakka it seems)

 ArbitorIan wrote:
y're not as good as WS or DA. This actually gives you more graded levels of unique army - every single jetbike army doesn't just use the same White Scars rules - they all function a bit differently because of their Legion traits.

Similarly, Cadian tactics can be applied to 'hunting and sniping' units like the Snowhounds (or the 'Cadian XXII Rangers' or whatever) but that doesn't mean they suddenly become, say, as good light infantry as Tallarns. They just take the Cadian doctrine as usual, but with a bias towards snipers in the army. This, again, gives more breadth. A Cadian (or Cadian-inspired) Light Infantry company will play differently to a Tallarn one, rather than every single Light Infantry-themed army using the same rules. This is a good thing.

Cadian models mean Cadian tactics. Learn your fluff!!


.

Isn't that the point of regimental doctrines? To give different armies rules to represent their fighting styles? I mean, just giving all Cadian armies the same exact rules regardless of their training, equipment or intent seems weird and kind of boring.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's worth mentioning that in the fluff blurb they mention Cadian TACTICS and TRAINING as well, which will be used by the naysayers to say "look, even GW says Cadian doctrine for cadian models..."

They have already done that... the Cadian Patern for weapons and armour is the "basic" in the imperium. 90% of the Imperium Regiments are gonna have Cadian style armour and weapons. That means they use too the same tactics? In many cases, yes, in others, they don't have why.

And Arbitrorian, "Cadian-derived tactics" =/= "They behave exactly the same as Cadians".

 Galas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's worth mentioning that in the fluff blurb they mention Cadian TACTICS and TRAINING as well, which will be used by the naysayers to say "look, even GW says Cadian doctrine for cadian models..."

They have already done that... the Cadian Patern for weapons and armour is the "basic" in the imperium. 90% of the Imperium Regiments are gonna have Cadian style armour and weapons. That means they use too the same tactics? In many cases, yes, in others, they don't have why.

And Arbitrorian, "Cadian-derived tactics" =/= "They behave exactly the same as Cadians".

No you misunderstand me.

The blurb you quoted specifically calls out more than equipment and uniforms - it also calls out tactics and training. That's being used against us (so find a new blurb, in other words).

 BoomWolf wrote:
And when have anyone ever said that "because you have a Cadian model you must use Cadian rules."?

One of you specifically said that if you used Cadian models and painted them as Cadians, they had to use Cadian doctrines.

The screenshot from the Codex says many regiments around the galaxy uses Cadian tactics and Cadian-style uniforms, but it doesn't say they have to use both. A regiment from a jungle world could easily use Catachan style uniforms (if you can call being half-naked a uniform) for climate reasons, but they could still be well versed in Cadian tactics and firing discipline. So the Cadian Doctrine will be a better representation of how they fight than the Catachan one.
Another regiment from another world can be equipped with Cadian uniforms, green and tan, but because they love flamers and stuff, the Catachan doctrine will represent them much better. After all, there's nothing that says you have to look like Rambo to use a flamer to its full effect.

Or maybe you could field an actual Cadian regiment with a large contingent of White Shields (the original Conscripts) - then the Valhallan doctrine would fit much better. Do you have to wear a thick winter greatcoat to be an expendable conscript?
And do Valhallans have to view their men as expendable, rather than using another doctrine? If they fight in the snow, they would probably be more mobile in their "natural habitat" than their oponent, so the Tallarn doctrine should fit them well.
Could the Tallarn doctrine also represent a Catachan regiment that used Vietcong-style tunnels to reposition their forces? Absolutely.

Maybe I want to use the Cadian or Catachan doctrines for my armored/mechanized force rather than the Armageddon-doctrine, even if I use Steel Legion miniatures. I focus more on tanks than on mechanized infantry, so it would better fit the character of my army.


And comparing Guard regiments to Space Marine Chapter is just wrong, the Guard is a much larger and more diverse force. Not that I'd have any problems with someone playing an Ultramarine Company that uses another chapter's rules to better represent how they fight either.
WAAC or not - nitpicky rule lawyers are annoying.

Asmodios wrote:
I'm saying if you bought the Cadian models and painted them as Cadian you should use those rules. If you have those models but painted them as a world without rules by all means pick the one that fits your fluff.

And this is why people are not impressed with your position. You're ok with playing an army if it's painted with orange shoulder pads, but if it has Cadian symbols on the shoulder pads instead it's suddenly WAAC POWERGAMING NOOOOOO and you refuse to play. You're obsessing over rivet-counting, and you aren't even getting the fluff right when you do it. You're exactly the kind of person that nobody is going to want to play, smugly refusing games over trivial details and insulting anyone who doesn't live up to your standards.

So far, you people are the only one who used an insult at any point, so I don't see how I'm the one "insulting anyone who doesn't live up to your standards. ", I'm simply not playing with you because our concepts of fun does not match.

And you also keep pushing things to the brinks of absurdity on purpose because your "agenda" is nonexsitant and you know it.

so far, you have yet to post anything that does not fall under either "Reductio ad absurdum", "Ad hominem" or blatant strawman.

As long as every single post you make is composed of nothing but logical fallacies, there is honestly no point of attempting to have any sort of discussion with you any further.

 BoomWolf wrote:
So far, you people are the only one who used an insult at any point, so I don't see how I'm the one "insulting anyone who doesn't live up to your standards.

BoomWolf wrote:
And for the love of god, souping different regiments while using a SINGLE UNIFORM APPEARANCE for all of them, that's crossing the path form a healthy doze of powergaming to an unhealthy doze of TFG.

And you also keep pushing things to the brinks of absurdity on purpose because your "agenda" is nonexsitant and you know it.

so far, you have yet to post anything that does not fall under either "Reductio ad absurdum", "Ad hominem" or blatant strawman.

As long as every single post you make is composed of nothing but logical fallacies, there is honestly no point of attempting to have any sort of discussion with you any further.

What are you even talking about?

 BoomWolf wrote:
So far, you people are the only one who used an insult at any point, so I don't see how I'm the one "insulting anyone who doesn't live up to your standards. ", I'm simply not playing with you because our concepts of fun does not match.

Clearly you missed the deleted posts that were insulting "powergamers" blatantly enough to get deleted and a moderator warning post.

And you're right, our definitions of "fun" don't match. Yours involves absurd rivet-counting and obsessing over your opponent's motivation, mine is about how balanced the game is going to be. If an army is much stronger or weaker than mine then the game isn't going to be fun, regardless of whether the rivet counters would consider their rules a perfect match for their paint scheme or what their reasons for picking those rules might have been. That's what matters, not whether or not their army has the correct Cadian markings.

And you also keep pushing things to the brinks of absurdity on purpose because your "agenda" is nonexsitant and you know it.

Not really. If you want to see brinks of absurdity then look at your own position, refusing to play against an army over ridiculous rivet counting and a poor understanding of the fluff while simultaneously accusing the player of "powergaming" regardless of how strong their list actually is.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
I'm saying if you bought the Cadian models and painted them as Cadian you should use those rules. If you have those models but painted them as a world without rules by all means pick the one that fits your fluff.

And this is why people are not impressed with your position. You're ok with playing an army if it's painted with orange shoulder pads, but if it has Cadian symbols on the shoulder pads instead it's suddenly WAAC POWERGAMING NOOOOOO and you refuse to play. You're obsessing over rivet-counting, and you aren't even getting the fluff right when you do it. You're exactly the kind of person that nobody is going to want to play, smugly refusing games over trivial details and insulting anyone who doesn't live up to your standards.

First off I haven't insulted anyone I've said time and again in this thread that it's my perception. I have a limited amount of time to play a limited amount of games so if I see a Black Templar army claiming to be a salamanders army because they just got a buff I'm just not going to play that person because MY perception is that the person is most likely doing this to curb stomp people on 40k night and that's not why I came to the store. There's always plenty of competitive gamers to give those people games nobody is insulting anyone.

Also, I don't see why my position is so abstract there are plenty of SM chapters that use the same models but play differently according to the rules im simply being consistent with playing guard the same way. If you painted your guy's blood angels play blood angels if you are dark angels play dark angels.

Asmodios wrote:
First off I haven't insulted anyone I've said time and again in this thread that it's my perception. I have a limited amount of time to play a limited amount of games so if I see a Black Templar army claiming to be a salamanders army because they just got a buff I'm just not going to play that person because MY perception is that the person is most likely doing this to curb stomp people on 40k night and that's not why I came to the store. There's always plenty of competitive gamers to give those people games nobody is insulting anyone.

"I haven't insulted anyone."
*Immediately insults the hypothetical player.*

Makes sense to me.

Also, it's a really stupid thing to say. Not only are you assuming that the army is strong to the point of not being fun to play against, based entirely on what color it is painted, you're assuming that the player who brought that army is a TFG trying to curb stomp people rather than someone expecting to play a game against someone at equal strength. And you can't even be consistent in your speculation about the player's intent. If there are plenty of competitive players around to give them a game (where, presumably, their opponent's list strength will be at least as good as theirs) then how can you possibly assume that they showed up to curb stomp helpless "casual" players? Why jump to absurd conclusions instead of assuming that they came to 40k night to play against the other competitive players?

Also, I don't see why my position is so abstract there are plenty of SM chapters that use the same models but play differently according to the rules im simply being consistent with playing guard the same way. If you painted your guy's blood angels play blood angels if you are dark angels play dark angels.

It's also absurd rivet-counting when applied to space marines. GW encourages you to paint your models however you like and use whatever rules you want, as long as their weapons and equipment are WYSIWYG. For example, it would clearly be fine to paint an army blood red with green shoulder pads and use the Black Templars rules for your Crimson Knights chapter. But somehow if you paint the shoulder pads red instead of green you're a "powergamer" for not using the Blood Angels rules? And this is true regardless of whether the army is strong or weak? Nonsense.

 Peregrine wrote:
GW encourages you to paint your models however you like and use whatever rules you want, as long as their weapons and equipment are WYSIWYG.

It's not exhaustive, but it seems pretty clear to me that GW encourage you to use the Chapter Tactics of either the chapter you painted them as or of the one the fluff says they're descended from.

“If your army is Battle-forged, all INFANTRY,BIKERand DREADNOUGHT units in a Space Marines Detachment gain a Chapter Tactic, so long as every unit in that Detachment is drawn from the same Chapter. The Chapter Tactic gained depends upon the Chapter they are drawn from, as shown in the table opposite. For example, an ULTRAMARINES unit with the Chapter Tactics ability gains the Codex Discipline Tactic. If your Chapter does not have an associated Chapter Tactic, use the Chapter Tactic of its founding Chapter. For example, Crimson Fists are a successor Chapter of the Imperial Fists, so should use the Chapter Tactic of the Imperial Fists. If you are unsure of a Chapter’s founding Chapter, either consult the background sections of our books or choose a Tactic from the table that best describes its character and fighting style.”

Or, you could make up a new chapter and call them a successor of whatever you want.

But if you paint your Marines as Crimson Fists, you use Imperial Fists rules, because the background says so. Not 'whatever rules you want, as long as their weapons and equipment are WYSIWYG'. Literally the opposite of that.


.

The thing is, with the vastness of the 40k fluff, that almost anything can be justified. For instance, say I had my models painted as the Cadian 8th yet wanted to run them as Mordians. It would be pretty trivial to make up some fluff to cover that situation. In this case my highly disciplined regiment was saved from certain doom by the intervention of some Cadians. They consider this a blood debt, which in their culture means that they mimic the dress of their saviours until they consider the debt paid. Or, a unit of Valhallans was accidentally shipped the wrong uniforms and now has to dress as Steel Legion.

With the vastness of the Imperium you can explain almost anything with differing local customs or, my personal favourite, bureaucratic mistakes.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
First off I haven't insulted anyone I've said time and again in this thread that it's my perception. I have a limited amount of time to play a limited amount of games so if I see a Black Templar army claiming to be a salamanders army because they just got a buff I'm just not going to play that person because MY perception is that the person is most likely doing this to curb stomp people on 40k night and that's not why I came to the store. There's always plenty of competitive gamers to give those people games nobody is insulting anyone.

"I haven't insulted anyone."
*Immediately insults the hypothetical player.*

Makes sense to me.

Also, it's a really stupid thing to say. Not only are you assuming that the army is strong to the point of not being fun to play against, based entirely on what color it is painted, you're assuming that the player who brought that army is a TFG trying to curb stomp people rather than someone expecting to play a game against someone at equal strength. And you can't even be consistent in your speculation about the player's intent. If there are plenty of competitive players around to give them a game (where, presumably, their opponent's list strength will be at least as good as theirs) then how can you possibly assume that they showed up to curb stomp helpless "casual" players? Why jump to absurd conclusions instead of assuming that they came to 40k night to play against the other competitive players?

Also, I don't see why my position is so abstract there are plenty of SM chapters that use the same models but play differently according to the rules im simply being consistent with playing guard the same way. If you painted your guy's blood angels play blood angels if you are dark angels play dark angels.

It's also absurd rivet-counting when applied to space marines. GW encourages you to paint your models however you like and use whatever rules you want, as long as their weapons and equipment are WYSIWYG. For example, it would clearly be fine to paint an army blood red with green shoulder pads and use the Black Templars rules for your Crimson Knights chapter. But somehow if you paint the shoulder pads red instead of green you're a "powergamer" for not using the Blood Angels rules? And this is true regardless of whether the army is strong or weak? Nonsense.

You seem to think that personal thoughts are insults and well they aren't. If I am walking at night and see a 300 pound huge guy with gang tattoos waiting in an ally I'm simply not going to walk down the ally. I'm not being insulting I'm simply following my instincts and avoiding what could be an unpleasant experience. Just like this I'm going to just nicely say I'd rather not play. I'm not screening in his face calling him TFG and telling everyone around the store. Both the guy in the ally and gamer could be the nicest guys and have completely diffent intentions then what I think and I recognize that but it doesn't mean I wanna risk having an unpleasant experience when I could just say "nah I'd rather not play"

 Peregrine wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
So far, you people are the only one who used an insult at any point, so I don't see how I'm the one "insulting anyone who doesn't live up to your standards. ", I'm simply not playing with you because our concepts of fun does not match.

Clearly you missed the deleted posts that were insulting "powergamers" blatantly enough to get deleted and a moderator warning post.

And you're right, our definitions of "fun" don't match. Yours involves absurd rivet-counting and obsessing over your opponent's motivation, mine is about how balanced the game is going to be. If an army is much stronger or weaker than mine then the game isn't going to be fun, regardless of whether the rivet counters would consider their rules a perfect match for their paint scheme or what their reasons for picking those rules might have been. That's what matters, not whether or not their army has the correct Cadian markings.

And you also keep pushing things to the brinks of absurdity on purpose because your "agenda" is nonexsitant and you know it.

Not really. If you want to see brinks of absurdity then look at your own position, refusing to play against an army over ridiculous rivet counting and a poor understanding of the fluff while simultaneously accusing the player of "powergaming" regardless of how strong their list actually is.

Errr. how exactly is that my fault what somebody else did?
Am I the same person? are we a hive mind? Did I at some point sign a legal document that I am responsible for his behavior?

Especaily when I mentioned time and again, what you seem to fail to grasp, that powergaming is not an insult, its simply a way to game that isn't MY way,
The playground is big enough we don't all have to play in the same corner, and if the game you play isn't my cup of tea, I'm walking to the other side of the playground to play a game that is.
Whats so godamn infuriating about it?

Now you on the other hand, keep sticking "rivet counting" as a label of sorts, defiantly in an attempt to throw a (rather lousy) insult.
Completely missing the point that what bothers me to begin with is not ACTUALLY how your dudes are painted, and "how many rivets are on the side of the tank", or whatever delusion is in your head .
What bothers me is your mentality as a player, and you playing an army who is not ACTUALLY your army, because its "technically legal" and the rules are superior mathematically, it singles me that your mentality is not what I'm looking for in a casual game.
Its a symptom, not the actual issue I have with you. (the general "you", because I have a feeling you'll take it personally if I won't clear it up)

But I'm not going to ignore an obvious red flag just because there are other possible red flags as well. if your list is the most optimized "net list" than you are probably a power gamer even if the appearance of your models is to the letter of the GW official schemes, and I wouldn't want to play you either. I just couldn't easily tell by merely looking at your models, I had to see your list to figure it out.
Maybe only mid game, when I see you are measuring every single possible angle and calculating probabilities for multiple-turn events before making the slightest move and each of your turns take over an hour I'll realize.
It changes not the fact the way I play is different than yours. and I'd rather play people in the same mindset.

Asmodios wrote:
If I am walking at night and see a 300 pound huge guy with gang tattoos waiting in an ally I'm simply not going to walk down the ally.

But in this case you have a bunch of 300lb tattooed guys telling you they're just rescuing abandoned kittens in said alley, and even after they've shown you Mr. Fluffles, Hairball and Fuzzy, you accuse them of having bad intentions. "No man weighing more than 200 pounds should ever be in an alley, especially not if you have a tattoo! I'm calling the Arbites!"

 BoomWolf wrote:
Errr. how exactly is that my fault what somebody else did?
Am I the same person? are we a hive mind? Did I at some point sign a legal document that I am responsible for his behavior?

I don't know, but you're sure content to generalize about "you people" when it comes to the people you disagree with.

Especaily when I mentioned time and again, what you seem to fail to grasp, that powergaming is not an insult, its simply a way to game that isn't MY way,

And yet "you people" use it as an insult over and over again. When it's not smug superiority about how "casual" players are better than "powergamers" it's outright accusing "powergamers" of showing up to curb stomp helpless opponents and ruin everyone's day.

The playground is big enough we don't all have to play in the same corner, and if the game you play isn't my cup of tea, I'm walking to the other side of the playground to play a game that is.
Whats so godamn infuriating about it?

It's infuriating because it divides the community and makes it harder to find games, and it isn't even based on reasonable beliefs.

What bothers me is your mentality as a player, and you playing an army who is not ACTUALLY your army, because its "technically legal" and the rules are superior mathematically, it singles me that your mentality is not what I'm looking for in a casual game.

IOW, "I am psychic and know that anyone doing this is a 'powergamer', despite multiple people giving reasons why someone might do it for other reasons and how my understanding of the fluff is completely wrong".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:
You seem to think that personal thoughts are insults and well they aren't. If I am walking at night and see a 300 pound huge guy with gang tattoos waiting in an ally I'm simply not going to walk down the ally. I'm not being insulting I'm simply following my instincts and avoiding what could be an unpleasant experience. Just like this I'm going to just nicely say I'd rather not play. I'm not screening in his face calling him TFG and telling everyone around the store. Both the guy in the ally and gamer could be the nicest guys and have completely diffent intentions then what I think and I recognize that but it doesn't mean I wanna risk having an unpleasant experience when I could just say "nah I'd rather not play"

At some point "instincts" become paranoia, and you're well past that point.

Panzergraf wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
If I am walking at night and see a 300 pound huge guy with gang tattoos waiting in an ally I'm simply not going to walk down the ally.

But in this case you have a bunch of 300lb tattooed guys telling you they're just rescuing abandoned kittens in said alley, and even after they've shown you Mr. Fluffles, Hairball and Fuzzy, you accuse them of having bad intentions. "No man weighing more than 200 pounds should ever be in an alley, especially not if you have a tattoo! I'm calling the Arbites!"

No im assuming some guy has a Black templar army out on a table and says "hey wanna play my Salamanders" to which I polightly say "no thanks". I like how not even my hypothetical in my head is allowed to go down the way I think it would instead now I'm in an ally talking to 200 pound kitten tamers. Even in your example I simply would have never entered the ally to see the kittens or how nice they are because I simply avoided the situation. I recognize that the guy playing black templars as Salamanders could be the nicest guy ever and it could be the best game I've ever played. I'm simply not taking the risk when I only have time to get in one game I'd rather just play the blood angels player who's actually playing blood angels. I'm not being mean I'm not yelling at people I'm not flipping tables I'm simple saying "no thanks" and moving on. If you take "no thanks" as an insult welp I guess I'm a monster


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also if you guys are so concearned about getting in a game why wouldn't you just play your army as what it is if someone didn't want to play it as a huge proxie. Aren't you being equally unforgiving and rude by insisting that you won't play unless your Black templars are actually Salamanders

When on earth did I say anything that remotely compares to " "casual" players are better than "powergamers" "?

And yes, I used "you people", as in "the people who have commented directly towards me in the last few posts"

"isn't even based on reasonable beliefs"
Personal taste is not reasonable in your mind I see.
So, I guess that if anyone wants to play 40k at all, he is must to play with everyone at any scenario even if he ins't enjoying playing with that person?


And how the feth did you just from "you having the looks of one thing and playing another is sending me a message" to ""I am psychic and know that anyone doing this is a 'powergamer'" is beyond me.
There are rules, you follow them.
There are guildlines, you sorta follow them.
There is a spirit of the game-you don't follow it at all.

And you keep ignoring that I've stated, more than once, that people with actual legitimate reasons are getting a free pass, and if done well getting a high five.
However, powergamers often wouldn't bother giving any reasoning, or handwave it as a one-liner who is a rather obvious cop-out excuse.
There is having an excuse, and having a legitimate reason. there isn't a clear defined line between the two, but you can tell them apart when you run into one.

 BoomWolf wrote:
When on earth did I say anything that remotely compares to " "casual" players are better than "powergamers" "?

And yes, I used "you people", as in "the people who have commented directly towards me in the last few posts"

"isn't even based on reasonable beliefs"
Personal taste is not reasonable in your mind I see.
So, I guess that if anyone wants to play 40k at all, he is must to play with everyone at any scenario even if he ins't enjoying playing with that person?


And how the feth did you just from "you having the looks of one thing and playing another is sending me a message" to ""I am psychic and know that anyone doing this is a 'powergamer'" is beyond me.
There are rules, you follow them.
There are guildlines, you sorta follow them.
There is a spirit of the game-you don't follow it at all.

And you keep ignoring that I've stated, more than once, that people with actual legitimate reasons are getting a free pass, and if done well getting a high five.
However, powergamers often wouldn't bother giving any reasoning, or handwave it as a one-liner who is a rather obvious cop-out excuse.
There is having an excuse, and having a legitimate reason. there isn't a clear defined line between the two, but you can tell them apart when you run into one.

Exactly

Asmodios wrote:
Also if you guys are so concearned about getting in a game why wouldn't you just play your army as what it is if someone didn't want to play it as a huge proxie. Aren't you being equally unforgiving and rude by insisting that you won't play unless your Black templars are actually Salamanders

Why should I have to change all of my rules (and then probably change unit configurations, change fluff, etc) to suit your poor understanding of the 40k fluff and paranoia about "powergamers"?

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Also if you guys are so concearned about getting in a game why wouldn't you just play your army as what it is if someone didn't want to play it as a huge proxie. Aren't you being equally unforgiving and rude by insisting that you won't play unless your Black templars are actually Salamanders

Why should I have to change all of my rules (and then probably change unit configurations, change fluff, etc) to suit your poor understanding of the 40k fluff and paranoia about "powergamers"?

Why should I have to change my own personal play preferences just so you get in a game? Neither of us needs to compromises because there's people in both camps more then willing to play with our style

 BoomWolf wrote:
When on earth did I say anything that remotely compares to " "casual" players are better than "powergamers" "?

BoomWolf wrote:
What bothers me is your mentality as a player, and you playing an army who is not ACTUALLY your army, because its "technically legal" and the rules are superior mathematically, it singles me that your mentality is not what I'm looking for in a casual game.

It certainly comes off as that.

Honestly my opinion is that you can justify almost any choice fluff-wise, so people are free to mix and match models and regiments accordingly.

Even assuming the Cadian models are painted as Cadians here are some examples of Cadian equipment but not Cadian rules:

Cadian regiment that is a veteran of armoured warfare- steel legion rules to represent not just their experiences but also their divergence from standard doctrine.

Group of conscripts from Planet X are suddenly needed for a campaign, so they are suddenly issued surplus Cadian white shields gear but no training and thrown into the fray- boom Cadian models and Valhallan rules are the most appropriate, do we really expect the Imperium to repaint the armor of soldiers destined to be used as a mine clearing device?

Death World troops issued standard Cadian gear but laughing at the training regime? Cadians with Catachan rules, alternately Catachans come across Cadian equipment and deciding a flak vest and helmet may be nice is another explanation.

Agri-world full of hunters recruited in a similar manner can pass as using Tallarn rules.

Siege regiment issued Cadian gear because of the horrendous losses can even lead to a good Death Korp proxy, Cadian pattern armor seems super common and sieges are more about logistics than looking cool, so having a steady supply of armor is fluffy to me. Gas Masks are nice but only needed in certain situations, WWI soldiers tended to not wear them more than they did, and the Death Korp don’t have any gas weapons either in the game.

Those are just a few examples, but I think saying Cadian painted models must follow Cadian rules is disingenuous; we are talking about assigning traits and qualities to a particular armor which literally anybody can wear, which is nonsensical. Strap Cadian gear on a Tallarn and they are still a Tallarn, and put a head wrap on a Cadian and they are still Cadian.

 BoomWolf wrote:
When on earth did I say anything that remotely compares to " "casual" players are better than "powergamers" "?

It's all over your general attitude, and your assumption that "powergamers" are not going to be fun to play against.

So, I guess that if anyone wants to play 40k at all, he is must to play with everyone at any scenario even if he ins't enjoying playing with that person?

No, but when your lack of enjoyment is directly caused by your poor understanding of the 40k fluff and ridiculous assumptions about a player's motives in painting their army then you aren't being a reasonable person. There are good reasons to decline to play against someone, but yours aren't good.

And how the feth did you just from "you having the looks of one thing and playing another is sending me a message" to ""I am psychic and know that anyone doing this is a 'powergamer'" is beyond me.

Because it's only "sending you a message" because of your psychic ability to sense motives, and your stubborn rejection of all of the other reasons for having the same pairing of models and rules. You can't possibly tell the difference between a "powergamer" and someone who is playing a fluffy army with a paint scheme you dislike just by looking at their models.

And you keep ignoring that I've stated, more than once, that people with actual legitimate reasons are getting a free pass, and if done well getting a high five.

Which directly contradicts the idea that you can look at an army and tell if you should accept the game or not. Perhaps, instead of going through all this trouble to determine a player's motive in picking an army, you should just look at the strength of their list relative to the strength of yours and ignore what color it is painted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:
Why should I have to change my own personal play preferences just so you get in a game? Neither of us needs to compromises because there's people in both camps more then willing to play with our style

"Personal preferences" is not a blanket excuse for bad behavior.

Y'all need to just hit report and move on with your lives.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
When on earth did I say anything that remotely compares to " "casual" players are better than "powergamers" "?

It's all over your general attitude, and your assumption that "powergamers" are not going to be fun to play against.

So, I guess that if anyone wants to play 40k at all, he is must to play with everyone at any scenario even if he ins't enjoying playing with that person?

No, but when your lack of enjoyment is directly caused by your poor understanding of the 40k fluff and ridiculous assumptions about a player's motives in painting their army then you aren't being a reasonable person. There are good reasons to decline to play against someone, but yours aren't good.

And how the feth did you just from "you having the looks of one thing and playing another is sending me a message" to ""I am psychic and know that anyone doing this is a 'powergamer'" is beyond me.

Because it's only "sending you a message" because of your psychic ability to sense motives, and your stubborn rejection of all of the other reasons for having the same pairing of models and rules. You can't possibly tell the difference between a "powergamer" and someone who is playing a fluffy army with a paint scheme you dislike just by looking at their models.

And you keep ignoring that I've stated, more than once, that people with actual legitimate reasons are getting a free pass, and if done well getting a high five.

Which directly contradicts the idea that you can look at an army and tell if you should accept the game or not. Perhaps, instead of going through all this trouble to determine a player's motive in picking an army, you should just look at the strength of their list relative to the strength of yours and ignore what color it is painted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:
Why should I have to change my own personal play preferences just so you get in a game? Neither of us needs to compromises because there's people in both camps more then willing to play with our style

"Personal preferences" is not a blanket excuse for bad behavior.

Man I'll have to remember the next time I say "no thank"s to a game because of any personal preference whether it is time, fluff, fun, tiredness, etc. I need to give myself 40 lashes for bad behavior. I have to remember that this game is entirely based on how you see it and my personal preferences don't matter and are no excuse for myself......... I've been so selfish for so many years playing this joint for my own enjoyment and never realized the lives I was ruining

Asmodios wrote:
Man I'll have to remember the next time I say "no thank"s to a game because of any personal preference whether it is time, fluff, fun, tiredness, etc. I need to give myself 40 lashes for bad behavior. I have to remember that this game is entirely based on how you see it and my personal preferences don't matter and are no excuse for myself......... I've been so selfish for so many years playing this joint for my own enjoyment and never realized the lives I was ruining

Do you honestly not see the difference between "you must accept every game, no matter what, or give yourself 40 lashes for bad behavior" and "refusing games for stupid and/or petty reasons is bad behavior"? Making up your own special version of the fluff, declaring anyone who doesn't comply with it to be "powergamers", and refusing to play against them is bad behavior. Declining to play a game because you're tired and don't feel like playing anymore that day is not.

I mentioned 4 mentalities a while back but I also see two main reasons why people are having such strong feelings:

People who think that you should stick to your Faction rules: These people likely remember the time when, infamously, space marines would jump from codex to codex to abuse whichever was the flavour of the month at the time, where Ultramarines could be Blood Angels, Dark Angels were Space Wolves, or you had Imperial Fist Grey Knights. Those times created a stigma for people who didn't stick to their chapter's rules as they just wanted to win games without having to paint up an entirely new army each time. This was especially bad for Dark Angel and Blood Angel players, as one edition saw one to be powerful, another saw the other, and then sometimes vanilla ended up being better than both.

For these people, they are right in that someone who just cherry picks rules likely just wants to win, as for a while that was actually true. But what they need to understand is that there are people out there who legitimately feel a different set of rules will grant a different feel for an army, one that makes them feel comfortable while still remaining aesthetically pleasing to them.


People who thinks your models shouldn't matter to your rules: These people feel that, since the models are just representations of your units, you should be free to do as you like with the rules, especially if you have a good reason to do so (like tank companies for certain regiment worlds). Why should they be restricted when someone who made the "Periwinkle Platypus" regiment gets the perks, when you got locked into a choice without your free will just because you happened to like a combination of blue and gold on your marines?

For these people, they are right in that players should have freedom to build their lists as they please and not be restricted due to aesthetic choices, but they should also realize that if you consciously choose a chapter/regiment/legion, there's a small unspoken agreement that you're trying to roleplay them to a degree on the tabletop, and sticking with their rules is kind of part of it.

While both sides have their points and their faults, it should be noted that BOTH are valid ways of approaching the game. What devolves into namecalling is to go to the extreme of both; the former can turn into the guy who feels that any deviation from the "intent" can be a sign that a person has no morals and is an underhanded cheat who just wants to win, and the latter can turn into someone who thinks that anyone who just wants to enjoy the "feel" of the game is some uptight, highhorse prude who likes to nitpick every minute detail. Those type of people do exist, but they are a very, very tiny minority. What both sides needs to understand is that the vast majority of players do not have malicious intent in their game choices.

And once again, all of this could be avoided if GW simply chose not to tie named factions to these rules. If you need to blame anyone, blame them.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Man I'll have to remember the next time I say "no thank"s to a game because of any personal preference whether it is time, fluff, fun, tiredness, etc. I need to give myself 40 lashes for bad behavior. I have to remember that this game is entirely based on how you see it and my personal preferences don't matter and are no excuse for myself......... I've been so selfish for so many years playing this joint for my own enjoyment and never realized the lives I was ruining

Do you honestly not see the difference between "you must accept every game, no matter what, or give yourself 40 lashes for bad behavior" and "refusing games for stupid and/or petty reasons is bad behavior"? Making up your own special version of the fluff, declaring anyone who doesn't comply with it to be "powergamers", and refusing to play against them is bad behavior. Declining to play a game because you're tired and don't feel like playing anymore that day is not.

Do you honestly not see that two people might have two different standards on what is and is not acceptable? I've never even said in this thread that you can't play your Black templars as Salamanders just simply that I didn't want to be a part of it. But I keep forgetting that you almighty sir have passed down the acceptable ways I'm allowed to play with my plastic toys and that I must play with them even if I don't want to for whatever reason because you think I should. The next time I turn down a game for any reason I'll make sure I run it by you as you are clearly the authority on exactly what games should be played on the table top.

Asmodios wrote:
Do you honestly not see that two people might have two different standards on what is and is not acceptable?

Well yes, clearly people have different standards. You, for example, have created your own standard based on ignorance of the IG fluff. But the mere fact that a standard exists does not mean that we're obligated to pretend that it is a reasonable standard.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Do you honestly not see that two people might have two different standards on what is and is not acceptable?

Well yes, clearly people have different standards. You, for example, have created your own standard based on ignorance of the IG fluff. But the mere fact that a standard exists does not mean that we're obligated to pretend that it is a reasonable standard.

Several people have said exactly what I'm saying so it must not be too crazy and unreasonable. But either way we have said all along we aren't going to force this on you so it seems like you not using my standard gets us back to exactly what I've said and keep saying..... play however you want there's some people that just don't wanna play that way. It's really no big deal and will most likely almost never happen and at the end of the day is the worst case senario is you play someone else

Well. I see no further value in continuing this argument so I'll drop it.

For anyone who is reading this thread just play the game with the models you like. At the end of the day they're just rules and you're free to deal with them as you please. Want to play a group of Valhallan armored infantry squads using Steel Legion rules? Great! Cadians who have experienced long range desert warfare with Tallarn rules? Fantastic. Just want to use the rules that fit your army composition best? Most excellent.

Just use some whiteout over the word "Catachan" and write in "Jungle Fighter" regimental doctrine. It's what GW should've done from the start.

Asmodios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Do you honestly not see that two people might have two different standards on what is and is not acceptable?

Well yes, clearly people have different standards. You, for example, have created your own standard based on ignorance of the IG fluff. But the mere fact that a standard exists does not mean that we're obligated to pretend that it is a reasonable standard.

Several people have said exactly what I'm saying so it must not be too crazy and unreasonable. But either way we have said all along we aren't going to force this on you so it seems like you not using my standard gets us back to exactly what I've said and keep saying..... play however you want there's some people that just don't wanna play that way. It's really no big deal and will most likely almost never happen and at the end of the day is the worst case senario is you play someone else

Your using a lot of logical fallacys.

Just because one a group of people decide to be huge dick heads does not mean it must be reasonable for everyone to be huge dick heads.

Just because there are other people with a petty standard of black black templars having to be played as black templars but orange black templars can be used as anything doesn't mean it isn't a petty dickish way to play a game or that the people who hold those opinions are not wrong for having them.

It is crazy. It is unreasonable. You are free to be as crazy and unreasonable as you like, but nobody has to accept it and tell you your being a good guy for your pettiness.

 Lance845 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Do you honestly not see that two people might have two different standards on what is and is not acceptable?

Well yes, clearly people have different standards. You, for example, have created your own standard based on ignorance of the IG fluff. But the mere fact that a standard exists does not mean that we're obligated to pretend that it is a reasonable standard.

Several people have said exactly what I'm saying so it must not be too crazy and unreasonable. But either way we have said all along we aren't going to force this on you so it seems like you not using my standard gets us back to exactly what I've said and keep saying..... play however you want there's some people that just don't wanna play that way. It's really no big deal and will most likely almost never happen and at the end of the day is the worst case senario is you play someone else

Your using a lot of logical fallacys.

Just because one a group of people decide to be huge dick heads does not mean it must be reasonable for everyone to be huge dick heads.

Just because there are other people with a petty standard of black black templars having to be played as black templars but orange black templars can be used as anything doesn't mean it isn't a petty dickish way to play a game or that the people who hold those opinions are not wrong for having them.

It is crazy. It is unreasonable. You are free to be as crazy and unreasonable as you like, but nobody has to accept it and tell you your being a good guy for your pettiness.

I don't need a pat on the back or a "thata boy!" I was simple expressing my views that a couple people happen to agree with. You can say that you feel I'm TFG or I'm worse then Hiltler or whatever.... I really don't care. This is a discussion board and I was just discussing my thoughts on a posted topic.in these posts everyone keeps saying things like your "does not mean it must be reasonable for everyone".... well Duh if you read my posts I clearly state I realize it's not reasonable for everyone it's just reasonable for me. You keep building a straw man that I'm pushing my beliefs on others while in reality I'm saying "you do you man I'll be over here doing things my way". No hate, no pushing agendas, no secret plots to get people to only play my way...... just the way I personally (and a couple other people) will be handling these rules updates

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Purifier wrote:


No, you've missed the actual discussion. It boils down which of these people are you:
A) Does not think a paint scheme should dictate what you play your models as, and will happily play it as it makes no difference if you play your Imperial Fist-painted army as Raven Guard.
B) Thinks if you painted your models in the Cadian colours, you have to play them as Cadians, or you're a powergamer and should be ridiculed.

Really, "should be ridiculed"? when did anyone say anything even REMOTELY like that?
Yes, we said if you paint, model, and mark one way than play another you are powergaming (because you are) and we are likely to refuse a game, but unless refusing to personally spend time with you is considered ridiculing in your world, you just made up a strawman.
Again.

No, you see, when something is presented in clear text, it's not a strawman. Here's a little more than something "REMOTELY" like that

 lolman1c wrote:

Ahh... so you're that player who everyone avoids in the club and jokes about behind their back? The amount of times I've heard people make fun of the phrase "I call following the rules of the game" and avoid the players who say it... sometimes they're is more than just rules to this game. It's also about community and friendship.

And, seeing that there is nobody in the supposed "play what we want regardless of looks" camp who has yet to throw a personal insult at me, I'm out.

 BoomWolf wrote:
And, seeing that there is nobody in the supposed "play what we want regardless of looks" camp who has yet to throw a personal insult at me, I'm out.

Uh, hi.

 BoomWolf wrote:
And, seeing that there is nobody in the supposed "play what we want regardless of looks" camp who has yet to throw a personal insult at me, I'm out.

Silent majority, reporting in.


Ontopic though, I dont really see what the fuss is about. The guard has always been pictured as one of the most varied fighting forces in the galaxy. The way a model looks has very little to do with its fighting style.

In any case, as a Steel Legion player, Im not really a huge fan of the SL trait. Not because its weak (though its not exactly the strongest), but because it urges the player into a playstyle that I find unappealing - I play a mechanised force to be mobile, not to hide in my unmoving chimera bunkers. As such, Im seriously considering to play them as tallarn, who *are* mobile. Moving the chimera suddenly doesnt mean I can effectively give up on shooting, instead I can focus on getting where I want. Of course, I do lose out on the reasonably good SL infantry trait and gain the one for Tallarn, which isnt actually all that great for mech infantry - but Im fine with that.

So yeah. Why exactly is using my models with a different trait "powergaming"? Especially if that trait actually has a couple of downsides for my army as well?

 xeen wrote:
What if someone wants to play using the Mordian Regiment, yet all their models are Cadian and painted as such. Then they want the tanks, which are in a separate FOC to all be Catachan Regiment, but the too a printed Cadian.

If they are painted as canonical Cadians, then they would play as Cadians. If there painted with more of a "Parade Dress" scheme, etc. then I might accept as Mordian. If the tanks have a Catachan scheme, then I'd expect them as Catachan. They would have to be separte FOCs, of course.

 BoomWolf wrote:
And, seeing that there is nobody in the supposed "play what we want regardless of looks" camp who has yet to throw a personal insult at me, I'm out.

Wait, proving your statement wrong was insulting you?

 BoomWolf wrote:
And, seeing that there is nobody in the supposed "play what we want regardless of looks" camp who has yet to throw a personal insult at me, I'm out.

Pretty sure I didn't insult you. It seems its easier to play the victim card though.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 xeen wrote:
What if someone wants to play using the Mordian Regiment, yet all their models are Cadian and painted as such. Then they want the tanks, which are in a separate FOC to all be Catachan Regiment, but the too a printed Cadian.

If they are painted as canonical Cadians, then they would play as Cadians. If there painted with more of a "Parade Dress" scheme, etc. then I might accept as Mordian. If the tanks have a Catachan scheme, then I'd expect them as Catachan. They would have to be separte FOCs, of course.

There are lots of Cadian paint schemes in the various Codex. If I have a detachment of Cadian models painted a certain play and played as Cadians and another detachment of Cadian models painted in a different scheme with a different doctrine I am not seeing the problem. You can tell what's what and its still nice and fluffy.

How would you guys feel about a DKoK player, using this models as regular AM (maybe choose which doctrine?), considering we only have an index, and the community appears to be leaning towards us not utilizing any of the stratagems/relics or even Leman Russ buffs.

Confusing as always

I love their models. If I owned them, I'd use them as whichever Regiment I chose to play.
I want my guard in longcoats with night vision goggles with a lot of grey and black colors. My guard were always from a perpeutual dark planet and I liked the imagery. No idea what doctrines I'd use for them if I rebuilt them, but I'd likely have one for vehicles and one for infantry.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 xeen wrote:
What if someone wants to play using the Mordian Regiment, yet all their models are Cadian and painted as such. Then they want the tanks, which are in a separate FOC to all be Catachan Regiment, but the too a printed Cadian.

If they are painted as canonical Cadians, then they would play as Cadians. If there painted with more of a "Parade Dress" scheme, etc. then I might accept as Mordian. If the tanks have a Catachan scheme, then I'd expect them as Catachan. They would have to be separte FOCs, of course.

Define "Catachan scheme" for those tanks. Oh wait, you can't, because no such thing exists. IG tanks use different schemes for different terrain.

 mtcwalker wrote:
How would you guys feel about a DKoK player, using this models as regular AM (maybe choose which doctrine?), considering we only have an index, and the community appears to be leaning towards us not utilizing any of the stratagems/relics or even Leman Russ buffs.

Confusing as always

I say go for it, the adminastratum isn’t exactly known for its great precision, who’s to say your regiment was supposed to get cadian equipment but a decimal error leads to a shipment of Kreig suplies instead? There’s literally tons of ways to explain why a unit with x tactics can have y gear instead in the fluff.

 mtcwalker wrote:
How would you guys feel about a DKoK player, using this models as regular AM (maybe choose which doctrine?), considering we only have an index, and the community appears to be leaning towards us not utilizing any of the stratagems/relics or even Leman Russ buffs.

Confusing as always

Well, obviously, there'll be 2 schools of thought. 1 school of thought is just interested in playing a game, and doesn't care what rules/models you use. The other school of thought is very 'focused' on winning, and will call you a powergamer and refuse to play you if you don't use your dkok as anything but dkok. The question is, which school of thought would *you* prefer?

 Torga_DW wrote:


Well, obviously, there'll be 2 schools of thought. 1 school of thought is just interested in playing a game, and doesn't care what rules/models you use. The other school of thought is very 'focused' on winning, and will call you a powergamer and refuse to play you if you don't use your dkok as anything but dkok. The question is, which school of thought would *you* prefer?

And, of course, the third school of thought, which doesn't want to look up at the table all game and constantly be reminding themselves that those DKoK aren't actually DKoK this game (just like if all your flamers were actually counts-as plasmaguns today) and so would prefer people just played the rules for the models they have.

 mtcwalker wrote:
How would you guys feel about a DKoK player, using this models as regular AM (maybe choose which doctrine?), considering we only have an index, and the community appears to be leaning towards us not utilizing any of the stratagems/relics or even Leman Russ buffs.

I'd much prefer to play against a real DKoK army, partly because of the reasons above but also because how often do you get a chance to play a against DKoK??!! Having DKoK players always playing counts-as because the rules are better just narrows the field of potential armies even further :(

However, I don't know why you wouldn't have access to Stratagems and Relics - all DKoK have the Astra Militarum keyword and I'm sure the book will say that they're available to Battle forged AM armies. I know you don't get the specific trait, order and relic but the special rules they get in the Index book pretty much balance that out!

 mtcwalker wrote:
How would you guys feel about a DKoK player, using this models as regular AM (maybe choose which doctrine?), considering we only have an index, and the community appears to be leaning towards us not utilizing any of the stratagems/relics or even Leman Russ buffs.

Confusing as always

No problem at all, seeing as using standard Codex: IG was what DKoK players used to do a lot when Forge World was rarely allowed at tournaments and such.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:


Well, obviously, there'll be 2 schools of thought. 1 school of thought is just interested in playing a game, and doesn't care what rules/models you use. The other school of thought is very 'focused' on winning, and will call you a powergamer and refuse to play you if you don't use your dkok as anything but dkok. The question is, which school of thought would *you* prefer?

And, of course, the third school of thought, which doesn't want to look up at the table all game and constantly be reminding themselves that those DKoK aren't actually DKoK this game (just like if all your flamers were actually counts-as plasmaguns today) and so would prefer people just played the rules for the models they have.

Do you even know what the Krieg rules are to be able to be confused? I don't. Remembering "these Guardsmen are Guardsmen, even if their coats are different" doesn't seem exceptionally difficult.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
Having DKoK players always playing counts-as because the rules are better just narrows the field of potential armies even further :(

Which is a nice thought but the difference here is on GWs weird segregation of FW. Why is FW treated as an entirely different company to them? 8th was a great moment to merge the data and get al the rules writers working on the same page. WTF GW. As long as DKoK have crapy rules you won't see them anywhere. If GW would have just included the FW chapters/regiments/etc all in the codexes or at least acknowledged their existence and given some errata on the way they should be treated in conjunction with the codexes we would see those armies far more often.

However, I don't know why you wouldn't have access to Stratagems and Relics - all DKoK have the Astra Militarum keyword and I'm sure the book will say that they're available to Battle forged AM armies. I know you don't get the specific trait, order and relic but the special rules they get in the Index book pretty much balance that out!

I agree with this. At the very least in a HIWPI way if not officially. I would have to see the RAW in that book that isn't out yet. What I don't agree with is people saying DKoK and Elysians getting regiment doctrines or whatever they are called. It doesn't work. RAW forbids it so far. But if the doctrines are what is going to put DKoK onto the table I would be happy to see the DKoK proxied as Cadians or whatever and have a ball.

This is madness. I can't believe people get so riled up over toy soldiers.

 mtcwalker wrote:
How would you guys feel about a DKoK player, using this models as regular AM (maybe choose which doctrine?), considering we only have an index, and the community appears to be leaning towards us not utilizing any of the stratagems/relics or even Leman Russ buffs.

Confusing as always

I'd almost prefer it. In my opinion, FW brings too much to the table that I don't know how it works. I think GW on its own in 40k has a little too many different units that basically do the same, with very little variance, and FW only makes that worse.
I don't like when people bring FW, and not because "it's illegal" or "it's unbalanced" but because I just think it continues to bloat an already bloated unit count unnecessarily, and I have no idea what the things do.

Some of the people here are saying that the wrong paintjob "confuses and therefore creates an advantage" but will happily bring in Forgeworld units that most people will never have played against before. It's incredibly arbitrary.

Like I said, I prefer to play against GW rules, but I would *never* turn down a DKoK player just because I don't understand his army.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:


Well, obviously, there'll be 2 schools of thought. 1 school of thought is just interested in playing a game, and doesn't care what rules/models you use. The other school of thought is very 'focused' on winning, and will call you a powergamer and refuse to play you if you don't use your dkok as anything but dkok. The question is, which school of thought would *you* prefer?

And, of course, the third school of thought, which doesn't want to look up at the table all game and constantly be reminding themselves that those DKoK aren't actually DKoK this game (just like if all your flamers were actually counts-as plasmaguns today) and so would prefer people just played the rules for the models they have.

 mtcwalker wrote:
How would you guys feel about a DKoK player, using this models as regular AM (maybe choose which doctrine?), considering we only have an index, and the community appears to be leaning towards us not utilizing any of the stratagems/relics or even Leman Russ buffs.

I'd much prefer to play against a real DKoK army, partly because of the reasons above but also because how often do you get a chance to play a against DKoK??!! Having DKoK players always playing counts-as because the rules are better just narrows the field of potential armies even further :(

However, I don't know why you wouldn't have access to Stratagems and Relics - all DKoK have the Astra Militarum keyword and I'm sure the book will say that they're available to Battle forged AM armies. I know you don't get the specific trait, order and relic but the special rules they get in the Index book pretty much balance that out!

While I understand the flamers and plasma issue, this is fundamentally different in two distinct ways. WYSIWYG-wise in this case is not violated, the troopers have las guns, flak armor, etc. DKOK especially are not count as in a literal sense, they literally have las guns and flak armor from FW, so there should be no confusion if the player uses all such models as the same regiment. They are the same idea as someone converting models, if you can remember what regiment converted model X is then there’s no excuse for remembering the regiment of a player who tells you my DK are Mordians or something else. You can gleam as much information from a converted regiment as someone using DK models in the same hypothetical situation so to object to one but be fine with another is odd to me.

The other issue is a matter of properties regarding the flamer/plasma gun and regimental outfit. A plasma gun and a flamer are intrinsically different where as the armor is extrinsically different in this case. A flamer will never shoot plasma because intrinsically it can’t, it was designed in a way that, upon pulling the trigger, it will shoot flammable liquid. Under no circumstances will it be able to shoot plasma. Give it to a million people and this will be true, so you would be correct to raise an issue. Armor and people are different, rather the armor has its own intrinsic properties but that has no significant impact on regimental doctrine which is what you are comparing. I could give a DK soldier the DK outfit, or a Catachan outfit and they in no way will impact broader regimental doctrine. It may appear it does but like an extrinsic value applying the armor to one regiment leads to one application and a different regiment a different application. Similarly I could wear navy seal equipment and I’d still count as a conscript in game and the opposite being true for a Veteran.

These two are distinct cases, one is a different physical weapon while another is how the equipment is applied- ie it’s the user that determines the traits we are seeking. In my previous posts I have given several suggestions on how in universe equipment can be given to the wrong regiment or have different training, and since it is viable fluff wise and is WYSIWYG (guardsman with lasguns, flak armor, melta gun etc.) then I have to disagree on your approach to the matter. I understand it can restrict variety but there is nothing objectively wrong with using DK models with a different doctrine as the two are not related.

 mtcwalker wrote:
How would you guys feel about a DKoK player, using this models as regular AM (maybe choose which doctrine?), considering we only have an index, and the community appears to be leaning towards us not utilizing any of the stratagems/relics or even Leman Russ buffs.

Confusing as always

BTW I think anyone telling you you cannot use the unit profiles from the codex are out of their mind, You use the most recent profile and costs. Which at the time of the printing was index, but is now the codex. DKoK absolutely get to use the codex profiles for the units.

IG get the shaft here unlike any other army, simply because every other army you're only talking about a paint job between doctrines. For IG tho it's not only different models, but different models where over half of them are OOP and impossible to get. I'm not going to arbitrarily punish someone who wants to run a Valhallen army with Cadian models when they literally have no other choice for all of the models available to them except "dude with lasgun".

I'd prefer that they did use the same rules as the models described. However I will not object to someone doing otherwise. As long as they are consistent in doing so - if all models in the army use the Catachan rules, it makes no difference to me. If people start mixing the rules up in different detachments then I will object, but that is an edge case.

MaxT wrote:
IG get the shaft here unlike any other army, simply because every other army you're only talking about a paint job between doctrines. For IG tho it's not only different models, but different models where over half of them are OOP and impossible to get. I'm not going to arbitrarily punish someone who wants to run a Valhallen army with Cadian models when they literally have no other choice for all of the models available to them except "dude with lasgun".

To be fair, there are several high quality 3rd party alternate IG bits and full regiments compatible with GW bits (so same scale/proportions), many of which are heavily inspired by the OOP Guard lines.

I sold my all metal Mordians for all resin, modular not-Mordians from Vic Minis and I couldn't be happier with the decision.

But yeah, don't punish people for painting their models or expect them to buy a whole different army to use a slightly different doctrine. Just let people play what they want, and if that doesn't jive with your immersion, just make up your own fluff in your head about how those Cadians are currently posted on a frozen tundra world awaiting re-supply and have taken up the tactics of the locals (Valhallans-esque). Done.

CassianSol wrote:

I'd prefer that they did use the same rules as the models described. However I will not object to someone doing otherwise. As long as they are consistent in doing so - if all models in the army use the Catachan rules, it makes no difference to me. If people start mixing the rules up in different detachments then I will object, but that is an edge case.

This is a very sensible and reasonable approach.

Cheers

Even if they were all cadian models I'd be ok with different regiments as detachments as long as I could tell them apart.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:


Well, obviously, there'll be 2 schools of thought. 1 school of thought is just interested in playing a game, and doesn't care what rules/models you use. The other school of thought is very 'focused' on winning, and will call you a powergamer and refuse to play you if you don't use your dkok as anything but dkok. The question is, which school of thought would *you* prefer?

And, of course, the third school of thought, which doesn't want to look up at the table all game and constantly be reminding themselves that those DKoK aren't actually DKoK this game (just like if all your flamers were actually counts-as plasmaguns today) and so would prefer people just played the rules for the models they have.

So what's the difference between playing against an army you haven't faced before and an army that changes rules between games? In both cases you have to ask your opponent what they do?

Just something that might be relevant:

Some models, like Valhallans, are modeled in a way that makes them very obviously suited to a specific environment - icy tundras in the valhallans case. So, they wear huge, heavy coats and furry hats to keep themselves warm.

But what happens if they go to a planet that *isnt* an icy deathworld? Well, weve got fluff for that: The Ciaphas Cain books (admittedly, they do have their own issues as a source, but still).
In them, were told that valhallans tend to strip down in warmer climes. Which could make them look closer to cadians, or even catachans in terms of uniform.

Similarly, we know that at least some guard regiments adapt their colours to the environment theyre fighting in. A cadian wouldnt wear green on an ice world, or in an urban environment. The standard cadian scheme is also pretty non-specific - greens and browns are always going to feature heavily in lots of warzones. So saying that a cadian-equipped army in cadian colours has to be cadian doesnt really make much sense, even if you were to subscribe to the idea that *every* regiment from a particular planet fights in exactly the same way.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:


Well, obviously, there'll be 2 schools of thought. 1 school of thought is just interested in playing a game, and doesn't care what rules/models you use. The other school of thought is very 'focused' on winning, and will call you a powergamer and refuse to play you if you don't use your dkok as anything but dkok. The question is, which school of thought would *you* prefer?

And, of course, the third school of thought, which doesn't want to look up at the table all game and constantly be reminding themselves that those DKoK aren't actually DKoK this game (just like if all your flamers were actually counts-as plasmaguns today) and so would prefer people just played the rules for the models they have.

See, this is where I have a hard time believing this. Do you mean to honestly tell me that in a game where you need to bring several rulebooks and have a good understanding of play, that the point where it becomes overwhelming is remembering that DKOK are using Cadian rules? Whats the difference between that and me having to remember what your converted guard play as? Or someone else's third party stuff?

This is the problem. Noone is arguing that 100 cadian models all painted the same, yet representing five different regiments wouldn't be confusing. What you're saying is that if you have Cadian models painted brown and green then they have to use Cadian doctrines, otherwise the game would just be too confusing. HOWEVER, if you painted their pants purple, why things are clear as day. That's preposterous.

You're judging people for liking the GW models, and even example paint schemes in the codex under the guise of confusion and power-gaming. Yet at the same time, you're pushing all of these "difficulties" on other people making them remember the same thing about converted and third party models.

It's amazing how gate-keepers always make sure the rules and guidelines they make up still allow them to do what they want.

 AaronWilson wrote:
This is madness. I can't believe people get so riled up over toy soldiers.

You're new here.

THIS IS DAKKA!

 ArbitorIan wrote:
... but the special rules they get in the Index book pretty much balance that out!

Not really. The DKoK trait (Cult of Sacrifice) is comparable to the Valhallan one, but you pay for it, whereas the Elysian one has always been silly strong (and still is). What might make it balanced for the former is the fact that Krieg has not suffered from any rebalancing of points (e.g. more expensive HWT's) and that Krieg can freely add whatever units it wants to its detachments without losing rules.

Then again, I played them when they were terrible and I'll play them if they become the greatest thing since sliced bread.

 Aenarian wrote:

 ArbitorIan wrote:
... but the special rules they get in the Index book pretty much balance that out!

Not really. The DKoK trait (Cult of Sacrifice) is comparable to the Valhallan one, but you pay for it, whereas the Elysian one has always been silly strong (and still is). What might make it balanced for the former is the fact that Krieg has not suffered from any rebalancing of points (e.g. more expensive HWT's) and that Krieg can freely add whatever units it wants to its detachments without losing rules.

Then again, I played them when they were terrible and I'll play them if they become the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Yeah, bear in mind that their points cost is also higher because of the increased WS. Either way, I'd expect he next FW update to change both their rules to doctrines, which would be pretty easy to do...

Seeing the guard codex leaks, I'm going to be a giant pain in the ass now.

I'm sorry, but your cadians are NOT Armageddon.

 sfshilo wrote:
Seeing the guard codex leaks, I'm going to be a giant pain in the ass now.

I'm sorry, but your cadians are NOT Armageddon.

But they can be, that’s my point from earlier. An Armageddon man or woman can reasonably take off his clothes and put Cadian style armor on and operate the same way as before. You’re assigning an extrinsic quality as if it were intrinsic in nature. It’s not. There is precedent for non cadians being issued cadian gear, and unless you can provide a list of every regiment in the imperium, what they are equipped with, and their combat doctrine, then there is no way to substantiate your claims while leaving plausibility for someone claiming otherwise. Also it’s not like combat doctrines are exclusive to each world, I mean is it really that shocking that a regiment equiped with cadian gear may like being mechanized in a similar format to the steel legion? Also considering your stance was done after seeing the rules would you have been fine to use different regiment rules if they were bad? If so that seems contrary to the spirit I think this game should have.

If you have a background for your regiment that's consistent with their doctrine, then I don't care what your models look like, as long as you're not switching it up every game for no narrative reason.

 Formerly Wu wrote:
If you have a background for your regiment that's consistent with their doctrine, then I don't care what your models look like,

If your regiment is painstakingly modeled and painted to look like a particular, well-known regiment, then I would expect it to be played as such. Mordian metals as Catachans, or Catachans as Mordians wouldn't work for me, any more than claiming that plain Infantry models count as Jump Pack / Jetpack / Cavalry models. I won't accept a canonical SM chapter playing as a different one, either.

 sfshilo wrote:
Seeing the guard codex leaks, I'm going to be a giant pain in the ass now.

I'm sorry, but your cadians are NOT Armageddon.

I hope I never end up being so particular about a game that I'd be upset my opponent showed up with a fully painted army and had the gall to explain the custom fluff for their uniquely painted Cadian models that were using a not Cadian doctrine.

 sfshilo wrote:
Seeing the guard codex leaks, I'm going to be a giant pain in the ass now.

I'm sorry, but your cadians are NOT Armageddon.

But they may well be a mechanized regiment who have also mastered the skill of embarking a Chimera.

 sfshilo wrote:
Seeing the guard codex leaks, I'm going to be a giant pain in the ass now.

I'm sorry, but your cadians are NOT Armageddon.

I dunno man, being annoyed at GW for screwing up balance is one thing, but don't take it out on other players. Even I'm not upset enough about it for that to seem fair.

Remember, the true enemy is not the player across from you, but the eternal money devouring monster known only as GW.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Formerly Wu wrote:
If you have a background for your regiment that's consistent with their doctrine, then I don't care what your models look like,

If your regiment is painstakingly modeled and painted to look like a particular, well-known regiment, then I would expect it to be played as such. Mordian metals as Catachans, or Catachans as Mordians wouldn't work for me, any more than claiming that plain Infantry models count as Jump Pack / Jetpack / Cavalry models. I won't accept a canonical SM chapter playing as a different one, either.

How dare you want ultramarines to be played as ultramarines, jetpacks to be jetpacks, and Cavalry to Cavalry.

Asmodios wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Formerly Wu wrote:
If you have a background for your regiment that's consistent with their doctrine, then I don't care what your models look like,

If your regiment is painstakingly modeled and painted to look like a particular, well-known regiment, then I would expect it to be played as such. Mordian metals as Catachans, or Catachans as Mordians wouldn't work for me, any more than claiming that plain Infantry models count as Jump Pack / Jetpack / Cavalry models. I won't accept a canonical SM chapter playing as a different one, either.

How dare you want ultramarines to be played as ultramarines, jetpacks to be jetpacks, and Cavalry to Cavalry.

There’s a difference between saying “these guys don’t have jet packs so how can they fly?” And “these guys don’t have gas masks and British pattern trench coats so how can they use mechanized armor like these other guys?”.

Space Marines are different, I don’t have a bunch of time right now but one is an elite unit that has armor specifically forged for them and painted for them in a way the billions of mass produced armor and guns being issued to the guard is not (Vostroya non-withstanding). Now if they applied regimental patches/markings and copied a Cadian regiment banner that is known to extreme detail than I concede, but them having Cadian style camo or armor is not the same thing as Space Marines nor does it violate WYSIWYG which the jet pack example does.

R0bcrt wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Formerly Wu wrote:
If you have a background for your regiment that's consistent with their doctrine, then I don't care what your models look like,

If your regiment is painstakingly modeled and painted to look like a particular, well-known regiment, then I would expect it to be played as such. Mordian metals as Catachans, or Catachans as Mordians wouldn't work for me, any more than claiming that plain Infantry models count as Jump Pack / Jetpack / Cavalry models. I won't accept a canonical SM chapter playing as a different one, either.

How dare you want ultramarines to be played as ultramarines, jetpacks to be jetpacks, and Cavalry to Cavalry.

There’s a difference between saying “these guys don’t have jet packs so how can they fly?” And “these guys don’t have gas masks and British pattern trench coats so how can they use mechanized armor like these other guys?”.

Space Marines are different, I don’t have a bunch of time right now but one is an elite unit that has armor specifically forged for them and painted for them in a way the billions of mass produced armor and guns being issued to the guard is not (Vostroya non-withstanding). Now if they applied regimental patches/markings and copied a Cadian regiment banner that is known to extreme detail than I concede, but them having Cadian style camo or armor is not the same thing as Space Marines nor does it violate WYSIWYG which the jet pack example does.

We actually agree then if you read the incredibly long thread people have been saying that, for example, Cadians painted Cadian colors with Cadian transfers should be played as Cadia. But that was apparently an extreme position and why I now find this thread so funny :p

Asmodios wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Formerly Wu wrote:
If you have a background for your regiment that's consistent with their doctrine, then I don't care what your models look like,

If your regiment is painstakingly modeled and painted to look like a particular, well-known regiment, then I would expect it to be played as such. Mordian metals as Catachans, or Catachans as Mordians wouldn't work for me, any more than claiming that plain Infantry models count as Jump Pack / Jetpack / Cavalry models. I won't accept a canonical SM chapter playing as a different one, either.

How dare you want ultramarines to be played as ultramarines, jetpacks to be jetpacks, and Cavalry to Cavalry.

I know!

Maybe if it wasn't so damn difficult to get IG models of different factions

There is a huge difference between saying "These standard Marine models actually have Jump Packs" and "These Imperial Guard Cadian models are all Armageddon Steel Legion." Their game-relevant equipment is identical. There is no confusion, there are plenty of fluffy reasons and previous editions have certainly given plenty of flexibility.

Pull out the 2003 Imperial Guard Codex. Check out the camouflage patterns that could be Cadians acting as any type of Regiment (except DKoK I suppose). Check out the doctrines: they give suggestions for Regiments but they give choice to the player. Check out the incredible diversity. An Imperial Guard player with a fully-painted 2,000 point army has earned the hobby right to call them whatever Regiment he chooses. Its also fine in the game rules.

If I rock up to the table with my 1996 metal Cadians I will play them how I decide. You'll know what you are facing with no confusion or deception. It might change from week to week: who knows? I am not sure how this is a problem.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
There is a huge difference between saying "These standard Marine models actually have Jump Packs" and "These Imperial Guard Cadian models are all Armageddon Steel Legion." Their game-relevant equipment is identical.

It's exactly the same problem as an army that looks like this:

Saying that it's actually Dark Angels or Ultramarines.

It's obviously not DA or UM, people should get some gak for saying something that ridiculous.

I don't know why this needs to be said but Space Marines=\=Imperial Guard. The whole chapter proxy thing is a red herring.

I have seen Chaos Space Marines Khornate armies using Space Wolves rules back in 6th and 7th because the Space Wolves rules where much better to represent Khorne Chaos Space marines than the own Chaos Space Marines codex.

And I never had a problem with remembering that the CSM in Juggernauts of Khorne where Thunderwolves, the Possesed where Wulfen, etc...

John,

You introduced the jump-pack analogy - now you're changing.

Now I agree, running painted Blood Angels and Dark Angels would be off-putting. On a visual scale, though, there is much greater difference between Blood Angels and Dark Angels as compared to the difference between two Imperial Guard regiments, never mind that they are different armies from different books. Going through my various Imperial Guard Codex they offer many difference paint schemes for the various Regiments. Add in the fluff and comparing the big four Space Marine armies and the many Imperial Guard regiments is not very useful.

Having said all that, if I am running Valhallans at a Grand Tournament then I will expect to get docked a few marks on army composition if I have Cadian models (unless I am a wizard with the paint and bases), just like I will expect to get docked for not being the best painter! Different setting, though, than a game at the club or the FLGS.

I haven't decided which doctrines to run. My collection has four base models: metal Cadians, metal Catachans, plastic Cadians and plastic Catachans. They all have a similar Feldgrau scheme except the Veteran Squad. I'll call them what I want and it will be clear to my opponent what he is facing.

I've always hated playing against Guard armies, so I should be bias, but Guard players have been forced in the Cadian line for years, with very limited choice. I've seen one Vostoyan force in the last decade, and everything else has been Cadians.

Personally, I would have created a custom Regiment anyway.
I had bought Catachan heads to swap on Cadian bodies for a cool Bandana swat soldier look years ago, but it never got started... Still have 20 Catachan heads. So just like homebrew Space Marines can pick what they like, so can the Guard and noone would bat an eye.

If you want to use your Cadians as Catachans, or Mordians, or whatever, do it. There used to be a little blurb in older codexes that actually encouraged this. These regiments are named, sure, but at this point as ling as you're consistent with your KEYWORDS, whatever.

My CSM army is my most completed. My Shooty Night Lords army would probably be better as Alpha Legion, and my Nurgle Oblits would probably be better off as Slaanesh Oblits... But I've picked a theme and I'm sticking with it, even if its a hinderence.... But I dont expect my opponent to.

well until IG gets plastic mordians, steel legion, vostroyan, etc... I think the crowd that argues that cadians models should be using cadia traits has some valid points. But seeing as GW has neglected guard regiments for some time now I'm gonna side with the guard players on this one. Maybe put some differences like a different paint scheme on their models or at least paint like a color stripe on their bases to note which detachment they belong to.

I have possibly an unusual way of viewing the issue.

I currently have Catachans and I will use their doctrine and nothing else. Doing so encourages me to paint, model and collect miniatures. I love building armies, so this is good.

I know one day I will do Vostroyans .... love those mini's. One of the many rewards associated with finishing that particular project will be the use of the Vostroyan doctrine. Until I have done so I won't. In the meantime, I'm hardly going to get bored using my Catachans, Marines, or Chaos.

But I certainly wouldn't refuse to play someone who views things differently.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
John,

You introduced the jump-pack analogy - now you're changing.

No, I clearly wrote: "I won't accept a canonical SM chapter playing as a different one, either"

To me, it's the same. A Dread is a Dread, and a Tacmarine is a Tacmarine. But once you put on the BA bitz and paint, you can't say it's DA or UM.

I've been playing 40k since 2E, and I know pretty well what the various IG Regiments look like. If you have Mordian models, painted as such, then they're Mordians. If you have DKoK, painted as such, then they're DKoK. Telling me that Catachan models are actually Mordians in "Parade Dress" is going to sit poorly with me. .

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
John,

You introduced the jump-pack analogy - now you're changing.

No, I clearly wrote: "I won't accept a canonical SM chapter playing as a different one, either"

To me, it's the same. A Dread is a Dread, and a Tacmarine is a Tacmarine. But once you put on the BA bitz and paint, you can't say it's DA or UM.

I've been playing 40k since 2E, and I know pretty well what the various IG Regiments look like. If you have Mordian models, painted as such, then they're Mordians. If you have DKoK, painted as such, then they're DKoK. Telling me that Catachan models are actually Mordians in "Parade Dress" is going to sit poorly with me. .

Okay, so, by that token I assume all of your models are official and you do not accept any 3rd party guard armies. If you're going to be that hard line about official model representation you should at least be consistent about it.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
John,

You introduced the jump-pack analogy - now you're changing.

No, I clearly wrote: "I won't accept a canonical SM chapter playing as a different one, either"

To me, it's the same. A Dread is a Dread, and a Tacmarine is a Tacmarine. But once you put on the BA bitz and paint, you can't say it's DA or UM.

I've been playing 40k since 2E, and I know pretty well what the various IG Regiments look like. If you have Mordian models, painted as such, then they're Mordians. If you have DKoK, painted as such, then they're DKoK. Telling me that Catachan models are actually Mordians in "Parade Dress" is going to sit poorly with me. .

Okay, so, by that token I assume all of your models are official and you do not accept any 3rd party guard armies. If you're going to be that hard line about official model representation you should at least be consistent about it.

OK, dude, go look at my gallery and plog and see for yourself.

Go on, take your time...

I own roughly 200 GW Citadel metal Imperial Guardsmen alone, mostly Tallarn, but with a smattering of metal Cadians and Regimental models. I have a couple dozen GW Imperial Guard vehicles. I have no problem whastoever finding an "official" GW Imperial Guard army of a wide variety of configurations. And I can add to that with my allied Knight, Sisters, Inquisition forces, etc. ALL using the official GW models.

I don't have to worry about 3rd party Guard armies at all.

That said, if the player were cool, unlike you, I'd probably let it slide. But if he were some kind of tool, then no.

And even if he were cool, if he started about playing a full iconography BA army as DA or UM, you bet I'd be giving him gak about it.

Asmodios wrote:

We actually agree then if you read the incredibly long thread people have been saying that, for example, Cadians painted Cadian colors with Cadian transfers should be played as Cadia. But that was apparently an extreme position and why I now find this thread so funny :p

You keep saying "Cadian colors" but the fluff is very clear that guard are whatever colour is appropriate to the environment. Cadians might be all kinds of other colours and non-Cadians can be green/tan. If you want to get fussy over the fluff and "immersion" then the colour is irrelevant.

ArbitorIan wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:


Well, obviously, there'll be 2 schools of thought. 1 school of thought is just interested in playing a game, and doesn't care what rules/models you use. The other school of thought is very 'focused' on winning, and will call you a powergamer and refuse to play you if you don't use your dkok as anything but dkok. The question is, which school of thought would *you* prefer?

And, of course, the third school of thought, which doesn't want to look up at the table all game and constantly be reminding themselves that those DKoK aren't actually DKoK this game (just like if all your flamers were actually counts-as plasmaguns today) and so would prefer people just played the rules for the models they have.

Unless they use 3rd party conversions, which look nothing like the 'proper' model. Or paint the 'proper' model pink with purple polka-dots. Then there's no confusion. Sorry, as someone who truly didn't care about winning or losing but just playing a game, its just comes across as rationalization. So you care about winning, there's nothing wrong with that. Other than being associated with those filthy evil WAAC players, who are at least honest about it.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:There is a huge difference between saying "These standard Marine models actually have Jump Packs" and "These Imperial Guard Cadian models are all Armageddon Steel Legion." Their game-relevant equipment is identical. There is no confusion, there are plenty of fluffy reasons and previous editions have certainly given plenty of flexibility.

Pull out the 2003 Imperial Guard Codex. Check out the camouflage patterns that could be Cadians acting as any type of Regiment (except DKoK I suppose). Check out the doctrines: they give suggestions for Regiments but they give choice to the player. Check out the incredible diversity. An Imperial Guard player with a fully-painted 2,000 point army has earned the hobby right to call them whatever Regiment he chooses. Its also fine in the game rules.

If I rock up to the table with my 1996 metal Cadians I will play them how I decide. You'll know what you are facing with no confusion or deception. It might change from week to week: who knows? I am not sure how this is a problem.

Yeah, it's such a ridiculous point to get hung up upon. Unless you're concerned with winning, but don't want to come across that way.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
There is a huge difference between saying "These standard Marine models actually have Jump Packs" and "These Imperial Guard Cadian models are all Armageddon Steel Legion." Their game-relevant equipment is identical.

It's exactly the same problem as an army that looks like this:

Saying that it's actually Dark Angels or Ultramarines.

It's obviously not DA or UM, people should get some gak for saying something that ridiculous.

What it's obviously is space marines. Who are painted red. People hung up on the colour scheme should get some gak for saying something that ridiculous.

Galas wrote:I have seen Chaos Space Marines Khornate armies using Space Wolves rules back in 6th and 7th because the Space Wolves rules where much better to represent Khorne Chaos Space marines than the own Chaos Space Marines codex.

And I never had a problem with remembering that the CSM in Juggernauts of Khorne where Thunderwolves, the Possesed where Wulfen, etc...

Most people over the age of 5 don't have a problem remembering what is what.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

We actually agree then if you read the incredibly long thread people have been saying that, for example, Cadians painted Cadian colors with Cadian transfers should be played as Cadia. But that was apparently an extreme position and why I now find this thread so funny :p

You keep saying "Cadian colors" but the fluff is very clear that guard are whatever colour is appropriate to the environment. Cadians might be all kinds of other colours and non-Cadians can be green/tan. If you want to get fussy over the fluff and "immersion" then the colour is irrelevant.

As i said, it boils down to 2 schools of thought. Those looking to play a game, and those looking to win while pretending they're not.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
John,

You introduced the jump-pack analogy - now you're changing.

No, I clearly wrote: "I won't accept a canonical SM chapter playing as a different one, either"

To me, it's the same. A Dread is a Dread, and a Tacmarine is a Tacmarine. But once you put on the BA bitz and paint, you can't say it's DA or UM.

I've been playing 40k since 2E, and I know pretty well what the various IG Regiments look like. If you have Mordian models, painted as such, then they're Mordians. If you have DKoK, painted as such, then they're DKoK. Telling me that Catachan models are actually Mordians in "Parade Dress" is going to sit poorly with me. .

Okay, so, by that token I assume all of your models are official and you do not accept any 3rd party guard armies. If you're going to be that hard line about official model representation you should at least be consistent about it.

OK, dude, go look at my gallery and plog and see for yourself.

Go on, take your time...

I own roughly 200 GW Citadel metal Imperial Guardsmen alone, mostly Tallarn, but with a smattering of metal Cadians and Regimental models. I have a couple dozen GW Imperial Guard vehicles. I have no problem whastoever finding an "official" GW Imperial Guard army of a wide variety of configurations. And I can add to that with my allied Knight, Sisters, Inquisition forces, etc. ALL using the official GW models.

I don't have to worry about 3rd party Guard armies at all.

That said, if the player were cool, unlike you, I'd probably let it slide. But if he were some kind of tool, then no.

And even if he were cool, if he started about playing a full iconography BA army as DA or UM, you bet I'd be giving him gak about it.

Awww, I'm not cool? That's a real shame. I ask for consistency in your argument and I'm not cool. And here we go again with the Chapter proxy red herring. I ask you, on what grounds do you not like an army using rules that aren't 100% consistent with how it's painted/what models it uses?

Because I can't see on what reasonable grounds you can deny a guard player from customizing his regiment according to how he conceives his army. If terminology bugs people that much just take some whiteout to the planet specific names and write in generic terms. Instead of Cadians, for example, write in "Line Infantry Regimental Doctrines".

If i wanted to run the Regiment from the cain series, who are Valhallans that act like the Steel Legion would (mechanized infantry), what doctrine should i run them as?

 Crazyterran wrote:
If i wanted to run the Regiment from the cain series, who are Valhallans that act like the Steel Legion would (mechanized infantry), what doctrine should i run them as?

Obviously Vallhallan since it's inconceivable that different regiments from the same world might have different specialisations.

Just look at present day Earth - clearly all companies from all regiments have the exact same skill set.

/sarcasm

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
If i wanted to run the Regiment from the cain series, who are Valhallans that act like the Steel Legion would (mechanized infantry), what doctrine should i run them as?

Obviously Vallhallan since it's inconceivable that different regiments from the same world might have different specialisations.

Just look at present day Earth - clearly all companies from all regiments have the exact same skill set.

/sarcasm

I want Americans who are actually Americans. That's why I demand that those power gaming SEAL players use regular Army doctrines.

Personally I'm just glad that when I started my Guard in 2011 I had the foresight to give them slightly different heads, thus shattering the Cadian look so completely that they can pass for anything they like without being confusing.

Asmodios wrote:
We actually agree then if you read the incredibly long thread people have been saying that, for example, Cadians painted Cadian colors with Cadian transfers should be played as Cadia. But that was apparently an extreme position and why I now find this thread so funny :p

I am/was under the impression that multiple people were clearly not okay with using cadian models in any capacity in regards to varied doctrinal use based on multiple posts, nor if someone painted them in the style of cadians but wanted to use them as something else. This is personally what I wanted to address. People using transfers would hamper the argument I am making by a significant margin but it can still be explained away if you read my last paragraph in this post- if one is willing to take the time to think of adequate fluff then one can logically explain any number of situations for their own army's history on why they have what they have or do what they do.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
There is a huge difference between saying "These standard Marine models actually have Jump Packs" and "These Imperial Guard Cadian models are all Armageddon Steel Legion." Their game-relevant equipment is identical.

It's exactly the same problem as an army that looks like this:

Saying that it's actually Dark Angels or Ultramarines.

It's obviously not DA or UM, people should get some gak for saying something that ridiculous.

It is not the same issue. How do I put this, one example has a much higher level of linkage than the other, it's not exactly an intrinsic property for a Space Marine but it's similiar in concept. Let me try an example. In the fluff the SM armor is painted specifically for that chapter and given specific modifications over millenia or more of usage and ritually maintained. The colors of the Space Marine is a source of pride and something done really on the artisan level at this point- they have their own serfs for armor so every personal requirement can be met. Even if the marine scavenges from another chapter/location it will quickly be repainted and repaired to that chapter's standard. If there is a shipping error and the Blood Ravens receive armor meant for the Dark Angels, then the BR will obviously repaint that armor because they have that sort of service available and take extreme pride in their colors, it is worth their time for them to modify it. It is not logical/fluffy for a BR force to be accidentally issued DA gear and decide: "what the heck, let's use it as is" (unless you are modelling the most dire of circumstance for the chapter where it faces extinction or something I guess?) because of ingrained psycho-indoctrination to basically be OCD about not wearing their colors. Now I have no problem letting other chapters use different chapter tactics if the person can explain it in the fluff (Perfect example being pre Horus Heresy White Scars using Sons of Horus rules or something along those lines to represent Terran lodge marines who clearly were not like their brothers) or if I am being super casual that day, but generally I agree with you on the subject of SM- they are personalized and have indicators unique to each specific chapter.

The guard? Flak vests, fatigues, and lasguns are issued in the BILLIONS to every man, woman, and sometimes child I am willing to bet. It has nowhere near the same amount of respect power armor has. They are meant to be disposable and everyone knows it, the only maintenance done is to make sure it works and there is no realistic expectation of it lasting past a campaign as an individual item. If it does, sweet! But if not, oh well. Some/many regiments do take pride in their colors (ex being Mordians), but it is no where near the level of the Space Marines. Accidents in logistics happen. Fifteen Hours proves this when a shipment of raw recruits are sent to a death zone by a simple decimal error essentially. Using the same canon based error but changing what is being shipped, what happens if DKOK uniforms and equipment are accidentally sent to a planet of a newly trained regiment? Will they say: "nah, I can't use this, it doesn't fit my aesthetic!"? Of course not, the regiment uses what it is equipped with because waiting for a return and replacement will take years to decades, and by then the tithe is due. So they'll use it, maybe they'll get in trouble later for having the wrong gear or maybe not, but many worlds wouldn't have the capacity nor the inclination to up and alter thousands of uniforms composed of fabric, metal, etc. for a man not expected to live more than 15 hours if they were going to a campaign like in the book I mentioned. In this situation it is clear this hypothetical regiment would in no way operate like the DK, it would operate however it was trained but with DK gear. This is just one example among several I could think up of. Essentially it comes down to there is ONE DA, BA, IF, etc. chapter that has established identities and paint their own armor accordingly. There are hundreds of thousands to milions of IG regiments, probably thousands of which are issued standard Cadian gear if we want to go by how common the gear is in the fluff. Is it really that unreasonable to think one of those regiments would prefer working with armor (Steel Legion), or with bodies (Valhallan) but doesn't bother to repaint armor and find new fabric for each shipment they receive?

Let me be clear, I don't like people switching regiments/chapters all the time unless they are getting a feel for what army to build next, but if someone had Cadian models painted exactly as Cadians in terms of the armor color, fatigues, etc. but said fluff wise they were a just formed regiment quickly called into action and given the closest set of armor (Cadian regiment surplus since it is everywhere- at that point it would be accurate to add cadian regimental marks) on hand and thrown into the fray? Then it literally does not break any fluff metric like having Blood Angels wearing Ultimas nor does it break any form of WYSIWYG.

*edited a few immediate grammar problems

The difference between "marine in blue vs marine in red" and "guardsman in blue vs guardsman in red" is that for 95% of marines the color IS the distinguishing feature of the chapter. When you ask "what do ultramarines look like?" anyone will say "blue power armored marines." As unfortunate as it is, the uniform is the distinguishing feature of a guard regiment. Color largely doesn't matter. It's the gas mask, the long coats, the fur hats,etc. This unfortunately makes it very difficult to convert regiments. Especially because GW makes it almost impossible to field anything but cadian (and maybe catachan).

It's unfair, and personally I'll be extra lenient on guard players. Collecting wise they do not have it easy.

This thread is an amazing eye opener.

So when the nid dex shows up are nids painted in the behemoth scheme going to HAVE to play them as Hive fleet behemoth? Leviathan must be played as leviathan? Custom schemes able to pick and choose which ever they want?

Nids change their coloring planet to planet if the adaptation is worth while. In the same way that IG wear different armor in different environments. If you are going to be this picky on the guard are you going to extend this to everyone?

All Admech better have the correct colors to use the correct forge world Red mofos better all be from Mars. Insanity.

 Lance845 wrote:
So when the nid dex shows up are nids painted in the behemoth scheme going to HAVE to play them as Hive fleet behemoth? Leviathan must be played as leviathan? Custom schemes able to pick and choose which ever they want?

Nids change their coloring planet to planet if the adaptation is worth while. In the same way that IG wear different armor in different environments. If you are going to be this picky on the guard are you going to extend this to everyone?

All Admech better have the correct colors to use the correct forge world Red mofos better all be from Mars. Insanity.

I am actually surprised that they do not describe nids as having some form of cells that give them natural camouflage, It seems like such a natural fit for them, and you do not even need rules for it.

On the wider note, i think this also goes against creativity. Players cannot create a regiment outside of the standard as its an absolute, cannot have a commander that is adaptable.
cannot have a regiment that has fight for time on another planet or against foes that force a change.
It also seems to point that players thinking about there army and units is somehow against what this game is about, and that makes me very sad :(

Personally I do not even see the need to justify regiment or chapter tactic proxies with lore. Its purely a gameplay thing to do and whats the problem with that? If someone has painted their marines as being ultramarines do you want them to go out and buy a whole new marine army to play white scars chapter tactics? You are playing a game and I do not see anything wrong with people wanting to have variety and try new things. Why punish people who put the effort into painting their models by forcing them down a certain way of playing?

Marines are easy to strip and repaint. Not saying I expect marine players to do that, just playing devil's advocate.

On a related note, if I played marines and i was serious about switching chapters for the long haul, I WOULD repaint.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 AaronWilson wrote:
This is madness. I can't believe people get so riled up over toy soldiers.

You're new here.

THIS IS DAKKA!

This gave me a giggle.

 Corrode wrote:
Personally I'm just glad that when I started my Guard in 2011 I had the foresight to give them slightly different heads, thus shattering the Cadian look so completely that they can pass for anything they like without being confusing.

And I'm glad that Metalica was too hard to paint, so I went with a blue and orange pattern of my own for my Skitarii, so now I'm not getting shoehorned into certain rules by fluff-fascists that want to dictate how I get to play the game based on an aesthetic choice I made years ago.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

We actually agree then if you read the incredibly long thread people have been saying that, for example, Cadians painted Cadian colors with Cadian transfers should be played as Cadia. But that was apparently an extreme position and why I now find this thread so funny :p

You keep saying "Cadian colors" but the fluff is very clear that guard are whatever colour is appropriate to the environment. Cadians might be all kinds of other colours and non-Cadians can be green/tan. If you want to get fussy over the fluff and "immersion" then the colour is irrelevant.

No im not just saying "Cadia Colors" I'm saying colors and markings. Once again let's take a super simple example let's say you have a basic SM, it's simply grey plastic it has no chapter/ rules tied to it. Now you take the SM and paint it bright green and it just so happens to be the Salamanders colors....it's still just a green SM and could play as anything as I don't know of any SM chapter that just rocks green. Then let's say you now take the time to add all the Salamders transfers/ additional bits to make it a Salamander, at this point in my mind you have chosen the Salamanders for better or worse. This is no longer a generic SM that could be anything it is a specific chapter with specific rules and should be played as such. Same with IG so you buy some guardsman and paint them green and tan..... ok common colors most likely used on thousands of worlds. Now you go and put Cadia transfers on your tanks/ army wide transfers/ Cadia regimental banners etc. this army is now a Cadian army.

Reguardless ive said all along that its those people's models and nothing's stopping them from using Salamanders as blood angels. I even said earlier that if a nice guy said "hey I'd like to try out blood angels I'm thinking of getting some" no preoblem. But I personally wouldn't want to play against someone who all of a sudden runs a full Salamanders army as Blood angels especially a week after a new codex drop where BA just got an update and this player that has been running Salamanders for years just now tells everyone they are secretly BA in disguise

Asmodios wrote:
Now you go and put Cadia transfers on your tanks/ army wide transfers/ Cadia regimental banners etc. this army is now a Cadian army.

And that's completely absurd. You don't even have the excuse of WYSIWYG confusion anymore, as the tiny "Cadia" on the side of a tank is barely visible at normal tabletop distances. Your entire objection is based on your ignorance of the IG fluff.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Now you go and put Cadia transfers on your tanks/ army wide transfers/ Cadia regimental banners etc. this army is now a Cadian army.

And that's completely absurd.

The fact that this thread didn't just end on page 1 with "nah, no one is gonna try to dictate how you play your plastic men" is absurd.

On a related note, anyone know any good way to convert a lot of longcoat guardsmen with night vision goggles or rebreathers that doesn't involve a ton of forge world purchasing?
I always wanted to complete a guard army from a nocturnal world and I love the greatcoat look and tactics for getting close and being stealthy.

Check out Victoria Miniatures for greatcoats. Pretty sure there's also rebreather heads.

Mad Robot Miniatures has some good selection of bits too.

My take on this?

Doctrines, Chapter bonuses etc are a reward for Hobby - as in painting your models.

They're not there for you to get clever with your list to squeeze the best bonuses for the various units. To do so, I see as an abuse of the spirit of the game.

Now, if someone has Cadian infantry, and an actual Catachan tank detachment? Well, fair enough. At least you've gone to the effort.

But if it's all the one uniform scheme? Oh just sod off with your power gaming nonsense. Doubly so if the regiments you field change from game to game to garner you the best perceived benefit.

YMMV, and this is merely my opinion. I do not hold myself as some paragon of gaming virtue.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Now you go and put Cadia transfers on your tanks/ army wide transfers/ Cadia regimental banners etc. this army is now a Cadian army.

And that's completely absurd. You don't even have the excuse of WYSIWYG confusion anymore, as the tiny "Cadia" on the side of a tank is barely visible at normal tabletop distances. Your entire objection is based on your ignorance of the IG fluff.

You might find it obsured but clearly a lot of people don't. Also don't see how it's not technically WYSIWYG you see black templars painted as black templars with black templar markings you have black templars. You have Cadians painted as Cadians will Ciadian transfers then you are playing Cadia. What I find absurd is how upset people get when you say "I'm choosing not to play this way you can still play however you want". The fact that the way i choose to act in a hypothetical situation is so offensive to people on Dakka is absolutely absurd to me haha.

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
On a related note, anyone know any good way to convert a lot of longcoat guardsmen with night vision goggles or rebreathers that doesn't involve a ton of forge world purchasing?
I always wanted to complete a guard army from a nocturnal world and I love the greatcoat look and tactics for getting close and being stealthy.

I mean that kind of conversion work is never gonna be cheap, but you might want to look at sites like puppetswar.eu to see if there is anything that catches your fancy



or ninjas?

Asmodios wrote:
Now you go and put Cadia transfers on your tanks/ army wide transfers/ Cadia regimental banners etc. this army is now a Cadian army.

But a Cadian army =/= a Cadian army. Even if the Cadian models are representing Cadians, with banners and icons and all that, the Cadian doctrine might not be the best representation of how they fight. There are mechanized Cadians (Armageddon doctrine), White Shields (Valhallan), and Kasrkin (Tempestus, maybe?)


I wish GW had just named the doctrines something more generic, like Mechanized, Human Wave, Close Order Drill and so on, so we could just get on with playing our armies the way they make sense to us rather than fighting it out in this abomination of a forum thread.

Asmodios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Now you go and put Cadia transfers on your tanks/ army wide transfers/ Cadia regimental banners etc. this army is now a Cadian army.

And that's completely absurd. You don't even have the excuse of WYSIWYG confusion anymore, as the tiny "Cadia" on the side of a tank is barely visible at normal tabletop distances. Your entire objection is based on your ignorance of the IG fluff.

You might find it obsured but clearly a lot of people don't. Also don't see how it's not technically WYSIWYG you see black templars painted as black templars with black templar markings you have black templars. You have Cadians painted as Cadians will Ciadian transfers then you are playing Cadia. What I find absurd is how upset people get when you say "I'm choosing not to play this way you can still play however you want". The fact that the way i choose to act in a hypothetical situation is so offensive to people on Dakka is absolutely absurd to me haha.

I tihnk his point is that WYSIWYG no longer exists in the rules.

Thanks guys. I appreciate the suggestions. I'll check them out.

Asmodios wrote:
Also don't see how it's not technically WYSIWYG you see black templars painted as black templars with black templar markings you have black templars.

WYSIWYG is not some absolute rule to be prioritized above all else, it's a means to an end: ensuring that there's no ambiguity about which models on the table have which rules. If you have a 10-man squad with one melta gun and one missile launcher you need to be able to identify which model has which weapon and where you need to measure range from, without any debate over it or room to cheat by picking whichever model is most convenient every time you shoot. But something like a tiny symbol on a shoulder pad? That has no practical value. It isn't helping you identify which model is which, because it's invisibly tiny at normal tabletop distances and to all but the most careful of observers looks no different from a non-Cadian model with a similar paint scheme. The only reason to enforce WYSIWYG that strictly is as a weapon for bludgeoning your opponent into complying with your paranoia about "powergamers".

You have Cadians painted as Cadians will Ciadian transfers then you are playing Cadia.

You keep ignoring the fact that there are many Cadian regiments which are best represented with other rules. If you're going to count rivets at least get it right.

What I find absurd is how upset people get when you say "I'm choosing not to play this way you can still play however you want". The fact that the way i choose to act in a hypothetical situation is so offensive to people on Dakka is absolutely absurd to me haha.

Again, "it's just my preference" is not an excuse for bad behavior. Nor does it mean that your preference deserves any respect, or is based on anything but ignorance about the fluff and paranoia about "powergamers".

(And really, it's pretty amusing how you talk so much about how you hate "powergamers" but spend all this time obsessing over small variations in army power level. If winning doesn't really matter then why is it so important to force your opponent to use a weaker set of rules? Just accept that they're using whatever rules they tell you they're using and play the game. But I suspect that, like most of the "casual at all costs" crowd, you really do care about winning, you just don't want to have to get better at the game to be able to win.)

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
My take on this?

Doctrines, Chapter bonuses etc are a reward for Hobby - as in painting your models.

They're not there for you to get clever with your list to squeeze the best bonuses for the various units. To do so, I see as an abuse of the spirit of the game.

Now, if someone has Cadian infantry, and an actual Catachan tank detachment? Well, fair enough. At least you've gone to the effort.

But if it's all the one uniform scheme? Oh just sod off with your power gaming nonsense. Doubly so if the regiments you field change from game to game to garner you the best perceived benefit.

YMMV, and this is merely my opinion. I do not hold myself as some paragon of gaming virtue.

In your case, would I have to own the official Valhallan models to use the Valhallan doctrine?

 Scott-S6 wrote:
I tihnk his point is that WYSIWYG no longer exists in the rules.

Nah, even when it did exist in the rules community consensus was more important than strict RAW. My point is that several people on the "if your models look like Cadians they must use the Cadian rules" side have raised the point of WYSIWYG and ambiguous models. IOW, that if a model looks like a Cadian unit it's confusing to have it using the Catachan rules. But Asmodios makes it perfectly clear that this is not a valid argument for them to make. They're willing to accept a model from the Cadian kit painted with the Cadian colors using the Catachan rules, as long as it doesn't have a tiny Cadian symbol on its shoulder pad. But if you add that tiny symbol to the model then suddenly you're expected to use the Cadian rules. A tiny symbol that is barely visible at normal tabletop distances has no effect on WYSIWYG, so their motives for enforcing the rule can not possibly be related to WYSIWYG.

 Peregrine wrote:
ust my preference" is not an excuse for bad behavior. Nor does it mean that your preference deserves any respect, or is based on anything but ignorance about the fluff and paranoia about "powergamers".

(And really, it's pretty amusing how you talk so much about how you hate "powergamers" but spend all this time obsessing over small variations in army power level. If winning doesn't really matter then why is it so important to force your opponent to use a weaker set of rules? Just accept that they're using whatever rules they tell you they're using and play the game. But I suspect that, like most of the "casual at all costs" crowd, you really do care about winning, you just don't want to have to get better at the game to be able to win.)

Yes, the CAAC mafia have been out in force on this one. I guess the new codex has them worried that list tailoring and cheese-shaming won't be enough to keep them with a chance of winning.

People won't mix and match any worse with this codex than the others. You will see people bring a regiment for a purpose, and then ally in another regiment to serve another. So what? It's what has been happening this edition the whole time.

The whole "you're just trying to enforce weaker rules to have a chance to win!" narrative is incredibly asinine.

If someone wants to use two or more different regiment rulesets, I'm going to want SOME KIND of clear distinction between regiment A and regiment B and I feel that there's absolutely no difference between that and wanting some kind of clear distinction between a model with weapon A and weapon B.

It's no different from the 7th ed situation of having a list with the same units running different formations. Benefiting from your opponent being confused about what's what is, and has always been, a jerk move, I'm sorry.

No, it's not perfectly clear that "everything I took with a blast weapon I took in a catachan detachment because they get better blasts, and all the stationary tanks I took in a cadian detachment because they get rerolls, and all the conscripts and infantry I took in a valhallan detachment to get the respawn stratagem, and they're all painted the same colors." That's exactly the same as "this unit with melta guns is actually flamers, this unit with melta guns is melta guns, these heavy bolters are grav cannons (because who uses heavy bolters pff they suck) and this coke bottle is a drop pod"

If people want to run Valhallan rules with their cadians, I don't care. If people want to run MULTIPLE DIFFERENT regiments with their cadians with some kind of color differentiator to make it's clear what's what, that's also fine. But saying that having any kind of standard of clarity is "rivet counting" is ridiculous, and also saying that people have no right to choose who they play based on the kind of game they want to play that day because then they're engaging in some kind of "competitiveness shaming" is also ridiculous. I play in tournaments when I choose to. When I'd rather get my cool old Vostroyan models off the shelf and play them in the game without having a giant handicap, I'm going to not play against someone with an obviously tournament quality list. That's called "personal discretion" and it's part of accepting that not everyone is going to play the game for exactly the same reason that you want to play the game.

If it's entirely about clarity would you consider some kind of marker, that has no meaning fluff-wise, to be acceptable? Different colors for the base edges, etc? The models still look the same, they just have an unambiguous note about which rules they have.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
My take on this?

Doctrines, Chapter bonuses etc are a reward for Hobby - as in painting your models.

They're not there for you to get clever with your list to squeeze the best bonuses for the various units. To do so, I see as an abuse of the spirit of the game.

Now, if someone has Cadian infantry, and an actual Catachan tank detachment? Well, fair enough. At least you've gone to the effort.

But if it's all the one uniform scheme? Oh just sod off with your power gaming nonsense. Doubly so if the regiments you field change from game to game to garner you the best perceived benefit.

YMMV, and this is merely my opinion. I do not hold myself as some paragon of gaming virtue.

In your case, would I have to own the official Valhallan models to use the Valhallan doctrine?

Not necessarily, no. If you relied on the standard Cadian models because that's what's readily available and suits better than Catachans, I'd just consider if it's a particularly Valhallan colour scheme. Probably could've been clearer about that originally. IT's about the paintjob, not so much the models.

If it was Valhallans one week, Cadians the next, then Tallarns because of some perceived advantage to you, then no.

 Peregrine wrote:
If it's entirely about clarity would you consider some kind of marker, that has no meaning fluff-wise, to be acceptable? Different colors for the base edges, etc? The models still look the same, they just have an unambiguous note about which rules they have.

Sure - that's exactly what there was in the competitive game I played the other day. Each unit of conscripts had a separate base color and we referred to them as "blue squad" and "green squad"

My vostroyans were designed around being a combined blob of infantry squads, but when I would run them as vets, I had roman numerals on their shoulders to denote which squad they were - I through V.

but, again, if I or anyone else is not interested in playing an optimized game and I'd rather get to use my Vostroyan flamer infantry and heavy bolter team models, my Powerfist and Powersword/Plasma Pistol sarges, my Sniper Vets, I'm probably going to refuse a game against someone who wants to use multiple regiments and has a list built with a competitive mindset. 40k is not just a competitive wargame, it's a social activity, and an aesthetic hobby. Not everyone's going to have the time, money, or inclination to build their armies into the latest competitive hotness and you seem dedicated to vehemently attacking anyone who refuses a game on grounds of an optimization mismatch or an attitude mismatch, because playing out foregone conclusions aren't (or at least, shouldn't be) fun for either party most of the time.

It is a fact of life that the farther from the middle of the road for the meta you play in your normal list gets, the fewer enjoyable games you're going to have. If that's on the low end, you're going to have a lot more defeats. if that's on the high side, you're going to have a lot more players refusing games. At this point, because I've got a big, established collection and a variety of tastes, I just adjust my level of competitiveness to the opponent I'm going to play against, and the easiest way to do that is adjusting my lists to use models that I had from older editions that are no longer terribly good, or that I just bought for aesthetic reasons.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If your regiment is painstakingly modeled and painted to look like a particular, well-known regiment, then I would expect it to be played as such.

If I'm the one playing it, then yeah, I would hold myself to that standard. But personally I find it exhausting to be so persnickety about what other people do with their toy soldiers.

the_scotsman wrote:
I'm going to want SOME KIND of clear distinction between regiment A and regiment B

Sure, got no issues with this.

My own force is organized as a batallion (as in a fluff batallion, not the detachment-kind);
1st company - Super Heavies (Baneblades and a Shadowsword)
2nd company - tanks (Vanquishers and Battletanks)
3rd company - mechanized infantry
4th company - disbanded due to heavy losses (was mechanized) (in reality I just don't want to buy more stuff)
5th company - specialist vehicles like Destroyer Tank Hunters, Thunderers, Demolishers and Hydras
6th company - (exists only on paper) support vehicles like trojans and atlases. Maybe I'll actually buy some now that they're not totally useless.

Now, on the table top it should be easy enough to remember that all Leman Russes are in the 2nd company (spearhead detachment, probably?) while chimeras and infantry belong to the 3rd company. 1st company only comes in to play in larger games - they've been collecting dust since 5th edition.
All vehicles have tactical numbers, starting with the company number, then platoon ("squadron") number, and then it's individual number. So tank 211 would be 2nd company, 1st platoon, tank 1.

Would you object if the tanks from 2nd company were fielded as a detatchment with the Cadian regimental doctrine, while the Chimeras and infantry in 3rd company were fielded with the Armageddon doctrine? Other than tactical numbering, all tanks have the same camo scheme.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Also don't see how it's not technically WYSIWYG you see black templars painted as black templars with black templar markings you have black templars.

WYSIWYG is not some absolute rule to be prioritized above all else, it's a means to an end: ensuring that there's no ambiguity about which models on the table have which rules. If you have a 10-man squad with one melta gun and one missile launcher you need to be able to identify which model has which weapon and where you need to measure range from, without any debate over it or room to cheat by picking whichever model is most convenient every time you shoot. But something like a tiny symbol on a shoulder pad? That has no practical value. It isn't helping you identify which model is which, because it's invisibly tiny at normal tabletop distances and to all but the most careful of observers looks no different from a non-Cadian model with a similar paint scheme. The only reason to enforce WYSIWYG that strictly is as a weapon for bludgeoning your opponent into complying with your paranoia about "powergamers".

You have Cadians painted as Cadians will Ciadian transfers then you are playing Cadia.

You keep ignoring the fact that there are many Cadian regiments which are best represented with other rules. If you're going to count rivets at least get it right.

What I find absurd is how upset people get when you say "I'm choosing not to play this way you can still play however you want". The fact that the way i choose to act in a hypothetical situation is so offensive to people on Dakka is absolutely absurd to me haha.

Again, "it's just my preference" is not an excuse for bad behavior. Nor does it mean that your preference deserves any respect, or is based on anything but ignorance about the fluff and paranoia about "powergamers".

(And really, it's pretty amusing how you talk so much about how you hate "powergamers" but spend all this time obsessing over small variations in army power level. If winning doesn't really matter then why is it so important to force your opponent to use a weaker set of rules? Just accept that they're using whatever rules they tell you they're using and play the game. But I suspect that, like most of the "casual at all costs" crowd, you really do care about winning, you just don't want to have to get better at the game to be able to win.)

See what I find confusing is that everywhere I have ever played at nobody would try to play Black Templars as Salamanders. This is regardless that technically Black templars could be Salamanders with your definition of WYSIWYG. Technically having black armor with crosses has no functional distinction between having green armor with the Salamander logo. Technically if both have a bolter what is the difference? The difference to me is those two chapters have their own rules sets and when you pick that specific chapter you use those rules. Id refer to this more as "Spirit of the Game" but technically to me it could also be classified as WYSIWYG as clearly you see Black Templars you should play Black Templars.

I find it funny that now somehow I'm caring about "winning" the game by wanting models to represent what they are. If you go back and read my posts im clear about what im looking for in a game. Obviously, the number one goal of the game is fun followed by things like immersion, narrative and so on and on. Part of the reason why I would refuse to play games with someone who has chosen to call his black templars salamanders a week after a codex drop where it was never an issue before that his guys were Black Templars, is because of my thoughts on why he did this. I have a limited number of games I can play and am looking to have the most fun possible in said games. So when choosing an opponent why would i play against the guy who seems to care so much about every single small statistical advantage he can squeeze out of an army that he's willing to play the wrong codex entre then the army was clearly meant for when created (ie obviously Black Templars, not Salamanders). To me this guy is just looking for different things then i am in a game. I really don't care if I win or lose a game (i ran an all goblin army list for like 4 generations of WHFB regardless of power level) but i do care about giving myself the highest chance of having the game that's going to give me the most fun so im looking for things like (nice opponent, painted army for immersion, if i get lucky some good backstory and even narrating of the game ect). So why play the guy that's running his Black Templars as Salamanders when i can go play the guy using UM as UM. I don't know which game i might win i dont know there exact build and strategy all i know is that the guy playing his army as what is, most likely has a higher chance of looking for the same things in a game as i am and thus there is a better chance im going to have a fun time.

Panzergraf wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
I'm going to want SOME KIND of clear distinction between regiment A and regiment B

Sure, got no issues with this.

My own force is organized as a batallion (as in a fluff batallion, not the detachment-kind);
1st company - Super Heavies (Baneblades and a Shadowsword)
2nd company - tanks (Vanquishers and Battletanks)
3rd company - mechanized infantry
4th company - disbanded due to heavy losses (was mechanized) (in reality I just don't want to buy more stuff)
5th company - specialist vehicles like Destroyer Tank Hunters, Thunderers, Demolishers and Hydras
6th company - (exists only on paper) support vehicles like trojans and atlases. Maybe I'll actually buy some now that they're not totally useless.

Now, on the table top it should be easy enough to remember that all Leman Russes are in the 2nd company (spearhead detachment, probably?) while chimeras and infantry belong to the 3rd company. 1st company only comes in to play in larger games - they've been collecting dust since 5th edition.
All vehicles have tactical numbers, starting with the company number, then platoon ("squadron") number, and then it's individual number. So tank 211 would be 2nd company, 1st platoon, tank 1.

Would you object if the tanks from 2nd company were fielded as a detatchment with the Cadian regimental doctrine, while the Chimeras and infantry in 3rd company were fielded with the Armageddon doctrine? Other than tactical numbering, all tanks have the same camo scheme.

I would not object. In fact, I'd ask if you meant to make a composite regiment/battalion made of different companies from different homeworlds, as the organization you've picked is so unique for the guard that it's probably fluffy, on the other hand.

My organization, while similar (divided into companies based on role) will be using the same homeworld doctrine whether it's Atlases, the regimental command group, the reserve tank crews, or the superheavy tanks themselves, because they're all from the same training structure.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Not necessarily, no. If you relied on the standard Cadian models because that's what's readily available and suits better than Catachans, I'd just consider if it's a particularly Valhallan colour scheme. Probably could've been clearer about that originally. IT's about the paintjob, not so much the models.

If it was Valhallans one week, Cadians the next, then Tallarns because of some perceived advantage to you, then no.

What would define a suitably Valhallan paint job? What about Vostroyan or Mordian? Is there a minimum deviance from the base Cadian paint scheme necessary to not be Cadian? What if the regiment has a colour similar to an official regiment but they're based on your own custom fluff?

What if I was playing a custom regiment and I wished to try out all the regimental doctrines before settling on one and therefore needed to mix up what doctrines I was using for a few weeks? Is there an amount of games I'd be allowed for each doctrine?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I would not object. In fact, I'd ask if you meant to make a composite regiment/battalion made of different companies from different homeworlds, as the organization you've picked is so unique for the guard that it's probably fluffy, on the other hand.

They're all supposed to be from the same planet; Arborea. I used to field 2nd company as an Armored Company (there were Imperial Armor/Chapter Approved lists for this) and 3rd as regular guard with the Mechanized doctrine, back in the day, so each force got its own set of buffs and special rules, not too unlike the doctrines, orders and stratagems in our upcoming codex. Organization is loosely based on the armored batallion I served in when I was in the army, though obviously we didn't have Baneblades.

Problem is what is the Cadian camo scheme? In older Codexs it was shown that they use multiple different color schemes for camouflage. Add to the advent people use and make reproductions of the armor and weaponry for their own regiments muddles everything.


[img]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/0a/7a/7a/0a7a7af1dc9ee22262d7550e7eb3b85e.jpg
[/img]
This a Cadian regiment but has a different color scheme, and it's from a codex.

Panzergraf wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I would not object. In fact, I'd ask if you meant to make a composite regiment/battalion made of different companies from different homeworlds, as the organization you've picked is so unique for the guard that it's probably fluffy, on the other hand.

They're all supposed to be from the same planet; Arborea. I used to field 2nd company as an Armored Company (there were Imperial Armor/Chapter Approved lists for this) and 3rd as regular guard with the Mechanized doctrine, back in the day, so each force got its own set of buffs and special rules, not too unlike the doctrines, orders and stratagems in our upcoming codex. Organization is loosely based on the armored batallion I served in when I was in the army, though obviously we didn't have Baneblades.

I didn't mean planet, I meant regiment type. The IG doesn't allow mechanized infantry and armour (and artillery and whatnot) to be in the same regimental structure (though they are always mixed in practice when the regiments arrive at the front). It's how you end up with Artillery Regiments, Air Defense Regiments, etc. - combined arms isn't at the regimental scale usually.

That said, composite regiments exist under various headings (Krieg siege regiments are an example) so it's just the way things usually are, not the way things actually are! More power to anyone who wants to run a mixed formation.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Not necessarily, no. If you relied on the standard Cadian models because that's what's readily available and suits better than Catachans, I'd just consider if it's a particularly Valhallan colour scheme. Probably could've been clearer about that originally. IT's about the paintjob, not so much the models.

If it was Valhallans one week, Cadians the next, then Tallarns because of some perceived advantage to you, then no.

What would define a suitably Valhallan paint job? What about Vostroyan or Mordian? Is there a minimum deviance from the base Cadian paint scheme necessary to not be Cadian? What if the regiment has a colour similar to an official regiment but they're based on your own custom fluff?

What if I was playing a custom regiment and I wished to try out all the regimental doctrines before settling on one and therefore needed to mix up what doctrines I was using for a few weeks? Is there an amount of games I'd be allowed for each doctrine?

God, you people just have to REALIZE that paint is part of THE FLUFF. If a model with the cadian plastics doesn't have a >= 35% R to BY ratio in their paint scheme, they CANNOT, by WYSIWYG, be vostroyan.

This is why I enforce these standards uniformly. If you run a Repulsor tank but dont paint the "you must be this tall to ride this ride" sign by the door, its not wysiwyg. If you run the new Mortarion model and don't paint the official "Property of Kaldor Draigo" tramp stamp on him, he's not wysiwyg.

the_scotsman wrote:
If you run the new Mortarion model and don't paint the official "Property of Kaldor Draigo" tramp stamp on him, he's not wysiwyg.

Please tell me someone has done this.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Not necessarily, no. If you relied on the standard Cadian models because that's what's readily available and suits better than Catachans, I'd just consider if it's a particularly Valhallan colour scheme. Probably could've been clearer about that originally. IT's about the paintjob, not so much the models.

If it was Valhallans one week, Cadians the next, then Tallarns because of some perceived advantage to you, then no.

What would define a suitably Valhallan paint job? What about Vostroyan or Mordian? Is there a minimum deviance from the base Cadian paint scheme necessary to not be Cadian? What if the regiment has a colour similar to an official regiment but they're based on your own custom fluff?

What if I was playing a custom regiment and I wished to try out all the regimental doctrines before settling on one and therefore needed to mix up what doctrines I was using for a few weeks? Is there an amount of games I'd be allowed for each doctrine?

Icy colour pallets, that sort of thing. But if you're fielding a single regiment, knock yourself out with whatevs. The issue comes when Detachments A, B C and D all have identical uniforms, but happen to be different Regiments. That's just lazy.

As for finding your feet? Honestly, that depends entirely upon whether you're a tool or not. Let's be honest, as gamers we know when someone is taking the piss.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
John,

You introduced the jump-pack analogy - now you're changing.

No, I clearly wrote: "I won't accept a canonical SM chapter playing as a different one, either"

To me, it's the same. A Dread is a Dread, and a Tacmarine is a Tacmarine. But once you put on the BA bitz and paint, you can't say it's DA or UM.

I've been playing 40k since 2E, and I know pretty well what the various IG Regiments look like. If you have Mordian models, painted as such, then they're Mordians. If you have DKoK, painted as such, then they're DKoK. Telling me that Catachan models are actually Mordians in "Parade Dress" is going to sit poorly with me. .

Okay, so, by that token I assume all of your models are official and you do not accept any 3rd party guard armies. If you're going to be that hard line about official model representation you should at least be consistent about it.

OK, dude, go look at my gallery and plog and see for yourself.

Go on, take your time...

I own roughly 200 GW Citadel metal Imperial Guardsmen alone, mostly Tallarn, but with a smattering of metal Cadians and Regimental models. I have a couple dozen GW Imperial Guard vehicles. I have no problem whastoever finding an "official" GW Imperial Guard army of a wide variety of configurations. And I can add to that with my allied Knight, Sisters, Inquisition forces, etc. ALL using the official GW models.

I don't have to worry about 3rd party Guard armies at all.

That said, if the player were cool, unlike you, I'd probably let it slide. But if he were some kind of tool, then no.

And even if he were cool, if he started about playing a full iconography BA army as DA or UM, you bet I'd be giving him gak about it.

Awww, I'm not cool? That's a real shame. I ask for consistency in your argument and I'm not cool. And here we go again with the Chapter proxy red herring. I ask you, on what grounds do you not like an army using rules that aren't 100% consistent with how it's painted/what models it uses?

My argument is 111% consistent.

If any army is obviously converted and painted as BA, then that's what it is. If played as anything else, then it is a proxy army, simple as that. I prefer not to play against proxy armies.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Icy colour pallets, that sort of thing. But if you're fielding a single regiment, knock yourself out with whatevs. The issue comes when Detachments A, B C and D all have identical uniforms, but happen to be different Regiments. That's just lazy.

As for finding your feet? Honestly, that depends entirely upon whether you're a tool or not. Let's be honest, as gamers we know when someone is taking the piss.

This is what I'm driving at. Most sensible people in this thread would either run their army as one regiment, or at the very least, clearly mark or have obvious distinctions if they're running multiple regimental doctrines. Your general sentiment towards the whole thing seems to boil down to the person across from you, not some sort RAW or anal retentive attention to detail and lore strictness or paint scheme.

As an example for myself, I'd probably trial all of the doctrines a few times before settling one or two I like. I also tend to run either a mechanized/armoured list, or a foot/arty list, which would lean towards two very different doctrines. If I was facing you, I'd probably announce I brought my mech Guard and will be using the Armageddon rules for my custom Guard, or I'd roll up my foot/arty force and announce I'll be using the Mordian rules. In either case, it'd be clear and simple, and the fluff would match the doctrine. I'd wager most people in this thread will play along similar lines (or fielding multiple regiments, like an armoured company of Tallarn and a foot company of Mordian) and I'd further wager a majority of opponents wouldn't have an issue.

My regiment doesn't look like any of the 8, so as far as I'm concerned I'm good. It's pretty clear GW feels the same way, they've gone out of their way to show kitbashed regiments that don't have any parallels to the 8, even showing cadian re-colors. Recolors are the ultimate heresy for people that want to force their opponents into specific chapter tactics/regiment doctrines so I think that whole group is out of luck.

I get it's annoying to see someone repaint their blood angels as ultramarines, but some arbitrary, impossible to fully enforce, only relevant in 20% of situations is never going to fly. How the hell would you even start enforcing it with factions like tyranids? Or Tau? At best you could start making random rules based on coloration, but then some guy goes Fuchsia and your whole house of cards collapses before his colorful might.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
John,

You introduced the jump-pack analogy - now you're changing.

No, I clearly wrote: "I won't accept a canonical SM chapter playing as a different one, either"

To me, it's the same. A Dread is a Dread, and a Tacmarine is a Tacmarine. But once you put on the BA bitz and paint, you can't say it's DA or UM.

I've been playing 40k since 2E, and I know pretty well what the various IG Regiments look like. If you have Mordian models, painted as such, then they're Mordians. If you have DKoK, painted as such, then they're DKoK. Telling me that Catachan models are actually Mordians in "Parade Dress" is going to sit poorly with me. .

Okay, so, by that token I assume all of your models are official and you do not accept any 3rd party guard armies. If you're going to be that hard line about official model representation you should at least be consistent about it.

OK, dude, go look at my gallery and plog and see for yourself.

Go on, take your time...

I own roughly 200 GW Citadel metal Imperial Guardsmen alone, mostly Tallarn, but with a smattering of metal Cadians and Regimental models. I have a couple dozen GW Imperial Guard vehicles. I have no problem whastoever finding an "official" GW Imperial Guard army of a wide variety of configurations. And I can add to that with my allied Knight, Sisters, Inquisition forces, etc. ALL using the official GW models.

I don't have to worry about 3rd party Guard armies at all.

That said, if the player were cool, unlike you, I'd probably let it slide. But if he were some kind of tool, then no.

And even if he were cool, if he started about playing a full iconography BA army as DA or UM, you bet I'd be giving him gak about it.

Awww, I'm not cool? That's a real shame. I ask for consistency in your argument and I'm not cool. And here we go again with the Chapter proxy red herring. I ask you, on what grounds do you not like an army using rules that aren't 100% consistent with how it's painted/what models it uses?

My argument is 111% consistent.

If any army is obviously converted and painted as BA, then that's what it is. If played as anything else, then it is a proxy army, simple as that. I prefer not to play against proxy armies.

So, if someone showed up with Cadian miniatures painted in red/green with no markings and wanted to play them with Cadian rules would you deny them? Because, obviously they are using a proxy army.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If any army is obviously converted and painted as BA, then that's what it is. If played as anything else, then it is a proxy army, simple as that. I prefer not to play against proxy armies.

Are we to understand that you would play a game against the first of these models, but not against any of the others?

The BA thing also collapses if I bring in, say, a successor Chapter. Especially the time-honored question of what rules to use for Lamenters (who at one point did not suffer the Black Rage, and are codex compliant, meaning using the vanilla codex or the BA codex would be equally valid).

All about reasonable WYSIWYG.

If, as in the pictorial example above, your army is comprised of different colour schemes to represent different regiments, then fair dos. I've got an immediate visual cue as to what's what. That puts my target priority challenge on me and me alone.

In short, I shouldn't have to be asking you for reminders on a unit by unit basis each turn.

Astartes are broadly a different matter, as I can often tell by the equipment what's what.

But with something as sprawling as an IG army, it's simply not fair for me to have to constantly ask or guess exactly which regiment it is that's holding each objective etc.

Yep, what Mad Doc said.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Not necessarily, no. If you relied on the standard Cadian models because that's what's readily available and suits better than Catachans, I'd just consider if it's a particularly Valhallan colour scheme. Probably could've been clearer about that originally. IT's about the paintjob, not so much the models.
If it was Valhallans one week, Cadians the next, then Tallarns because of some perceived advantage to you, then no.

What would define a suitably Valhallan paint job? What about Vostroyan or Mordian? Is there a minimum deviance from the base Cadian paint scheme necessary to not be Cadian? What if the regiment has a colour similar to an official regiment but they're based on your own custom fluff?
What if I was playing a custom regiment and I wished to try out all the regimental doctrines before settling on one and therefore needed to mix up what doctrines I was using for a few weeks? Is there an amount of games I'd be allowed for each doctrine?

Icy colour pallets, that sort of thing. But if you're fielding a single regiment, knock yourself out with whatevs. The issue comes when Detachments A, B C and D all have identical uniforms, but happen to be different Regiments. That's just lazy.
As for finding your feet? Honestly, that depends entirely upon whether you're a tool or not. Let's be honest, as gamers we know when someone is taking the piss.

Because Valhallans are never deployed anywhere that isn't permanently snowbound? Or because you think they keep the white coats and whitewashed vehicles even after the snow thaws?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formerly Wu wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If any army is obviously converted and painted as BA, then that's what it is. If played as anything else, then it is a proxy army, simple as that. I prefer not to play against proxy armies.

Are we to understand that you would play a game against the first of these models, but not against any of the others?

Or are we going to insist that they must be cadian, valhallan, catachan, tallarn, armageddon? (left to right)

Again, it's about reasonable WYSIWYG.

So for the hard of understanding, one last time, from the top.

Taking multiple detachments, each a different regiment, when they all have the same paint scheme, is a dick move.

They could all be in desert fatigues, or ice world camo, standard Cadian colours or incredibly bright neon, and it would still be a dick move.

Why? Because you gain a tangible advantage in doing that, and you intentionally place me at a disadvantage when it comes to effective target priority. Have I targeted the Catachan Leman Russ, or the Vostroyan one? Are those Cadians holding the objective I'm after, or Catachans? Who can tell? Not me, because they're all painted the same.

Mixing regiments isn't the issue.

Not using the exact precise models isn't the issue.

The exact scheme you've chosen for each regiment isn't the issue.

The issue is having an army comprised of multiple regiments with no visual way for me to tell them apart is the problem.

I wouldn't accept that from a Marine player, where his army is all painted Blood Angels, expect units X Y and Z are in fact Dark Angels - because in the heat of battle it's likely I won't know what I'm actually shooting at.

I wouldn't accept that from a Chaos player, where the army is painted as Black Legion, except for units A B and C which are actually say, Word Bearers - because in the heat of battle it's likely I won't know what I'm actually shooting at.

Whichever way you butter it, having a single army colour scheme representing multiple Chapters/Regiments/Legions/Klans/Craftworld/Hive Fleets/Cabals/Forgeworlds/[i]whatever puts me at a tactical disadvantage simply not intended nor allowe for by the rules.

They're there to add flavour to your armies, and maybe give you a theme to build it round. It's not there for you (royal you, not you specifically) to shift and slide around between opponents to extract maximum advantage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's exactly the same principle as proxy heavy weapons.

Now, I don't mind your Heavy Bolters being Lascannons in this specific game. May be you just fancied a change, maybe you're experimenting for your next purchase. Doesn't really bother me.

But....when two are Lascannon, that one is an Autocannon, those three are Missile Launchers and the rest are Heavy Bolters, that's where I draw the line. Because, in the heat of battle, it's neither fair nor reasonable to expect me to keep tabs on what's what.

 Formerly Wu wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If any army is obviously converted and painted as BA, then that's what it is. If played as anything else, then it is a proxy army, simple as that. I prefer not to play against proxy armies.

Are we to understand that you would play a game against the first of these models, but not against any of the others?

That's not what I said. I said that a guy bringing this to the table as anything but Catachans would be a proxy army.

And they sure as feth aren't Mordians in "Parade Dress".

So, by that reasoning, anyone who didn't paint/model their Cadians in the official manner couldn't use their regimental doctrine. That kind of hardline modelling enforcement cuts both ways, John.

Its clear that the intended choice GW wants you to make is to buy all new models for your power hungry army collection by offering Malibu Stacy with a new hat...

You Guard players just got Primaris'd!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
All 3 of my current armies have taken drastic revamps in 8th edition. My Death Guard are all old metals, My Custom Chapter White Scars bike army has to be played as Salamanders now, and my Orks are all painted in different Clan colors which is gonna be a nightmare when their Codex comes out next year.

They don't want you playing your old stuff as new stuff.
This is also why we will see more easy fit monopose kits rather than multi part bitz boxes.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
So, by that reasoning, anyone who didn't paint/model their Cadians in the official manner couldn't use their regimental doctrine. That kind of hardline modelling enforcement cuts both ways, John.

That's.....that's not what either of us are arguing?

Like. At all.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Formerly Wu wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If any army is obviously converted and painted as BA, then that's what it is. If played as anything else, then it is a proxy army, simple as that. I prefer not to play against proxy armies.

Are we to understand that you would play a game against the first of these models, but not against any of the others?

That's not what I said. I said that a guy bringing this to the table as anything but Catachans would be a proxy army.

And they sure as feth aren't Mordians in "Parade Dress".

Actually by the new codex pictures on page 12 in this discussion they could be Armageddon Ork Hunters pretty easily, and it's not clarified what rules they would use, I could see it going either way since they're jungle fighters, but they still come from Armageddon which has feth loads of vehicles and the experience of being trained by the Steel Legion when it was first created as per the fluff.

I'll say it again since it keeps coming up, comparing Space Marine armor to Imperial Guard armor are not the same thing. Under no circumstances would a BA wear BT colors; if they did they come across BT gear they have organic support to modify and repaint armor in fluff and the psycho-indoctrination to compel them to, even assuming pride lets them take it. There's a whole spiel in the Beast Arises series where IF descendant chapters have to dress up as normal IF, and they hate it- and they are still descendants of the IF!! Imagine what a BA would do if they were told to wear SW armor... effectively they have the luxury to be snobs because they have access to the best, and no matter what they wear the power armor provides a similiar level of protection to the environment.

IG are human recuits, I doubt many regiments would complain if they received better equipment. In the real world do you think if a country bought DPM camo their soldiers would say: "Nah, I can't wear this- I'll look too British!". I doubt it. Also remember that guard armor is bad and sometimes they wouldn't have the luxury of choice. Would a Cadian/Catachan/any normal human being just see a trench coat and say: "golly, I'm cold but I certainly can't put that on because it is too Steel Legion, guess I'll just freeze to death."? Speaking of salvage we know it is allowed to certain levels, the Savlar Chem Dogs prove this, so what happens if a regiment of chem dogs come across far better Krieg gear once all those DK do their suicide assault? It is completely fluffy and reasonable to have IG regiments in the equipment and colors of another one, while not fluffy for a BA to wear DA painted armor for example.

edited some obvious grammar issues

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
So, by that reasoning, anyone who didn't paint/model their Cadians in the official manner couldn't use their regimental doctrine. That kind of hardline modelling enforcement cuts both ways, John.

That's.....that's not what either of us are arguing?

Like. At all.

John states that if you paint/use certain models you can only use certain rules. He constantly cites Space Marines as an example of certain paintjobs demanding certain rules. Extrapolating on that, that means that only certain paint jobs /modelling choices can use certain rules. Meaning that unless you paint/model your models a certain way you can't use those rules. Otherwise it's also proxying.

I don't think it really matters unless you're trying to run two different regiments in the same army, in which case things MUST be painted differently in order to make it clear which unit belongs to which regiment. This can be as simple as painting the rim of the base differently for infantry models but can be more complicated to do for vehicles.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Again, it's about reasonable WYSIWYG.

So for the hard of understanding, one last time, from the top.

Taking multiple detachments, each a different regiment, when they all have the same paint scheme, is a dick move.

They could all be in desert fatigues, or ice world camo, standard Cadian colours or incredibly bright neon, and it would still be a dick move.

Why? Because you gain a tangible advantage in doing that, and you intentionally place me at a disadvantage when it comes to effective target priority. Have I targeted the Catachan Leman Russ, or the Vostroyan one? Are those Cadians holding the objective I'm after, or Catachans? Who can tell? Not me, because they're all painted the same.

Mixing regiments isn't the issue.

Not using the exact precise models isn't the issue.

The exact scheme you've chosen for each regiment isn't the issue.

The issue is having an army comprised of multiple regiments with no visual way for me to tell them apart is the problem.

I wouldn't accept that from a Marine player, where his army is all painted Blood Angels, expect units X Y and Z are in fact Dark Angels - because in the heat of battle it's likely I won't know what I'm actually shooting at.

I wouldn't accept that from a Chaos player, where the army is painted as Black Legion, except for units A B and C which are actually say, Word Bearers - because in the heat of battle it's likely I won't know what I'm actually shooting at.

Whichever way you butter it, having a single army colour scheme representing multiple Chapters/Regiments/Legions/Klans/Craftworld/Hive Fleets/Cabals/Forgeworlds/[i]whatever puts me at a tactical disadvantage simply not intended nor allowe for by the rules.

They're there to add flavour to your armies, and maybe give you a theme to build it round. It's not there for you (royal you, not you specifically) to shift and slide around between opponents to extract maximum advantage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's exactly the same principle as proxy heavy weapons.

Now, I don't mind your Heavy Bolters being Lascannons in this specific game. May be you just fancied a change, maybe you're experimenting for your next purchase. Doesn't really bother me.

But....when two are Lascannon, that one is an Autocannon, those three are Missile Launchers and the rest are Heavy Bolters, that's where I draw the line. Because, in the heat of battle, it's neither fair nor reasonable to expect me to keep tabs on what's what.

Apologies for dragging this out, but I have a couple of questions to make sure I understand your position. There is one aspect of what you are saying that throws me a little.

Lets say I have two detachments of Imperial Guard infantry and both are using Cadian models. I paint them differently. I say that one detachment is Cadian and the other is Catachan. Are we cool to play?

Assuming that we had the game, what if the next week I have the same models but this time I play one group as Armageddon and the other as Valhallan. I explain it up front. Are we still cool to play?

Thanks for your patience,

Iain

I mean, obviously anyone who wants to use all the rules from the fifty fething dollar rule book they bought is clearly a power gamer. That's why I refuse to play anyone who buys new models. If they weren't waaac tfgs they'd just use the minis they already have.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
So, by that reasoning, anyone who didn't paint/model their Cadians in the official manner couldn't use their regimental doctrine. That kind of hardline modelling enforcement cuts both ways, John.

That's.....that's not what either of us are arguing?

Like. At all.

He's obviously not capable of comprehending the most basic points we're making:
1. A thing that clearly looks X should play as X.
2. All things that clearly look X should not alternately play as both Y *and* Z

I could explain this to a pre-schooler better than he, so I think it's willful on his part.

I'm done with him.

Clearly if you want to be able to swap regiment rules every couple of weeks, you just have to get some Cadian models and paint them a custom color scheme so that you can say "these aren't Cadians, they're generic Guardsman models painted up as the 256th Sirius Surface Assault, Mechanized".

Of course if you try to swap between games you might have some explaining to do, and in a tournament obviously you're locked into whatever you start with.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
So, by that reasoning, anyone who didn't paint/model their Cadians in the official manner couldn't use their regimental doctrine. That kind of hardline modelling enforcement cuts both ways, John.

That's.....that's not what either of us are arguing?

Like. At all.

He's obviously not capable of comprehending the most basic points we're making:
1. A thing that clearly looks X should play as X.
2. All things that clearly look X should not alternately play as both Y *and* Z

I could explain this to a pre-schooler better than he, so I think it's willful on his part.

I'm done with him.

Except I disagree on the validity of those points in this context.

Points 1 and 2 only applies to intrinsic values, and what people wear in regards to how they are trained and act are not intrinsically linked, I've exhausted this point continuously. All these guards are equipped with lasguns, flak armor, etc. and they use them appropriately. Catachan strength is not dictated by their rambo uniform nor does having a trench coat and gas mask make you suddenly better at using tanks. Mordians don't have a different gun, it's still a lasgun rules-wise, they are just better at overwatch which any person can train themselves to do regardless of the armor. In addition I've explained at length how in universe any number of regiments can attain said equipment of different regiments in ways that Space Marines would not (well they would but they would alter it because they have the support to do so and the desire to, guard regiments probably don't I suspect), but still act how they did before. You are using a valid argument for a different property- it has more validity for Space Marines yes but it is not a really a completely binary thing for the guard.