In 5th/6th you were told to do that. I feel pretty sorry for people who made successor chapter Dark Angels, they're just getting bent over by GW now. Can't take Sammael, can't (easily) make their own bike captain...
They can just use the DARK ANGELS keyword. Paint doesn't affect rules.
If they wanted to just be Dark Angels they would have just painted Dark Angels. They wanted to be Angels of Absolution to be different. A little.
In 5th/6th you were told to do that. I feel pretty sorry for people who made successor chapter Dark Angels, they're just getting bent over by GW now. Can't take Sammael, can't (easily) make their own bike captain...
They can just use the DARK ANGELS keyword. Paint doesn't affect rules.
If they wanted to just be Dark Angels they would have just painted Dark Angels. They wanted to be Angels of Absolution to be different. A little.
I paint my Death Guard white, my Typhus does the same thing he has always done despite not being green.
You paint your Dark Angels white, your Azreal becomes an Illegal model because he is not green.
Wait, what?
In 5th/6th you were told to do that. I feel pretty sorry for people who made successor chapter Dark Angels, they're just getting bent over by GW now. Can't take Sammael, can't (easily) make their own bike captain...
They can just use the DARK ANGELS keyword. Paint doesn't affect rules.
If they wanted to just be Dark Angels they would have just painted Dark Angels. They wanted to be Angels of Absolution to be different. A little.
I paint my Death Guard white, my Typhus does the same thing he has always done despite not being green.
You paint your Dark Angels white, your Azreal becomes an Illegal model because he is not green.
Wait, what?
I know we're having hagfish soup for lunch today, and you wanted tomato. Just pretend your hagfish mucus is tomato.
There are people who made the successor chapter because they didn't want to make the primogenitor chapter, they were told just use the named character and fluff it out yourself because each chapter has one of these archetype characters. Now they don't. But those players are still sitting on the successor chapter they wanted, and now they're being told just eat the snot and call it tomato.
Taking an Ultra Marines painted army and saying it is Iron Hands is kinda, uh? Those two chapters are iconic, and have an iconic look. Does that mean I take a blob of 12 Wyches and call them Harlequins because it's kinda close?
I know we're having hagfish soup for lunch today, and you wanted tomato. Just pretend your hagfish mucus is tomato.
There are people who made the successor chapter because they didn't want to make the primogenitor chapter, they were told just use the named character and fluff it out yourself because each chapter has one of these archetype characters. Now they don't. But those players are still sitting on the successor chapter they wanted, and now they're being told just eat the snot and call it tomato.
That is a silly complaint, especially in this specific instance. Nothing changed. Previously they had the exact same rules than Dark Angels, and could use the same characters and only were painted differently. All of this is still true, you only need to write 'Dark Angels' keyword in your armylist.
Now, I really think that successors should have better support and there should be generic chapter masters they could take and equip like they wanted, but that wasn't the case previously either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Elfric wrote: Taking an Ultra Marines painted army and saying it is Iron Hands is kinda, uh? Those two chapters are iconic, and have an iconic look. Does that mean I take a blob of 12 Wyches and call them Harlequins because it's kinda close?
No, but you can call them some other wych cult that has canonically different paint scheme.
Breton wrote: I know we're having hagfish soup for lunch today, and you wanted tomato. Just pretend your hagfish mucus is tomato.
See, this is where you are wrong. You have the choice between tomato soup and Khorne's bloody slaughter soup, which is also tomato soup, but requires to punch yourself in the face after each spoon.
There are people who made the successor chapter because they didn't want to make the primogenitor chapter, they were told just use the named character and fluff it out yourself because each chapter has one of these archetype characters. Now they don't. But those players are still sitting on the successor chapter they wanted, and now they're being told just eat the snot and call it tomato.
Literally the only difference between using your own successor paint scheme and your archetype character with an ANGEL OF ABSOLUTION keyword and using the very same models with the DARK ANGELS keyword is not insisting on punching yourself in the face.
Breton wrote: I know we're having hagfish soup for lunch today, and you wanted tomato. Just pretend your hagfish mucus is tomato.
See, this is where you are wrong. You have the choice between tomato soup and Khorne's bloody slaughter soup, which is also tomato soup, but requires to punch yourself in the face after each spoon.
There are people who made the successor chapter because they didn't want to make the primogenitor chapter, they were told just use the named character and fluff it out yourself because each chapter has one of these archetype characters. Now they don't. But those players are still sitting on the successor chapter they wanted, and now they're being told just eat the snot and call it tomato.
Literally the only difference between using your own successor paint scheme and your archetype character with an ANGEL OF ABSOLUTION keyword and using the very same models with the DARK ANGELS keyword is not insisting on punching yourself in the face.
Xenomancers wrote: You are just making stuff up now - Where did I say that KFF is as OP as 3++ Castellans?
I suggest reading your own posts. Preferably before you hit "submit".
Xenomancers wrote: This is how the game works man. If you can see a unit. You can kill it. This is why defensive armies do the best.
Ynnari made a unit of shinning spears indestructable and destroyed your whole army with it.
Castellan knight goes 3++ and destroys your whole army
Deathgaurd army everything has 5++ and 5+++ and sits on objectives with PB TS army buffs tzangors to be indestructble and fight twice with them destroying your army.
Find me a competitive army (that consistently wins) that isn't utilizing some sort of crazy defensive buff?
Xenomancers wrote: Find me a competitive army (that consistently wins) that isn't utilizing some sort of crazy defensive buff?
Orks.
KFF is an insane defensive buff.
Also - if you aren't using a KFF - you are actively gimping yourself. I am sure of it. KFF is basically mandatory as orks.
I suggest you watch an actual game played by a good ork player before we continue this discussion - there are plenty of streams available. I have no interest in discussing a meta and tactics that only exist in your head. I just wish you would stop spreading misinformation.
I play against good ork players. KFF is MANDATORY. Im more than happy to say I'm just smarter than them if they can't figure out how good a KFF is. Also orks are a very unique situation because basically every choice in their codex is good outside of a few units. Unlike most codex where only 20% of units are actually good. That is a good thing but I could care less what "good ork players" are using. I could win with a selection of random units from that codex. It is a really good army and the KFF is literally the only unit should not consider not taking.
Xenomancers wrote: I could win with a selection of random units from that codex. It is a really good army and the KFF is literally the only unit should not consider not taking.
I'd like to take you up on that bet. You get as many KFF as you want and I provide you with the rest of the list, exclusively made of units you have claimed to be awesome in your posts since the codex dropped with the relevant posts provided as proof(this includes burnas, kanz and warbikers).
If I win that game you have to write a thorough apology about how you have no clue about orks and never lose a word about them ever again. If you win, I'll do the same.
Breton wrote: I know we're having hagfish soup for lunch today, and you wanted tomato. Just pretend your hagfish mucus is tomato.
See, this is where you are wrong. You have the choice between tomato soup and Khorne's bloody slaughter soup, which is also tomato soup, but requires to punch yourself in the face after each spoon.
There are people who made the successor chapter because they didn't want to make the primogenitor chapter, they were told just use the named character and fluff it out yourself because each chapter has one of these archetype characters. Now they don't. But those players are still sitting on the successor chapter they wanted, and now they're being told just eat the snot and call it tomato.
Literally the only difference between using your own successor paint scheme and your archetype character with an ANGEL OF ABSOLUTION keyword and using the very same models with the DARK ANGELS keyword is not insisting on punching yourself in the face.
True. I got the Kayvaan Shrike model but because my dudes are a space wolves successor chapter (I switched from SW to White Scars and Raven Guard (depending on my mood) because I could not figure out how to get them in CC reliably) fluffwise he'll get a Primaris Space Wolf head but crunchwise he and the rest of my army will be pure Raven Guard if I field him.
Does this actually work well? I've heard it's okay from some and horrible from others.
To be honest, playing one of the DoW games is probably a more enjoyable experience if you just want to spend time.
However, if the person you want to play is not able to meat you in real live, or doesn't have the models to play, it's a decent solution. Kind of like how video conference software is still inferior to actually meeting in person, but works well enough.
The thing is, people tend to do the math from the perspective that fits their argument better (usually to generate smaller numbers), or even worse mix the two perspectives.
In 5th/6th you were told to do that. I feel pretty sorry for people who made successor chapter Dark Angels, they're just getting bent over by GW now. Can't take Sammael, can't (easily) make their own bike captain...
They can just use the DARK ANGELS keyword. Paint doesn't affect rules.
If they wanted to just be Dark Angels they would have just painted Dark Angels. They wanted to be Angels of Absolution to be different. A little.
It's kind of hilarious that this is a fairly uniquely Space Marine problem and it is probably a direct result of them being spammed by GW all the time. Nobody cares or even knows the differences between the different xenos paint schemes. The non-marine Chaos/Imperial factions are largely the same way. You wanna use Vostroyan rules with your Cadian models? No Problem. Blue Cawl? No problem. Blue Iron Hands? WAAAAAAAAAAAC
Xenomancers wrote: I could win with a selection of random units from that codex. It is a really good army and the KFF is literally the only unit should not consider not taking.
I'd like to take you up on that bet. You get as many KFF as you want and I provide you with the rest of the list, exclusively made of units you have claimed to be awesome in your posts since the codex dropped with the relevant posts provided as proof(this includes burnas, kanz and warbikers).
If I win that game you have to write a thorough apology about how you have no clue about orks and never lose a word about them ever again. If you win, I'll do the same.
One need only look at the myriad of Tournament lists (several 1,2,3 Tournament finishes at GT's for orks also.) Heck...As many as imperial knights and Astra Militarium. It's pretty clear orks are top contenders. In almost every case they write their list with a KFF first and really the only ones that don't use one are the lists that are using 3 kultures which makes sense...Yet you claim the KFF is terrible and don't even include it...These guys are winning GT's with it...it is clearly great.
DominayTrix wrote: It's kind of hilarious that this is a fairly uniquely Space Marine problem and it is probably a direct result of them being spammed by GW all the time. Nobody cares or even knows the differences between the different xenos paint schemes. The non-marine Chaos/Imperial factions are largely the same way. You wanna use Vostroyan rules with your Cadian models? No Problem. Blue Cawl? No problem. Blue Iron Hands? WAAAAAAAAAAAC
That is a great point. It's why no one creates a post like "am I ashamed to run my 3 hemlocks in an aliotoc fly wing?" Ofc they aren't. Because no other army has so much stupid snow flake identity crisis. I personally despise it but I love space marines in general. I'd love to not be bitter about it but It makes me outright mad that an ironhand tank is so much better than my Ultramarine tank...It is literally the same damn tank. Plus it's not like an Ultramarine tech marine (or any other tech marine) isn't a forge master and knows how to fix his vehicles ether...The game has gone too far with these army trait extremes.
One need only look at the myriad of Tournament lists (several 1,2,3 Tournament finishes at GT's for orks also.) Heck...As many as imperial knights and Astra Militarium. It's pretty clear orks are top contenders. In almost every case they write their list with a KFF first and really the only ones that don't use one are the lists that are using 3 kultures which makes sense...Yet you claim the KFF is terrible and don't even include it...These guys are winning GT's with it...it is clearly great.
Because I'm apparently a glutton for punishment, I dove into the Ork lists. Its about a 60-65% utilization rate for KFFs. Only a handful bring more than one.
That aint remotely close to"almost every case".
Bonus points for the "it was in a GT winning list, it must be AMAAAAAAAAZZZZZZZZIIIIIINNNNNNNGGGGGGG" logical fallacy. Keep up the good work.
That is a great point. It's why no one creates a post like "am I ashamed to run my 3 hemlocks in an aliotoc fly wing?" Ofc they aren't. Because no other army has so much stupid snow flake identity crisis. I personally despise it but I love space marines in general. I'd love to not be bitter about it but It makes me outright mad that an ironhand tank is so much better than my Ultramarine tank...It is literally the same damn tank. Plus it's not like an Ultramarine tech marine (or any other tech marine) isn't a forge master and knows how to fix his vehicles ether...The game has gone too far with these army trait extremes.
The cognitive dissonance in the space of a single paragraph could shatter planets.
One need only look at the myriad of Tournament lists (several 1,2,3 Tournament finishes at GT's for orks also.) Heck...As many as imperial knights and Astra Militarium. It's pretty clear orks are top contenders. In almost every case they write their list with a KFF first and really the only ones that don't use one are the lists that are using 3 kultures which makes sense...Yet you claim the KFF is terrible and don't even include it...These guys are winning GT's with it...it is clearly great.
Because I'm apparently a glutton for punishment, I dove into the Ork lists. Its about a 60-65% utilization rate for KFFs. Only a handful bring more than one.
That aint remotely close to"almost every case".
Bonus points for the "it was in a GT winning list, it must be AMAAAAAAAAZZZZZZZZIIIIIINNNNNNNGGGGGGG" logical fallacy. Keep up the good work.
That is a great point. It's why no one creates a post like "am I ashamed to run my 3 hemlocks in an aliotoc fly wing?" Ofc they aren't. Because no other army has so much stupid snow flake identity crisis. I personally despise it but I love space marines in general. I'd love to not be bitter about it but It makes me outright mad that an ironhand tank is so much better than my Ultramarine tank...It is literally the same damn tank. Plus it's not like an Ultramarine tech marine (or any other tech marine) isn't a forge master and knows how to fix his vehicles ether...The game has gone too far with these army trait extremes.
The cognitive dissonance in the space of a single paragraph could shatter planets.
Uhhh.. even if your 65% figure was accurate (its not - it's much higher) It would still represent the majority of tournament winning lists - you could make a bill law with those kinds of numbers. You have no argument. None. You are pretty much wrong about everything - you don't even understand what cognitive dissonance means. Please show me which thought above is inconsistent with itself?
Also the no desire to play a simulated game has a lot to do with the fact that I only play 40k on the table top. I don't want to play it any other way because that isn't how the game is supposed to be played.
Xenomancers wrote: It's why no one creates a post like "am I ashamed to run my 3 hemlocks in an aliotoc fly wing?" Ofc they aren't
I hate Alaitoc and it's dominance over Craftworlds codex design.
No one is going to shame you for playing it though. Its just kind of like...ofc you are going to. Why wouldn't you? With marines it's like sacrilege for some reason. GW knows that too...which makes disparity between chapters that much more frustrating.
It would still represent the majority of tournament winning lists - you could make a bill law with those kinds of numbers.
Move them goalposts son! You went from "every fething ork lists uses KFFs, they're SUPER EFFECTIVE" to "yeah, so more often than not they get used, and even then only one in a list".
Because I don't need one. I dont have a horse in the KFF/no-KFF race. I'm just sitting here lambasting your permanent state of hyperactive overreaction to any rule that you dont like.
You are pretty much wrong about everything - you don't even understand what cognitive dissonance means. Please show me which thought above is inconsistent with itself?
Starts paragraph: "I dont care that people run a specific faction to power up a specific unit"
Ends paragraph: "People running a specific faction to power up a specific unit makes me sick!"
Also the no desire to play a simulated game has a lot to do with the fact that I only play 40k on the table top. I don't want to play it any other way because that isn't how the game is supposed to be played.
I'm once again glad we have you here to lecture all of us on how we're playing the game wrong.
Remind me again why you only play the ITC ruleset instead of the myriad ways available to play 40k? And where those ITC rules are reflected in the core 40k ruleset?
Xenomancers wrote: No one is going to shame you for playing it though. Its just kind of like...ofc you are going to. Why wouldn't you? With marines it's like sacrilege for some reason. GW knows that too...which makes disparity between chapters that much more frustrating.
That's because in their desire to sell everyone their own flavor of marines, GW turned chapters into different armies.
So you're pissed that Marines swapping subfactions is so controversial that people start *threads* about them (well, one thread), whereas nobody starts threads about Black&Bone Alaitoc or Blood Red Alpha Legion Zerkers.
Despite the fact that you're the one who started the Marine subfaction thread?
Bharring wrote: So you're pissed that Marines swapping subfactions is so controversial that people start *threads* about them (well, one thread), whereas nobody starts threads about Black&Bone Alaitoc or Blood Red Alpha Legion Zerkers.
Despite the fact that you're the one who started the Marine subfaction thread?
Khorne Berzerkers are not legion specific though.
Any csm really can be turned into one, excluding they 3 other cult plebian types, of which pm and NS marines can also be created.
So Al zerkers isn't an issue.
It would potentially be one if they were an we paintjob but even that is debatable even from a fluff standpoint.
Bharring wrote: So you're pissed that Marines swapping subfactions is so controversial that people start *threads* about them (well, one thread), whereas nobody starts threads about Black&Bone Alaitoc or Blood Red Alpha Legion Zerkers.
Despite the fact that you're the one who started the Marine subfaction thread?
Do you have a point? Lots of people responded about it and have opinions. Literally no one would disagree that marines have a different standard here. OFC per the rules it is not an issue. Plus yes...there is a better legion trait to run certain chaos units but you don't have to give up your armies specific bonus for it. That will likely change with a new CSM codex BUT I will disagree with that too.
Bharring wrote: So you're pissed that Marines swapping subfactions is so controversial that people start *threads* about them (well, one thread), whereas nobody starts threads about Black&Bone Alaitoc or Blood Red Alpha Legion Zerkers.
Despite the fact that you're the one who started the Marine subfaction thread?
Khorne Berzerkers are not legion specific though.
Any csm really can be turned into one, excluding they 3 other cult plebian types, of which pm and NS marines can also be created.
So Al zerkers isn't an issue.
It would potentially be one if they were an we paintjob but even that is debatable even from a fluff standpoint.
"I feel like we've had this conversation before", he says sarcastically. Point being that there *were* discussions of such things.
(I still think that, while Zerkers could belong to any Legion, they can't be super stealth specialists with Infiltrate and AL tactics. But the point was only that such conversations do, in fact, happen.)
Xenomancers wrote: No one is going to shame you for playing it though. Its just kind of like...ofc you are going to. Why wouldn't you? With marines it's like sacrilege for some reason. GW knows that too...which makes disparity between chapters that much more frustrating.
That's because in their desire to sell everyone their own flavor of marines, GW turned chapters into different armies.
Bharring wrote: So you're pissed that Marines swapping subfactions is so controversial that people start *threads* about them (well, one thread), whereas nobody starts threads about Black&Bone Alaitoc or Blood Red Alpha Legion Zerkers.
Despite the fact that you're the one who started the Marine subfaction thread?
Khorne Berzerkers are not legion specific though.
Any csm really can be turned into one, excluding they 3 other cult plebian types, of which pm and NS marines can also be created.
So Al zerkers isn't an issue.
It would potentially be one if they were an we paintjob but even that is debatable even from a fluff standpoint.
"I feel like we've had this conversation before", he says sarcastically. Point being that there *were* discussions of such things.
(I still think that, while Zerkers could belong to any Legion, they can't be super stealth specialists with Infiltrate and AL tactics. But the point was only that such conversations do, in fact, happen.)
Bharring wrote: So you're pissed that Marines swapping subfactions is so controversial that people start *threads* about them (well, one thread), whereas nobody starts threads about Black&Bone Alaitoc or Blood Red Alpha Legion Zerkers.
Despite the fact that you're the one who started the Marine subfaction thread?
Do you have a point?
Yes. That this applies to a lot of factions
Lots of people responded about it and have opinions.
Good.
Literally no one would disagree that marines have a different standard here.
"You don't exist, and nobody else who thinks like you does either" isn't a terribly persuasive argument.
OFC per the rules it is not an issue. Plus yes...there is a better legion trait to run certain chaos units but you don't have to give up your armies specific bonus for it. That will likely change with a new CSM codex BUT I will disagree with that too.
So a pure Iyanden army wanting to pick Alaitoc (or Uthwe) instead of Iyanden for trait reasons is nothing like an UltraMarine army wanting to pick Iron Hands for trait reasons? I'm not sure that's accurate.
Bharring wrote: So you're pissed that Marines swapping subfactions is so controversial that people start *threads* about them (well, one thread), whereas nobody starts threads about Black&Bone Alaitoc or Blood Red Alpha Legion Zerkers.
Despite the fact that you're the one who started the Marine subfaction thread?
Do you have a point?
Yes. That this applies to a lot of factions
Lots of people responded about it and have opinions.
Good.
Literally no one would disagree that marines have a different standard here.
"You don't exist, and nobody else who thinks like you does either" isn't a terribly persuasive argument.
OFC per the rules it is not an issue. Plus yes...there is a better legion trait to run certain chaos units but you don't have to give up your armies specific bonus for it. That will likely change with a new CSM codex BUT I will disagree with that too.
So a pure Iyanden army wanting to pick Alaitoc (or Uthwe) instead of Iyanden for trait reasons is nothing like an UltraMarine army wanting to pick Iron Hands for trait reasons? I'm not sure that's accurate.
Lol nobody knows what the different Craftworlds look like in terms of colors.
It's an exaggeration but I think you get the point. Marines have the iconic look AND the iconic colors. Eldar just have an iconic look.
Choas has literally been better than space marines the entire edition though - up to this point. Space marines are much better now no question about it but it's temporary. 8.5 edition is just starting.
Bharring wrote: So you're pissed that Marines swapping subfactions is so controversial that people start *threads* about them (well, one thread), whereas nobody starts threads about Black&Bone Alaitoc or Blood Red Alpha Legion Zerkers.
Despite the fact that you're the one who started the Marine subfaction thread?
Do you have a point?
Yes. That this applies to a lot of factions
Lots of people responded about it and have opinions.
Good.
Literally no one would disagree that marines have a different standard here.
"You don't exist, and nobody else who thinks like you does either" isn't a terribly persuasive argument.
OFC per the rules it is not an issue. Plus yes...there is a better legion trait to run certain chaos units but you don't have to give up your armies specific bonus for it. That will likely change with a new CSM codex BUT I will disagree with that too.
So a pure Iyanden army wanting to pick Alaitoc (or Uthwe) instead of Iyanden for trait reasons is nothing like an UltraMarine army wanting to pick Iron Hands for trait reasons? I'm not sure that's accurate.
You are being intentionally obtuse. You really don't believe that. It's an opinion so I can't say you are wrong. Just the reality is this is the way most players feel.
The reality is xenon every argument you've made and your premise article comes across as you just want to play a list with ultramarines having every super efficent rule available.
Don't tell me that's not your point
It's. How your argument seems to many people.
What it seems you want say to is to run your models and have a gt winning ruleset to do so. Ohh but it has to cover every model you like..... That doesn't happen. Relax if you are consistent that's fine. But if you jump codes every week people will not love it.
You are being intentionally obtuse. You really don't believe that. It's an opinion so I can't say you are wrong. Just the reality is this is the way most players feel.
"Literally no one would disagree that marines have a different standard here."
Is a statement of fact about others' opinions.
"No one is going to shame you for playing it though."
Another statement of fact regarding *everyone's* opinions.
"It's why no one creates a post like [...]"
Another statement of fact.
Each of these asserts specific facts about the way things are. They aren't defending your opinion. They're facts. And they're false, too. As you're bandying these about to denigrate those who disagree with you, don't be surprised when such "facts" don't get a free pass as "just my opinion".
Xenomancers wrote: I could win with a selection of random units from that codex. It is a really good army and the KFF is literally the only unit should not consider not taking.
I'd like to take you up on that bet. You get as many KFF as you want and I provide you with the rest of the list, exclusively made of units you have claimed to be awesome in your posts since the codex dropped with the relevant posts provided as proof(this includes burnas, kanz and warbikers).
If I win that game you have to write a thorough apology about how you have no clue about orks and never lose a word about them ever again. If you win, I'll do the same.
One need only look at the myriad of Tournament lists (several 1,2,3 Tournament finishes at GT's for orks also.) Heck...As many as imperial knights and Astra Militarium. It's pretty clear orks are top contenders. In almost every case they write their list with a KFF first and really the only ones that don't use one are the lists that are using 3 kultures which makes sense...Yet you claim the KFF is terrible and don't even include it...These guys are winning GT's with it...it is clearly great.
captain collius wrote: The reality is xenon every argument you've made and your premise article comes across as you just want to play a list with ultramarines having every super efficent rule available.
Don't tell me that's not your point
It's. How your argument seems to many people.
What it seems you want say to is to run your models and have a gt winning ruleset to do so. Ohh but it has to cover every model you like..... That doesn't happen. Relax if you are consistent that's fine. But if you jump codes every week people will not love it.
Bharring wrote: So you're pissed that Marines swapping subfactions is so controversial that people start *threads* about them (well, one thread), whereas nobody starts threads about Black&Bone Alaitoc or Blood Red Alpha Legion Zerkers.
Despite the fact that you're the one who started the Marine subfaction thread?
Do you have a point?
Yes. That this applies to a lot of factions
Lots of people responded about it and have opinions.
Good.
Literally no one would disagree that marines have a different standard here.
"You don't exist, and nobody else who thinks like you does either" isn't a terribly persuasive argument.
OFC per the rules it is not an issue. Plus yes...there is a better legion trait to run certain chaos units but you don't have to give up your armies specific bonus for it. That will likely change with a new CSM codex BUT I will disagree with that too.
So a pure Iyanden army wanting to pick Alaitoc (or Uthwe) instead of Iyanden for trait reasons is nothing like an UltraMarine army wanting to pick Iron Hands for trait reasons? I'm not sure that's accurate.
Lol nobody knows what the different Craftworlds look like in terms of colors.
It's an exaggeration but I think you get the point. Marines havoe the iconic look AND the iconic colors. Eldar just have an iconic look.
Yeahhhhhh..... No. Eldar are the most visible Xeno race. I know the craftworld by color...it's written in my brain. I don't even play them and haven't opened their book in 8 years. Traitor legions Eldar SM, AM models (The color doesn't visually stand out the model does)
Tyranids Necrons Tau Dark Eldar (personally i dont know admech or knights byt thats just cause when i stopped playing they werent a thing.)
captain collius wrote: The reality is xenon every argument you've made and your premise article comes across as you just want to play a list with ultramarines having every super efficent rule available.
Don't tell me that's not your point
It's. How your argument seems to many people.
What it seems you want say to is to run your models and have a gt winning ruleset to do so. Ohh but it has to cover every model you like..... That doesn't happen. Relax if you are consistent that's fine. But if you jump codes every week people will not love it.
Xenomancers wrote: It's why no one creates a post like "am I ashamed to run my 3 hemlocks in an aliotoc fly wing?" Ofc they aren't
I hate Alaitoc and it's dominance over Craftworlds codex design.
I love Beil-tan and Iyanden. Ulthwe and Saim-Hann are awesome as well. Alaitoc was always of lesser impact. It's something to watch in the future.
The best rules available? Yeah...I'm pretty sure that is what most people want to use for their models.
Nope.
Actually i don't in my average game.
I use the trait to fit my theme.
Also my main army hasn't even traits anymore and even when it had i didn't use the "best" because i am again mostly building decent /themed armies.
Ofcourse if someone wanted to prepare for tournaments i aswell would field the best traits and lists i could but that was explicitly for training purposes .
In day to day na.
And I rekon i am not the only one doing it that way.
captain collius wrote: The reality is xenon every argument you've made and your premise article comes across as you just want to play a list with ultramarines having every super efficent rule available.
Don't tell me that's not your point
It's. How your argument seems to many people.
What it seems you want say to is to run your models and have a gt winning ruleset to do so. Ohh but it has to cover every model you like..... That doesn't happen. Relax if you are consistent that's fine. But if you jump codes every time people ain't gonna like that
The best rules available? Yeah...I'm pretty sure that is what most people want to use for their models.
Simple question do you Love Ultras then play that way.
Also yes Iron Hands Techmarines are better than yours at their job.
Blood Angels Jump pack Units are better
Ravenguard are sneakier
Imperial Fists are the siege masters
White scars are supposed to be mobile (gw you missed a trick)
Dark Angels should have more missions than you and old tech
Salamanders....Fire
And Space Wolves should overuse the word Wolf.
Ultras are tactically rigid but very Organized.
That's how it is. Now do you wanna play Ultras or Hands.
It's that easy I play Dark Angels and I will beat you with my crap codex. That's how I play.
Also all opinions about chapters are my own if you disagree... good
Nope.
Actually i don't in my average game.
I use the trait to fit my theme.
Yeah, same. Though it is till kinda lame if some traits are massively better than others and the IH will be just as annoying to face regardless of how they're painted.
Nope.
Actually i don't in my average game.
I use the trait to fit my theme.
Yeah, same. Though it is till kinda lame if some traits are massively better than others and the IH will be just as annoying to face regardless of how they're painted.
The internal balance is fethed imo.
The external even more so through the internal.
And I am more then willing to give leeway.
I would f.e never force a WB to use their trait Or cry Foul against mordian guard using Cadia.
What i have an issue is when you allready have a decent enough trait for a normal round and switch like using purge instead of scourged even though your army is clearly scourged.
My ghost marines are of course al.
My pirates have no fixed trait but are run as everything renegade trait but mostly RC.
My r&h used to be bloody handed reaver grenadiers of Khorne.
Bharring wrote: So a pure Iyanden army wanting to pick Alaitoc (or Uthwe) instead of Iyanden for trait reasons is nothing like an UltraMarine army wanting to pick Iron Hands for trait reasons?
It's not like technically different; it's like, do you care what are the guns Tyranids are carrying named, can you distinguish between them and will you be bothered if one is played count as another? What about plasmagun played as lascannon?
Bharring wrote: So a pure Iyanden army wanting to pick Alaitoc (or Uthwe) instead of Iyanden for trait reasons is nothing like an UltraMarine army wanting to pick Iron Hands for trait reasons?
It's not like technically different; it's like, do you care what are the guns Tyranids are carrying named, can you distinguish between them and will you be bothered if one is played count as another? What about plasmagun played as lascannon?
I do if i dont know you guns, bc then i can quickly get familiar with it and know what i'm against.
Xenomancers wrote: I could win with a selection of random units from that codex. It is a really good army and the KFF is literally the only unit should not consider not taking.
I'd like to take you up on that bet. You get as many KFF as you want and I provide you with the rest of the list, exclusively made of units you have claimed to be awesome in your posts since the codex dropped with the relevant posts provided as proof(this includes burnas, kanz and warbikers).
If I win that game you have to write a thorough apology about how you have no clue about orks and never lose a word about them ever again. If you win, I'll do the same.
One need only look at the myriad of Tournament lists (several 1,2,3 Tournament finishes at GT's for orks also.) Heck...As many as imperial knights and Astra Militarium. It's pretty clear orks are top contenders. In almost every case they write their list with a KFF first and really the only ones that don't use one are the lists that are using 3 kultures which makes sense...Yet you claim the KFF is terrible and don't even include it...These guys are winning GT's with it...it is clearly great.
So you're saying you need a plane tkt.
He is going to find a reason to not play me, even if I would show up at his doorstep with all the models he needs and a folding table to play. Just as expected.
Many thanks to sterling for completely dismantling his arguments about orks and backing it up with facts.
Bharring wrote: So a pure Iyanden army wanting to pick Alaitoc (or Uthwe) instead of Iyanden for trait reasons is nothing like an UltraMarine army wanting to pick Iron Hands for trait reasons?
It's not like technically different; it's like, do you care what are the guns Tyranids are carrying named, can you distinguish between them and will you be bothered if one is played count as another? What about plasmagun played as lascannon?
But then how is "Do you care if my Blue Upsidedown-Omega Marines are Iron Hands" that different from "Do you care if my Black&Bone Guardians are Biel-Tan?"
It's not really a question of viability - it'd be just as weird to have Green&White Uthwe or Black&Metal UltraMarines. If a force is clearly built & painted one way (say, UM), and you play it another way (IH), it's a negative. Not necessarily a strong one, though. And there are degrees. A well-painted UltraMarine army playing as Iron Hands is much better than "All my Flamers are Missile Launchers". Which, in turn, is better than an unpainted half-assembled horde. And even that's better than TFG, regardless of his army.
What I mean and what you concur, is that it's all quite subjective. Some people would be more okay with flamers as missile launchers than a Guilliman painted into another chapter color. Can you easily distinguish between all the types of Tau drones?
Shadenuat wrote: What I mean and what you concur, is that it's all quite subjective. Some people would be more okay with flamers as missile launchers than a Guilliman painted into another chapter color. Can you easily distinguish between all the types of Tau drones?
.
Yes there are shield, and specialty. Gun drones and marker drones are lies.
How has this thread made it to twelve pages?! We had the answer I think on the first or second page.
Simply put; the only shame anyone feels is dependent on themselves and how they view their hobby. If you're a die-hard competitive player always chasing the meta and eager to field only the "best" army (there's nothing wrong with this) then you should (and will) feel no shame switching your Marines to Iron Hands. If you're more of a fluffy player who just loves the background of the XVII legion of Emperor's Buttcheeks and really enjoys that aspect of the hobby then switching to IH would probably disgust you.
In reality we're all a mix of these archetypes. Likely we want a competitive army that will dominate on the tournament scene but because of the time investment this hobby takes up we end up getting attached to our little plastic peeps and sometimes end up running something 'just because it's cool' or 'because I'm proud of the paint-job' or any other subjective, irrational reason. Alternatively your primary driver may be to create a fun, themed army but after a few (hundred) stompings from your opponents you decide that perhaps the theme needs to wax to accommodate a more competitive list.
I daresay even the most hardcore player has an attachment to some models depending on a criteria known only to them and indeed even the most fluff bunny player has some rough idea of tactics and how to play the game to win.
I fall into the latter of these camps, stubbornly refusing to drop my Warbikers, Buggies and Meks and refusing to add some of the most competitive choices such as the fabled Mek Guns (Smasha flavour, of course) because I see them as breaking the theme of my army, which is important to me personally. That doesn't mean I expect every opponent to steamroll me. Nor does it mean I'm happy to get steamrolled. Quite the opposite, I believe I have to play smarter than most because my army is immediately less efficient than others.
Regardless the answer to this question is entirely personal and impossible for anyone but the person asking it to answer, so I'm amazed that the thread is still going on.
There's no shame in going for the strongest sub-faction of any army, regardless of how your army is painted, if that is your primary driver. Just as there's no shame picking a weaker sub-faction because you think it's cool, or any other subjective opinion.
DominayTrix wrote:It's kind of hilarious that this is a fairly uniquely Space Marine problem and it is probably a direct result of them being spammed by GW all the time. Nobody cares or even knows the differences between the different xenos paint schemes. The non-marine Chaos/Imperial factions are largely the same way. You wanna use Vostroyan rules with your Cadian models? No Problem. Blue Cawl? No problem. Blue Iron Hands? WAAAAAAAAAAAC
I happen to use the Vostroyan trait with Cadians, but that is because they are a mercenary force that loots the best weapons simulating the Vostroyan trait. Guard are kinda a bad example in that they are largely done via model and not paint color. I mean there's nothing stopping Catachan from showing off their glorious pecs while wearing desert or arctic camo.
That said, I didn't like that a Necron player used Sautekh when his models were painted as Novokh. I didn't say anything as he was free to choose whichever he wanted, but I did notice.
Spoletta wrote:I'm almost tempted to create a poll:
"Do you know Gorgon Hyvefleet colour scheme?"
So close, I knew they were green but I don't think gray chitin is exactly correct.
***
No one is going to remember these subfactions if their opponent doesn't paint their models or plays a subfaction in the wrong colors. Sure, GW could pump out more background material to help players remember, but I doubt the market exists to make as much profit as they would want. I could be wrong. Me, I almost always play the faction they are painted up in. I just think it is important to the illusion that the 40k universe exists to do such. I don't care if my army/team isn't on the bleeding edge of optimization. I think a whole lot fun can be found just playing one's best with what they have and maybe adding a little light rp-ing here and there.
Spoiler: My Factions Paint Jobs and the Factions they are most of the time
Spoiler:
Besides, I played my Genestealer Cults as Twisted Helix once and got absolutely destroyed. Played them the next day as Rusted Claw, like they should be, and managed a fluke win. I only changed the Cult Creed the first game because it heavily affects Marines (Primaris Bolt Rifles mostly) that I didn't want to feel like I was faction tailoring especially since that first game was against a new-ish player with a Primaris heavy list.
Just got absolutely thrashed by IH. Now, he was taking a strong army that really milked everything out of the IHCT, stratagems and extra doctrine, and a lot of relic vehicles and I didn't take the strongest army. However, I didn't enjoy it at all. the match was over before it began, it was impossible to kill anything, everything that charged got murdered on overwatch, especially with the 4+ overwatch stratagem, and the stratagem to let someone heal a vehicle twice. How am I meant to kill even one tank if every turn it gets 6 wounds back? Even with 6 lazcannons and 4 missile launchers on the field I didn't kill a single vehicle except for a relic contemptor that was away from the super vehicle buff guy. And every multi damage weapon is reduced by a damage and gets a 5++ with him. Oh and his HB is really good, It felt gak to play against.
And it stung extra because I was running my raptors with the RG supplement for the first time. It wasn't an optimal list to squeeze stuff out of the supplement like his, but still. Looking at his army vs mine I've been done dirty by GW. Guess it's time to play green Iron hands /s.
That's the thing, in my experience many games, at least half, are balanced or at least winnable for the disadvantaged player. But yeah, there's still a lot of games in 8th like this. It's not like I didn't know what kind of list he'd be taking, I just don't have the budget for 4 relic FW vehicles/dreads and new primaris vehicles, he does.
Don't feel bad. We should stop blaming players for GWs inability to have the subfactions somewhat similar in ability.
I pretty much have to run my Word Bearers as something else as the gulf between the new marines multiple free buffs and the decent Chaos Legions is bad enough. Using the practically non existent crap that is the XVII is a bridge too far.
Might aswell don't, that trait is so disgustingly bad that one wonders about it.
I feel your pain. EC are pretty much the same way. Always* attack first is pretty awful once you weight the conditions required for it to do anything.
Still far superior to the XVII. Breaks up the charging units all going before you advantage. Noise Marines as troops is nice too. I'd gladly trade in the trash summoning Strategem for Excess of Violence.
Word Bearers have the worst faction abilities in the game by a mile.
Might aswell don't, that trait is so disgustingly bad that one wonders about it.
I feel your pain. EC are pretty much the same way. Always* attack first is pretty awful once you weight the conditions required for it to do anything.
EC trait just does not synchronise with what EC is good at.
Still heaps more usefull then WB, but I ain't playing WB soo.
Personally it still boggels my mind how that got even left through.
I mean nobody has objected twice now in the case of csm?
For csmgw seems to basically not even attempt the concept of internal balance.
Still far superior to the XVII. Breaks up the charging units all going before you advantage. Noise Marines as troops is nice too. I'd gladly trade in the trash summoning Strategem for Excess of Violence.
Word Bearers have the worst faction abilities in the game by a mile.
It's also useless because of how the faction plays.
F.e. If my r&h had access to it i would run it over IW trait due to the nature of the faction.
It would save me there about 100 -200 pts because of the morale sensitive nature of r&h.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: Just got absolutely thrashed by IH. Now, he was taking a strong army that really milked everything out of the IHCT, stratagems and extra doctrine, and a lot of relic vehicles and I didn't take the strongest army. However, I didn't enjoy it at all. the match was over before it began, it was impossible to kill anything, everything that charged got murdered on overwatch, especially with the 4+ overwatch stratagem, and the stratagem to let someone heal a vehicle twice. How am I meant to kill even one tank if every turn it gets 6 wounds back? Even with 6 lazcannons and 4 missile launchers on the field I didn't kill a single vehicle except for a relic contemptor that was away from the super vehicle buff guy. And every multi damage weapon is reduced by a damage and gets a 5++ with him. Oh and his HB is really good, It felt gak to play against.
And it stung extra because I was running my raptors with the RG supplement for the first time. It wasn't an optimal list to squeeze stuff out of the supplement like his, but still. Looking at his army vs mine I've been done dirty by GW. Guess it's time to play green Iron hands /s.
It looks like you met the infamous IH parking lot.
There are many ways to beat it, but trying to force your way through strenght is not one. Kill everything outside the parking lot and just score the objectives turn by turn. By turn 3-4 you will be tabled, but your lead on points will be enough to win the game regardless.
It looks like you met the infamous IH parking lot.
There are many ways to beat it, but trying to force your way through strenght is not one. Kill everything outside the parking lot and just score the objectives turn by turn. By turn 3-4 you will be tabled, but your lead on points will be enough to win the game regardless.
To digress a bit, this is the problem with the ITC tournament ruleset - You can't play for objectives if you're going to be tabled on turn 4.
The Iron Hands player is still going to get a bunch of points, (Kill 1 unit, Kill More, Hold 1 objective, plus most of his secondaries if he sets it up right) and the massive bonus he gets for every turn remaining after he tables will make it unwinable for the non-IH player.
And, since ITC seems to be the standard at most tournaments... It causes problems when the best strategy to beat certain armies only works in traditional GW games.
Xenomancers wrote: No one is going to shame you for playing it though. Its just kind of like...ofc you are going to. Why wouldn't you? With marines it's like sacrilege for some reason. GW knows that too...which makes disparity between chapters that much more frustrating.
That's because in their desire to sell everyone their own flavor of marines, GW turned chapters into different armies.
I agree - that is exactly what has happened.
This is also a large part of why people have a problem with this behaviour, you're essentially using another armies codex because yours isn't good enough for what you want. Why stop here though, why not have blue marine alaitoc where your marines are guardians etc.
You thought you were an Ultramarines player, but it turns out you're not. You're a Space Marine powergamer. There's nothing wrong with being a Space Marine powergamer, it's just another way to play. You got used to Ultramarines being the top dog of codex marines, and now that they may not be, your actual identity is conflicting with your perceived identity. You can no longer have your cake and eat it too.
If you want to be an Ultramarines player, play Ultramarines. Use the models you like, or build the best Ultramarines list you can, or whatever you have fun with. Sometimes playing the underdog is more fun. To win with a sub-optimal army vs an army with better rules, you have to be a better player, or get lucky. Each individual win is more of an accomplishment.
If you want to be a Space Marine powergamer, pick whatever rules you think are best, and build the most efficient list you can if that's what you have fun with. If you love optimizing and finding all the nifty combos and then seeing your grand plans come to fruition, that's great. Being able to win consistently, even with a higher tier army, takes a skilled player as well.
What you can't do is play a specific subfaction and also always have the best rules. Sometimes you'll be the best subfaction in the codex, sometimes you won't. So you suck it up and play a sub-optimal subfaction that you identify with and have fun. Or you suck it up and play a faction other than the one you identify with to get the best rules and you have fun. Or you mope and complain and don't have fun.
Marines get this the worst because they have the most history of dedicated subfaction rules and the most supplements for those subfactions. There have been decades for people to fall in love with Ultramarines, or Raven Guard, or Salamanders. Chaos Marines get it some too with the Legions. Eldar, Chaos Daemons, and maybe Guard a bit too, but to a lesser extent than even CSM. The other factions? Up until recently, there weren't rules for Hive Fleets, or Septs, or whatever. People haven't had a chance to tie their identity to a subfaction on the tabletop, so they built an army of their dudes. Now that they have options, they don't feel beholden to one choice, since they haven't spent years or decades building an army dedicated to that choice. They don't see the subfactions as an identity.
So go be an Ultramarines player, or be a Space Marine powergamer, or start a new army. Just have fun, and don't worry so much about it.
Medicinal Carrots wrote: The other factions? Up until recently, there weren't rules for Hive Fleets, or Septs, or whatever. People haven't had a chance to tie their identity to a subfaction on the tabletop, so they built an army of their dudes. Now that they have options, they don't feel beholden to one choice, since they haven't spent years or decades building an army dedicated to that choice. They don't see the subfactions as an identity.
I agree with everything you've said apart from this bit.
Despite not having rules many sub factions have had their own unique identity - Saim Hann are the jet bike faction, just as my Evil Sunz are the bikers. Instead of theme through rules, players created a theme of their army through model selection. For Orks we had Trukk Boyz, Battlewagon brigades, Biker Mobs, Kan Walls, Green Tide and Stompa Mobs to name a few.
The new rules should be great to add the icing on the cake of your choice and really should benefit the play style that particular sub faction is supposed to be renown for. The problem is when one sub faction is significantly better, or worse than others, players get pissed off because suddenly what was before only a thematic choice (and less a competitive one) suddenly becomes a competitive choice. If I've invested years of my life into modelling and painting my Evil Sunz Orks and suddenly they are the worst Orks I could play, through no fault of my own, I'd be pissed off. It doesn't help that GW balances faction units assuming everyone uses the best sub faction traits also.
How on earth can an Iron Hands repulsor be compared to a White Scars repulsor? They are completely different units at this point and should probably be priced differently.
In other news the power creep is real and IH are ridiculous. I look forward to see how GW attempts to balance this hot mess. SM are without question the strongest mono faction now, by quite a margin. Unless other factions get this V2 codex treatment soon the game will become SM vs SM.
I find it really strange that people care so much about which rules are tied to which paint scheme. Playing Ultramarines with Iron Hands rules seems fine to me, the rules are a framework of mathematical bonuses and don't constrain the creativity and fluff of the battle. I find it sad that only those who paint a neutral colour scheme get to play the game for a reasonable amount of money under this paradigm. Personally I don't play marines and all my Eldar are custom painted so it doesn't matter to me as it can't affect me, except in making my games less fun as my opponent is forced to play something other than what they want to or be faced with social approbation. I don't understand why there is any difference using one chapter's rules over another. If the chapter tacitcs were given generic names and you just picked which to use for your dudes no one would complain and it would be mechanically identical, the fact that they called something Ultramarines Chapter Tactic instead of Chapter Tactic 3 makes so much difference to people is bonkers.
Medicinal Carrots wrote:You thought you were an Ultramarines player, but it turns out you're not. You're a Space Marine powergamer. There's nothing wrong with being a Space Marine powergamer, it's just another way to play. You got used to Ultramarines being the top dog of codex marines, and now that they may not be, your actual identity is conflicting with your perceived identity. You can no longer have your cake and eat it too.
Honestly, can't argue with that, personally.
It's fine to prefer winning and being a powergamer. If you identify more as a powergamer than an Ultramarine player, more power to you. Of course, if someone doesn't want to play a powergaming style game, then they might not want to play against you, but that's their freedom to do so, and would probably feel the same way if you took certain army builds or suchlike.
What ever the odium comes from being a power gamer, and how bad army hoping may be. I can assure you, it is better to army hop as a power gamer and have fun playing your models, then lose all the time and not have fun with them.
Karol wrote: What ever the odium comes from being a power gamer, and how bad army hoping may be. I can assure you, it is better to army hop as a power gamer and have fun playing your models, then lose all the time and not have fun with them.
No-one's saying army hopping's a bad thing as if it were some kind of fact.
At the same time, just because you seem to suggest you can't have fun if you're not on the bleeding edge of the meta doesn't mean I can't have fun with an army I've been collecting for decades and have no intention of optimising or modifying to chase said meta. No need for any of this "I can assure you" 'opinions masquerading as facts' stuff.
If you have more fun being a powergamer, go and have fun. If you have more fun with your narrative army and having a relaxed game, go and have fun.
No need to imply that one is inherently more or less fun than the other.
No am saying, because of the gap between good and bad armies, playing a bad army is always less fun, then playing a powergaming army. Specially with how long people play w40k anyway.
You play over 200 games losing every each one of them, and feeling like you do nothing most of the time. And then we can talk about playing a power gamer army is worse then that.
Narrative games aren't even games to begin with. That is like starting a match with someone and telling they can't use arm locks, arm bars or hold you for longer then 8 sec. Am not saying that doing something like narrative can't be fun, but it is many things, mostly social, but playing a game it is not.
Karol wrote: No am saying, because of the gap between good and bad armies, playing a bad army is always less fun, then playing a powergaming army.
Unfortunately, that's simply not a fact that applies to everyone. It's not always less fun, and playing a powergaming list can often feel far less enjoyable than a tamer list, at least for myself.
I'm not disputing that for you, you might feel that powergaming is more fun, and you're welcome to that, but you're not the arbiter on what's fun or not for me, with all due respect.
Narrative games aren't even games to begin with. That is like starting a match with someone and telling they can't use arm locks, arm bars or hold you for longer then 8 sec. Am not saying that doing something like narrative can't be fun, but it is many things, mostly social, but playing a game it is not.
Sounds like you have a very narrow definition of what a game is. On the sports, analogy, you don't need a referee in football if you're just having a cheeky game with your mates. You don't even need a net - just two things that mark out your goal. Likewise in 40k, you don't need to be optimising your list or even use points. As long as your opponent and yourself agree on what the terms are, you can play.
Do you not class D&D as a game?
Narrative games aren't even games to begin with. That is like starting a match with someone and telling they can't use arm locks, arm bars or hold you for longer then 8 sec. Am not saying that doing something like narrative can't be fun, but it is many things, mostly social, but playing a game it is not.
I never, ever get tired of people parading around telling others that the way they play 40k is wrong.
Narrative games aren't even games to begin with. That is like starting a match with someone and telling they can't use arm locks, arm bars or hold you for longer then 8 sec. Am not saying that doing something like narrative can't be fun, but it is many things, mostly social, but playing a game it is not.
I never, ever get tired of people parading around telling others that the way they play 40k is wrong.
I mean, it would be so easy to just turn around and say "competitive games aren't even games to begin with", and expect that to be taken just as seriously, but that would just be wrong. CLEARLY anyone who plays narrative doesn't know what games are and that their personal hobby experience is objectively flawed.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I mean, it would be so easy to just turn around and say "competitive games aren't even games to begin with", and expect that to be taken just as seriously, but that would just be wrong.
Indeed. Everyone (myself included) has their preferred ruleset and way to play. That doesnt for a second disqualify or cheapen other modes or means of play. At the end of the day, if you and your match partner are having fun, you're doing it right.
It looks like you met the infamous IH parking lot.
There are many ways to beat it, but trying to force your way through strenght is not one. Kill everything outside the parking lot and just score the objectives turn by turn. By turn 3-4 you will be tabled, but your lead on points will be enough to win the game regardless.
To digress a bit, this is the problem with the ITC tournament ruleset - You can't play for objectives if you're going to be tabled on turn 4.
The Iron Hands player is still going to get a bunch of points, (Kill 1 unit, Kill More, Hold 1 objective, plus most of his secondaries if he sets it up right) and the massive bonus he gets for every turn remaining after he tables will make it unwinable for the non-IH player.
And, since ITC seems to be the standard at most tournaments... It causes problems when the best strategy to beat certain armies only works in traditional GW games.
Completely one sided games are not particularly fun whether you win or lose. Smashing the oppositions with laughable ease gets old very quickly. If we're talking about 'what is not a game,' then that is not really a game! In a game both parties have a reasonable (if not necessarily completely equal) change of winning. The best games are those which are really close, when it could really go either way and every decision and every die roll matters.
It looks like you met the infamous IH parking lot.
There are many ways to beat it, but trying to force your way through strenght is not one. Kill everything outside the parking lot and just score the objectives turn by turn. By turn 3-4 you will be tabled, but your lead on points will be enough to win the game regardless.
To digress a bit, this is the problem with the ITC tournament ruleset - You can't play for objectives if you're going to be tabled on turn 4.
The Iron Hands player is still going to get a bunch of points, (Kill 1 unit, Kill More, Hold 1 objective, plus most of his secondaries if he sets it up right) and the massive bonus he gets for every turn remaining after he tables will make it unwinable for the non-IH player.
And, since ITC seems to be the standard at most tournaments... It causes problems when the best strategy to beat certain armies only works in traditional GW games.
It's a standard only in US, but since he had the Brit flag, i assumed that he played with EU rules (CA 2018).
Narrative games aren't even games to begin with. That is like starting a match with someone and telling they can't use arm locks, arm bars or hold you for longer then 8 sec. Am not saying that doing something like narrative can't be fun, but it is many things, mostly social, but playing a game it is not.
I never, ever get tired of people parading around telling others that the way they play 40k is wrong.
I mean, it would be so easy to just turn around and say "competitive games aren't even games to begin with", and expect that to be taken just as seriously, but that would just be wrong. CLEARLY anyone who plays narrative doesn't know what games are and that their personal hobby experience is objectively flawed.
I'm pretty sure that Karol just wanted to say that narrative games aren't about winning or losing - and therefore there wouldn't be a reason to switch to another chapter tactics in the first place.
Drager wrote: I find it really strange that people care so much about which rules are tied to which paint scheme. Playing Ultramarines with Iron Hands rules seems fine to me, the rules are a framework of mathematical bonuses and don't constrain the creativity and fluff of the battle. I find it sad that only those who paint a neutral colour scheme get to play the game for a reasonable amount of money under this paradigm. Personally I don't play marines and all my Eldar are custom painted so it doesn't matter to me as it can't affect me, except in making my games less fun as my opponent is forced to play something other than what they want to or be faced with social approbation. I don't understand why there is any difference using one chapter's rules over another. If the chapter tacitcs were given generic names and you just picked which to use for your dudes no one would complain and it would be mechanically identical, the fact that they called something Ultramarines Chapter Tactic instead of Chapter Tactic 3 makes so much difference to people is bonkers.
It looks like you met the infamous IH parking lot.
There are many ways to beat it, but trying to force your way through strenght is not one. Kill everything outside the parking lot and just score the objectives turn by turn. By turn 3-4 you will be tabled, but your lead on points will be enough to win the game regardless.
To digress a bit, this is the problem with the ITC tournament ruleset - You can't play for objectives if you're going to be tabled on turn 4.
The Iron Hands player is still going to get a bunch of points, (Kill 1 unit, Kill More, Hold 1 objective, plus most of his secondaries if he sets it up right) and the massive bonus he gets for every turn remaining after he tables will make it unwinable for the non-IH player.
And, since ITC seems to be the standard at most tournaments... It causes problems when the best strategy to beat certain armies only works in traditional GW games.
Tabling your opponent will always be the best strategy. That is just war. Destroyed units cant stop you from obtaining your objective.
Drager wrote: I find it really strange that people care so much about which rules are tied to which paint scheme. Playing Ultramarines with Iron Hands rules seems fine to me, the rules are a framework of mathematical bonuses and don't constrain the creativity and fluff of the battle. I find it sad that only those who paint a neutral colour scheme get to play the game for a reasonable amount of money under this paradigm. Personally I don't play marines and all my Eldar are custom painted so it doesn't matter to me as it can't affect me, except in making my games less fun as my opponent is forced to play something other than what they want to or be faced with social approbation. I don't understand why there is any difference using one chapter's rules over another. If the chapter tacitcs were given generic names and you just picked which to use for your dudes no one would complain and it would be mechanically identical, the fact that they called something Ultramarines Chapter Tactic instead of Chapter Tactic 3 makes so much difference to people is bonkers.
You win the prize for best post.
The best post that fits your wants/needs from your POV. I think that anyone else reading this thread will look at the below and consider it the best advice to pass on, as it tackles the perceptions of others looking in on this thread rather than simply internalising the justification for your choice.
Medicinal Carrots wrote:You thought you were an Ultramarines player, but it turns out you're not. You're a Space Marine powergamer. There's nothing wrong with being a Space Marine powergamer, it's just another way to play. You got used to Ultramarines being the top dog of codex marines, and now that they may not be, your actual identity is conflicting with your perceived identity. You can no longer have your cake and eat it too.
If you want to be an Ultramarines player, play Ultramarines. Use the models you like, or build the best Ultramarines list you can, or whatever you have fun with. Sometimes playing the underdog is more fun. To win with a sub-optimal army vs an army with better rules, you have to be a better player, or get lucky. Each individual win is more of an accomplishment.
If you want to be a Space Marine powergamer, pick whatever rules you think are best, and build the most efficient list you can if that's what you have fun with. If you love optimizing and finding all the nifty combos and then seeing your grand plans come to fruition, that's great. Being able to win consistently, even with a higher tier army, takes a skilled player as well.
What you can't do is play a specific subfaction and also always have the best rules. Sometimes you'll be the best subfaction in the codex, sometimes you won't. So you suck it up and play a sub-optimal subfaction that you identify with and have fun. Or you suck it up and play a faction other than the one you identify with to get the best rules and you have fun. Or you mope and complain and don't have fun.
Marines get this the worst because they have the most history of dedicated subfaction rules and the most supplements for those subfactions. There have been decades for people to fall in love with Ultramarines, or Raven Guard, or Salamanders. Chaos Marines get it some too with the Legions. Eldar, Chaos Daemons, and maybe Guard a bit too, but to a lesser extent than even CSM. The other factions? Up until recently, there weren't rules for Hive Fleets, or Septs, or whatever. People haven't had a chance to tie their identity to a subfaction on the tabletop, so they built an army of their dudes. Now that they have options, they don't feel beholden to one choice, since they haven't spent years or decades building an army dedicated to that choice. They don't see the subfactions as an identity.
So go be an Ultramarines player, or be a Space Marine powergamer, or start a new army. Just have fun, and don't worry so much about it.
Drager wrote: I find it really strange that people care so much about which rules are tied to which paint scheme. Playing Ultramarines with Iron Hands rules seems fine to me, the rules are a framework of mathematical bonuses and don't constrain the creativity and fluff of the battle. I find it sad that only those who paint a neutral colour scheme get to play the game for a reasonable amount of money under this paradigm. Personally I don't play marines and all my Eldar are custom painted so it doesn't matter to me as it can't affect me, except in making my games less fun as my opponent is forced to play something other than what they want to or be faced with social approbation. I don't understand why there is any difference using one chapter's rules over another. If the chapter tacitcs were given generic names and you just picked which to use for your dudes no one would complain and it would be mechanically identical, the fact that they called something Ultramarines Chapter Tactic instead of Chapter Tactic 3 makes so much difference to people is bonkers.
You win the prize for best post.
The best post that fits your wants/needs from your POV. I think that anyone else reading this thread will look at the below and consider it the best advice to pass on, as it tackles the perceptions of others looking in on this thread rather than simply internalising the justification for your choice.
Medicinal Carrots wrote:You thought you were an Ultramarines player, but it turns out you're not. You're a Space Marine powergamer. There's nothing wrong with being a Space Marine powergamer, it's just another way to play. You got used to Ultramarines being the top dog of codex marines, and now that they may not be, your actual identity is conflicting with your perceived identity. You can no longer have your cake and eat it too.
If you want to be an Ultramarines player, play Ultramarines. Use the models you like, or build the best Ultramarines list you can, or whatever you have fun with. Sometimes playing the underdog is more fun. To win with a sub-optimal army vs an army with better rules, you have to be a better player, or get lucky. Each individual win is more of an accomplishment.
If you want to be a Space Marine powergamer, pick whatever rules you think are best, and build the most efficient list you can if that's what you have fun with. If you love optimizing and finding all the nifty combos and then seeing your grand plans come to fruition, that's great. Being able to win consistently, even with a higher tier army, takes a skilled player as well.
What you can't do is play a specific subfaction and also always have the best rules. Sometimes you'll be the best subfaction in the codex, sometimes you won't. So you suck it up and play a sub-optimal subfaction that you identify with and have fun. Or you suck it up and play a faction other than the one you identify with to get the best rules and you have fun. Or you mope and complain and don't have fun.
Marines get this the worst because they have the most history of dedicated subfaction rules and the most supplements for those subfactions. There have been decades for people to fall in love with Ultramarines, or Raven Guard, or Salamanders. Chaos Marines get it some too with the Legions. Eldar, Chaos Daemons, and maybe Guard a bit too, but to a lesser extent than even CSM. The other factions? Up until recently, there weren't rules for Hive Fleets, or Septs, or whatever. People haven't had a chance to tie their identity to a subfaction on the tabletop, so they built an army of their dudes. Now that they have options, they don't feel beholden to one choice, since they haven't spent years or decades building an army dedicated to that choice. They don't see the subfactions as an identity.
So go be an Ultramarines player, or be a Space Marine powergamer, or start a new army. Just have fun, and don't worry so much about it.
Sorry no. Some ideas are just better than others. Chapter tactics aren't about fluff. I can play Ultramarines with with every model having a U on it's shoulder using Ironhands rules and it doesn't affect ether players gaming experience of interacting with Ultramarines. They are just bonus rules and you chose the ones you want - most have nothing to do with fluff anyways. The only real issue is special characters which is much more of a problem with marines than any other army (most their builds are centered around them). Saw a post the other day that most seemed to agree with. Special characters should not be trait specific units - lots of people agreed with that. "Power gamer" is also a really pathetic term. This game is 80% list selection - if you are playing the game you are a "power gamer". I wonder if in MTG people get called powergamers for using the best cards? LOL - nonsense. Really the guy that wrote that post agrees with me more than not. He probably wants to play a fluffy army and not get destroyed by power gamers....guess what would help a lot with that? If faction rules weren't so wildly unbalanced.
Sorry no. Some ideas are just better than others. Chapter tactics aren't about fluff. I can play Ultramarines with all my with every model having a U on it's shoulder using Ironhands rules and it doesn't affect ether players gaming experience of interacting with Ultramarines. They are just bonus rules and you chose the ones you want. The only real issue is special characters which also is a much more of a problem with marines than any other army. Saw a post the other day that most seemed to agree with. Special characters should not be trait specific units - lots of people agreed with that. "Power gamer" is also a really pathetic term. This game is 80% list selection - if you are playing the game you are a "power gamer". I wonder if in MTG people get called powergamers for using the best cards? LOL - nonsense. Really the guy that wrote that post agrees with me more than not. He probably wants to play a fluffy army and not get destroyed by power gamers....guess what would help a lot with that? If faction rules weren't so wildly unbalanced.
I really, really enjoy how you're simultaneously arguing that its ok to optimize a list, yet at the same time decrying being called an optimizer.
As to your question, yes if you super-focus a list, or a deck, or a loadout, or whatever the term is in whatever game system you're playing, you're a powergamer. There's nothing at all wrong with that. But dont act like it's not what you're doing.
Sorry no. Some ideas are just better than others. Chapter tactics aren't about fluff. I can play Ultramarines with all my with every model having a U on it's shoulder using Ironhands rules and it doesn't affect ether players gaming experience of interacting with Ultramarines. They are just bonus rules and you chose the ones you want. The only real issue is special characters which also is a much more of a problem with marines than any other army. Saw a post the other day that most seemed to agree with. Special characters should not be trait specific units - lots of people agreed with that. "Power gamer" is also a really pathetic term. This game is 80% list selection - if you are playing the game you are a "power gamer". I wonder if in MTG people get called powergamers for using the best cards? LOL - nonsense. Really the guy that wrote that post agrees with me more than not. He probably wants to play a fluffy army and not get destroyed by power gamers....guess what would help a lot with that? If faction rules weren't so wildly unbalanced.
I really, really enjoy how you're simultaneously arguing that its ok to optimize a list, yet at the same time decrying being called an optimizer.
As to your question, yes if you super-focus a list, or a deck, or a loadout, or whatever the term is in whatever game system you're playing, you're a powergamer. There's nothing at all wrong with that. But dont act like it's not what you're doing.
Power gamer is the natural state and obviously the way magic is played. Casual gamer is the the oddball out. The reality is this is how 40k is too it's just a much more vocal casual community.
Sorry no. Some ideas are just better than others. Chapter tactics aren't about fluff. I can play Ultramarines with all my with every model having a U on it's shoulder using Ironhands rules and it doesn't affect ether players gaming experience of interacting with Ultramarines. They are just bonus rules and you chose the ones you want. The only real issue is special characters which also is a much more of a problem with marines than any other army. Saw a post the other day that most seemed to agree with. Special characters should not be trait specific units - lots of people agreed with that. "Power gamer" is also a really pathetic term. This game is 80% list selection - if you are playing the game you are a "power gamer". I wonder if in MTG people get called powergamers for using the best cards? LOL - nonsense. Really the guy that wrote that post agrees with me more than not. He probably wants to play a fluffy army and not get destroyed by power gamers....guess what would help a lot with that? If faction rules weren't so wildly unbalanced.
I really, really enjoy how you're simultaneously arguing that its ok to optimize a list, yet at the same time decrying being called an optimizer.
As to your question, yes if you super-focus a list, or a deck, or a loadout, or whatever the term is in whatever game system you're playing, you're a powergamer. There's nothing at all wrong with that. But dont act like it's not what you're doing.
Power gamer is the natural state and obviously the way magic is played. Casual gamer is the the oddball out.
Then play magic?
Also citation needed on the ammount of casuals vs power gamers.
Power gamer is the natural state and obviously the way magic is played. Casual gamer is the the oddball out.
So you've moved from telling people how to play 40k, to telling people how to play MTG. Well done.
I'm not really telling you how to play 40k. I'm saying how I am going to play 40k and that there is nothing wrong it. The MTG example is just to show you how insane 40k players are when it comes to subfactions...like seriously...do you truly expect your opponents to use worse rules in any game because it suits your fancy? Like dude...can you just play with weaker cards...Can you not play Zed in LOL because I can't beat him? Can you not play the best heros in battlefront 2? People will just laugh at you and rightfully so.
I'm gonna get ironfather and paint him blue and red. We don't even have a legit tech marine model anyways.
I'm not really telling you how to play 40k. I'm saying how I am going to play 40k and that there is nothing wrong it.
You mean besides the dozen or so pages you've spent telling folks who play in a different fashion that they're playing 40k wrong? Yeah lets just pretend those didnt happen.
The MTG example is just to show you how insane 40k players are when it comes to subfactions...like seriously...do you truly expect your opponents to use worse rules in any game because it suits your fancy?
I expect my match partners (and myself) to function within the boundaries that we mutually set pre-game, nothing more, nothing less. It's not a complicated concept.
Drager wrote: I find it really strange that people care so much about which rules are tied to which paint scheme. Playing Ultramarines with Iron Hands rules seems fine to me, the rules are a framework of mathematical bonuses and don't constrain the creativity and fluff of the battle. I find it sad that only those who paint a neutral colour scheme get to play the game for a reasonable amount of money under this paradigm. Personally I don't play marines and all my Eldar are custom painted so it doesn't matter to me as it can't affect me, except in making my games less fun as my opponent is forced to play something other than what they want to or be faced with social approbation. I don't understand why there is any difference using one chapter's rules over another. If the chapter tacitcs were given generic names and you just picked which to use for your dudes no one would complain and it would be mechanically identical, the fact that they called something Ultramarines Chapter Tactic instead of Chapter Tactic 3 makes so much difference to people is bonkers.
You win the prize for best post.
The best post that fits your wants/needs from your POV. I think that anyone else reading this thread will look at the below and consider it the best advice to pass on, as it tackles the perceptions of others looking in on this thread rather than simply internalising the justification for your choice.
Medicinal Carrots wrote:You thought you were an Ultramarines player, but it turns out you're not. You're a Space Marine powergamer. There's nothing wrong with being a Space Marine powergamer, it's just another way to play. You got used to Ultramarines being the top dog of codex marines, and now that they may not be, your actual identity is conflicting with your perceived identity. You can no longer have your cake and eat it too.
If you want to be an Ultramarines player, play Ultramarines. Use the models you like, or build the best Ultramarines list you can, or whatever you have fun with. Sometimes playing the underdog is more fun. To win with a sub-optimal army vs an army with better rules, you have to be a better player, or get lucky. Each individual win is more of an accomplishment.
If you want to be a Space Marine powergamer, pick whatever rules you think are best, and build the most efficient list you can if that's what you have fun with. If you love optimizing and finding all the nifty combos and then seeing your grand plans come to fruition, that's great. Being able to win consistently, even with a higher tier army, takes a skilled player as well.
What you can't do is play a specific subfaction and also always have the best rules. Sometimes you'll be the best subfaction in the codex, sometimes you won't. So you suck it up and play a sub-optimal subfaction that you identify with and have fun. Or you suck it up and play a faction other than the one you identify with to get the best rules and you have fun. Or you mope and complain and don't have fun.
Marines get this the worst because they have the most history of dedicated subfaction rules and the most supplements for those subfactions. There have been decades for people to fall in love with Ultramarines, or Raven Guard, or Salamanders. Chaos Marines get it some too with the Legions. Eldar, Chaos Daemons, and maybe Guard a bit too, but to a lesser extent than even CSM. The other factions? Up until recently, there weren't rules for Hive Fleets, or Septs, or whatever. People haven't had a chance to tie their identity to a subfaction on the tabletop, so they built an army of their dudes. Now that they have options, they don't feel beholden to one choice, since they haven't spent years or decades building an army dedicated to that choice. They don't see the subfactions as an identity.
So go be an Ultramarines player, or be a Space Marine powergamer, or start a new army. Just have fun, and don't worry so much about it.
Sorry no. Some ideas are just better than others. Chapter tactics aren't about fluff. I can play Ultramarines with with every model having a U on it's shoulder using Ironhands rules and it doesn't affect ether players gaming experience of interacting with Ultramarines. They are just bonus rules and you chose the ones you want - most have nothing to do with fluff anyways. The only real issue is special characters which is much more of a problem with marines than any other army (most their builds are centered around them). Saw a post the other day that most seemed to agree with. Special characters should not be trait specific units - lots of people agreed with that. "Power gamer" is also a really pathetic term. This game is 80% list selection - if you are playing the game you are a "power gamer". I wonder if in MTG people get called powergamers for using the best cards? LOL - nonsense. Really the guy that wrote that post agrees with me more than not. He probably wants to play a fluffy army and not get destroyed by power gamers....guess what would help a lot with that? If faction rules weren't so wildly unbalanced.
Yes they are power gamers in magic. Let's place the hyperbole aside a minute.
Address the title of the thread: "will I feel bad using blue iron hands" - you knew the answer before you made the thread. You won't have a single doubt about it at all. Taking that into context this thread is intended to what? I assume fish for some validation to wave at people.
If we follow that train of thought, you need validation because you know it's not a popular idea or at the least its contentious. It is in this state because it entails a negative social connotation for a large bulk of the playerbase, because for them it's what would be defined as power gaming. They define it this way as you're making a self entitled choice that flies in the face of the narrative of the game.
It makes no difference game wise, nobody will tell you otherwise. You can and obviously will use the rules you want and call them blue iron hands. What it does do, is show that you value the rules more than your narrative or setting, which means you come across as someone who will sell out for easier wins. That's not a problem with sub factions rules, that's an issue with how your conduct impacts your social persona.
So will you feel bad? Nope, should you feel bad? That is based on how your opponent feels and how you view yourself.
Drager wrote: I find it really strange that people care so much about which rules are tied to which paint scheme. Playing Ultramarines with Iron Hands rules seems fine to me, the rules are a framework of mathematical bonuses and don't constrain the creativity and fluff of the battle. I find it sad that only those who paint a neutral colour scheme get to play the game for a reasonable amount of money under this paradigm. Personally I don't play marines and all my Eldar are custom painted so it doesn't matter to me as it can't affect me, except in making my games less fun as my opponent is forced to play something other than what they want to or be faced with social approbation. I don't understand why there is any difference using one chapter's rules over another. If the chapter tacitcs were given generic names and you just picked which to use for your dudes no one would complain and it would be mechanically identical, the fact that they called something Ultramarines Chapter Tactic instead of Chapter Tactic 3 makes so much difference to people is bonkers.
You win the prize for best post.
The best post that fits your wants/needs from your POV. I think that anyone else reading this thread will look at the below and consider it the best advice to pass on, as it tackles the perceptions of others looking in on this thread rather than simply internalising the justification for your choice.
Medicinal Carrots wrote:You thought you were an Ultramarines player, but it turns out you're not. You're a Space Marine powergamer. There's nothing wrong with being a Space Marine powergamer, it's just another way to play. You got used to Ultramarines being the top dog of codex marines, and now that they may not be, your actual identity is conflicting with your perceived identity. You can no longer have your cake and eat it too.
If you want to be an Ultramarines player, play Ultramarines. Use the models you like, or build the best Ultramarines list you can, or whatever you have fun with. Sometimes playing the underdog is more fun. To win with a sub-optimal army vs an army with better rules, you have to be a better player, or get lucky. Each individual win is more of an accomplishment.
If you want to be a Space Marine powergamer, pick whatever rules you think are best, and build the most efficient list you can if that's what you have fun with. If you love optimizing and finding all the nifty combos and then seeing your grand plans come to fruition, that's great. Being able to win consistently, even with a higher tier army, takes a skilled player as well.
What you can't do is play a specific subfaction and also always have the best rules. Sometimes you'll be the best subfaction in the codex, sometimes you won't. So you suck it up and play a sub-optimal subfaction that you identify with and have fun. Or you suck it up and play a faction other than the one you identify with to get the best rules and you have fun. Or you mope and complain and don't have fun.
Marines get this the worst because they have the most history of dedicated subfaction rules and the most supplements for those subfactions. There have been decades for people to fall in love with Ultramarines, or Raven Guard, or Salamanders. Chaos Marines get it some too with the Legions. Eldar, Chaos Daemons, and maybe Guard a bit too, but to a lesser extent than even CSM. The other factions? Up until recently, there weren't rules for Hive Fleets, or Septs, or whatever. People haven't had a chance to tie their identity to a subfaction on the tabletop, so they built an army of their dudes. Now that they have options, they don't feel beholden to one choice, since they haven't spent years or decades building an army dedicated to that choice. They don't see the subfactions as an identity.
So go be an Ultramarines player, or be a Space Marine powergamer, or start a new army. Just have fun, and don't worry so much about it.
Sorry no. Some ideas are just better than others.
So your facts can't be wrong because they're your opinions, and everyone is entitled to their opinions. But his opinion is wrong because it's inferior to your opinion?
Chapter tactics aren't about fluff.
Then what are they about? It could be argued that they don't map well to fluff, or their crunch is wonky, but they're clearly intended to be fluff-based.
I can play Ultramarines with with every model having a U on it's shoulder using Ironhands rules and it doesn't affect ether players gaming experience of interacting with Ultramarines.
In the same way you can play half-assembled grey horde as FOTM-chapter, and it "doesn't affect ether [sic] players [sic] gaming experience", just to a lesser extent. It's like saying "This MaulerFiend model is actually a Demon Prince", but on a much smaller scale. It *does* affect the other player. Probably not much. Probably not enough to worry about. Most won't care much, if at all. But pretending it doesn't is just being dismissive of others.
They are just bonus rules and you chose the ones you want - most have nothing to do with fluff anyways.
So there's no fluff justification for Iron Hands being more about cybernetics, or UltraMarines being more about the Codex? That's a rather unique headcanon you go there. (And, if it were a real Iron Hands army, you might have a massive Head Cannon to match!)
The only real issue is special characters which is much more of a problem with marines than any other army (most their builds are centered around them).
Said no Alaitoc Foot-Farseer ever. Or AdMech with Cawl. Or Maggy. Or Morty. Or...
Saw a post the other day that most seemed to agree with. Special characters should not be trait specific units - lots of people agreed with that.
There are a lot of characters that really shouldn't be. But Bobby G leading Iron Hands or Magnus leading an otherwise-pure-Khorne list certainly doesn't make sense.
"Power gamer" is also a really pathetic term. This game is 80% list selection - if you are playing the game you are a "power gamer".
80% of your game may be list selection. But that's certainly not everyone.
First, for many people 80% of the game isn't even the game. Many people spend 80%+ of their time building, modeling, discussing fluff, or doing other such stuff. Many people throw together the units they want to play, call it good, then play a game.
Second, you could argue that 80% tournament play is list building of the game, but (1) tournament play is a subset of this game, and (2) top-table lists are often nearly identical to many lists that place bottom-half in the same event. This could be caused by the game being quite random, but there's far too much stability in *player* placement to account for that. If 80% of tourny play were list building, list placement would be very stable - and it's not.
"power gamer" is just as valid a term as "casual player". They're labels for player types that are not always the ideal opponent. A "power gamer" is a more fun opponent for other "power gamers" than "casual players", and vice-versa. That said, it's often used as a euphemism for "TFG" (just like "casual player" or many other terms). TFG is a whole other story, obviously.
If I'm playing my "Here's all the Harlies I own list", and I'm just mucking it up in a 3-way game with some Orkz and Guardsmen, I'm very likely playing a game and not being a "power gamer".
Once again, you're confusing your interests and habits with universal rules for everyone.
I wonder if in MTG people get called powergamers for using the best cards? LOL - nonsense.
When we played MTG before school (late 90s), we had a fairly stable meta of players. A couple won most of their games. They stopped using their best decks when playing other players. Everyone had more fun as a result. So there's an example - yes, it happens in MTG as well. Or the "No rush" agreement some players had in StarCraft back in the day. Or when our pitcher in Little League wasn't allowed to pitch anymore after we beat every team undefeated. Or the old no-AWP or no-Camping server rules in CounterStrike. This isn't unique to Warhammer at all. It's just more prevalent, because 40k is so much less clean, competitive challenge. It's closer to D&D than most head-to-head games.
Really the guy that wrote that post agrees with me more than not. He probably wants to play a fluffy army and not get destroyed by power gamers....guess what would help a lot with that? If faction rules weren't so wildly unbalanced.
Agreeing that better balance would be good is a long way from agreeing that anyone who wants to see UM played as UM is an evil non-person who doesn't understand the holy truth of your word.
Sorry no. Some ideas are just better than others. Chapter tactics aren't about fluff. I can play Ultramarines with all my with every model having a U on it's shoulder using Ironhands rules and it doesn't affect ether players gaming experience of interacting with Ultramarines. They are just bonus rules and you chose the ones you want. The only real issue is special characters which also is a much more of a problem with marines than any other army. Saw a post the other day that most seemed to agree with. Special characters should not be trait specific units - lots of people agreed with that. "Power gamer" is also a really pathetic term. This game is 80% list selection - if you are playing the game you are a "power gamer". I wonder if in MTG people get called powergamers for using the best cards? LOL - nonsense. Really the guy that wrote that post agrees with me more than not. He probably wants to play a fluffy army and not get destroyed by power gamers....guess what would help a lot with that? If faction rules weren't so wildly unbalanced.
I really, really enjoy how you're simultaneously arguing that its ok to optimize a list, yet at the same time decrying being called an optimizer.
As to your question, yes if you super-focus a list, or a deck, or a loadout, or whatever the term is in whatever game system you're playing, you're a powergamer. There's nothing at all wrong with that. But dont act like it's not what you're doing.
Power gamer is the natural state and obviously the way magic is played.
Nobody's argued that
Casual gamer is the the oddball out.
Less common in a public forum. A lot more common than you'd realize in a stable meta. Have you never heard of banlists?
The reality is this is how 40k is too
Citation needed.
it's just a much more vocal casual community.
That's because the casual community is a lot bigger. There's a lot more people who care about whether Bobby G is an UltraMarine than care who came in first in the last GT.
It looks like you met the infamous IH parking lot.
There are many ways to beat it, but trying to force your way through strenght is not one. Kill everything outside the parking lot and just score the objectives turn by turn. By turn 3-4 you will be tabled, but your lead on points will be enough to win the game regardless.
To digress a bit, this is the problem with the ITC tournament ruleset - You can't play for objectives if you're going to be tabled on turn 4.
The Iron Hands player is still going to get a bunch of points, (Kill 1 unit, Kill More, Hold 1 objective, plus most of his secondaries if he sets it up right) and the massive bonus he gets for every turn remaining after he tables will make it unwinable for the non-IH player.
And, since ITC seems to be the standard at most tournaments... It causes problems when the best strategy to beat certain armies only works in traditional GW games.
That's because ITC is trash.
I don't totally agree, but ITC being used as the gold standard in US tournaments is definitely trash.
Togusa wrote: So fun story, the local story group of marine players, all of them switched to Iron Hands, and now they're all arguing about switching to salamanders.
Is it any wonder why I've left the game? No one can just play, they all want to win every game by using the new hotness.
Togusa wrote: So fun story, the local story group of marine players, all of them switched to Iron Hands, and now they're all arguing about switching to salamanders.
Is it any wonder why I've left the game? No one can just play, they all want to win every game by using the new hotness.
Wellp your locals must be fun guys to be around.
Some people just want to play whats new. Nothing wrong with that ether. Ironhands are miles ahead of salamanders...let them play it. LOL.
Togusa wrote: So fun story, the local story group of marine players, all of them switched to Iron Hands, and now they're all arguing about switching to salamanders.
Is it any wonder why I've left the game? No one can just play, they all want to win every game by using the new hotness.
Wellp your locals must be fun guys to be around.
Some people just want to play whats new. Nothing wrong with that ether. Ironhands are miles ahead of salamanders...let them play it. LOL.
Again theres a difference between testing and proxxxying, trying to escape gw incompetence (WB f.e EG.) and just beeing a want it all.
Togusa wrote: So fun story, the local story group of marine players, all of them switched to Iron Hands, and now they're all arguing about switching to salamanders.
Is it any wonder why I've left the game? No one can just play, they all want to win every game by using the new hotness.
Wellp your locals must be fun guys to be around.
Well they'd be choosing a far worse army. What's the problem again?
If the colour you paint your models doesnt matter (and it shouldnt for the most part), then WYSIWYG should also not really matter. And they types of models i.e. non GW, you use should not matter either.
If lists are being points costed correctly and players are not using incorrect equipment then it shouldnt really matter in the end (but it kinda does).
Smirrors wrote: If the colour you paint your models doesnt matter (and it shouldnt for the most part), then WYSIWYG should also not really matter. And they types of models i.e. non GW, you use should not matter either.
If lists are being points costed correctly and players are not using incorrect equipment then it shouldnt really matter in the end (but it kinda does).
I think its a slippery slope to go down.
The difference is the rules do tell you what models to use. The rules don't tell you what colour you have to paint your models. The rules don't enforce WYSIWYG. It's not a slippery slope because the two issues are not connected in the slightest.
Smirrors wrote: If the colour you paint your models doesnt matter (and it shouldnt for the most part), then WYSIWYG should also not really matter. And they types of models i.e. non GW, you use should not matter either.
If lists are being points costed correctly and players are not using incorrect equipment then it shouldnt really matter in the end (but it kinda does).
I think its a slippery slope to go down.
I agree with this in principle. However, I think it is fine to have some stuff in ones army that isn't exactly what it is supposed to be as long as the other player(s) know what it is supposed to be. I definitely agree that playing Iron Hands painted as Ultramarines is within the definition of not WYSIWYG. At the same time, it would be one of the easiest things for me as the opponent to remember, so I don't really see it as an issue from a game playing perspective. And since I don't require WYSIWYG as a condition to play me in anyway, it doesn't bother me too much based on that princple.
Much like I would prefer a player to have painted and completely built models, I would like if they were played as the faction they are painted. The illusion that this is battle happening in the 40k universe is much stronger when that is done. Not doing so feels like it cheapens the hobby to me. And since I don't see the game as all that great, I don't really understand why someone would sacrifice spectacle at the alter of game play in Warhammer 40k. Since spectacle (and a large player base) is really all the game has going for it.
Smirrors wrote: If the colour you paint your models doesnt matter (and it shouldnt for the most part), then WYSIWYG should also not really matter. And they types of models i.e. non GW, you use should not matter either.
For many gaming groups, WYSIWYG and/or the specific models being used don't matter. So I'm not sure what 'slippery slope' you're seeing here. Where the line on appropriate model representation is drawn is different for different players.
Although it's worth pointing out that those things are not all equal. WYSIWYG is considered important by a lot of players because it makes the game considerably less confusing to play. Colour scheme? Not so much - you point out at the start of the game that your blue marines are using Blood Angels rules, and you get on with the game. It's only potentially confusing if you're mixing rules from different books on models painted and modeled identically - which was also the problem with previous edition formations.
It's a sad life to lead, imo of course, to need to constantly get the next hot thing. I get some folk will do so, regardless of it makes sense or even really helps them in the end.
Do I expect someone to lose every game ? No, but I sometimes do I won't say expect, I'll say hope or dream, that someone I play against may actually play the army he likes and not just the one he thinks will always win. When did we get so lazy we can't even expend some extra effort to win with our not new army ?
I mean, if we all just chased what we thought would be the strongest, we'd all be playing one of a couple lists and armies and wouldn't that be amazingly boring.
I honestly don't know why the OP even made the thread other than to say " I'm going to do this, make me not, you won't. " Makes me hope each new marine release is stronger and stronger so those IH become all the other armies in the marine arsenal. At least I can enjoy the sweet suffering of all those rolling their ankles in so quickly switching bandwagons over and over again.
I mean reading the tale of all the marine players switching to IH and then fighting over being salamanders, that sounds just so damn sad for many reasons.
Im considering playing my BA as Ravenguard. My BA feels very much like I pay 15cp turn 1 and hope I kill enough to win right there or I lose in 50% of my matchups. I can do that the same with the RG rules but at a lower cost and use the rest of my points/army to play more like a normal game.
I mostly lose out on having Sanguinary guard and a libby dread but that is fine. I get cheaper and better units, doctrines and cheaper and reworded stratagems.
If they just gave BA the new stratagems and recosted the BA specific ones, the standard doctrines and the same pointcosts everyone else got I wouldnt consider RG. These are things that only need a few lines in a FAQ to fix until BA gets a real supplement/codex. Until then they are just strictly worse than normal marines since they have most of the same movement shenanigans as BA now plus everything else.
I know we're having hagfish soup for lunch today, and you wanted tomato. Just pretend your hagfish mucus is tomato.
There are people who made the successor chapter because they didn't want to make the primogenitor chapter, they were told just use the named character and fluff it out yourself because each chapter has one of these archetype characters. Now they don't. But those players are still sitting on the successor chapter they wanted, and now they're being told just eat the snot and call it tomato.
That is a silly complaint, especially in this specific instance. Nothing changed. Previously they had the exact same rules than Dark Angels, and could use the same characters and only were painted differently. All of this is still true, you only need to write 'Dark Angels' keyword in your armylist.
Now, I really think that successors should have better support and there should be generic chapter masters they could take and equip like they wanted, but that wasn't the case previously either.
Yes it's silly to complain that after years of being told you can have your Angels of Absolution, and here's how you do it, now you're told you can't have your Angels of Absolution anymore, because you can't have these characters or a generic replacement for them so even though you don't want to be Dark Angels, because you want to be something less common, you're... Dark Angels.
Just because it doesn't matter to you, doesn't mean it doesn't matter to someone else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Smirrors wrote: If the colour you paint your models doesnt matter (and it shouldnt for the most part), then WYSIWYG should also not really matter. And they types of models i.e. non GW, you use should not matter either.
If lists are being points costed correctly and players are not using incorrect equipment then it shouldnt really matter in the end (but it kinda does).
I think its a slippery slope to go down.
WYSIWYG flew out the window when they had an edition where space marines didn't by default have grenades, at the same time grenade bits were a modelling option and not built onto the marine body. Nobody was paying for them, and so they weren't spending a lot of time gluing and painting them. Then they became default equipment along with a bolt pistol and/or a CCW which also aren't usually WYSIWYG.
I know we're having hagfish soup for lunch today, and you wanted tomato. Just pretend your hagfish mucus is tomato.
There are people who made the successor chapter because they didn't want to make the primogenitor chapter, they were told just use the named character and fluff it out yourself because each chapter has one of these archetype characters. Now they don't. But those players are still sitting on the successor chapter they wanted, and now they're being told just eat the snot and call it tomato.
That is a silly complaint, especially in this specific instance. Nothing changed. Previously they had the exact same rules than Dark Angels, and could use the same characters and only were painted differently. All of this is still true, you only need to write 'Dark Angels' keyword in your armylist.
Now, I really think that successors should have better support and there should be generic chapter masters they could take and equip like they wanted, but that wasn't the case previously either.
Yes it's silly to complain that after years of being told you can have your Angels of Absolution, and here's how you do it, now you're told you can't have your Angels of Absolution anymore, because you can't have these characters or a generic replacement for them so even though you don't want to be Dark Angels, because you want to be something less common, you're... Dark Angels.
Just because it doesn't matter to you, doesn't mean it doesn't matter to someone else.
Nothing of significance has changed. Angels of Absolution have never had dedicated rules.
WYSIWYG flew out the window when they had an edition where space marines didn't by default have grenades, at the same time grenade bits were a modelling option and not built onto the marine body. Nobody was paying for them, and so they weren't spending a lot of time gluing and painting them. Then they became default equipment along with a bolt pistol and/or a CCW which also aren't usually WYSIWYG.
I always have pistols and grenades on my marines.
I am personally super strict about WYSIWYG, and I'd really prefer if my opponents adhered to it at least regarding bigger pieces of equipment. I also really prefer my opponent to have a painted army. However, I really do not care how it is painted. Some people have chosen their faction long before any subfaction rules existed, and the said rules change with every codex anyway. It just is not fair to force people to play in a playstyle they might not enjoy or to use substandard rules just because they couldn't magically know what those rules would be when they chose their colour scheme years ago. And often these rules do a poor job reflecting the fluff anyway. Catachans is one of the best regiments for tank heavy armies and if you want a mobile marine chapter both Ultramarines and Iron Hands do it better than White Scars.
Crimson wrote: I am personally super strict about WYSIWYG, and I'd really prefer if my opponents adhered to it at least regarding bigger pieces of equipment. I also really prefer my opponent to have a painted army. However, I really do not care how it is painted. Some people have chosen their faction long before any subfaction rules existed, and the said rules change with every codex anyway. It just is not fair to force people to play in a playstyle they might not enjoy or to use substandard rules just because they couldn't magically know what those rules would be when they chose their colour scheme years ago. And often these rules do a poor job reflecting the fluff anyway. Catachans is one of the best regiments for tank heavy armies and if you want a mobile marine chapter both Ultramarines and Iron Hands do it better than White Scars.
Smirrors wrote: If the colour you paint your models doesnt matter (and it shouldnt for the most part), then WYSIWYG should also not really matter. And they types of models i.e. non GW, you use should not matter either.
If lists are being points costed correctly and players are not using incorrect equipment then it shouldnt really matter in the end (but it kinda does).
I think its a slippery slope to go down.
alright, tell me what the color scheme of the Lucius Forgeworld for admech is like without googling it. Chances are, you didnt know unless you're an admech player.
Now, tell me which gun is a plasma gun and which gun is a grav cannon in my kataphron squad. Chances are , you knew which were which.
Thats the difference between color scheme and WYSIWYG.
Then again, WYSIWYG becomes less obvious for more obscure armies (non imperium basically). Can you tell what the difference is between a splinter pistol and a stinger pistol? or between a splinter cannon and a dark lance. Or between any tyranids gun.
WYSIWYG is only important so that you can easily keep track of what each model in your army is equipped with. For example, since plasma calivers are a pain to find, i often run my arc rifle as one, i just tell my opponent "all non-radium carbine holders have plasma" or something like that. Rubberbands are also a possibility.
"Forcing" people to only play whatever chapter/forgeworld/sept/dynasty because of the color they picked isnt a thing i want to see applied to the game. If a noob paints his marines as Ultras because thats what marketed all over but later on figures out that white scars are closer to how he wants to play, telling him that he can`t unless he repaints them would make you TFG.
What if GW spreads rumors that they are OP, people start stacking up on red/orange and yellow paints. GW hypes stuff even more, promising pwng of untold proportions. People start killing each other to get the pre orders of the books, and then GW shows the actual doctrin and it lets units re-roll 1s as long as the target unit is inside a fortification.
That's why Alpha Legion is the best faction to play.
Has been amongst the best Chaos Traits for the entire edition and has a lore friendly excuse to switch sides when GW breaks the Astartes balance in the game.
Eldarain wrote: That's why Alpha Legion is the best faction to play.
Has been amongst the best Chaos Traits for the entire edition and has a lore friendly excuse to switch sides when GW breaks the Astartes balance in the game.
So, for all you bandwagon jumpers out there. You're welcome, just play Alpha legion, then no matter who is the best, guess what ? You're the best now ! Easy, and fluffy.
AngryAngel80 wrote: So, for all you bandwagon jumpers out there. You're welcome, just play Alpha legion, then no matter who is the best, guess what ? You're the best now ! Easy, and fluffy.
Karol wrote: I wonder what happens if someone is colour blind, like my uncle, and accidently paints his models all red instead of blue.
Just having Blue Space Marines doesn't make you an Ultramarine, any more than Black Space Marines makes you Raven Guard/Iron Hands. Just the block colour scheme isn't enough to say "look, they're clearly XYZ Chapter!" - it's the iconography that would do that for me.
You've got a blue Space Marine? That's a blue Space Marine. Got a Space Marine with the white Ultima symbol? That's a Space Marine with the ultima symbol. You've got a blue Space Marine with a white Ultima symbol? That's an Ultramarine. Colour blindness doesn't stop you from putting down an existing Chapter badge.
Karol wrote: I wonder what happens if someone is colour blind, like my uncle, and accidently paints his models all red instead of blue.
Just having Blue Space Marines doesn't make you an Ultramarine, any more than Black Space Marines makes you Raven Guard/Iron Hands. Just the block colour scheme isn't enough to say "look, they're clearly XYZ Chapter!" - it's the iconography that would do that for me.
You've got a blue Space Marine? That's a blue Space Marine. Got a Space Marine with the white Ultima symbol? That's a Space Marine with the ultima symbol. You've got a blue Space Marine with a white Ultima symbol? That's an Ultramarine. Colour blindness doesn't stop you from putting down an existing Chapter badge.
Except my dudes aren't Ultramarines, they are The Marines Ultra, a chapter that got lost in the bureaucracy of the Imperium and were missing in the warp for 8,000 years, who coincidentally have a similar looking Heraldry.
Karol wrote: I wonder what happens if someone is colour blind, like my uncle, and accidently paints his models all red instead of blue.
Just having Blue Space Marines doesn't make you an Ultramarine, any more than Black Space Marines makes you Raven Guard/Iron Hands. Just the block colour scheme isn't enough to say "look, they're clearly XYZ Chapter!" - it's the iconography that would do that for me.
You've got a blue Space Marine? That's a blue Space Marine. Got a Space Marine with the white Ultima symbol? That's a Space Marine with the ultima symbol. You've got a blue Space Marine with a white Ultima symbol? That's an Ultramarine. Colour blindness doesn't stop you from putting down an existing Chapter badge.
Except my dudes aren't Ultramarines, they are The Marines Ultra, a chapter that got lost in the bureaucracy of the Imperium and were missing in the warp for 8,000 years, who coincidentally have a similar looking Heraldry.
They might not be Ultramarines, but they certainly look like them, which is my point. If they're using the same iconography as Ultramarines (say, having a Greco-Roman design and literally having the words 'Ultramarines' on their banners), there's a bit of a difference.
Just blue and ultima symbol, sure, you *could* weasel a different version out. But if I'm seeing something that outright refers to Ultramarines specifically, then I'm sorry, those are models painted as Ultramarines. I still can't force you into playing them actually as Ultramarines if you insist otherwise, but I'm also not going to be overly fond on playing someone with an obvious Chapter who's jumping between the flavours of the month, because that's not an attitude of play which I like to have anything to do with personally. You're welcome to do it, I won't say you're wrong, but I will say I don't want any part in it.
Karol wrote: I wonder what happens if someone is colour blind, like my uncle, and accidently paints his models all red instead of blue.
Just having Blue Space Marines doesn't make you an Ultramarine, any more than Black Space Marines makes you Raven Guard/Iron Hands. Just the block colour scheme isn't enough to say "look, they're clearly XYZ Chapter!" - it's the iconography that would do that for me.
You've got a blue Space Marine? That's a blue Space Marine. Got a Space Marine with the white Ultima symbol? That's a Space Marine with the ultima symbol. You've got a blue Space Marine with a white Ultima symbol? That's an Ultramarine. Colour blindness doesn't stop you from putting down an existing Chapter badge.
Except my dudes aren't Ultramarines, they are The Marines Ultra, a chapter that got lost in the bureaucracy of the Imperium and were missing in the warp for 8,000 years, who coincidentally have a similar looking Heraldry.
They might not be Ultramarines, but they certainly look like them, which is my point. If they're using the same iconography as Ultramarines (say, having a Greco-Roman design and literally having the words 'Ultramarines' on their banners), there's a bit of a difference.
Just blue and ultima symbol, sure, you *could* weasel a different version out. But if I'm seeing something that outright refers to Ultramarines specifically, then I'm sorry, those are models painted as Ultramarines. I still can't force you into playing them actually as Ultramarines if you insist otherwise, but I'm also not going to be overly fond on playing someone with an obvious Chapter who's jumping between the flavours of the month, because that's not an attitude of play which I like to have anything to do with personally. You're welcome to do it, I won't say you're wrong, but I will say I don't want any part in it.
If you refuse to play them, it's you who are in the wrong, not them, IMHO. They are not breaking any rules, and you refusing to play them for not breaking any rules is, IMHO, a poor reflection on your attitude.
Karol wrote: I wonder what happens if someone is colour blind, like my uncle, and accidently paints his models all red instead of blue.
Just having Blue Space Marines doesn't make you an Ultramarine, any more than Black Space Marines makes you Raven Guard/Iron Hands. Just the block colour scheme isn't enough to say "look, they're clearly XYZ Chapter!" - it's the iconography that would do that for me.
You've got a blue Space Marine? That's a blue Space Marine. Got a Space Marine with the white Ultima symbol? That's a Space Marine with the ultima symbol. You've got a blue Space Marine with a white Ultima symbol? That's an Ultramarine. Colour blindness doesn't stop you from putting down an existing Chapter badge.
Wait a minute, people actualy paint chapter symbols on their models like for real? why would they you can get black or white colour as part of obligatory 5 colours by using on something less hard to paint.
Simple they go faster
I don't get it, how does being blue make them faster?
Wait a minute, people actualy paint chapter symbols on their models like for real? why would they you can get black or white colour as part of obligatory 5 colours by using on something less hard to paint.
Because Space Marines are supposed to have chapter symbols... I really don't understand your point. Granted, with a chapter which is provided with transfers in every marine set it is easier to use those.
I don't get it, how does being blue make them faster?
BaconCatBug wrote:If you refuse to play them, it's you who are in the wrong, not them, IMHO. They are not breaking any rules, and you refusing to play them for not breaking any rules is, IMHO, a poor reflection on your attitude.
I don't believe I implied any differently. Yeah, they're not breaking any rules, and in certain situations, wouldn't even be considered slightly taboo or sketchy. However, in other playgroups, doing that would be a bit of a faux pas, and wouldn't be part of that group's playstyle.
What I do disagree with is your implication that refusing to play someone is a bad thing. I'm not obliged to, or expected, to play anyone I don't feel like I'd enjoy playing, and being mature enough to say "hey man, I don't think I'd enjoy this game, but don't let that stop you having a game with someone else, have a good day!" isn't an attitude problem in the slightest. You can disagree with my opinion on how you play painted models as another subfaction (which is cool, difference in opinion is fine), but to say I have a bad attitude if I did refuse to play someone I personally wouldn't enjoy playing against smacks of moral superiority.
There's no rules saying my opponent has to be respectful and at least slightly hygienic, but would you really say I had a bad attitude if I chose not to play someone who was disrespectful and hadn't showered in several weeks? No, because I'm not obliged to play someone I don't think I'd enjoy playing.
Karol wrote:Wait a minute, people actualy paint chapter symbols on their models like for real? why would they you can get black or white colour as part of obligatory 5 colours by using on something less hard to paint.
Because some people prefer their models to look more like what GW's models do, and because Space Marines are supposed to have Chapter symbols. Again, I'm assuming you're mostly in a tourney-heavy environment where most people care more about fulfilling the obligatory 5 colours to avoid being unpainted over creating nice looking models (not that that's mutually exclusive!), but there's a not-insubstantial portion of the hobby who prefer the painting and appearance of their army over just getting them tournament-ready.
Simple they go faster
I don't get it, how does being blue make them faster?
It's an Ork meme. Orks claim that things painted red move faster than things that are not painted red, and because of the Ork power of belief, they actually do. There used to be a wargear upgrade for Ork vehicles that, if they had a Red Paint Job, they got 1" more movement.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: What I do disagree with is your implication that refusing to play someone is a bad thing.
That is not what I was implying. Refusing to play someone for a legitimate reason is fine. That you disagree with their paint-job is not a legitimate reason.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: What I do disagree with is your implication that refusing to play someone is a bad thing.
That is not what I was implying. Refusing to play someone for a legitimate reason is fine. That you disagree with their paint-job is not a legitimate reason.
And you're the arbiter on what's a legitimate reason? I think not.
Is there a rulebook for that?
(Not only that, but you also misrepresent my issue rather spectacularly. There's nothing wrong with with how they've painted their models - but ignoring how their models are presented in order to claim more powerful rules is not something I personally enjoy in my opponents. It smacks of prioritising playing to win over creating a narrative, more relaxed game, and while I'm not going to claim for a second that wanting to play a 'playing to win' game is wrong/bad/inferior at all, it's not how *I* want to play, and I have every right to not play a game like that. Tell me, how is that illegitimate?)
Its sad that Marines cant play different playstyles well if they chose the wrong chapter. Doi really have to buy and paint new models if I want to play an effective list with a bunch of vehicles just because those I have are painted like BA. Other armies except marines can change their rules to fit a certain playstyle so why cant marines?
According to the rules BA vehicles are just complete trash but in lore they arent way way worse than any other chapter. Forcing BA to play with bad vehicles while the IH player who choose the right colors will automaticaly crush BA with the same vehicle list is absurd.
It would be one thing if it was just a small difference in a unit or so but when you have chapter tactics, doctrines, traits, relics, stratagems and psychic powers that all enhace certain playstyles it isnt just choosing flavor of the month. Its more choosing rules that fit what you want with your list.
Like guard go catachan if you want melee Infantry brigade with artillery. Cadian if you want pask and tank commanders. Certain rules for certain playstyles. No one would expect the guard player to use different models and colors depending on what regiment rules they use.
And if going for a fluff reason to use different rules then its easy. Almost every chapter follows the codex and they are all trained in various ways. Their chapter rules is just what style they prefer and not just what they can do. All chapters know how to hunker down in defensive positions and just range fire upon their enemies if that is what is needed. Or go fast and stealthy. Or run them over with landraiders. They adapt as needed in the lore so why is it so hard to accept on the table top?
GW should just have named the Iron Hands supplement "Guillimans guide to mechanized warfare in 41st millenia" and then on page 1 said that this is the best selling of all the great primarchs works in the Iron Hand chapter and they all have this book on their night desk. They really loved it but every marine is forced to read it during their education/indoctrination so not just Iron Hands can fight like this. And then do the same with the other supplement too. Perhaps just keep the unique characters really unique but not the actual playstyle locked behind a paint scheme.
It is just elitist gate keeping that has nothing to do with fluff. Citing background is just a bad excuse since having BA not being able to use vehicles correctly is more against the background than using the BA models with codex space marine rules.
Klickor wrote: Its sad that Marines cant play different playstyles well if they chose the wrong chapter. Doi really have to buy and paint new models if I want to play an effective list with a bunch of vehicles just because those I have are painted like BA. Other armies except marines can change their rules to fit a certain playstyle so why cant marines?
I don't think there's anything that stops you from having different playstyles if you play the slightly less optimised Chapter.
Just because my Marines are Ultramarines doesn't mean I can't take the same units (barring special characters, of course!) as an Iron Hands player. I'll just have slightly different rules, but I still have that same playstyle.
Just because I'm not Raven Guard doesn't mean I can't take a stealth focused Infiltrators and Scout-heavy list.
Now, if you want that list to be marginally more effective? Well, then it's not about a different playstyle, it's about winning, which as I've said, there's nothing wrong with, but I don't want that to be the objective of games I play, so I'd rather avoid that personally where I can.
Its not just marginaly more effective in the current edition. Taking a vehicle heavy BA list compared to a IH version of the same list. Sure we both have vehicles but one is able to make the vehicles work while the other player tries. The playstyle just doesnt work for BA if you actually want to have a fair game. We could probably make some mirror lists that the IH version would have an above 95% win rate against the exact same BA list. Can you really say BA plays that playstyle then? It tries but thats about it. It should be able to and I have used vehicles with my BA in earlier editions quite well but they really suck right now. But back then the difference was also minimal between the same units from different chapters. Now not every chapter can do multiple roles well anymore so better just see the different rules as different doctrines they all know but certain chapters favor.
Klickor wrote: Its sad that Marines cant play different playstyles well if they chose the wrong chapter. Doi really have to buy and paint new models if I want to play an effective list with a bunch of vehicles just because those I have are painted like BA. Other armies except marines can change their rules to fit a certain playstyle so why cant marines?
I don't think there's anything that stops you from having different playstyles if you play the slightly less optimised Chapter.
Just because my Marines are Ultramarines doesn't mean I can't take the same units (barring special characters, of course!) as an Iron Hands player. I'll just have slightly different rules, but I still have that same playstyle.
Just because I'm not Raven Guard doesn't mean I can't take a stealth focused Infiltrators and Scout-heavy list.
Now, if you want that list to be marginally more effective? Well, then it's not about a different playstyle, it's about winning, which as I've said, there's nothing wrong with, but I don't want that to be the objective of games I play, so I'd rather avoid that personally where I can.
Also blood angels are a literal separate army, it's not a supplement, or a change of chapter tactics, that's a full book change.
After seeing the supplements I cant really see much of a difference than if it were just another supplement. Wouldnt have to contain much more than the UM one. Sure BA can have a few extra weapons on crap units than the other chapters but that isnt enough to be count as completely separate. I could right now play a list without any BA specific stuff and just by changing the rules and not a single model the list would be much better. I couldnt change it to guard or eldar but 90% of my models would work fine in any marine list. Especially since only 15 of my non BA specific models actually have BA insignias.
UM and BA have close to the same amount of unique rules so them being a different book altogether is mostly semantics. BA have way more common than not with the other chapters and its even weird that one of those things is something that Salamanders should have and that is more flamer/melta options. Normal marines should just have that as well. Then BA wouldnt even have to have special options for the normal units and just for DC, SG, special characters and librarian dread. Perfect for a suppliment.
Klickor wrote: After seeing the supplements I cant really see much of a difference than if it were just another supplement. Wouldnt have to contain much more than the UM one. Sure BA can have a few extra weapons on crap units than the other chapters but that isnt enough to be count as completely separate. I could right now play a list without any BA specific stuff and just by changing the rules and not a single model the list would be much better. I couldnt change it to guard or eldar but 90% of my models would work fine in any marine list. Especially since only 15 of my non BA specific models actually have BA insignias.
UM and BA have close to the same amount of unique rules so them being a different book altogether is mostly semantics. BA have way more common than not with the other chapters and its even weird that one of those things is something that Salamanders should have and that is more flamer/melta options. Normal marines should just have that as well. Then BA wouldnt even have to have special options for the normal units and just for DC, SG, special characters and librarian dread. Perfect for a suppliment.
It's literally always been this way but these supplements exacerbate the problem even more. With drastic differences in power level. GW just wants to make money. There is no reason other than money that marines shouldn't just be 1 book.
My marines, we'll call them Alpha Hydra Winnicus marines. They have a troubled founding, despite the color of their armor, they constantly evolve to become the perfect killing machines of war.
Evolving upon assimilating the flesh of the fallen, who have better ability than them. They use the sense memory to evolve into their tactics, reverse engineer their technology and relics and even assimilate their characters through stolen gene seed and extensive psycho indoctrination.
Hard to pin down or point out, they infiltrate whole battle companies replacing it man by man, till what once was Ultramarines, becomes Iron hands, becomes Imperial fists or salamanders. Bodies and talents drifting over to be impossible to pick out from the real deal.
They can't be an inferior fighter, it's all in the genes and they adapt to handle any situation. Never staying as one force too long, they stalk the mighty astrates and stay a phantom threat to all marine forces, both loyal and heretic, all fear, the chameleon forces of Alpha Hydra Winnicus, the true terrors of the far future. The only real perfection of the emperors vision for his sons.
Klickor wrote: Its sad that Marines cant play different playstyles well if they chose the wrong chapter. Doi really have to buy and paint new models if I want to play an effective list with a bunch of vehicles just because those I have are painted like BA. Other armies except marines can change their rules to fit a certain playstyle so why cant marines?
I don't think there's anything that stops you from having different playstyles if you play the slightly less optimised Chapter.
Just because my Marines are Ultramarines doesn't mean I can't take the same units (barring special characters, of course!) as an Iron Hands player. I'll just have slightly different rules, but I still have that same playstyle.
Just because I'm not Raven Guard doesn't mean I can't take a stealth focused Infiltrators and Scout-heavy list.
Now, if you want that list to be marginally more effective? Well, then it's not about a different playstyle, it's about winning, which as I've said, there's nothing wrong with, but I don't want that to be the objective of games I play, so I'd rather avoid that personally where I can.
Also blood angels are a literal separate army, it's not a supplement, or a change of chapter tactics, that's a full book change.
And I've been over why Blood and Dark Angels need to be consolidated, and the bad balancing as "separate" armies is the reason.
Karol wrote: I wonder what happens if someone is colour blind, like my uncle, and accidently paints his models all red instead of blue.
Just having Blue Space Marines doesn't make you an Ultramarine, any more than Black Space Marines makes you Raven Guard/Iron Hands. Just the block colour scheme isn't enough to say "look, they're clearly XYZ Chapter!" - it's the iconography that would do that for me.
You've got a blue Space Marine? That's a blue Space Marine. Got a Space Marine with the white Ultima symbol? That's a Space Marine with the ultima symbol. You've got a blue Space Marine with a white Ultima symbol? That's an Ultramarine. Colour blindness doesn't stop you from putting down an existing Chapter badge.
Except my dudes aren't Ultramarines, they are The Marines Ultra, a chapter that got lost in the bureaucracy of the Imperium and were missing in the warp for 8,000 years, who coincidentally have a similar looking Heraldry.
They might not be Ultramarines, but they certainly look like them, which is my point. If they're using the same iconography as Ultramarines (say, having a Greco-Roman design and literally having the words 'Ultramarines' on their banners), there's a bit of a difference.
Just blue and ultima symbol, sure, you *could* weasel a different version out. But if I'm seeing something that outright refers to Ultramarines specifically, then I'm sorry, those are models painted as Ultramarines. I still can't force you into playing them actually as Ultramarines if you insist otherwise, but I'm also not going to be overly fond on playing someone with an obvious Chapter who's jumping between the flavours of the month, because that's not an attitude of play which I like to have anything to do with personally. You're welcome to do it, I won't say you're wrong, but I will say I don't want any part in it.
TBH it'd be one thing if Ultramarines rules where just paints on head bad (it's hard to blame word bearers players from using a differant CT) but Ultramarines are one of the best Marine chapters out there. so using Iron Hands instead in this case is going to come off as a little bit of power gaming yeah.
There is one good thing now with Dark and Blood angels having their own books. You'd imagine if GW was the lazy gits we know them to be, they'd not bump up the point costs blood and dark angel marine vehicles if they do indeed do that to vanilla marine vehicles because of iron hands.
Makes it harder to do balancing unit by unit with all these supplements off the same book when they are flailing the power scale so far. Unless they point value the chapter tactics by chapter. Which might make some sense at this point if they were actually seeking any kind of real balance. Which, I mean I assume they aren't.
So there, hopefully Blood and Dark Angels might get some cheaper stuff in the long run ? Maybe some more expensive as well though you know you never see those point cost reductions ever reach the off shoot books outside of CA drops.
I just don't know how they can ever balance it all even if they make all the chapters in one book with how wildly varied the abilities of some groups would be interacting with certain units otherwise. The bad balancing from different books came usually from them hating to update them when standard gear changed. If they could just maybe, I dunno, drop all the marines in a few months of each other it would be fine.
We all know they want the different marine codex drops though as they went beyond the call to add even more books out there, just call them supplements for the illusion of optional but if you play those factions I doubt they feel optional at all.
I mean give it up to GW, I know I thought it was pretty cheap when the last marine codex came out so expensive. Then they drop this one, cheaper, but a slew of additional books cost even more and make it seem like a boon. They are evolving.
AngryAngel80 wrote: There is one good thing now with Dark and Blood angels having their own books. You'd imagine if GW was the lazy gits we know them to be, they'd not bump up the point costs blood and dark angel marine vehicles if they do indeed do that to vanilla marine vehicles because of iron hands.
Makes it harder to do balancing unit by unit with all these supplements off the same book when they are flailing the power scale so far. Unless they point value the chapter tactics by chapter. Which might make some sense at this point if they were actually seeking any kind of real balance. Which, I mean I assume they aren't.
So there, hopefully Blood and Dark Angels might get some cheaper stuff in the long run ? Maybe some more expensive as well though you know you never see those point cost reductions ever reach the off shoot books outside of CA drops.
I just don't know how they can ever balance it all even if they make all the chapters in one book with how wildly varied the abilities of some groups would be interacting with certain units otherwise. The bad balancing from different books came usually from them hating to update them when standard gear changed. If they could just maybe, I dunno, drop all the marines in a few months of each other it would be fine.
We all know they want the different marine codex drops though as they went beyond the call to add even more books out there, just call them supplements for the illusion of optional but if you play those factions I doubt they feel optional at all.
I mean give it up to GW, I know I thought it was pretty cheap when the last marine codex came out so expensive. Then they drop this one, cheaper, but a slew of additional books cost even more and make it seem like a boon. They are evolving.
The separation is very much for no reason though and creates differences that make no sense. You mean to tell me that Blood Angels in the entirety of their existence never had access to Thunderfire Cannons? Dark Angels for whatever reason never had Special Issue Bolters for their Vets? The Ultramarines never had Frag Cannons for their Dreads?
I agree with you in part slayer, I do. However that said, it isn't done for a balance reason it's done for a greed reason. It gives them so many colors of marines to drop all through the years to stir up hype.
Place special units, with special colors and force people to double and triple down on the same units for different types of marines.
It's all done to keep marine drops happening, and to try and force people to get multiple marine armies. Much as the supplements are out there to have people spend hundreds of dollars on all the marine books, when just one should have been enough. It's all about money and not about balance.
A {simple} fix to this that'd avoid re-costing everything over 4+ codices would be to simply attach a single points value to running a sub-faction.
They already have this going on over in AoS with the various War Scroll battalions.
For those not fluent in AoS, War scroll Battalions specify that they're comprised of x units & then give one or more bonuses to those units. Each WSB has a set pts value. some more expensive than others.
For example; My Brass Stampede (from Blades of Khorne) costs 140 pts, consists of 0-1 Lord of Khorne on a Juggernaut & 3 - 7 units of Mighty Skullcrushers. Their Murderous Charge gets upgraded to Obliterating Charge.
They could {easily} adapt this to 40k.
Space Marine detachment list using only the base codex - pts as listed.
Make them:
Ultra-Marines for +x pts/Power Lv
White scars for _____ pts/Power Lv
Ravenguard for _____ pts/Power Lv
Iron Hands for _____ pts/Power Lv
Salamanders for _____ pts/Power Lv
Imperial Fists for _____ pts/Power Lv
* List a few things each of these MUST include in order to present the flavor of the force.
* Some of these Chapters will end up being more expensive than others....
* Give a discounted price if the force is a successor chapter as those won't have access to the named characters/possibly some wargear or relics of their parent chapter.
** Dark angels/Blood Angels/Space Wolves/Grey Knights - pts as listed in their respective codices as these guys differ significantly.
Klickor wrote:Its not just marginaly more effective in the current edition. Taking a vehicle heavy BA list compared to a IH version of the same list. Sure we both have vehicles but one is able to make the vehicles work while the other player tries. The playstyle just doesnt work for BA if you actually want to have a fair game. We could probably make some mirror lists that the IH version would have an above 95% win rate against the exact same BA list. Can you really say BA plays that playstyle then? It tries but thats about it. It should be able to and I have used vehicles with my BA in earlier editions quite well but they really suck right now. But back then the difference was also minimal between the same units from different chapters. Now not every chapter can do multiple roles well anymore so better just see the different rules as different doctrines they all know but certain chapters favor.
Favour, yes, but it's not like you can't have a vehicle-heavy list at all. For me, playstyle largely comes down to basic demographics, largely like how the 30k Rites of War are organised, and as a result, no, I don't think that Chapter Tactics should be a factor in "I want to play this style of list", because you could just mirror match, as you say.
Maybe they'll be a percentage more powerful, but I personally would rather be playing my army how they're painted instead of what will make them stronger. I'm not going to pretend that what I'd do is the "right" way, or that the other is the "wrong" way, but if there's that kind of ideological difference in what we want from the game, we probably shouldn't play together, in all respect and amiability.
BrianDavion wrote:TBH it'd be one thing if Ultramarines rules where just paints on head bad (it's hard to blame word bearers players from using a differant CT) but Ultramarines are one of the best Marine chapters out there. so using Iron Hands instead in this case is going to come off as a little bit of power gaming yeah.
In all fairness, you do have a point on that. The fact that they're switching out to what's considered a more powerful Chapter is a large factor in this.
It's not to say that I'd be completely totally fine with clearly marked 'Ultramarines' playing as a hypothetically 'worse' Chapter (let's just say White Scars, just for the sake of discussion), but at least they're not doing it to chase the meta. It's mostly the meta chasing I wish to avoid (completely as a personal preference, not going to say that it's wrong or bad), so someone switching to what's considered the Flavour of the Month just feels like their priority is "I want to win with my models" instead of "I want to play with my models", which would be a clash with my own.
I only changed the Cult Creed the first game because it heavily affects Marines (Primaris Bolt Rifles mostly) that I didn't want to feel like I was faction tailoring especially since that first game was against a new-ish player with a Primaris heavy list.
like for real? why would they you can get black or white colour as part of obligatory 5 colours by using on something less hard to paint.