So I've been pretty loyal to my Ultramarines for a few years now and I've wanted to invest in some form of an armored force, really easy for my guard army, not so much for Codex: Space Marines.

We have access to Rhinos, Razorbacks, Predators, Whirlwinds, and Vindicators.

Max I could field is a bunch of Rhinos/Razorbacks with 3 of the other guys (Vindicators in my case). Just does not seem as emph-tastic as it feels when I unload a bunch of tanks with my Imperial Guard.

So I approached my play group with the question, "Hey, Grey Knights and Blood Angels have Storm Ravens, would anyone mind if I used these with my Codex: Space Marines army?"

One guy already runs a modified Salamanders Fandex which allows him to use a single Storm Raven but the group was more than reluctant to say "Hey sure!" So I figured I could just buy the Blood Angels codex, get the Storm Ravens, get the Baal Predators, paint em my army color, and when I wanted to use them I'd just whip out that codex and run my army from that, when I did not want to use a heavy armor list back to the normal codex I go.

The issue that arises (and I've seen some flame wars over the interwebs about it) is people refusing to play against someone, in this case myself, who runs one army paint scheme but with another army's book. I've heard of Raven Guard doing this because of the assault marine troop choice via Blood Angels and in my case all of my stuff is Ultramarines scheme.

I am pretty understanding of proxies, fandexing, sliding on WYSIWYG, and so forth because, so long as someone is not omitting those things to cheat in some way, I am simply happy to actually be playing.

Anyways, just wanted to get some feedback from the DakkaDakka community, waiting on my TRU scale Chapter House kits to get here before I build the ravens and in the mean time figured I could get some input, heck, maybe even get some suggestions for easing the transition with the play group.

I personally don't feel that it should be a problem I know it wouldn't be for me. If you are just clear about how things are I think alot of people are just like you and want to play. And it doesn't sound like you are going to be proxying half your army just to try something thats more powerful or cheesy so most people should be understanding especially if you have been playing with them awhile.

It's hard to see what the alternative would be for alot of players, if they want to stay even a little bit competitive. I'm for it.

Not a problem, as long as it's as close to WYSIWYG.

I run Iron Warriors using the vanilla SM book and SW book, depending on the list. I've never had anyone have a problem with it.

A buddy of mine actually does this with the grey knights codex. He loves ultras so he paints his flying dumpsters... Er i mean Stormravens in Ultramarine colors. So i would allow it. You dont have to paint them by the book.

I don't really mind WYSIWYGs and proxying, being lenient etc.
But you're essentially taking a unit from one codex and adding it to another...have to say, I probably wouldn't be cool with that.
But yeah if you wanted to use your Ultramarines as a counts-as Blood Angels, that'd be totally cool.

The birth of the Ultra Angels?

Ahem. Anyway, I don't see any problems with it. My brother's blood angels often play stand-in for other codices.

Not a fan generally unless it's something really well done. For example, I had the idea of a World Eaters army using Berserkers on Juggernauts of Khorne. It would be counts-as Space Wolves, with the Juggernaut riders being TWC. Then there's some folks here who have more than one company of Marines, and will use Deathwing rules for the first company, Blood Angels rules for the assault companies, and so on. Both of these examples sound good to me. When someone codex hops to whichever codex is newest, then that gets lame. I'm not interested in your Dark Angels counts-as Chaos Marines who were then counts-as Space Marines, Space Wolves, and are now Blood Angels.

I don't like it. I'm not as hard-line on this any more as I once was, but I think the rules for each codex are written to represent the abilities of the chapters they are written for. Ultramarines don't use nemesis force halbereds, nor are they all psykers.

Using Grey Knight or Blood Angel rules to play Ultramarines is, to me, no different to using Necron rules to play Orks. Yes, it is more easily identifiable what is supposed to be what in the first case, but it is still using the wrong rules.

Also, it reeks of cheese and wanting to use the "best", ie most competetive rules for your models.

If you just simply love the Storm Raven model and desperately want a blue one, just ask your gaming group if they'd mind houseruling that you can use one with the normal codex Space Marines. If I were your opponent, I'd let you do that, but I'd not like to play blue Blood Angels or Grey knights with Ultramarine symbols.

It's all about the DBAGs you play. If it was me? I'd be "go for it man" but thats just my FLGS.. Paint it paint, the model underneath is the same. Would they throw up the same arguement for non painted models? if they do then they suck.

Skylifter wrote:
If you just simply love the Storm Raven model and desperately want a blue one, just ask your gaming group if they'd mind houseruling that you can use one with the normal codex Space Marines. If I were your opponent, I'd let you do that, but I'd not like to play blue Blood Angels or Grey knights with Ultramarine symbols.

No disrespect, we're all entitled to our opinions, but I'm on the exact opposite page as Skylifter. I would be ok with you playing your ultramarines using the blood angels or grey knight codex and including a blue storm raven, but I'd not like to play against a house ruled storm raven using C:SM.

Edit: Maybe I'd be ok with a house ruled storm raven for C:SM in an occasional friendly match but probably not regularly and never competitively.

GreatGunz wrote:It's hard to see what the alternative would be for alot of players, if they want to stay even a little bit competitive. I'm for it.

While I understand the point you are making it differs for me slightly. I am not using the Blood Angels codex with my Ultramarines to be competitive, it is simply to play stuff I otherwise would not be able to play. I was actually hoping to got to Myrtle Beach for the tournament down there in May (not looking good, the group does not seem to wanna go) and my list was pure Ultramarines (C:SM) 3x Vindicators, 3x Ironclads with drop pods, and the rest of the compulsory, would have been a lot of fun as well. Bottom line is, I want to try some different units, vehicles, perhaps a change of pace, been running the same stuff for quite awhile.

Skylifter wrote:I don't like it. I'm not as hard-line on this any more as I once was, but I think the rules for each codex are written to represent the abilities of the chapters they are written for. Ultramarines don't use nemesis force halbereds, nor are they all psykers.

Using Grey Knight or Blood Angel rules to play Ultramarines is, to me, no different to using Necron rules to play Orks. Yes, it is more easily identifiable what is supposed to be what in the first case, but it is still using the wrong rules.

Also, it reeks of cheese and wanting to use the "best", ie most competetive rules for your models.

If you just simply love the Storm Raven model and desperately want a blue one, just ask your gaming group if they'd mind houseruling that you can use one with the normal codex Space Marines. If I were your opponent, I'd let you do that, but I'd not like to play blue Blood Angels or Grey knights with Ultramarine symbols.

As stated above they all but declined when I asked, to prevent the issue I just went and got the codex that would let me use it. Furthermore, if I was in it for the cheese I'd have done this years ago after getting my head kicked in weeks on end by Blood Angels verses Ultramarines. Finally, what difference does it make how they are painted so long as they are indeed painted? If you've got a second take a look at my gallery, my Ultramarine tactical squads look good, in my opinion, and are already clad in a portion of Blood Angel stuff (the action poses of the Death Company models were hard to resist, I like my models looking like they are running when the drop pods hit the table).

Brother SRM wrote:Not a fan generally unless it's something really well done. For example, I had the idea of a World Eaters army using Berserkers on Juggernauts of Khorne. It would be counts-as Space Wolves, with the Juggernaut riders being TWC. Then there's some folks here who have more than one company of Marines, and will use Deathwing rules for the first company, Blood Angels rules for the assault companies, and so on. Both of these examples sound good to me. When someone codex hops to whichever codex is newest, then that gets lame. I'm not interested in your Dark Angels counts-as Chaos Marines who were then counts-as Space Marines, Space Wolves, and are now Blood Angels.

This I can certainly understand, but as stated above, if I was doing it for the cheese, I'd have done it a long time ago.

haendas wrote:

Skylifter wrote:
If you just simply love the Storm Raven model and desperately want a blue one, just ask your gaming group if they'd mind houseruling that you can use one with the normal codex Space Marines. If I were your opponent, I'd let you do that, but I'd not like to play blue Blood Angels or Grey knights with Ultramarine symbols.

No disrespect, we're all entitled to our opinions, but I'm on the exact opposite page as Skylifter. I would be ok with you playing your ultramarines using the blood angels or grey knight codex and including a blue storm raven, but I'd not like to play against a house ruled storm raven using C:SM.

Edit: Maybe I'd be ok with a house ruled storm raven for C:SM in an occasional friendly match but probably not regularly and never competitively.

Definitely entitled to the opinion and this is why I asked my group first. If they were fine with it I'd have just got the Ravens and been done with it, they were not really cool so I got the Ravens, some dreadnoughts, and some Baal Predators along with a Blood Angels codex, when I wanna run that stuff I'll whip that codex out, when I don't I'll stick to the C:SM.

Abyssel wrote:It's all about the DBAGs you play. If it was me? I'd be "go for it man" but thats just my FLGS.. Paint it paint, the model underneath is the same. Would they throw up the same arguement for non painted models? if they do then they suck.

I see your point, if my C:SM army was not finished and I'd been running it for several years, then chose to use those same models WYSIWYG out of another codex I think anyone would catch more flack for flavor of the month than someone who had a painted army and was making a partial shift for different gameplay.

Thanks for the comments folks, a lot less flaming than I expected. I would like to note, however, that all of my models will be WYSIWYG as close as possible (combi-melta or two missing on an Sgt. or something, but the arm pointing looked so much cooler with his pose >.< In addition to this my tactical squads were all made using 5 Death Company kits and 1 assault squad kit. To the best of my abilities I shaved off the Blood Angels iconography but left the X symbol, looks really cool to me. I'd worked on a custom chapter for awhile (Fandex) but gave up on the rules, all I kept was my name and the squads etc etc. The name is "Alpha Company" where as all of the normal Ultramarines companies were numbered, I assigned my custom one Alpha. The idea for them is they are sent into scenarios in which the expected success rate is nearly zero, casualties are expected to be high, for a lack of better words suicide missions. The Alpha Company in theory is supposed to be like a 'special forces' type of theme, well geared, fearless, headstrong, etc etc.



Doubt the back story, in addition to my modeling/desire to try some new stuff, will waiver anyone, but at least you can see (hopefully) that it is not about the cheese.

Marines are marines.... I dont care what colour they are.... As long as the wargear is obvious and everything looks like its suppose to, use it.....


Blood Angels are Red... However you can paint your army neon yellow and still play as BA... As long as its all legal.. im good.... Most successor chapters use their lineage codex and not Vanilla... so not all successor chapters are red etc...

Rules say color of paint has no effect on what codex you can/can't use. If some one wants to go against the rules, to penalize me for having a painted force (especially with all the gray plastic armies running around) they can shove it.

I wouldn't (don't) even ask. "Here's my Ultramarines, I'm running them as Space Wolves... everything is WYSIWYG, lets roll for mission type and then initiative."

I'm a bit out of date for 5th edition, but aren't there still rules for using a small group from another codex as Allies, and you then field them using the other slots in the Org chart once you fill the requisite slots for the mission from your "main" army, but you may not have more allied units than you have Troops units of your main force? It may not fly at tournaments, but shouldn't be a problem in friendly games. I know at least for Kroot Merc armies in 3rd/4th, it used to be exactly this way.

That's exactly what I would plan on doing if I ever buy a Stormraven for my Ultras.

The paintjob frankly doesn't matter as much as the rules, as long as the model remains instantly recognizable as what it's supposed to represent, and you use the legal rules entry for it. I would say that a blue Stormraven is still a stormraven, even in an Ultramarines army.

AegisGrimm wrote:I'm a bit out of date for 5th edition, but aren't there still rules for using a small group from another codex as Allies, and you then field them using the other slots in the Org chart once you fill the requisite slots for the mission from your "main" army, but you may not have more allied units than you have Troops units of your main force? It may not fly at tournaments, but shouldn't be a problem in friendly games. I know at least for Kroot Merc armies in 3rd/4th, it used to be exactly this way.

That's exactly what I would plan on doing if I ever buy a Stormraven for my Ultras.

The paintjob frankly doesn't matter as much as the rules, as long as the model remains instantly recognizable as what it's supposed to represent, and you use the legal rules entry for it. I would say that a blue Stormraven is still a stormraven, even in an Ultramarines army.

Nope, the last of that was abolished when SoB and GK gots their new codexes.

I would be 100% fine with it or eles it'll just be another good reason to NOT paint your armies

Nope, the last of that was abolished when SoB and GK got their new codexes.

Bummer, that's dumb.

I'd still allow it in fun games, though. A gamer group that doesn't allow small exceptions is not one I want to join, as they take the hobby far too seriously.

Some armies are practically the same thing anyway. Like Blood Angels and World Eaters. At some point you have to ask yourself.... where will the hair splitting end?

If your wargear lines up, then your paint scheme is completely irrelevant.

Paint your BAs blue, and call them the hypoxic chapter for all it matters.

I would have no problem playing you and feel that anyone that did is a bit of a jerk.

Ultramarines do not have Stormravens.

If you desperately want to use a Stormraven, then start a new army. Given that you just seem bored with your current army, I think this is a much better option for you.

Jstncloud wrote: what difference does it make how they are painted so long as they are indeed painted

It's a sliding scale, with 'random paint splashed on' on one end and 'golden demon winner' on the other end. The moment it 'makes a difference' to me is the moment you ignore the rules associated with your chosen force for personal satisfaction.

You've bought into a specific force. A specific look, a specific feel, a specific aesthetic and specific background. In your case, the Ultramarines.

And now you want to just start using other rules because the ones associated with your force aren't good enough for you? And I don't mean simply competitive enough. They don't offer enough flexibility, or variation, or whatever it is you want. They just aren't good enough for you anymore.

I can't make you use any particular codex, but it is poor form indeed to simply switch it up because you want to.

Beats more grey marines. Their colour doesn't matter as long as it's clear from the start what book you're using.

Jstncloud wrote:One guy already runs a modified Salamanders Fandex which allows him to use a single Storm Raven but the group was more than reluctant to say "Hey sure!" So I figured I could just buy the Blood Angels codex, get the Storm Ravens, get the Baal Predators, paint em my army color, and when I wanted to use them I'd just whip out that codex and run my army from that, when I did not want to use a heavy armor list back to the normal codex I go.

Yep, this is the way to go. Get whatever specialized models you want, paint them your army's color. When you want to use them, use the appropriate Codex. Don't mix and match codices or you get to let me take lash princes and necron wraiths with my plasmacutioners.

good luck enforcing that.

Kaldor wrote:

Jstncloud wrote: what difference does it make how they are painted so long as they are indeed painted

It's a sliding scale, with 'random paint splashed on' on one end and 'golden demon winner' on the other end. The moment it 'makes a difference' to me is the moment you ignore the rules associated with your chosen force for personal satisfaction.

You've bought into a specific force. A specific look, a specific feel, a specific aesthetic and specific background. In your case, the Ultramarines.

And now he is using the "Blue Angels" successor chapter of the BA, a 15th founding thought to be lost in the warp fighting the demons that invaded the forge world of Segundis, The Blue Angels are honored in the halls of the BA archives as the "Saviors of Segundis" as it was their sacrifice that allowed the Blood Angels to repel the invasion and save Segundis.

Jstncloud above, and Dunwich and Azael below are spot on:

azazel the cat wrote:

Dunwich wrote:I would have no problem playing you and feel that anyone that did is a bit of a jerk.

If your wargear lines up, then your paint scheme is completely irrelevant.

If someones using a fandex I think its kind of lame they won't give you the room to use a single stormraven.

I don't agree with mixing codex's, nor swapping codex for an army painted and designed specifically to be something else. I don't like 'stand in models' seeing a load of ultramarines suffering red thirst or black rage is eh... same with them suddenly pulling out force halberds is just uncharacteristic as well as a twist in the games rules I don't believe you should need to make.

Honestly for the sake of a single stormraven I think the people you play need to relax a little. If it was a tournament yeah for sure, but im assuming this is friendly play?

Kaldor wrote:Ultramarines do not have Stormravens.

If you desperately want to use a Stormraven, then start a new army. Given that you just seem bored with your current army, I think this is a much better option for you.

Jstncloud wrote: what difference does it make how they are painted so long as they are indeed painted

It's a sliding scale, with 'random paint splashed on' on one end and 'golden demon winner' on the other end. The moment it 'makes a difference' to me is the moment you ignore the rules associated with your chosen force for personal satisfaction.

You've bought into a specific force. A specific look, a specific feel, a specific aesthetic and specific background. In your case, the Ultramarines.

And now you want to just start using other rules because the ones associated with your force aren't good enough for you? And I don't mean simply competitive enough. They don't offer enough flexibility, or variation, or whatever it is you want. They just aren't good enough for you anymore.

I can't make you use any particular codex, but it is poor form indeed to simply switch it up because you want to.

Not everyone in the world is made of money. If you where at my LGS I would never play you, and neither would anyone else with that mindset. Not everyone has the resources to just up and start a new army. Once again, paint is paint, it can be stripped. Whats the difference between an Ultra Marine and a Blood Angel? a few blood drops? So what.....

there are two people at my FLGS who run the Blood angels Codex. one paints them as blood angels, the other as Angry Marines. (he has even posted some of his early paintjobs here) no one at the shop cares. the Paintjob of your marines does not matter. in fact, the only time the paint on a model matters is for ork vehicles, and then only outside of friendly games. so long as the wargear is correct, the Counts-As is consistant, and your not trying it out just for the cheese, go for it.

Abyssel wrote: Once again, paint is paint

Paint is not just paint. At what point do we stop playing a miniatures wargame and start playing with cardboard chits with 'plasma gunner' and 'landraider' written on it? Where exactly is the line?

For me, as soon as we decide we don't care what rules should be associated with our models, and we use whatever rules we want, we have crossed that line and we may as well be playing with bits of cardboard.

AegisGrimm wrote:

Nope, the last of that was abolished when SoB and GK got their new codexes.

Bummer, that's dumb.

I'd still allow it in fun games, though. A gamer group that doesn't allow small exceptions is not one I want to join, as they take the hobby far too seriously.

I agree, though I made a house rule that they have adopted:

"25% of your force may be from another single codex given these restrictions:"

Basically IG can work with SM, SoB, GK, etc, SM with IG, other Marines, SoB, GK, etc, same with xenos, they were cool with that. They are even cool with Fandexes, just for some reason were not cool with me using BA stuff outside of it's respective codex.

LunaHound wrote:I would be 100% fine with it or eles it'll just be another good reason to NOT paint your armies

Absolutely agree.

Kaldor wrote:

Abyssel wrote: Once again, paint is paint

Paint is not just paint. At what point do we stop playing a miniatures wargame and start playing with cardboard chits with 'plasma gunner' and 'landraider' written on it? Where exactly is the line?

The line is drawn when they stop having Models. if you want to paint your army as X, because you love the way X looks, but you want to play them as Y because you like the way Y plays. go for it. if you want to draw up a thousand pieces of cardboard and write "plasma gunner" or "slugga boy" on it, you'd better be planning on purchasing those models in the foreseeable future.

Big Mek Dattrukk wrote:The line is drawn when they stop having Models. if you want to paint your army as X, because you love the way X looks, but you want to play them as Y because you like the way Y plays. go for it. if you want to draw up a thousand pieces of cardboard and write "plasma gunner" or "slugga boy" on it, you'd better be planning on purchasing those models in the foreseeable future.

Why draw the line there? Why should I have to buy the models? Is that any less 'elitist' than saying you should buy the right models?

Kaldor wrote:

Abyssel wrote: Once again, paint is paint

Paint is not just paint. At what point do we stop playing a miniatures wargame and start playing with cardboard chits with 'plasma gunner' and 'landraider' written on it? Where exactly is the line?

For me, as soon as we decide we don't care what rules should be associated with our models, and we use whatever rules we want, we have crossed that line and we may as well be playing with bits of cardboard.

So you are saying you would refuse to play Blood Angels that had a blue, or black, or green, silver, or grey color scheme?

Would you refuse to play with marines from Codex Space Marines that were Black, or Silver or Red?

Because the Balck Consuls are in black armor, the Silver Skulls are in silver armor, and the Genesis Chapter are in red armor, and their Primarch is Guilliman, all three chapters are based off the same Primarch as the Ultramarines, so they would all use Codex Space Marines.

Color scheme does not matter, paint your models whatever color you want, they are your models after all.
As long as WYSIWYG then no opponent that wants a fun game should complain at all.

DeathReaper wrote:So you are saying you would refuse to play Blood Angels that had a blue, or black, or green, silver, or grey color scheme?

Are you saying that a blue colour scheme is the same as using ultramarine models?

As long as WYSIWYG then no opponent that wants a fun game should complain at all.

If I'm seeing Ultramarines chapter symbols, and I'm getting Space Wolf rules, then I'm not getting what I'm seeing, am I?

Kaldor wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:So you are saying you would refuse to play Blood Angels that had a blue, or black, or green, silver, or grey color scheme?

Are you saying that a blue colour scheme is the same as using ultramarine models?

You didn't answer his question. Would you refuse to play an army that used an alternate colour-scheme to the ones presented by GW?
Can I paint my Dark Angels grey? What about my Blood Angels? My Space Wolves? Black Templars?

As long as WYSIWYG then no opponent that wants a fun game should complain at all.

If I'm seeing Ultramarines chapter symbols, and I'm getting Space Wolf rules, then I'm not getting what I'm seeing, am I?

That is not what the WYSIWYG rules in 40k talks about. It talks about models and their game-play upgrades.

Kaldor wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:So you are saying you would refuse to play Blood Angels that had a blue, or black, or green, silver, or grey color scheme?

Are you saying that a blue colour scheme is the same as using ultramarine models?

A marine with a bolter painted blue, and that same model painted red are just a marine model with a red or blue paint job.

No one said anything about chapter symbols. Even then, take the "Omega Angels" they have a blue paint job, but are a blood angels successor chapter. They even wear an Omega symbol, upside down, on their armor as they find it is a lucky symbol and they do not wear it the regular way, since they do not want the luck to run out.

Kaldor wrote:If I'm seeing Ultramarines chapter symbols, and I'm getting Space Wolf rules, then I'm not getting what I'm seeing, am I?

WYSIWYG refers to upgrades not chapter symbols. Please re-read the brb P. 47 for WYSIWYG

I will ask again:
Are you saying that you would refuse to play Blood Angels that had a blue, or black, or green, silver, or grey color scheme?

Would you refuse to play with marines from Codex Space Marines that were Black, or Silver or Red?

Steelmage99 wrote:You didn't answer his question.

Well spotted.

That is not what the WYSIWYG rules in 40k talks about. It talks about models and their game-play upgrades.

Specific models have specific rules. C:SM tactical squads have combat tactics, Grey Hunters have acute senses, Blood Angels have the red thirst. If I'm seeing Blood Angles iconography and I'm getting models with acute sense, then I'm not getting what I'm seeing, am I?

Kaldor wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:You didn't answer his question.

Well spotted.

So that is you conceding your point and realizing that it was invalid?

That is not what the WYSIWYG rules in 40k talks about. It talks about models and their game-play upgrades.

Specific models have specific rules. C:SM tactical squads have combat tactics, Grey Hunters have acute senses, Blood Angels have the red thirst. If I'm seeing Blood Angles iconography and I'm getting models with acute sense, then I'm not getting what I'm seeing, am I?

Again you bring up things that the WYSIWYG rules doesn't address.
You cannot just expand the scope of a rule to your liking, present it as an argument and expect not to be called on it.

DeathReaper wrote:[A marine with a bolter painted blue, and that same model painted red are just a marine model with a red or blue paint job.

Which is just the same as bare plastic, right?

Kaldor wrote:Specific models have specific rules. C:SM tactical squads have combat tactics, Grey Hunters have acute senses, Blood Angels have the red thirst. If I'm seeing Blood Angles iconography and I'm getting models with acute sense, then I'm not getting what I'm seeing, am I?

Actually you are, because the winged blood drop belongs to a secret successor chapter of Space wolves called "Winged Wolves" they wear red armor to blend into their volcanic home world where they maintain a secret fortress, and are only called upon in times of dire need.

and again, re-read WYSIWYG on P.47

Kaldor wrote:Which is just the same as bare plastic, right?

No, a painted marine is not the same as bare plastic, one has paint one does not.

Did you really need that one answered for you?

Steelmage99 wrote:So that is you conceding your point and realizing that it was invalid?

Hardly. The question contained a fallacy that, by answering, I would be validating.

Again you bring up things that the WYSIWYG rules doesn't address.
You cannot just expand the scope of a rule to your liking, present it as an argument and expect not to be called on it.

Don't be daft. WYSISWY is only a convention, not a rule, and only refers to characters in the box-out on page 47.

DeathReaper wrote:Actually you are, because the winged blood drop belongs to a secret successor chapter of Space wolves called "Winged Wolves" they wear red armor to blend into their volcanic home world where they maintain a secret fortress, and are only called upon in times of dire need.

And the second you start doing stuff like this, you've crossed the line from 'miniatures wargame' to 'cardboard playing chits'. Like I said above, you can run a list however you want but swapping codexes whenever you want is really poor form. Lets be very clear on that. As soon as you start doing that you may as well be using orks as eldar, grots as terminators, or paint-pots as genestealers.

Do you see the difference?

DeathReaper wrote:No, a painted marine is not the same as bare plastic, one has paint one does not.

Oh, for goodness sake. Really? Thats pretty juvenile.

Kaldor wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:So that is you conceding your point and realizing that it was invalid?

Hardly. The question contained a fallacy that, by answering, I would be validating.

Which fallacy would that be?

Steelmage99 wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:So that is you conceding your point and realizing that it was invalid?

Hardly. The question contained a fallacy that, by answering, I would be validating.

Which fallacy would that be?

It's getting off topic, but...

The question implied that the only difference between Marine armies was the paint-colour. By answering I would be agreeing to that implication, no matter how much I protested the fact. I don't agree to it.

I don't see that implication at all. But each to their own.

We'll just agree to disagree on that point.

Kaldor wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Actually you are, because the winged blood drop belongs to a secret successor chapter of Space wolves called "Winged Wolves" they wear red armor to blend into their volcanic home world where they maintain a secret fortress, and are only called upon in times of dire need.

And the second you start doing stuff like this, you've crossed the line from 'miniatures wargame' to 'cardboard playing chits'. Like I said above, you can run a list however you want but swapping codexes whenever you want is really poor form. Lets be very clear on that. As soon as you start doing that you may as well be using orks as eldar, grots as terminators, or paint-pots as genestealers.

Do you see the difference?

I do see the difference, Clearly a Eldar and an Ork look very different, anyone should be able to tell them apart.

Not playing someone because they use a certain paint scheme on their models, no matter what codex they are using, is silly.

The rules do not govern how you paint your models and you are free to paint them, and apply any stickers to them that you like.

The pieces on the table are simply a representation of the rules.

I have a question I would like answered if you would please.

I have a Librarian in Terminator armor and Storm Shield I use in my games. He is painted to match the rest of my army, but the model is the same model seen below (Minus the banner because I did not like the look of it). The question is: Would you refuse to play against me because I use this as my Blood Angles Librarian?



P.S. the only difference between Marine armies is the paint-color (For standard units that are in every book, like TH/SS terminators are the same in all marine armies that have TH/SS terminators, or Assault marines are the same in all books etc.)

I completely agree with Kaldor.

I was originally going to quote a ton of posts, but I'll refrain.

I have no problem with a force of marines in a blue colour scheme using the BA codex. They could be BA successors, after all.

But I have a problem with:
1. A force of Ultramarines (or any other non-BA-successor) using the BA codex.*
2. A DIY chapter which the player claims to be non-BA-successors using the BA codex.
3. The same in relation to all other codices, ie non-DA-successor using CA etc.


Why is that? Because, as Kaldor did point out somewhere, background is an important part of the game. Rules are written to represent the background. Ultramarines do not have the red thirst, nor acute senses. Dark Angels do not have wolf tail talismans or sagas. If you use SW rules for DA, the game feels wrong to me, and I wouldn't enjoy it, therefore I would prefer to play someone who is using the right codex.

So a blue BA successor is fine - it is imaginable within the rules of the shared universe's background that the BA have a blue successor chapter, no problems there. But Ultramarines most definitely are not a BA successor. And that's the end of it for me.

I often read "It doesn't matter how they are painted." Well, not the colour scheme as such, but it does matter what chapter they are supposed to represent. Sure, there could be a wolf lord who decides his great company now wear red, but they would certainly not wear the blood angel icon and have their wolf guard wear golden nipple armour and so on (and no, it is not imaginable within the rules of the shared universe's background that the SW have a successor, either).

There is no difference between using orks as necrons and using UMs as BA. Now if you use models from the BA range and convert and paint them in a way that they look like UMs (or Black Consuls, or Hawk Lords, or whatever other codex chapter), then including them in a UM force is no problem. If you could convert necron models to look like something from the ork codex, I'm not going to see a problem either - and I am actually sure there are some people who already managed that, if not, we definitely need more looted ghost arks.



* (And that isn't even about the markings alone. It is about what the player wants his models to be. Someone telling me "I play my Ultramarines using BA rules 'cause I like those better", I instantly detest him and won't play him. If he says "This is my new BA successor chapter, I'm using some old models from my UMs, but I'm going to repaint them soon" I'll ask him for a game and I'll enjoy it.)




Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:
P.S. the only difference between Marine armies is the paint-color (For standard units that are in every book, like TH/SS terminators are the same in all marine armies that have TH/SS terminators, or Assault marines are the same in all books etc.)

Okay, now there's one quote that I can easily make my point with.

No, it is not. If it were, there would only be a single MEQ codex. The differences between marine armies include, but are not limited to:
- background
- paint scheme recommendations (the colour schemes of actual chapters are background material, not rules on how to paint your models)
- playstyle
- look&feel (a term used by designers to describe differences in style which are hard to actually put into words - necrons have a different l&f than orks, but UMs also have a different l&f than BA)
- model range


Btw, the model you use as BA librarian has Inquisition and Grey Knight markings modelled on. If you convert it, for example by scraping those markings off, then you can use it as your BA librarian. If you do not convert it, then it is, at most, a proxy.

Kaldor wrote:

Abyssel wrote: Once again, paint is paint

Paint is not just paint. At what point do we stop playing a miniatures wargame and start playing with cardboard chits with 'plasma gunner' and 'landraider' written on it? Where exactly is the line?

For me, as soon as we decide we don't care what rules should be associated with our models, and we use whatever rules we want, we have crossed that line and we may as well be playing with bits of cardboard.

At least painting them is painting them, would you prefer that we simply use unpainted models to prevent issues?

It should be fine as long as you tell your opponent right off the bat in a game. I run my Grey Knights painted as Exorcists because I love there fluff and colors better and C:GK is the closest to the Exorcist's fluff abilities.

I would not care at all as long as it's very clear what everything is.. and everything is essentially the same size it should be. I think almost everyone can understand it's an expensive hobby and you might just want to try something different.

The Mad Tanker wrote:It should be fine as long as you tell your opponent right off the bat in a game. I run my Grey Knights painted as Exorcists because I love there fluff and colors better and C:GK is the closest to the Exorcist's fluff abilities.

Now that is a good reason to use the GK codex for non-GK. Because it allows the rules to represent the background. Using rules like red thirst to represent Ultramarines is gak.

I'd make a bet that Stormravens are going to be in the next vanilla SM codex anyway (which will probably be the first in 6th ed.)

Untill then I personally would have no problem with you fielding Ultras as counts as Blood Angles. Ultras as couts as guard or tyrands, that would get confusing. BAs, go for it.

In a friendly game this shouldn't matter at all.

Skylifter wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
P.S. the only difference between Marine armies is the paint-color (For standard units that are in every book, like TH/SS terminators are the same in all marine armies that have TH/SS terminators, or Assault marines are the same in all books etc.)

Okay, now there's one quote that I can easily make my point with.

No, it is not. If it were, there would only be a single MEQ codex. The differences between marine armies include, but are not limited to:
- background
- paint scheme recommendations (the colour schemes of actual chapters are background material, not rules on how to paint your models)
- playstyle
- look&feel (a term used by designers to describe differences in style which are hard to actually put into words - necrons have a different l&f than orks, but UMs also have a different l&f than BA)
- model range

Btw, the model you use as BA librarian has Inquisition and Grey Knight markings modelled on. If you convert it, for example by scraping those markings off, then you can use it as your BA librarian. If you do not convert it, then it is, at most, a proxy.

The only converting I did was I removed the Stormbolter. it still has the books and sword icons on it.

- background (Does not matter in the 40k BRB) so there is no difference there.
- paint scheme recommendations (the colour schemes of actual chapters are background material, not rules on how to paint your models) (See Background above)
- playstyle (The BRB says nothing about this either)
- look&feel (The BRB says nothing about this either)
- model range (The BRB says nothing about this either)

As you can see, the only difference between a Space wolf Grey Hunter, and a Tactical marine is the paint job.

There is nothing against using the model in the Pic for any chapter of marine, regardless of the symbols he has on him.

When I use him, I say that he is on loan from the grey knights assisting my Blood Angels with a special mission. the roleplay does not matter to me, but some opponents get all worked up when they see that model, I tell them about the GK helping out the BA, and they calm down.(Not that I encounter many of those people).

It is not a proxy, it is a Psyker with a Storm Shield, and a Force Weapon.

Most players will be fine with this. If some aren't, they won't play against you. Some people won't play specific armies anyway. They don't see them as fun, they don't like the rules, they don't like the fluff, etc. This is no different. Don't let other people's quibbles ruin your fun.

DeathReaper wrote:
The only converting I did was I removed the Stormbolter. it still has the books and sword icons on it.

- background (Does not matter in the 40k BRB) so there is no difference there.

Well, it does matter to me. Else I could be playing with chits of paper, as Kaldor rightly said, and I could also stop calling them space marines and just call them unit type a, unit type b, etc. If I didn't like the background so much, if I was just in it for playing a challenging game, I'd play something else with less complicated and partly contradictory rules.

DeathReaper wrote:
When I use him, I say that he is on loan from the grey knights assisting my Blood Angels with a special mission. the roleplay does not matter to me, but some opponents get all worked up when they see that model, I tell them about the GK helping out the BA, and they calm down.(Not that I encounter many of those people).

It is not a proxy, it is a Psyker with a Storm Shield, and a Force Weapon.

To me, it is a proxy, and your explanation doesn't explain why it is painted red then. I am one of those people who 'get all worked up', as you so derogatorily put it. You should accept that some people enjoy the game for its roleplaying aspect much more than for its tactical aspect. If you do not care for the background, that does not make your view any more right, just different.

To me and most people I know, 40K is nothing without the background. Therefore, I will not play someone who disregards the background - I simply wouldn't enjoy it.

"get all worked up" was not meant as derogatory.

Also, he is painted black and orange which matches the colors of my other blood angels. (Blood Reapers Chapter)

He had his armor repainted because they were going to a world that needed cleansing, and the occupants of said world have a tight time fighting against a unified force.

I am not against the role play, I don't disregard the background, but I do still play the game by the rules, and the rules conflict with the background on many occasions.

A space marine in power armor with a bolter is a space marine in PA with a bolter. I could field an army with every single member is from a different chapter with different paint schemes for each model, and run them as any codex I want.

Some people just want to game and couldn't care less about the background fluff. It makes a cool story, but has no bearing on gameplay. Things like paint schemes don't fall under rules, so stop pretending like they do.

Somebody asking to play space marines with appropriate wargear as space marines from any codex shouldn't be penalized because you want them to buy a completely new army or their paint scheme doesn't match your approval.

This is an expensive hobby, some people can only afford one set of miniatures. If you want him to have a paint scheme to match the book he is using, buy him the models or get over it.

-cgmckenzie

I agree, though I made a house rule that they have adopted:

"25% of your force may be from another single codex given these restrictions:"

Actually, funny enough, that's close to the same as in 2nd edition. It used to be that you could take Allies in your main force, but only up to 50% of the total points of the whole force. And back then they came from the "Support" section, which was essentially what Heavy Support is now.

For instance, Codex: Ultramarines (Which was just all vanilla chapters, really) allowed, other Space marine codexes, Imperial Guard, Imperial Agents (Inquisition and assassins), Squats, and Eldar (but you couldn't take an Avatar).

Also, because there are so many Chapters out there (1,000), it's perfectly acceptable to field a successor of the Salamanders that uses bright pink heraldry and uses the Sally rules. Or bright yellow Space Wolves. Nothing in the rules says that if you aren't using a First Founding chapter, you can't use their codex.

This should be the rule in friendly games, rather than the exception. But maybe that's just 5th edition, because things have definitely narrowed since the earlier games.

To me, it is a proxy, and your explanation doesn't explain why it is painted red then. I am one of those people who 'get all worked up', as you so derogatorily put it. You should accept that some people enjoy the game for its roleplaying aspect much more than for its tactical aspect. If you do not care for the background, that does not make your view any more right, just different.

To me and most people I know, 40K is nothing without the background. Therefore, I will not play someone who disregards the background - I simply wouldn't enjoy it.

So am I to assume that I can't therefor buy Pedro Cantor and paint him in Ultramarine or Dark Angels colors to use as a generic Captain with powerfist and stormbolter? Wow, I must officially be an "oldie" now, because things have definitely changed about 100% since I first got into the game.
.

I don't really care what paint scheme the army is using as long as the weapons and gear is what you see is what you get. I've done different marines chapter armies over the years and it gets expensive. As long as the model has the weapons and gear its supposed to I don't care if your using Blood Angel rules with ultra marines colors. Mixing codex rules however is not legal.

Skylifter wrote:I completely agree with Kaldor.

I was originally going to quote a ton of posts, but I'll refrain.

I have no problem with a force of marines in a blue colour scheme using the BA codex. They could be BA successors, after all.

But I have a problem with:
1. A force of Ultramarines (or any other non-BA-successor) using the BA codex.*
2. A DIY chapter which the player claims to be non-BA-successors using the BA codex.
3. The same in relation to all other codices, ie non-DA-successor using CA etc.


Why is that? Because, as Kaldor did point out somewhere, background is an important part of the game. Rules are written to represent the background. Ultramarines do not have the red thirst, nor acute senses. Dark Angels do not have wolf tail talismans or sagas. If you use SW rules for DA, the game feels wrong to me, and I wouldn't enjoy it, therefore I would prefer to play someone who is using the right codex.

So a blue BA successor is fine - it is imaginable within the rules of the shared universe's background that the BA have a blue successor chapter, no problems there. But Ultramarines most definitely are not a BA successor. And that's the end of it for me.

I often read "It doesn't matter how they are painted." Well, not the colour scheme as such, but it does matter what chapter they are supposed to represent. Sure, there could be a wolf lord who decides his great company now wear red, but they would certainly not wear the blood angel icon and have their wolf guard wear golden nipple armour and so on (and no, it is not imaginable within the rules of the shared universe's background that the SW have a successor, either).

There is no difference between using orks as necrons and using UMs as BA. Now if you use models from the BA range and convert and paint them in a way that they look like UMs (or Black Consuls, or Hawk Lords, or whatever other codex chapter), then including them in a UM force is no problem. If you could convert necron models to look like something from the ork codex, I'm not going to see a problem either - and I am actually sure there are some people who already managed that, if not, we definitely need more looted ghost arks.



* (And that isn't even about the markings alone. It is about what the player wants his models to be. Someone telling me "I play my Ultramarines using BA rules 'cause I like those better", I instantly detest him and won't play him. If he says "This is my new BA successor chapter, I'm using some old models from my UMs, but I'm going to repaint them soon" I'll ask him for a game and I'll enjoy it.)




Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:
P.S. the only difference between Marine armies is the paint-color (For standard units that are in every book, like TH/SS terminators are the same in all marine armies that have TH/SS terminators, or Assault marines are the same in all books etc.)

Okay, now there's one quote that I can easily make my point with.

No, it is not. If it were, there would only be a single MEQ codex. The differences between marine armies include, but are not limited to:
- background
- paint scheme recommendations (the colour schemes of actual chapters are background material, not rules on how to paint your models)
- playstyle
- look&feel (a term used by designers to describe differences in style which are hard to actually put into words - necrons have a different l&f than orks, but UMs also have a different l&f than BA)
- model range


Btw, the model you use as BA librarian has Inquisition and Grey Knight markings modelled on. If you convert it, for example by scraping those markings off, then you can use it as your BA librarian. If you do not convert it, then it is, at most, a proxy.

So basically if you run out of Codex: Space Marines you need to run a presented chapter or successor, not a 'home made chapter?'

Same with Blood Angels?

In one of my posts I noted that the Ultramarines I run as as close to a home made chapter as I could do. I love the blue scheme (my High School colors were blue/white so it is imprinted upon me), I liked the U symbol, I also liked the Death Company X, so what did I do? My own company of Ultramarines, Alpha Company. Are they real? No. Are they a successor, not a listed one. Should I be able to play them? From my interpretation of what you said, no.

So, while I appreciate the input, I think that if I explain my 'companies' backstory to the player, should be no problem.

Kaldor wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:You didn't answer his question.

Well spotted.

That is not what the WYSIWYG rules in 40k talks about. It talks about models and their game-play upgrades.

Specific models have specific rules. C:SM tactical squads have combat tactics, Grey Hunters have acute senses, Blood Angels have the red thirst. If I'm seeing Blood Angles iconography and I'm getting models with acute sense, then I'm not getting what I'm seeing, am I?

How about a Furioso Librarian Dreadnought, it cannot take 'Extra Armor' but a normal Furioso can, there is no clear way to model 'Extra Armor' but if someone says "hey this is here" you know. So because a red Furioso Librarian is KNOWN to not have extra armor, but a blue one could be confused with one that does means it is not WYSIWYG? That is a bit ridiculous honestly.

How about Sternguard Veterans' special ammunition? How do you know they have it? It cannot be modeled right? It is a skill that is told to the opponent, much like combat tactics, red thirst, bolter drill (Lysander?) and so on.

I fail to see why a color scheme would make you feel deceived, especially if the opponent has a) an army roster and b) clearly lets everyone know what he/she is playing.

Otherwise, lets all fall in line and play ONLY the colors that GW assigns their respective armies.

DeathReaper wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Actually you are, because the winged blood drop belongs to a secret successor chapter of Space wolves called "Winged Wolves" they wear red armor to blend into their volcanic home world where they maintain a secret fortress, and are only called upon in times of dire need.

And the second you start doing stuff like this, you've crossed the line from 'miniatures wargame' to 'cardboard playing chits'. Like I said above, you can run a list however you want but swapping codexes whenever you want is really poor form. Lets be very clear on that. As soon as you start doing that you may as well be using orks as eldar, grots as terminators, or paint-pots as genestealers.

Do you see the difference?

I do see the difference, Clearly a Eldar and an Ork look very different, anyone should be able to tell them apart.

Not playing someone because they use a certain paint scheme on their models, no matter what codex they are using, is silly.

The rules do not govern how you paint your models and you are free to paint them, and apply any stickers to them that you like.

The pieces on the table are simply a representation of the rules.

I have a question I would like answered if you would please.

I have a Librarian in Terminator armor and Storm Shield I use in my games. He is painted to match the rest of my army, but the model is the same model seen below (Minus the banner because I did not like the look of it). The question is: Would you refuse to play against me because I use this as my Blood Angles Librarian?



P.S. the only difference between Marine armies is the paint-color (For standard units that are in every book, like TH/SS terminators are the same in all marine armies that have TH/SS terminators, or Assault marines are the same in all books etc.)

I'd have to agree with your example, I am using Death Company marines legs, bits, and so on to make my tacticals, are they Death Company? No. Do they have the correct gear, sure do. So tactically, they are blue which is not the traditional red (if I am using the BA book), but...they have all of their weapons presented...so. Kind of the same thing you did with your model conversion.

Kirika wrote:I don't really care what paint scheme the army is using as long as the weapons and gear is what you see is what you get. I've done different marines chapter armies over the years and it gets expensive. As long as the model has the weapons and gear its supposed to I don't care if your using Blood Angel rules with ultra marines colors. Mixing codex rules however is not legal.

Same way I feel.

Skylifter wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
The only converting I did was I removed the Stormbolter. it still has the books and sword icons on it.

- background (Does not matter in the 40k BRB) so there is no difference there.

Well, it does matter to me. Else I could be playing with chits of paper, as Kaldor rightly said, and I could also stop calling them space marines and just call them unit type a, unit type b, etc. If I didn't like the background so much, if I was just in it for playing a challenging game, I'd play something else with less complicated and partly contradictory rules.

DeathReaper wrote:
When I use him, I say that he is on loan from the grey knights assisting my Blood Angels with a special mission. the roleplay does not matter to me, but some opponents get all worked up when they see that model, I tell them about the GK helping out the BA, and they calm down.(Not that I encounter many of those people).

It is not a proxy, it is a Psyker with a Storm Shield, and a Force Weapon.

To me, it is a proxy, and your explanation doesn't explain why it is painted red then. I am one of those people who 'get all worked up', as you so derogatorily put it. You should accept that some people enjoy the game for its roleplaying aspect much more than for its tactical aspect. If you do not care for the background, that does not make your view any more right, just different.

To me and most people I know, 40K is nothing without the background. Therefore, I will not play someone who disregards the background - I simply wouldn't enjoy it.

So if we were in a tournament setting, where I can paint my models any color I wish, whether it be pink, purple, BLUE, neon-baby-poop-green, you'd refuse to play me given my situation even though I am fielding a WYSIWYG army and painting them within the rules set forth in the book?

I love the game as much as the next guy, but I find it hard to believe you'd forfeit a game to someone over a paint job in a tournament you are paying to participate in.

That is like me saying "Well hey there guy, your army is not painted to 'my' standard, not playing with you, shoo now."

Finally, as I stated previously, Alpha company (my derivative of what I imagine an Ultramarines' Special Forces unit to be)is better suited with the BA rules right now. Does Red Thirst fit?, no, not really. Does the rest of the gear, weapons, tanks, and overall availability of the book mesh better with where I want to go right now?, more-so than the Codex: Space Marine, sure it does.

Furthermore, I am in no way 'trying' to get anyone heated, I just wanted to see the various point of views presented here on DakkaDakka in regards to what I want to do (and I am sure, now based on the responses, that I am not the only one who has or will try to do this with their models).

How has this thread gotten so far, I don't think it tells you anywhere on the rulebook that when painting SM you have to follow the exact color scheme and heraldry, and as long as it is WYSIWYG I wouldn't have a complaint about it.

I can only continue to restate my opinion, since we are talking about different things here.

I never said it was a game rule that you had to adhere to the background. I said that I only enjoy the game if my opponent does. If you do not care about background, you are not going to be my opponent more than once, and that's that.

You wanted to know whether I'd let you use the BA codex for your UMs. The answer is no, and the reason is the one stated over and over again above. I do not care whether you agree with me about this, because I do not have to play a game with you, nor you with me.

Skylifter wrote:I can only continue to restate my opinion, since we are talking about different things here.

I never said it was a game rule that you had to adhere to the background. I said that I only enjoy the game if my opponent does. If you do not care about background, you are not going to be my opponent more than once, and that's that.

You wanted to know whether I'd let you use the BA codex for your UMs. The answer is no, and the reason is the one stated over and over again above. I do not care whether you agree with me about this, because I do not have to play a game with you, nor you with me.

That is fine, and should we meet in a tournament setting I'd gladly listen to you as you either a) gave me a free win because my army was not the color you'd want it to be or b) changed your mind because a forfeiture is a lose and you might as well play against the guy with the army that is colored in a way that you do not like.

I respect your standpoint, I do not respect however refusal to play, only hurts you and the other guy, that is unless you have a overwhelming number of people in your area who play, at which point you can pick and choose anyways.

jgehunter wrote:How has this thread gotten so far, I don't think it tells you anywhere on the rulebook that when painting SM you have to follow the exact color scheme and heraldry, and as long as it is WYSIWYG I wouldn't have a complaint about it.

Bit of a back and forth, I feel like the general consensus is most people don't care so long as it is WYSIWYG.

I live in Germany's second largest city, and if I ever move elsewhere, it'll be the largest, I have no problem finding gamers who share my view of the game. And I do not attend tournaments, partly because I care more about the roleplaying aspect than about the competition aspect of the game. So I won't ever be in the situation you described. And whether you respect my refusal to play you does not affect me either - if you have a problem with that, yeah, that's exactly it: your problem.

Also, if you post an open question like this on the internet and then get annoyed when someone says no, you just shouldn't ask questions like that. What would you have done if more people like me and Kaldor had answered this? Stopped doing it? That would have been silly if you really want to do it, wouldn't it?

With the exception that colour conveys information, and a blood angel is not WYSIWYG as a space wolf.

Is all power armour equivalent for WYSIWYG? I see no reason it should be.

Space wolf power armour has runes and wolf pelts on it. Grey knight power armour has etching on it. Chaos marine power armour has little chaos tips and stars on it. They look different.

Just because they all use the same kind of armour doesn't make them the same. Different codex, different models - using the wrong ones is clearly a violation of WYSIWYG.

Is the exception being made because it is 'close enough'? Well, what about an ork with a shoota and a dire avenger with a shuriken catapult? They both have submachine gun looking weapons. Why aren't these close enough?

Philosophically, I have issues with the idea that color and iconography are not part of WYSIWYG. We identify a bolter as a bolter because of a picture in a book that says, 'this is a bolter'. We identify an ultramarine the same way - the same book that shows us what a bolter looks like shows us what an ultramarine looks like, and that's not what a blood angel looks like.


Realistically, my friends have used far worse proxies than the wrong colour guy and I've still played with them

I thought Ultramarines as whatever was a common sight on the competitive circuit. Redbeard, your signature mentions adepticon 2011, did you not see red space wolves and blue blood angels for example?

I haven't read the entire thread, but here's my take on it:

I have no problem with someone playing a marine army that is clearly intended as SM, BA, DA, etc as another marine army. However, I fully expect you to allow me to play my Eldar army as Orks or Necrons.

The only thing that I, or anyone I have ever known, cares two craps about is:

What codex are you using?
If it is a Space Marine codex (i.e. models using space marine armor), than do you have space marine models? (note symbols don't matter at this point.)

Running a space marine codex using tyranid models would be a no go because tyranids are not the same size/shape for LOS purposes, and it is hard to distinguish who has what wargear.

Now space marines, you guys are naming stuff that you can't or at the very least, would be hard pressed to represent in game, like, red thirst, combat tactics, acute senses, so on and so forth.

My XV8's use a lot of hard wired stuff, so should I have a specific model for each hard wired gear? No because you can't model it, it's with the inside of the suit. All the things you listed are with the specific space marine inside. What if your ultramarine captain got his gauntlet shot off by a chaos bolter and he was fighting alongside blood angels. I'm sure he'd at least pick said gauntlet up for defense.

Would you throw the same arguement out for Chaos Space Marines? It says in their fluff that they pick up pieces of armor all the time to replace the old armor that is damaged.

Hell in Soul Hunter, Talos has a blood angels power sword, so you're telling me that if I wanted to make Talos, I couldn't put a Blood Angels power sword on him? It's what he is using in the book.

haendas wrote:I thought Ultramarines as whatever was a common sight on the competitive circuit. Redbeard, your signature mentions adepticon 2011, did you not see red space wolves and blue blood angels for example?

Just because I've seen them doesn't mean I like it. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean I'm going to pitch a fit or not play because of it. I'm aware that not everyone shares the same values.

Sometimes, you take the bad with the good. In my ideal world, the rules would be balanced, people would choose armies based on the models and fluff that they liked, and those armies would actually be viable, regardless of what they were. There would be no need to pretend ultras were blood angels or space wolves because the ultras would be just as good. Of course, in my ideal world, you'd never see an unpainted mini on the table and all the terrain would be wonderful and no one would ever cheat either. A boy can dream though.

Grakmar wrote:I haven't read the entire thread, but here's my take on it:

I have no problem with someone playing a marine army that is clearly intended as SM, BA, DA, etc as another marine army. However, I fully expect you to allow me to play my Eldar army as Orks or Necrons.

As long as the models are WYSIWYG I am fine with that. Especially if you have made a conscious effort to model you army to match the codex.

Redbeard wrote:Sometimes, you take the bad with the good. In my ideal world, the rules would be balanced, people would choose armies based on the models and fluff that they liked, and those armies would actually be viable, regardless of what they were. There would be no need to pretend ultras were blood angels or space wolves because the ultras would be just as good.

Then what do you make of this link?

It is right from GW's website, and it is where you buy the Fast Attack choices for Codex Space Marines.

Notice the Land Speeder storm, that is clearly from the SM Codex. but what is that picture next to it? that is not from the SM Codex...

That is a Blood Angles assault squad???

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/armySubUnitCats.jsp?catId=cat440275a&rootCatGameStyle=

And this next one, did this terminator squad come from the SM codex or the Blood Angels codex?

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440272a&prodId=prod1060028

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440192a&prodId=prod1060028

One is linked from BA Elite, one from SM elite, which is which, how can we tell?

Bottom line is the paint does not matter, let your opponent know what codex you are using, and have all your upgrades modeled, and you are good to go.

Honestly, if I didn't have such a low opinion of people in general, I would be amazed at some of the things I've read so far. It's not my intention to make anyone look foolish, as I believe people are doing a satisfactory job of that themselves. However, I do like to ask questions, so here goes:

Is this a Dark Angel or a Salamander?

If I had an entire army painted like this, and owned both the Dark Angels and Codex: Marines codices, would you let me use these figures as either army, so long as the wargear was proper?

Also:
Why is this figure listed as a Vanilla Marine? Was he in a hurry this morning and grabbed the wrong banner on his way out the door?

Looks like Ezekiel has a bad case of the blues. But how can this be? Dark Angels are only allowed to wear green and beige!

Why does that Grey Knight Terminator Librarian wear so much blue? Doesn't he know that he's not supposed to be the same model for every army?

Why does that Space Wolves Dreadnought have a big U on it? I thought that Space Wolves were covered in furs and crap like that.

Oh noes! That Blood Angels combat squad also has big Us on their blue armor! Right on GW's own website!




Automatically Appended Next Post:






@Deathreaper:

Are you ing kidding me? You ninja'd me on just about every point I made! Stay out of my head!

...I'm gonna go pull my fillings out now.

Redbeard wrote:

haendas wrote:I thought Ultramarines as whatever was a common sight on the competitive circuit. Redbeard, your signature mentions adepticon 2011, did you not see red space wolves and blue blood angels for example?

Just because I've seen them doesn't mean I like it. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean I'm going to pitch a fit or not play because of it. I'm aware that not everyone shares the same values.

Sometimes, you take the bad with the good. In my ideal world, the rules would be balanced, people would choose armies based on the models and fluff that they liked, and those armies would actually be viable, regardless of what they were. There would be no need to pretend ultras were blood angels or space wolves because the ultras would be just as good. Of course, in my ideal world, you'd never see an unpainted mini on the table and all the terrain would be wonderful and no one would ever cheat either. A boy can dream though.

Your first post said that it is "clearly a violation of wysiwyg." I would think that if it is clearly a violation that it wouldn't be accepted in a tournament that enforces painting and wysiwyg.

For what it is worth, I do like your vision of an ideal world.

I know a guy who did this forever with his marines. I never denied him using whatever coded he wanted, but I never liked it either. It meant my Eldar had to be ready for 3 different kinds of Marines in addition to IG. He on the other hand, only had to worry about facing Eldar.

I don't think it's fair that the most abundant type of army allows people to play any codex they want.

Please note that I have no problem with blue guys always being run as Blood Angels. I just don't like the jumping back and forth on a whim to use the most powerful SM books.

dnanoodle wrote:I know a guy who did this forever with his marines. I never denied him using whatever coded he wanted, but I never liked it either. It meant my Eldar had to be ready for 3 different kinds of Marines in addition to IG. He on the other hand, only had to worry about facing Eldar.

I don't think it's fair that the most abundant type of army allows people to play any codex they want.

Please note that I have no problem with blue guys always being run as Blood Angels. I just don't like the jumping back and forth on a whim to use the most powerful SM books.

The only significant difference between the guy you know and the guy I know who has 4 different armies really just comes down to the amount of money they spent.

cgmckenzie wrote:A space marine in power armor with a bolter is a space marine in PA with a bolter. I could field an army with every single member is from a different chapter with different paint schemes for each model, and run them as any codex I want.

The point I'm trying to make is that as soon as you disregard chapter markings and paint schemes, ANY model is the same as any other model. There is no difference between a grot, a necron, an ork or an eldar. And just as you can make up some bullsquirt about a space-wolf successor chapter that just happens to look exactly like the blood angels chapter, I can make up some ridiculous story about how a bunch of grots were psychically enhanced by an unknown energy based life-form and now have the stats and rules of grey knight paladins.

You have to draw a line somewhere, and that line is well and truly crossed by the time we start treating marine models as chapter-interchangeable.

Jstncloud wrote:At least painting them is painting them, would you prefer that we simply use unpainted models to prevent issues?

Absolutely. At least you can retain some integrity if the models are completely devoid of chapter-specific markings.

Steelmage99 wrote:

Grakmar wrote:I haven't read the entire thread, but here's my take on it:

I have no problem with someone playing a marine army that is clearly intended as SM, BA, DA, etc as another marine army. However, I fully expect you to allow me to play my Eldar army as Orks or Necrons.

As long as the models are WYSIWYG I am fine with that. Especially if you have made a conscious effort to model you army to match the codex.

Lol, nope. The shuriken catapults can be counts as bolters, the star cannons counts as lascannons, the multilasers counts-as autocannons.

There is no WYSIWYG rule, and the box-out on page 47 only applies to characters, so an entire army of counts as eldar as orks is perfectly legal with zero modification.

If you allow one, you gotta allow the other.

This discussion has become about the elitists vs the liberals. People who wanna have fun on their own terms vs people who want to have fun. It's like a DnD session where one player is a full on roleplayer being teamed with a board game (maybe even wargaming) player.

Since both sides are opinions for casual play, it might be better to see it it in a tournament setting. Would a tournament allow blue space marine models with a U stickers that came with the box be played as blood angels. Has there been any tournament that has disallowed an army based on it's aesthetics?

DeathReaper wrote:
Then what do you make of this link?
...

Some models, including those that you indicated, are part of multiple ranges. I applaud your ability to pick out the models that are clearly part of multiple ranges. HTML can be so hard to navigate.

This model:


is a Blood Angel. The tear drop iconography clearly marks it out as being either a Blood Angel, or one of their successors. That model, unconverted, is not a Space Marine Apothecary.

These models:


are Space Wolves. You can tell by the wolf pelts and tails, the diamond icons on the guns, and the curves on the helmets. They are not Space Marines, they are Space Wolves. They are no more Space Marines than Dire Avengers are Space Marines. Space Marines are no more Space Wolves than they are Dire Avengers.

You will not find pictures of either the Blood Angel Sanguinary Priest or the Space Wolf squad members under the tabs for Space Marines. They are not part of that model range.

Bottom line is the paint does not matter, let your opponent know what codex you are using, and have all your upgrades modeled, and you are good to go.

This is your opinion. In my opinion, paint does matter, once it is applied in a way that defines it as part of a specific model range. If you want to paint a successor chapter, I have no issues with that, and you can call it a successor to any chapter you want, so long as your models are part of the range you're claiming. But, once you slap a defined chapter marking on it, that is no longer WYSIWYG. If I see an Ultramarine, it is only WYSIWYG if it's using Codex: Space Marine rules. There is no difference, in my opinion, between calling an Ultramarine a Blood Angel, and calling a plasma gun a meltagun. The appearance of each is clearly defined in the codexes, so calling it something different is proxying, not WYSIWYG.

azazel the cat wrote:Honestly, if I didn't have such a low opinion of people in general, I would be amazed at some of the things I've read so far. It's not my intention to make anyone look foolish, as I believe people are doing a satisfactory job of that themselves. However, I do like to ask questions, so here goes:

Is this a Dark Angel or a Salamander?

Spoiler:

It's a Dark Angel. Salamanders use Snot Green with black weapons, Dark Angels use Dark Angel Green with red weapons. If you're trying to be tricky, you should use a harder question.

If I had an entire army painted like this, and owned both the Dark Angels and Codex: Marines codices, would you let me use these figures as either army, so long as the wargear was proper?

No, it's not based.


Seriously? Like I said before, I've "let" people put cardboard boxes on the table to proxy models they didn't have yet. There is no GW secret police that are going to sneak into our basements and demand anything of us. Is it ideal? No. Is it cool? No. Will I "let" you do it? If you're drinking beer and rolling dice with me, sure.

haendas wrote:...
Your first post said that it is "clearly a violation of wysiwyg." I would think that if it is clearly a violation that it wouldn't be accepted in a tournament that enforces painting and wysiwyg.

For what it is worth, I do like your vision of an ideal world.

I've seen unpainted models at tournaments that 'enforce' painting. GW allowed a guy to use an unpainted army at a GT, much to the annoyance of his opponents who had paid to play against painted armies. I've seen people explain proxies at tournaments. It's one thing to say you're going to require something, it's entirely something different to look at the guy who couldn't get his stuff finished in time and actually tell him that he's not allowed to play. People tend to be forgiving. It's good to have ideals to strive towards, but that doesn't mean we need to be harsh and unforgiving to those who don't meet them. I mean, what should we do, have 'special' tournaments for the people who can't figure it out?

Long thread short, most players will not have a problem with blue blood angels. Most tournaments won't have a problem with it either. It would seem that a small percentage of players will have a problem with it but will still play against it. An even smaller percentage of players will have a problem with it and not play against it. Chances are that the OP is in the clear. Go for it

Kaldor wrote:

Abyssel wrote: Once again, paint is paint

Paint is not just paint. At what point do we stop playing a miniatures wargame and start playing with cardboard chits with 'plasma gunner' and 'landraider' written on it? Where exactly is the line?

For me, as soon as we decide we don't care what rules should be associated with our models, and we use whatever rules we want, we have crossed that line and we may as well be playing with bits of cardboard.

Paint is just paint. Models are models. The rules for WYSIWYG are perfectly defined. There's nothing about "All your Blood Angels have to be Red or you can't use their codex". That said, a tactical marine isn't a grey knight, or a plague marine.

Otherwise why would you EVER conform to any of the "standard" paint schemes? I'd just make up a successor chapter, paint em however I want and play with which ever codex I feel like that week. Does it matter if my succor chapter is orange...or ultramarine blue? No, it will still use which ever codex I want. Some people committed to a paint scheme 15+ years ago, so are they supposed to strip and re-paint thousands of points of models because they thought Ultramarines were cool when they were 12?

I play "Renegade Ultra Blood Wolf Angels" Chapter of marines, they are painted blue and are totally WYSIWYG, try and stop me from using which ever codex I like.

Here's the Blood Angels army I ran in a tournament two months ago. That's my Mephiston model out front.

People are funny sometimes.

It's hard for me to believe that someone's level of enjoyment is completely dependent upon a perceived back story written by a corps of proven bad writers (GW fluff writers). I can accept people might feel that way but it seems odd to me that you would even play the game because the fluff is so entirely different from the rules and actual army interaction on the table.

I suppose I'm in the "paint is just a color" group; I have never heard of or witnessed anyone at the FLGS that I frequent even comment on the things that people do with their own property. One person even has an IG army created out of WHFB undead models; it looks fantastic but I suppose some people posting here would refuse to play him because zombies with las pistols are frowned upon since they only belong in fantasy.

Dear Kaldor,

Games Workshop has flat out stated that you can use your own color schemes for whatever marine book you are playing, and that they do not necessarily have to color match.

In other words, you are objectively wrong.

Love,

ph34r

Redbeard wrote:But, once you slap a defined chapter marking on it, that is no longer WYSIWYG. If I see an Ultramarine, it is only WYSIWYG if it's using Codex: Space Marine rules.

How do you explain this? Please note the army this model is listed under.


While I do agree with you that a Sanguinary Priest is ONLY a Sanguinary Priest, I cannot say that a blue Tac Squad with big white U markings cannot be a Blood Angels Tac Squad, because the ONLY difference is the sticker. What's to prevent someone from placing an Ultramarine U on one shoulder, and a Blood Angels logo on the other? Then what would you do? Hell, why not field an army of Two-Face marines, each model being painted half blue and half red. The only extra burden on you as an opponent is that you would have to remember what army you're playing against.

Hopefully that is not too hard.

Granted, your opponent can't claim that Calgar is Mephiston. However, the point is that it's a lot more affordable to buy both Calgar, Mephiston and a single Tac Squad than it is to buy a separate Tac Squad for every colour scheme.

Redbeard wrote:
These models:


are Space Wolves. You can tell by the wolf pelts and tails, the diamond icons on the guns, and the curves on the helmets. They are not Space Marines, they are Space Wolves. They are no more Space Marines than Dire Avengers are Space Marines. Space Marines are no more Space Wolves than they are Dire Avengers.

Redbeard, kaldor, and others:
If I were to paint the model (With BP and CCW) on the right black with orange shoulders, like my avatar, because I liked the look of the model for my homebrew chapter.

Would you see that as acceptable?

not acceptable?

Something in between?

Who cares what they think? They are obviously in the minority.

Can I just say that while I support those who say paint your marines however you like that doesn't mean I think 40k fluff is stupid (like some are saying) or GW writers suck. I personally like the fluff and like creating fluffy armies, I just don't get up tight about what others choose to do with their armies.

That is an interesting point; homebrew chapters being played with any book. I have my requisite marines(red/white/blue scheme because I am horribly creative) but names them something I can't quite remember with enough fluff to fill a couple pages.

What codex do I get to run them as? Am I relegated to merely C:SM or can I branch out, claiming them to be BA, BT, or SW successors? Can I have 1 of each book and switch my army to my discretion? Or am I stuck to playing only the ultrasmurfs for C:SM, the emo vampires for C:BA, and the barbarian jerks for C:SW?

-cgmckenzie


-cgmckenzie

I got the impression that the OP was choosing C:BA because the playstyle fitted the fluff of his "Alpha Company" best.

Skylifter wrote:I live in Germany's second largest city, and if I ever move elsewhere, it'll be the largest, I have no problem finding gamers who share my view of the game. And I do not attend tournaments, partly because I care more about the roleplaying aspect than about the competition aspect of the game. So I won't ever be in the situation you described. And whether you respect my refusal to play you does not affect me either - if you have a problem with that, yeah, that's exactly it: your problem.

Also, if you post an open question like this on the internet and then get annoyed when someone says no, you just shouldn't ask questions like that. What would you have done if more people like me and Kaldor had answered this? Stopped doing it? That would have been silly if you really want to do it, wouldn't it?

As I stated previously, respect your standpoint one a portion not the whole thing, continue to post in the thread all you like. You addressed my question, obviously the opinions I was seeking were from people who were more tournament oriented, my mistake for not being overly specific as I to play with friends who share an overwhelming love for the game and the lore. Guess the difference is we take it less seriously and wish to have fun playing the game, and we normally do, so I'll keep doing me and you can keep doing you.

Redbeard wrote:With the exception that colour conveys information, and a blood angel is not WYSIWYG as a space wolf.

Is all power armour equivalent for WYSIWYG? I see no reason it should be.

Space wolf power armour has runes and wolf pelts on it. Grey knight power armour has etching on it. Chaos marine power armour has little chaos tips and stars on it. They look different.

Just because they all use the same kind of armour doesn't make them the same. Different codex, different models - using the wrong ones is clearly a violation of WYSIWYG.

Is the exception being made because it is 'close enough'? Well, what about an ork with a shoota and a dire avenger with a shuriken catapult? They both have submachine gun looking weapons. Why aren't these close enough?

Philosophically, I have issues with the idea that color and iconography are not part of WYSIWYG. We identify a bolter as a bolter because of a picture in a book that says, 'this is a bolter'. We identify an ultramarine the same way - the same book that shows us what a bolter looks like shows us what an ultramarine looks like, and that's not what a blood angel looks like.


Realistically, my friends have used far worse proxies than the wrong colour guy and I've still played with them

I think the major issue is customization, what if I wanted to make my own company of DIY marines (and I did, again, Alpha Company) and I wanted to use Blue, White, and a U. Because the codex suggests red, not what I want to use, I should not use it? I see more of the argument with specific units that obviously dictate they are something else but that is not the issue, I am not parading Calgar around as a 'count-as' I am simply using the colors I like, the icon I like, with Blood Angel stuff, all of the weapons are WYSIWIG, and all of the HQs are either WYSIWYG or the actual model.

I will agree on one fact though, I've let friends use some crazy proxies...cough....soda can drop pods....cough lol.

Grakmar wrote:I haven't read the entire thread, but here's my take on it:

I have no problem with someone playing a marine army that is clearly intended as SM, BA, DA, etc as another marine army. However, I fully expect you to allow me to play my Eldar army as Orks or Necrons.

Because clearly a Blue Blood Angel does not look like any other tactical marine, last I checked we used the same kits to make the same generic units. Last I checked Ork units were not also listed under the Eldar unit page for purchase on the GW web page.

Abyssel wrote:The only thing that I, or anyone I have ever known, cares two craps about is:

What codex are you using?
If it is a Space Marine codex (i.e. models using space marine armor), than do you have space marine models? (note symbols don't matter at this point.)

Running a space marine codex using tyranid models would be a no go because tyranids are not the same size/shape for LOS purposes, and it is hard to distinguish who has what wargear.

Now space marines, you guys are naming stuff that you can't or at the very least, would be hard pressed to represent in game, like, red thirst, combat tactics, acute senses, so on and so forth.

My XV8's use a lot of hard wired stuff, so should I have a specific model for each hard wired gear? No because you can't model it, it's with the inside of the suit. All the things you listed are with the specific space marine inside. What if your ultramarine captain got his gauntlet shot off by a chaos bolter and he was fighting alongside blood angels. I'm sure he'd at least pick said gauntlet up for defense.

Would you throw the same arguement out for Chaos Space Marines? It says in their fluff that they pick up pieces of armor all the time to replace the old armor that is damaged.

Hell in Soul Hunter, Talos has a blood angels power sword, so you're telling me that if I wanted to make Talos, I couldn't put a Blood Angels power sword on him? It's what he is using in the book.

Same way my group usually runs things, and makes sense for people to play what they want to play. The points you make are pretty logical.

Redbeard wrote:

haendas wrote:I thought Ultramarines as whatever was a common sight on the competitive circuit. Redbeard, your signature mentions adepticon 2011, did you not see red space wolves and blue blood angels for example?

Just because I've seen them doesn't mean I like it. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean I'm going to pitch a fit or not play because of it. I'm aware that not everyone shares the same values.

Sometimes, you take the bad with the good. In my ideal world, the rules would be balanced, people would choose armies based on the models and fluff that they liked, and those armies would actually be viable, regardless of what they were. There would be no need to pretend ultras were blood angels or space wolves because the ultras would be just as good. Of course, in my ideal world, you'd never see an unpainted mini on the table and all the terrain would be wonderful and no one would ever cheat either. A boy can dream though.

This is very true as well, the main reason I wanted to try another codex was for access to units I did not have access too (the armor to be specific). I'd like to think that in 6th ed Codex Marines will get the Storm Raven and some other goodies, but who knows when we will get it, and who knows how balanced GW is gonna make the other mes that is out. I'd love nothing more than to get out-played and not out-I-have-the-newest-codexed. On a personal note, tested the Blood Angels tonight, got rocked (though it was funny), I was testing the Librarian Furioso, turn 2 I activate the Wings ability, perils, roll a 6 for damage, sat the rest of the game in my deployment zone chilling (he was supposed to move with my transports for mobile 5+ cover saves).

azazel the cat wrote:Honestly, if I didn't have such a low opinion of people in general, I would be amazed at some of the things I've read so far. It's not my intention to make anyone look foolish, as I believe people are doing a satisfactory job of that themselves. However, I do like to ask questions, so here goes:

Is this a Dark Angel or a Salamander?

Spoiler:

If I had an entire army painted like this, and owned both the Dark Angels and Codex: Marines codices, would you let me use these figures as either army, so long as the wargear was proper?

Also:
Why is this figure listed as a Vanilla Marine? Was he in a hurry this morning and grabbed the wrong banner on his way out the door?

Looks like Ezekiel has a bad case of the blues. But how can this be? Dark Angels are only allowed to wear green and beige!

Why does that Grey Knight Terminator Librarian wear so much blue? Doesn't he know that he's not supposed to be the same model for every army?

Why does that Space Wolves Dreadnought have a big U on it? I thought that Space Wolves were covered in furs and crap like that.

Oh noes! That Blood Angels combat squad also has big Us on their blue armor! Right on GW's own website!




Automatically Appended Next Post:






@Deathreaper:

Are you ing kidding me? You ninja'd me on just about every point I made! Stay out of my head!

...I'm gonna go pull my fillings out now.

Love it

Carnage43 wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Abyssel wrote: Once again, paint is paint

Paint is not just paint. At what point do we stop playing a miniatures wargame and start playing with cardboard chits with 'plasma gunner' and 'landraider' written on it? Where exactly is the line?

For me, as soon as we decide we don't care what rules should be associated with our models, and we use whatever rules we want, we have crossed that line and we may as well be playing with bits of cardboard.

Paint is just paint. Models are models. The rules for WYSIWYG are perfectly defined. There's nothing about "All your Blood Angels have to be Red or you can't use their codex". That said, a tactical marine isn't a grey knight, or a plague marine.

Otherwise why would you EVER conform to any of the "standard" paint schemes? I'd just make up a successor chapter, paint em however I want and play with which ever codex I feel like that week. Does it matter if my succor chapter is orange...or ultramarine blue? No, it will still use which ever codex I want. Some people committed to a paint scheme 15+ years ago, so are they supposed to strip and re-paint thousands of points of models because they thought Ultramarines were cool when they were 12?

I play "Renegade Ultra Blood Wolf Angels" Chapter of marines, they are painted blue and are totally WYSIWYG, try and stop me from using which ever codex I like.

Here's the Blood Angels army I ran in a tournament two months ago. That's my Mephiston model out front.

And I just Loled.

So, this is a long post but I genuinely try to reply to thread that I started rather than just blindly leave it alone after having stirred a nest it seems.

For all of those against and for it, thanks for the replies.

I am ok for testing out a codex, but having to continually play against someone that has to proxy models gets tedious.

Now, taking an existing codex and doing a counts-as army that is modeled correctly, hell yea. I have a vision of a Word Bearers army using the SW codex to allow a proliferation of Dark Apostles (four wolf priests), champions (wolf guard in PA and TDA), and daemons (Fenrisian wolves). That sounds pretty well representative of a Word Bearers army.

Brother Ramses wrote:I am ok for testing out a codex, but having to continually play against someone that has to proxy models gets tedious.

That is a completely different discussion, and not a pertinent argument to this one.

Now, taking an existing codex and doing a counts-as army that is modeled correctly, hell yea. I have a vision of a Word Bearers army using the SW codex to allow a proliferation of Dark Apostles (four wolf priests), champions (wolf guard in PA and TDA), and daemons (Fenrisian wolves). That sounds pretty well representative of a Word Bearers army.

Cool. Then why can't some of the models be "recycled" and used (modelled correctly) in various armies?

Black Templar Crusaders, Space Wolf Blood Claws, SM Assault Marines and Blood Angel Assault Marines can all be perfectly represented by a marine model armed with a bolt pistol and a chainsword.
That is what I do with my "represent-every-codex-I-feel-like" army.
Please note that, in my army, special units such as Sanguinary Guard, Death Company, Thunder Wolf Cavalry and every single Grey Knight is represented by official models as they are hard do a really nice counts-as with and still be WYSIWYG.

The only models I "recycle" are the generic ones, and they are all painted in my own colour scheme that isn't related to any of the existing ones.

Would this be a problem to play against?

Carnage43 wrote:
Otherwise why would you EVER conform to any of the "standard" paint schemes?

Because you have a soul.

Have we sunk so low as wargamers that we are more concerned with being able to use as many rules as possible than creating a visual spectacle? This discussion wouldn't even happen among historical gamers, who spend hours researching the colours for the units in their forces. To them the differences between units are only represented by colour. And they'd never dream of using Prussians as French, or vice versa.

DeathReaper wrote:

Redbeard wrote:
These models:

...

Redbeard, kaldor, and others:
If I were to paint the model (With BP and CCW) on the right black with orange shoulders, like my avatar, because I liked the look of the model for my homebrew chapter.

Would you see that as acceptable? / not acceptable? / Something in between?

That's fine. You can paint your models however you want. On the other hand, if you then tried to tell me that they were blood angels, in spite of the fact that those models aren't part of the model range for blood angels, I'd have an issue with that. That's proxying. Those models are space wolves. They're only part of the Space Wolf model range. Paint them however you want, it won't change the fact that those models are Space Wolf models, and claiming that they're Blood Angels would be as ridiculous as claiming that Necron Warriors were Blood Angels.

Steelmage99 wrote:
Black Templar Crusaders, Space Wolf Blood Claws, SM Assault Marines and Blood Angel Assault Marines can all be perfectly represented by a marine model armed with a bolt pistol and a chainsword.

Space Wolf Blood Claws have specific models (Space Wolves) available. They're not just generic marines with bolt pistols and chainswords.

To be fair the BA codex could represent the Ultramarines' 8th company (basically a captain, chaplain, standard bearer, apothecary and 10 assault squads) better than the standard SM codex does. Ignoring units like the DC, SR, Furioso, Baal Pred, etc to still fit in with the theme but use alternate rules to represent it better.

By the way, for those asking if tournaments allow this, here is the model policy from Adepticon, the largest and most successful 40k event in North America, if not the world.

Count-as armies are allowed at AdeptiCon as long as they follow all the above rules and restrictions. The onus is on the owning player to alleviate any and all avenues of confusion that might result from using count-as models/armies. Countas models MUST be WYSIWYG, appropriately equipped and sized accordingly in order to best represent the model/unit in question. Count-as armies should demonstrate reasonable effort when it comes to conversions, simply using an existing army with a different codex (as a proxy) is NOT allowed.

I could be wrong, but I think that adepticon policy is geared towards necrons 'counts as' undead orks using the ork codex or something like that. You need to convert the necrons to be wysiwyg using shootas, choppas, sluggas and not tesla guns. But, I'm a bit biased because I don't think different colors and symbols from the traditional scheme equates to a proxy. Based on what I've read, it seems like the way I interpret that rule is also how adepticon enforces it. I've never been, so I say again, that is based on what I've read.

WYSIWYG has nothing to do with paint, so as long as you have all the marines modeled with the right wargear, Adepticon will allow the use of blue Blood Angels or red Space Wolves.

A guy at my FLGS has nothing but count as armies. He goes to Adepticon and other tournaments frequently and never has a problem. His armies include Dark Eldar represented by heavily modified Skaven, and Chaos Imperial Guard represented by a mix of IG, SM, and fantasy models. Another player has chaos space marines represented by orks waving symbols of khorne and with a hefty amount of red paint. Are these not game legal?

-cgmckenzie

I don't have a problem with someone painting their army any color they want. As long as they build their army using correct units/point costs from the current Codex. Thats part of the fun of 40k, making an army your army. I can't really see a problem with using different codexes and the same painted army, as long as the models are WYSIWYG.

Thats one of the reasons I havn't jumped onto the FoW wagon. I would be really annoyed playing it and having people tell me my camo is the wrong color for a specific campaign or time period.

Who really cares? If you have the right models in your army, the color shouldn't really be an issue, except to have 3 different ones to satisfy some requirement of a tournament.

You'll probably get a lot of purists getting angry if you tried that; Ultramarines are supposed to be the strict followers of the mainstream Codex, while the other Codexes represent significant deviations. If you really wanted a Stormraven, I'd actually recommend starting another detachment entirely and painting them in that army's colors.

Just make sure your opponent is okay with it; I wouldn't have a problem so long as you went all one Codex or all the other (no Marneus Calgar in a Stormraven, for instance).

Also, nice models.

Redbeard wrote:

Carnage43 wrote:
Otherwise why would you EVER conform to any of the "standard" paint schemes?

Because you have a soul.

Have we sunk so low as wargamers that we are more concerned with being able to use as many rules as possible than creating a visual spectacle? This discussion wouldn't even happen among historical gamers, who spend hours researching the colours for the units in their forces. To them the differences between units are only represented by colour. And they'd never dream of using Prussians as French, or vice versa.

I understand this. Up until 2-3 years ago I wouldn't have dreamed of using anything but the vanilla marine codex for my army. Lets face it though, GW writes some really bad books sometimes, and shifts between edition rules can really change the power scale and play style of army lists.

I got into playing heavily in tournaments a couple of years ago and realized that vanilla marines didn't fit the way I wanted to play with their current book (Too slow and static for my liking) so I had a few choices;

1. Buy/play a completely new army. I shelved my marines for over a year and played my Nids after their most recent codex, but realized I wasn't going to beat SW/DE and later GK with them. Buying a third army was too expensive.
2. Stop playing in competitive games until i had a codex I liked. Well, that wouldn't be much fun, and I do enjoy competitive gaming. Plus this could very well be 3-4 or more years of not playing.
3. Buy a $30 codex and raid my bits box. This also gave me the chance to paint some new units I wouldn't normally have access to.

I had a lot of pride in my Ultramarines, and resisted book flip-flopping for years, but seeing everyone with fast tanks, or long fangs or whatever the over powered unit of the day was gets tiring really quickly, especially when most of their armies are Vanilla marines +1. Waiting years upon years for a book that might suit my play style wasn't really very wise either.

I've had a ton of fun playing a "generic" marine chapter. I picked up some old dreads on Ebay and bought some Blood talon arms, I spent some tourny winnings on the Storm Raven. Found some cheap missile launcher guys on Ebay and can field 15 Long Fangs. I'm planning on building a squad of "TWC" with marines riding lizards, and a "Wolf Lord" riding a Carnosaur. I've even got a Dreadknight on the way which I intend on converting up to use as a Demon Prince for when I use the chaos codex. All of these wouldn't have happened if I just had the vanilla book to draw from. I'd probably have a Vulkan model for faux-salamanders (which is better....how?), a couple of rifle-dreads (which I don't really like, visually or game-play wise) and probably a heap and a half of assault terminators and/or Sternguard.

I don't see why I should be denied being able to use one rule book or another just because my guys are blue. 10 years ago this would have be blasphemy, but the opinions having been shifting steadily over the last 4-5 years and it's now largely acceptable. It's not really fair to the poor dead end Xenos lists like Eldar or Orks and Tau, as there's nothing they can do but suffer through with their rule books, but I'm not going to suffer just because they have to.

As for historical gaming. Yeah, a new rule book doesn't come out every few years and suddenly upgrade the french muskets to AK-47s, what once was, will always be the same. I imagine historical gaming is more about recreating battles accurately then about actual "gaming". I know you realize that 40k is a lot less "by the book" then historical gaming is. No one is going to mock some poor kid that has his tactical or assault squad markings on the wrong shoulder pad, or didn't paint his sergeant's helmet red for ultramarines or painted his BA librarian red instead of the codex signified blue....etc

If you really, really want to field a Stormraven...

Why not go the Deathwatch route?

Per the Deathwatch RPG, they have access to Stormravens. So ask your buddies how they'd feel about playing against--or having the option of playing with-- a homebrew unit of 5 Astartes kitted out with Sternguard level gear and the option for a Stormraven.

Kanluwen wrote:If you really, really want to field a Stormraven...

Why not go the Deathwatch route?

Per the Deathwatch RPG, they have access to Stormravens. So ask your buddies how they'd feel about playing against--or having the option of playing with-- a homebrew unit of 5 Astartes kitted out with Sternguard level gear and the option for a Stormraven.

I don't think his problem was ever to do with a Stormraven not fitting in with the fluff, he wants to field a codex army which has rules for it.

On a fluff level I personally have no problem believing every marine chapter will have access to stormravens. The ad mech only gave it to the Blood Angels, Gk and Deathwatch? nah, it will be in the 6th Ed vanilla marine codex, I'd put money on it.

ifStatement wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:If you really, really want to field a Stormraven...

Why not go the Deathwatch route?

Per the Deathwatch RPG, they have access to Stormravens. So ask your buddies how they'd feel about playing against--or having the option of playing with-- a homebrew unit of 5 Astartes kitted out with Sternguard level gear and the option for a Stormraven.

I don't think his problem was ever to do with a Stormraven not fitting in with the fluff, he wants to field a codex army which has rules for it.

You don't need to field a Codex army to field a single Stormraven. The problem comes from wanting to field a "tournament" styled army with it, IMO.

Playing with your friends? You shouldn't encounter too much of an issue.

On a fluff level I personally have no problem believing every marine chapter will have access to stormravens. The ad mech only gave it to the Blood Angels, Gk and Deathwatch? nah, it will be in the 6th Ed vanilla marine codex, I'd put money on it.

You'd be wrong, in all likelihood. They have explicitly stated that the Stormraven is only sticking with the Blood Angels and Grey Knights. The Deathwatch (and the Storm Wardens) having it is a fluke, in all likelihood a piece of FFG fluff put in so that people who enjoy having miniatures to go with their tabletop games could field a gunship of some kind for their Deathwatch Kill-Teams without having to shell out for a Thunderhawk.

What GW did state, however, is that the Stormraven is likely not the only kind of gunship fielded by the Astartes.

Kanluwen wrote:You'd be wrong, in all likelihood. They have explicitly stated that the Stormraven is only sticking with the Blood Angels and Grey Knights. The Deathwatch (and the Storm Wardens) having it is a fluke, in all likelihood a piece of FFG fluff put in so that people who enjoy having miniatures to go with their tabletop games could field a gunship of some kind for their Deathwatch Kill-Teams without having to shell out for a Thunderhawk.

It's kind of like how when the LRC came out there was fluff saying it was incredibly rare to all chapters but Black Templars and had rules so that non BT chapters could only take one. Those rules and fluff disappeared in 4th ed. GW restricting the sales of a model through the rules though, that's unprecedented.

I'm a little confused as to the root of all this argument. I'm not referring to the whole codex-swapping bit. I'm just not sure why the OP wants to use a storm-brick when the Ultramarines have substantial available armour in terms of land raiders, predators, vindicators, etc. I assume this is to do with the slot on the FoC. I mean the storm-brick is fast attack and the armour is heavy support, so is the aim to squeeze more powerful units into a slot in which the OP has space/does not want the existing units/etc.

If this is the case then I would nix it, if someone playing vanilla SM comes in with, say, 3 land raiders in the hs slot and 3 storm-bricks in the fa slot then I would call it. A storm-brick is effectively a flying tank.

I absolutely agree that the storm-brick will end up in the vanilla SM codex next edition. However, I would want the unit used fairly in this instance. If the OP said he wanted to swap a storm-brick for a land raider say or if some other fair agreement could be reached.

With my GK army (I know, I know) I am a bit frustrated that the vehicle pool is pretty thin. Yes the top, uber stuff is there (land raiders and storm-bricks, which are powerful) but with no whirlwinds, predators and vindicators this is a limit on flexibility. It means that any GK armour is a very large points investment. Personally I assume there is some reason for this which I ought to respect. In my opinion if the GK are the top-dog chapter and can have any equipment then I would imagine they could field whatever rhino variants they wanted. Any counter-argument is pretty much knocked down by the fact that they can have rhinos and razorbacks. Whatever I think the codex says no they can't so I respect that even if I disagree.

As for the colour of models the paint scheme is incidental to me to be honest!

Skylifter wrote:
Using Grey Knight or Blood Angel rules to play Ultramarines is, to me, no different to using Necron rules to play Orks. Yes, it is more easily identifiable what is supposed to be what in the first case, but it is still using the wrong rules.

Unfortunetly for you GW creators say its fine, as long as he uses a single codex and everything is correct in terms of wargear then there is no problem what colour they are.

As long as a player doesn't try to create a mind numbingly aweful back story to try and justify the codex use and just says 'i like this codex and i like this colour' i would play them.

lol smurfs wielding halberds and ironclads with blender claws! Yea thats not weird. I get allowing people to customize but there is some weak attempts at codex hopping and hiding behind creative players who actually do some really cool conversions etc.

You have to remember that not everyone plays for the same reason, GW players are made up of gamers, painters/modelers, fluff guys or a mix of everything.

So in a tournament, an event that resolves arond play, with a few points given to painting (not fluff). Then it is perfectly resonable to assume that an opposing player won't object to them not following fluff, as that isn't the point of the event.

Seeing as he is changing codex to use new models and the ones he already has shouldn't be a problem either seeing as this is an expensive hobby, he's not bending fluff as he is not playing a fluff army.

Redbeard wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:
Black Templar Crusaders, Space Wolf Blood Claws, SM Assault Marines and Blood Angel Assault Marines can all be perfectly represented by a marine model armed with a bolt pistol and a chainsword.

Space Wolf Blood Claws have specific models (Space Wolves) available. They're not just generic marines with bolt pistols and chainswords.

I know they have special dedicated models. A generic space marine model can represent as Blood Claw to all extents of game-related WYSIWYG though. And that is no different than if I had my my own conversion, which I assume wouldn't be a problem as long as it was WYSIWYG.....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:By the way, for those asking if tournaments allow this, here is the model policy from Adepticon, the largest and most successful 40k event in North America, if not the world.

Count-as armies are allowed at AdeptiCon as long as they follow all the above rules and restrictions. The onus is on the owning player to alleviate any and all avenues of confusion that might result from using count-as models/armies. Countas models MUST be WYSIWYG, appropriately equipped and sized accordingly in order to best represent the model/unit in question. Count-as armies should demonstrate reasonable effort when it comes to conversions, simply using an existing army with a different codex (as a proxy) is NOT allowed.

Unless "reasonable effort" if clearly defined that statement is worthless....and what do I care about the rules of a tournament on another continent, large or otherwise?

Anyone can codex hop all they want. But it is contemptible, low-brow and petty. And it always will be. The blue blood angels posted a page or two ago are a perfect example: What a trashy army!

haendas wrote:I could be wrong, but I think that adepticon policy is geared towards necrons 'counts as' undead orks using the ork codex or something like that

Which is absolutely no different to using ultramarines as blood angels

BluntmanDC wrote:

Skylifter wrote:
Using Grey Knight or Blood Angel rules to play Ultramarines is, to me, no different to using Necron rules to play Orks. Yes, it is more easily identifiable what is supposed to be what in the first case, but it is still using the wrong rules.

Unfortunetly for you GW creators say its fine

Of course it is. And by extension, using any size-comparable models is also fine. Grots as eldar, nobs as terminators, rhinos as falcons, whatever you want is fair game. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.

Kaldor wrote:Anyone can codex hop all they want. But it is contemptible, low-brow and petty. And it always will be. The blue blood angels posted a page or two ago are a perfect example: What a trashy army!

haendas wrote:I could be wrong, but I think that adepticon policy is geared towards necrons 'counts as' undead orks using the ork codex or something like that

Which is absolutely no different to using ultramarines as blood angels

That's not hurtful at all. <sniff>

So, your opinion is that everything has to be 100% WYSIWYG and the proper paint scheme to use the rule book? What about successor chapters or home brew chapters? Not legal? What if your Grey Knights are chainmail silver instead of mithril? What if their guns are dark red instead of blood red? It seems like a person's intent is your "breaking point". If someone wants to use the Blood Angels codex for "Blood Angels successor chapter #214" then that's okay regardless of paint scheme, but if they want to use it because they like the rules, "What a trashy army!" is your response? How can you know a person's intent without them telling you? What if I didn't tell you my marines were Ultramarines and instead the "Cerulean Angels" successor of the Blood Angels and always have been. Is it okay now? Getting picky over paint schemes just gives more people reasons to not paint anything at all. I'd rather see green and blue Blood Angels or red Space Wolves then an army that's completely unpainted.

The line is drawn by GW at models, not paint. Period.

BluntmanDC wrote:

Skylifter wrote:
Using Grey Knight or Blood Angel rules to play Ultramarines is, to me, no different to using Necron rules to play Orks. Yes, it is more easily identifiable what is supposed to be what in the first case, but it is still using the wrong rules.

Unfortunetly for you GW creators say its fine

Of course it is. And by extension, using any size-comparable models is also fine. Grots as eldar, nobs as terminators, rhinos as falcons, whatever you want is fair game. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.

Also a little weirded out that the 2 people that are annoying me in this thread are Kaldor and Draigo. I think I'm sensing a pattern.

Kaldor wrote:Anyone can codex hop all they want. But it is contemptible, low-brow and petty. And it always will be. The blue blood angels posted a page or two ago are a perfect example: What a trashy army!

haendas wrote:I could be wrong, but I think that adepticon policy is geared towards necrons 'counts as' undead orks using the ork codex or something like that

Which is absolutely no different to using ultramarines as blood angels

BluntmanDC wrote:

Skylifter wrote:
Using Grey Knight or Blood Angel rules to play Ultramarines is, to me, no different to using Necron rules to play Orks. Yes, it is more easily identifiable what is supposed to be what in the first case, but it is still using the wrong rules.

Unfortunetly for you GW creators say its fine

Of course it is. And by extension, using any size-comparable models is also fine. Grots as eldar, nobs as terminators, rhinos as falcons, whatever you want is fair game. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.

You can't add new rules and expect people who play a game governed by rules to not care, especially when you try to convince us that a rule means something different than the convention. By the way, Adepticon allowed by buddy with an all white scar paint theme, even white scar markings and models, to play them as space wolves... no one even batted an eye.

Adeptus Astartes in PA can be any Chapter of the Adeptus Astartes as long as special equip is WYSIWYG. GW rule, internationally accepted, been that way since RT. That is in no way the same thing as saying an ork is an eldar (again that too is internationally accepted, official, not tournament legal, and again always been that way). You can insist that playing a Salamander as a Blood Angel violates WYSIWYG, but since the first codices were published, you'd be wrong (both the people who make the game and the vast majority of tournaments and players say so too). You can also insist that its the same as a Rhino being a Falcon (welcome to logical fallacies, BTW) but again, no noteworthy establishment in the 40k community agrees.

Lobukia wrote: That is in no way the same thing as saying an ork is an eldar.

It is exactly the same. It's ignoring the established rules and background associated with a particular model and using whatever rules happen to take your fancy.

And as I said earlier, thats fine. They're your models, and you can play them however you want.

But it is contemptible, cheap, low-brow and petty. And it always will be.

Being picky about color for the different " factions" so Chapters, Cabals, Craft Worlds, are nothing but a scheme for GW to make you purchase more armies since you cant proxy them.

Kaldor wrote:

haendas wrote:I could be wrong, but I think that adepticon policy is geared towards necrons 'counts as' undead orks using the ork codex or something like that

Which is absolutely no different to using ultramarines as blood angels

You also seem to have missed the point entirely, which was that color and iconography doesn't limit you to a specific marine codex in that tournament.

Contemptible, cheap, low brow, and petty? Wow. That makes it sound like con-men, not players in a game. You need to get off whatever pedestal you put yourself on to look down on other players of the game like that, especially when it is because of color scheme of their toys.

-cgmckenzie

Carnage43 wrote: It seems like a person's intent is your "breaking point". If someone wants to use the Blood Angels codex for "Blood Angels successor chapter #214" then that's okay regardless of paint scheme, but if they want to use it because they like the rules, "What a trashy army!" is your response?

Bingo.

Blue blood-angels are fine, if thats what you want. Ultramarine blood angels are tacky and crass.

There are two ways to divine a persons intent: Admissions and overt acts. Having an army painted and modelled as one thing, but using the rules of another, is a very overt act. I don't care about green space wolves or blue blood angles, but dark angel space wolves and ultramarine blood angels is crossing the line.

Kaldor wrote:

Carnage43 wrote: It seems like a person's intent is your "breaking point". If someone wants to use the Blood Angels codex for "Blood Angels successor chapter #214" then that's okay regardless of paint scheme, but if they want to use it because they like the rules, "What a trashy army!" is your response?

Bingo.

Blue blood-angels are fine, if thats what you want. Ultramarine blood angels are tacky and crass.

There are two ways to divine a persons intent: Admissions and overt acts. Having an army painted and modelled as one thing, but using the rules of another, is a very overt act. I don't care about green space wolves or blue blood angles, but dark angel space wolves and ultramarine blood angels is crossing the line.

Ya know who else was really concerned with the purity of his army?


/Godwin'd

As a general overview of the thread so far I think as long as the OP steers clear of Redbeard and Kaldor he will be fine.

So, lets take this out of marines. Is it proxying to use Cadian models for an IG army that has no ties to Cadia? Judging from this thread, yes. Is it proxying to paint your Eldar in camo, again i get the idea that yes it is. What about grey orks? PROXIES! Your taking it too far, a marine is a marine, the wargear is pretty much universal. Say i want a space wolves army, but hate the models, well Ill use regular marines, and say acute senses is a sensor package rather then super noses. Done. Red thirst could be certain units get inspired by the Emperor to have furious charge and be fearless. Its almost like you have no imagination.

Lunahound wrote:Being picky about color for the different " factions" so Chapters, Cabals, Craft Worlds, are nothing but a scheme for GW to make you purchase more armies since you cant proxy them.

Not at all. Let's get this out of the way first. GW is not going to send enforcers to your house or club and make sure you do things their way. You could play all of GWs games using cardboard chits, cut to the right base sizes. You could even play games with better rules, using cardboard chits

Most people don't want to do that. But, you could, and you could avoid paying GW for any miniatures in the process. GW isn't making anyone do anything.

There is something more going on here. It's as if using models adds some additional value to the game that cardboard chits don't have. What value is that? It's aesthetics.

You don't have to paint your models. You don't even need to prime them. I have seen people play the game with unpainted models before; i know it can be done. And yet, people do paint their models. Why would anyone go to this extra trouble? Again, it's the aesthetics. Miniature wargames aren't just about gaming, they're about the aesthetics.

You don't have to use the right models to play the game. You don't have to use the right colour schemes. But, in failing to do those things, you give up some of the aesthetic. Some of what makes miniature wargames what they are.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:So, lets take this out of marines. Is it proxying to use Cadian models for an IG army that has no ties to Cadia? Judging from this thread, yes. Is it proxying to paint your Eldar in camo, again i get the idea that yes it is. What about grey orks? PROXIES!

Not at all. I think what Kaldor said about intent is pretty key here. It's not a proxy if you're using an army as you originally intended. If you wanted grey orks, good for you. I've also seen 'counts-as' armies where orks were used as necrons, or where adeptus mechanicus models were used as daemons. No problem, that's what was intended, and a good deal of work was put into them to make them obvious as what they were representing.

It ventures into proxying when you take an army and use different rules for it than you originally intended. Of course, intent cannot be proven, but if you show up with a space marine army that has all the correct chapter markings for one chapter, and then claim to be using a different set of rules, that's pretty obvious. Rather than jump through mental hurdles to convince yourself that this right, why not just admit that you're proxying one army for another and get on with your game?

And, if your intent is to use the most generic looking models and paint scheme you can in order to maximize the flexibility of which rules you're using... well, using cardboard counters are the most flexible. If that's your goal, well, just accept that you're losing out on the aesthetics that make miniature wargames worth playing in the first place.

Say i want a space wolves army, but hate the models...

Then it's not really like you want a Space Wolves army, is it?

well Ill use regular marines ... Its almost like you have no imagination.

Wait a second, you want to use the (overpowered) Space Wolves rules (let's not pretend that you actually want a Space Wolves army, it's just the rules you want), and the best you can come up with is using regular marine models, and you say I've no imagination? You could make ork-wolves. You could make chaos-wolves (with berserkers riding juggernauts instead of thunderwolves). You could do eldar-wolves with dragon riding exodites. And, yet, the best you come up with is regular marines. And say I have no imagination.

My gaming group has made it very clear that a marine is a marine and as long as the weapons are correct, it can play for any codex. I have considered that once I paint up my Space Hulk terminators, picking up a Dark Angel codex and running them in a few games as Deathwing. Otherwise, I will probably never be able to use all of them at the same time in a game of 40k. I would genuinely have no issue with it.

Another thought is I would like to paint up a Raven guard army and use it as standard marines, but actually do some weathering where the paint is chipping away to reveal alpha legion colors underneath and also run as chaos at times. I heard that idea somewhere and if that person is reading this, massive props.

I got into this game with Dark Angels. I spent a year painting, modeling and playing a very occasional game. Then I played a Space Marine army at Gencon in 2010, and realized that GW had left the Dark Angels behind a while ago (unless you played Deathwing).

I bought the Space Marines codex and played my army in a number of ways - White Scars, Salamanders, nilla Marines. I liked the variety of play styles so much that I repainted my army in neutral scheme that could match either codex .

I'm fine with what you are playing as long as the rules are fair and the models represent what they are supposed to. I prefer that the paint scheme fit the models eventually - so if you really love the Stormraven and want to play Blood Angels more, some slight variations to your scheme would be appreciated.

The 40k Universe allows for tons of flexibility in terms of successor chapters, and you could eventually make a few simple changes to your scheme to represent that.

I'm laughing my arse off at this thread.

After all these pages, what I'm essentially getting from a bunch of posters here is that, for instance, I couldn't take a Space Wolves Pack box, paint them as red with Flesh-Tearers iconography, and use the Blood Angels codex to field a Flesh Tearers army with them. All because GW didn't sell those plastic models specifically for that purpose.

Also, evidently I can't field a Dark Angels army unless they are painted in the exact way and shades that GW examples are. If I want to field them black, like in the early days of Rogue Trader, I am disqualified from using their specific Codex. Because that is obviously tantamount to using Necrons to represent Orks.

Those are some truly rich stretches of logic.

Space Wolf Blood Claws have specific models (Space Wolves) available. They're not just generic marines with bolt pistols and chainswords.

Really? They sure used to be that exact thing, in regards to which GW models got used to represent them. What about every Space Wolf army that's ever been made when the only way to do so was to do exactly that? I'm in that group.... so I take it I can no longer field my army in current games, unless I re-buy all the new models to replace them? "Space Wolves" are just guys in grey power armor with black wolves on their shoulders that have special rules. And that's only if you paint the icons or use transfers.

While fully-painted, not a single figure of my Space Wolves has a transfer or free-handed icon to mark them as such, but they follow all the rules of the codex involving unit composition. In fact, they are all figures that were made to be 13th Company Space Wolves back in the Eye of Terror campaign.

To field the marine models (not the metal wolfen) as standard Space Wolves in current games, am I to believe that I can't use the new Codex: Space Wolves, because most of the models have various parts of the Chaos marines plastics involved in their making and that's not what they were made for?

Carnage43 wrote:

Kaldor wrote:Anyone can codex hop all they want. But it is contemptible, low-brow and petty. And it always will be. The blue blood angels posted a page or two ago are a perfect example: What a trashy army!

haendas wrote:I could be wrong, but I think that adepticon policy is geared towards necrons 'counts as' undead orks using the ork codex or something like that

Which is absolutely no different to using ultramarines as blood angels

That's not hurtful at all. <sniff>

So, your opinion is that everything has to be 100% WYSIWYG and the proper paint scheme to use the rule book? What about successor chapters or home brew chapters? Not legal? What if your Grey Knights are chainmail silver instead of mithril? What if their guns are dark red instead of blood red? It seems like a person's intent is your "breaking point". If someone wants to use the Blood Angels codex for "Blood Angels successor chapter #214" then that's okay regardless of paint scheme, but if they want to use it because they like the rules, "What a trashy army!" is your response? How can you know a person's intent without them telling you? What if I didn't tell you my marines were Ultramarines and instead the "Cerulean Angels" successor of the Blood Angels and always have been. Is it okay now? Getting picky over paint schemes just gives more people reasons to not paint anything at all. I'd rather see green and blue Blood Angels or red Space Wolves then an army that's completely unpainted.

The line is drawn by GW at models, not paint. Period.

BluntmanDC wrote:

Skylifter wrote:
Using Grey Knight or Blood Angel rules to play Ultramarines is, to me, no different to using Necron rules to play Orks. Yes, it is more easily identifiable what is supposed to be what in the first case, but it is still using the wrong rules.

Unfortunetly for you GW creators say its fine

Of course it is. And by extension, using any size-comparable models is also fine. Grots as eldar, nobs as terminators, rhinos as falcons, whatever you want is fair game. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.

Also a little weirded out that the 2 people that are annoying me in this thread are Kaldor and Draigo. I think I'm sensing a pattern.

This.

I stopped trying to plead anything with them because the 'rules' that GW has in place do not satisfy their 'rules' and thus it is pointless to keep bickering with them.

If the 'lore' was correct then SM models would be much larger, harder to kill, and every codex would have a bunch of options that they currently do not (though they would probably argue using a Salamander HQ with and Ultramarines HQ, though the Codex explains why this could happen, why can't that same logic be referenced when doing count-as armies, seems the same enough to me).

Fortunately the majority of the thread seems to agree that if it is WYSIWYG it is a go, which is fine with me.

Skylifter wrote:I don't like it. I'm not as hard-line on this any more as I once was, but I think the rules for each codex are written to represent the abilities of the chapters they are written for. Ultramarines don't use nemesis force halbereds, nor are they all psykers.

And Greyknights are supposed to fight daemons...

I don't think I have ever seen such a battle actually played. It seems GK now only fight Necrons and other marine chapters...

Redbeard wrote:Not at all. Let's get this out of the way first. GW is not going to send enforcers to your house or club and make sure you do things their way. You could play all of GWs games using cardboard chits, cut to the right base sizes. You could even play games with better rules, using cardboard chits

Most people don't want to do that. But, you could, and you could avoid paying GW for any miniatures in the process. GW isn't making anyone do anything.

There is something more going on here. It's as if using models adds some additional value to the game that cardboard chits don't have. What value is that? It's aesthetics.

You don't have to paint your models. You don't even need to prime them. I have seen people play the game with unpainted models before; i know it can be done. And yet, people do paint their models. Why would anyone go to this extra trouble? Again, it's the aesthetics. Miniature wargames aren't just about gaming, they're about the aesthetics.

You don't have to use the right models to play the game. You don't have to use the right colour schemes. But, in failing to do those things, you give up some of the aesthetic. Some of what makes miniature wargames what they are.

Exactly.

CT GAMER wrote:

Skylifter wrote:I don't like it. I'm not as hard-line on this any more as I once was, but I think the rules for each codex are written to represent the abilities of the chapters they are written for. Ultramarines don't use nemesis force halbereds, nor are they all psykers.

And Greyknights are supposed to fight daemons...

I don't think I have ever seen such a battle actually played. It seems GK now only fight Necrons and other marine chapters...

This. A demon player already knows he's screwed going up against them. I liked it better in 2nd ed when the only Grey Knight option was the elite terminator squad you could take in an Imperial army. If there were no demons present, they sat on the ship and never teleported in.

Also, as a chaos player who feels let down - nay, shall I say beaten down with a Nerf stick by the 5th ed chaos codex I love seeing players fielding their Night Lords and World Eaters using the Blood Angel codex or Iron Warriors with the SM codex

Quite enjoyed reading this thread, some people can really be a stick in the mud and need to cheer up.

Brotherjulian wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Skylifter wrote:I don't like it. I'm not as hard-line on this any more as I once was, but I think the rules for each codex are written to represent the abilities of the chapters they are written for. Ultramarines don't use nemesis force halbereds, nor are they all psykers.

And Greyknights are supposed to fight daemons...

I don't think I have ever seen such a battle actually played. It seems GK now only fight Necrons and other marine chapters...

This. A demon player already knows he's screwed going up against them. I liked it better in 2nd ed when the only Grey Knight option was the elite terminator squad you could take in an Imperial army. If there were no demons present, they sat on the ship and never teleported in.

Also, as a chaos player who feels let down - nay, shall I say beaten down with a Nerf stick by the 5th ed chaos codex I love seeing players fielding their Night Lords and World Eaters using the Blood Angel codex or Iron Warriors with the SM codex

Does kind of seem crazy that the one army GK are definitely spossed to fight is an army they would have some ridiculous chance of beating when compared to other armies.

I really wish the game was more balanced so no one would even feel the need to consider playing out of other books, but as it stands some armies are better than others, and some have cool toys that others do not.

@Redbeard

Actually I hate space marines, and if I did do an army (to get my little bro interested) it would be a very shooty army, based on Starship Troopers and Armor. The armor would be a camoflauge scheme, and look very martial and uniform, unlike the space wolves who look like vikings. To me the space wolves look stupid. But look better then blood angels, theyre about as useless as nipples on a breastplate...

The no imagination part comes from people saying "well ultras dont have the red thirst" Well, its not the red thirst, its a priest inspiring them for the emperor, making them fearless in battle.

I think Space Marines are getting all the focus in this thread, even from me. As a guy just getting back into the swing of things from 4th edition, I have a question that also puts the extremist views in this thread to the test for an army that's non-SM, just to stir the pot from a different perspective:

If I am using my newly-gifted Eldar ,models with the current 5th Eldar codex, is their any special rules based on which major Craftworld I am fielding, like the last "Craftworld Eldar" codex used to have? I'm just starting a Eldar army and am pondering backgrounds but don't have the new codex yet.

Because just like using Ultramarines paint jobs with the BA rules, I'm curious about opinions that if i field Saim-Hann that are blue, or if i paint black Iyanden they will "kill the game's background". Because that's the same thing as "painting red Space Wolves are like fielding orks as tyranids."

On WYSIWYG;

...The rule is that [such equipment] must be visually represented on the model so your opponents can clearly see what they are facing

The WYSIWYG rule states only that weapons and wargear are inluded, no mention anywhere of iconography, insignia, skulls, pelts or anything else.

That is all.

As long as my opponents have no issue with me using my IG as Marines, or my DE as Orks, or my Orks as Necrons, then I have no problem letting my opponents use their marine chapter as another marine chapter.

AegisGrimm wrote:I think Space Marines are getting all the focus in this thread, even from me. As a guy just getting back into the swing of things from 4th edition, I have a question that also puts the extremist views in this thread to the test for an army that's non-SM, just to stir the pot from a different perspective:

If I am using my newly-gifted Eldar ,models with the current 5th Eldar codex, is their any special rules based on which major Craftworld I am fielding, like the last "Craftworld Eldar" codex used to have? I'm just starting a Eldar army and am pondering backgrounds but don't have the new codex yet.

Because just like using Ultramarines paint jobs with the BA rules, I'm curious about opinions that if i field Saim-Hann that are blue, or if i paint black Iyanden they will "kill the game's background". Because that's the same thing as "painting red Space Wolves are like fielding orks as tyranids."

I don't know anything about a Craftworld Edlar book, but the newest Imperial Armor (IA11: the Doom of Mymeara) has an army list for Eldar Corsairs. I would have no problem with you playing Eldar painted as one craftworld but using the Eldar Corsair list, so long as the weapons were WYSIWYG or have reasonable counts-as.

BuFFo wrote:As long as my opponents have no issue with me using my IG as Marines, or my DE as Orks, or my Orks as Necrons, then I have no problem letting my opponents use their marine chapter as another marine chapter.

The better analogy would be letting you use your mordians as catachans, or your evil sunz as bad moons. Which most people would have no problem with at all.

In what reality does something like painting up a pre-heresy World Eaters army and using the Blood Angels codex to represent their blood-thirstyness ever compare with plunking down Orks on the table as Necrons?

That's the hugest logic leap ever.

I keep hearing that "swapping codexes" is proxying, but I'm not sure how. If you are fielding a Space Wolves counts-as army, you show your army sheet to the other, and a squad on the table has all the Grey Hunter's wargear options and composition rules, they are obviously Grey Hunters. It doesn't matter if they are grey, green, or bright pink.

I think that the larger "issue" here is that the OP has said outright that he plays "Ultramarines". Often times, if you play a "GW" chapter, or at least one of the Big 4, you are always assumed to be playing a single book. I think that there would be far less issue with taking the BA, SW, BT or any other MEQ book with a chapter like, Raven Guard, Iron Hands, etc.

For instance, I play Iron Snakes (the chapter in Dan Abnett's Brothers of the Snake), and have gotten absolutely no flak for taking my army as either SW or vanilla marines. In the "lesser known" or DIY chapters, I think that there is greater leeway given, because over time, each player adapts his/her playstyle, and their tastes in models change, etc.

An earlier poster commented, or rather asked, about whether there was this sort of "limitation" on Eldar.. If it were me you were playing against there wouldnt be. I don't honestly know enough of the fluff to tell much of the difference in their colors... From what I understand in playing against them once, is that their various aspects have "assigned" colors, and its the aspects that alter the army, but I honestly wouldn't NOT play you because your Dark Reapers weren't black/white, or your Fire Dragons weren't orange, yellow and red, etc. Heck, I'd even be completely OK with you using those Eldar models as Dark Eldar, so long as we both could easily identify what each unit/model was and what it carried. The same goes with Marines in PA..

What if i want to field the 8yth company of Ultramarines, but I want to have a cool rule to represent that they are all assault marines and have a higher frequency of fielding bikes and land speeders. So I use the DA codex and all legal unit entries to have them hit the table with the ravenwing rules. I tell my opponent as such.

As for models being used 'out of context"... What about my "Eldar Corsairs" who I want to look evil. So for instance, my Swooping Hawks are made from DE Scourges and are all equipped like the figure on the left:



Am I honestly to believe that I just broke the entire theme of the 40K universe? I'm sorry to burst any bubbles, but a Blood Angels Sanguinary Priest model painted in Ultramarines colors in a vanilla codex army is a Ultramarines Apothecary.

AegisGrimm wrote:What if i want to field the 8yth company of Ultramarines, but I want to have a cool rule to represent that they are all assault marines and have a higher frequency of fielding bikes and land speeders. So I use the DA codex and all legal unit entries to have them hit the table with the ravenwing rules. I tell my opponent as such.

As for models being used 'out of context"... What about my "Eldar Corsairs" who I want to look evil. So for instance, my Swooping Hawks are made from DE Scourges and are all equipped like the figure on the left:



Am I honestly to believe that I just broke the entire theme of the 40K universe? I'm sorry to burst any bubbles, but a Blood Angels Sanguinary Priest model painted in Ultramarines colors in a vanilla codex army is a Ultramarines Apothecary.

Both examples you have here, I personally would be completely cool with...

AegisGrimm wrote:What if i want to field the 8yth company of Ultramarines, but I want to have a cool rule to represent that they are all assault marines and have a higher frequency of fielding bikes and land speeders. So I use the DA codex and all legal unit entries to have them hit the table with the ravenwing rules. I tell my opponent as such.

Well, to be fair...
The 8th Company of Ultramarines isn't really fielded en masse. They, like many other Loyalist Chapters, break their non-standard Companies up and field them as support elements for the "primary" Companies.

Someone wanting to use a White Scars force under the Ravenwing rules? I'd be okay with that, provided he's not fielding the Master of the Ravenwing on a Jetbike.
Someone who comes up with some kind of campaign oriented reason for the 8th Company to be fielding its bikes and Land Speeders? Again--I'd be okay with that if there's no Jetbike Master.

But a guy who just randomly shows up and says "My Ultramarine Bikers are Ravenwing"? That's strange, and it makes me think he might have an ulterior motive.

As for models being used 'out of context"... What about my "Eldar Corsairs" who I want to look evil. So for instance, my Swooping Hawks are made from DE Scourges and are all equipped like the figure on the left:



Am I honestly to believe that I just broke the entire theme of the 40K universe? I'm sorry to burst any bubbles, but a Blood Angels Sanguinary Priest model painted in Ultramarines colors in a vanilla codex army is a Ultramarines Apothecary.

No, but to many people it will seem quite lazy.

BuFFo wrote:As long as my opponents have no issue with me using my IG as Marines, or my DE as Orks, or my Orks as Necrons, then I have no problem letting my opponents use their marine chapter as another marine chapter.

Because painting a marine Black, Blue, Pink, baby-poop-green, and so on makes him less of a marine right? Because totally painting an Ork Ultramarines Blue means he looks like a marine and has the WYSIWYG weapons right?

*sarcasm* Thanks for the input.

GreatGunz wrote:

BuFFo wrote:As long as my opponents have no issue with me using my IG as Marines, or my DE as Orks, or my Orks as Necrons, then I have no problem letting my opponents use their marine chapter as another marine chapter.

The better analogy would be letting you use your mordians as catachans, or your evil sunz as bad moons. Which most people would have no problem with at all.

Agreed.

The 8th Company of Ultramarines isn't really fielded en masse. They, like many other Loyalist Chapters, break their non-standard Companies up and field them as support elements for the "primary" Companies.

Tue, but that was the only comparison I could quickly provide. Although in the 2nd edition codex they are described as being used in situations where a fast assault and hand-to-hand fighting is needed, and a game could easily represent their assault to one side of a much bigger battle-line of normal battle Companies.

Now, the Ravenwing-as-White Scars is spot-on though. Good example!

As for the 'lazy' Scourges,I would just grin;

I also use old-style DE jetbikes with Shuriken catapults added in place of the splinter rifles, converted new-Wyches as 'Harlequins', and Venom models with mounted Craftworld Eldar weapons as 'Vipers' alongside my more normal Wraithlords/guard, Eldar tanks and Eldar troopers, who have spikes and blades added to taste.

AegisGrimm wrote:What if i want to field the 8yth company of Ultramarines, but I want to have a cool rule to represent that they are all assault marines and have a higher frequency of fielding bikes and land speeders. So I use the DA codex and all legal unit entries to have them hit the table with the ravenwing rules. I tell my opponent as such.

As for models being used 'out of context"... What about my "Eldar Corsairs" who I want to look evil. So for instance, my Swooping Hawks are made from DE Scourges and are all equipped like the figure on the left:



Am I honestly to believe that I just broke the entire theme of the 40K universe? I'm sorry to burst any bubbles, but a Blood Angels Sanguinary Priest model painted in Ultramarines colors in a vanilla codex army is a Ultramarines Apothecary.

I'd be fine with both, so long as for the DE pieces you put an effort to make them look like your army. I immediately bought a Grey Knights kit when it came out because the models looked cool and would make an awesome Honour Guard. They look like marines, weapons were correct for what I converted and built, they just have more ornate iconography which seemed to make sense with where I was going with my Honour Guard groups.

It's not that I made the Scourges look like the other Eldar-it's that I made the other Craftworld Eldar stuff look like them.

But like a bright pink grey hunters squad, they are the only thing in my Eldar army that uses the Swooping Hawks wargear and entry(and are shown to the opponent as such), so they are obviously swooping hawks. The guns are 'technically wrong', as they are still the splinter rifles from the Scourge sprue and not actual Eldar lasblaster models, but it's not like swapping a lasgun for a shoota, because if you see a squad of Eldar with wings on their backs next to a Wave Sperpent and a Wraithlord and the rest of an Eldar army, they are probably Swooping Hawks with Lasblasters.

AegisGrimm wrote:It's not that I made the Scourges look like the other Eldar-it's that I made the other Craftworld Eldar stuff look like them.

But like a bright pink grey hunters squad, they are the only thing in my Eldar army that uses the Swooping Hawks wargear and entry(and are shown to the opponent as such), so they are obviously swooping hawks. The guns are 'technically wrong', as they are still the splinter rifles from the Scourge sprue and not actual Eldar lasblaster models, but it's not like swapping a lasgun for a shoota, because if you see a squad of Eldar with wings on their backs next to a Wave Sperpent and a Wraithlord and the rest of an Eldar army, they are probably Swooping Hawks with Lasblasters.

Still assuming your army as a whole looks like a cohesive entity.

Me personally, if the weapons look like what they are supposed to be I'd be fine with it, the problem I think would be tacking a big jump "Hey this rocket launcher is a Lascannon." Bit of a stretch (though I've let people do that).

I can see where others would likely be fine with the models but not the weapon though.

If it was possible, I would think about it. But as for cutting up Finecast or old metal models just for a gun they're holding...

The common opinion it that since no other models are holding identical splinter rifles but having them count as something else, it's kosher.

BuFFo wrote:As long as my opponents have no issue with me using my IG as Marines, or my DE as Orks, or my Orks as Necrons, then I have no problem letting my opponents use their marine chapter as another marine chapter.

As long as the models are WYSIWYG I'll be happy to play against any of the above examples.

AegisGrimm wrote:If it was possible, I would think about it. But as for cutting up Finecast or old metal models just for a gun they're holding...

The common opinion it that since no other models are holding identical splinter rifles but having them count as something else, it's kosher.

Like I said, I really wouldn't care they seem fine to me (or close enough anyways) and so long as the army looks cohesive to some degree I'd be happy to play against it.

Go with my theory on the whole subject. You bring an ultramarine army and are using blood angels rules. And some one says that you can't do that, punch them int he throat and find some one else to play. Colors are colors. I poke fun at a guy who uses the dark angels marines as blood angels. I only poke fun and then play him. I have a yellow plague marine army, Does that mean that they are actually imperial fists? Like every one else as said before, a marine is a marine and color doesn't matter. Old models are still usable, and under What you see is what you get, You have to follow your groups guide lines. I haven't run into a group yet that has told me i had to glue grenades on my models or i had to show my marines with a bolter and a bolt pistol. Most times its if they aren't equipped with standard wargear you model it. Just saying that a space wolf army has to look like every other space wolf army is saying that you want the hobby to die and want gw to come out with pre painted miniatures. Personally i like my army to look different than other peoples. Its what makes half the game fun. Using one marine for different marine codices, is and should always remain fine to do. Just don't use marines as sisters of battle... Nothing against the models... Just seems a little wrong and makes me wonder what the marines are wearing under their armor.

There shouldn't really be a contest for marines painted one color being used for another chapter.

It's true that non-marine armies don't have as much of a luxury for experimenting with other codeci.

If the color scheme matters so much then unless you paint the models the exact same hue of the appropriate codex affiliated with them you can't field them. It would be very difficult to get the hues that exact,

And it's more fun to experiment with other armies, trying new tactics and adapting.

But there are other armies I wouldn't mind substitutions for.
Dark Eldar-Craftworld Eldar-Corsairs
All space marines-chaos space marines
Imperial Guard-to Tau-some Some unit substitutions

Blackskullandy wrote:On WYSIWYG;

...The rule is that [such equipment] must be visually represented on the model so your opponents can clearly see what they are facing

The WYSIWYG rule states only that weapons and wargear are inluded, no mention anywhere of iconography, insignia, skulls, pelts or anything else.

That is all.

Does it? When making an assertion like this, it is nice if you provide a page reference for the rest of us. I, for example, can't seem to find it in the 5th ed rulebook at all. However, if it were there, I would assume that it would say something about the reason for this being that you want your opponent to have an easy time of seeing what your men have and can do. I would think, therefore, that putting out models clearly painted and modeled to belong to one codex, with the rules for another codex, would be violating the spirit of this rule if not the letter of it. Assuming, of course, that the rule still exists in 5th ed.

On the other hand, assuming that this is a strict rule, it is interesting to note that the basic "weapons and wargear" carried by a Space Wolf is not the same as the basic "weapons and wargear" carried by a Space Marine, so the same models, if they really are WYSIWYG, cannot be used in both armies, because WYSIWYG aren't the same. But I suppose you'll say something about it not counting for marines to need both bolt pistols and bolters. And you won't have a page number to back up that claim either.

AegisGrimm wrote:In what reality does something like painting up a pre-heresy World Eaters army and using the Blood Angels codex to represent their blood-thirstyness ever compare with plunking down Orks on the table as Necrons?

That's the hugest logic leap ever.

No one is saying that a planned out and intentional "counts-as" army is a bad thing. Or is even a 'proxy'. If you can't see the difference between spending the time and effort into creating a pre-heresy world eater army that happens to use blood angel rules, and taking your existing world eater army and just putting them on the table and calling them blood angels then there's really no point in trying to convince you any further.

Taking a purposefully build World Eater army, with all chaos parts and all chaos icons and calling it a blood angel army is not a huge logical leap from taking a basic ork army and calling it a necron army. The fact that they're both power-armour and bolt-weapons is no more relevant than the fact that the orks and necrons are both xenos armies.

BTW: Orks as necrons - done correctly.

AegisGrimm wrote:What if i want to field the 8yth company of Ultramarines, but I want to have a cool rule to represent that they are all assault marines and have a higher frequency of fielding bikes and land speeders. So I use the DA codex and all legal unit entries to have them hit the table with the ravenwing rules. I tell my opponent as such.
...
Am I honestly to believe that I just broke the entire theme of the 40K universe? I'm sorry to burst any bubbles, but a Blood Angels Sanguinary Priest model painted in Ultramarines colors in a vanilla codex army is a Ultramarines Apothecary.

Ah, but now you're starting to get it. If you do something intentionally, it's a conversion, or it's a "counts-as" army. That's all fine. If you put the effort into making your Sanguinary Priest look like an Ultra, then no one will ever say anything negative about it, and you'll probably get some kudos out of it (especially if you take the time to file off the blood-drop icons). If you deliberately make an Ultramarine 8th company army, which happens to need all-bike rules, you're doing it deliberately. (It could be argued, especially these days, that Marine all-bike armies are best done with Codex Marines and using Ravenwing rules isn't quite as beneficial as it may have been at one time, but that's another matter entirely). This is good hobbying. This is what wargaming is about. You had an idea, you put effort into it, you got a result.

On the other hand, if you just take that BA model and stick it on the table in BA colours, with no effort made at all, you're just proxying a model. It won't look good, it won't add anything to the game, and you deserve whatever ridicule you get. You put forth no effort in this second example.

And, as I've said several times already, so what. You're proxying. No one is going to refuse to play with you as a result.

Redbeard wrote:Ah, but now you're starting to get it. If you do something intentionally, it's a conversion, or it's a "counts-as" army. That's all fine. If you put the effort into making your Sanguinary Priest look like an Ultra, then no one will ever say anything negative about it, and you'll probably get some kudos out of it (especially if you take the time to file off the blood-drop icons). If you deliberately make an Ultramarine 8th company army, which happens to need all-bike rules, you're doing it deliberately. (It could be argued, especially these days, that Marine all-bike armies are best done with Codex Marines and using Ravenwing rules isn't quite as beneficial as it may have been at one time, but that's another matter entirely). This is good hobbying. This is what wargaming is about. You had an idea, you put effort into it, you got a result.

On the other hand, if you just take that BA model and stick it on the table in BA colours, with no effort made at all, you're just proxying a model. It won't look good, it won't add anything to the game, and you deserve whatever ridicule you get. You put forth no effort in this second example.

And, as I've said several times already, so what. You're proxying. No one is going to refuse to play with you as a result.

Agreed completely.

It's "codex-hopping" that I find distasteful. If you want to run a "counts-as" army, or a custom chapter, or anything like that, use whatever codex you want. But, you should stick to it and not just hop to the next flavor of the month.

And, like I said, I'm totally okay with someone playing a different codex than what their army is as long as they extend the same courtesy to me.

Redbeard wrote:Does it? When making an assertion like this, it is nice if you provide a page reference for the rest of us. I, for example, can't seem to find it in the 5th ed rulebook at all. However, if it were there, I would assume that it would say something about the reason for etc etc etc etc

Sir, I agree with your opinion.

People can, of course, paint their models however they want. However, the spirit of the WYSIWYG idea is that your opponent is not confused. If I look across the table and see some Ultramarines, and then I have to remember that they're ACTUALLY Grey Hunters, this is confusing. Regardless if I've been told that at the start of the game. In fact, I would argue that it's MORE confusing to fight proxy marine armies than any other sort of proxy army, precisely because the models are so similar.

I play this game because of the hobby elements. I like the act of collecting and modelling unique armies, even if they're not optimal. I want to play players that like this too. Deciding that it's irrelevant what the models are and picking a more competitive codex tells me that my opponent doesn't like this - he likes winning more. And that means I don't want to play him.

Of course, that doesn't mean that people shouldn't do it if they want. But I wouldn't want to play like that, and I'd consider it unfair in a tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AegisGrimm wrote:What if i want to field the 8yth company of Ultramarines, but I want to have a cool rule to represent that they are all assault marines and have a higher frequency of fielding bikes and land speeders. So I use the DA codex and all legal unit entries to have them hit the table with the ravenwing rules. I tell my opponent as such.

Well, as pointed out, the purpose of the WYSYWYG idea is to avoid confusion. I have lots of counts-as armies, which I go to great lengths to make as non-confusing as possible, to the level of converting every model so that it's REALLY obvious what it is.

I would say that the least confusing way to represent the Ultramarines 8th Company as a biker force would be to use the Biker rules from the Space Marine codex. If you want to field a counts-as army, you should pick the least confusing rules that allow you to field it, for the sake of your opponent.

This reminds me of the Space Marine player who took the time to convert some amazing Imperial Jetbikes. They were just being finished as the Space Wolf codex arrived, and the player immediately decided they were 'Thunderwolves'. The problem wasn't that he was codex hopping (the marines were his own grey-painted chapter already, so no danger of confusion there...), the problem was that there were two obviously more suitable units present in the Codex already. He chose a confusing counts-as for a competitive advantage, and that annoyed people...

Redbeard wrote:

Blackskullandy wrote:On WYSIWYG;

...The rule is that [such equipment] must be visually represented on the model so your opponents can clearly see what they are facing

The WYSIWYG rule states only that weapons and wargear are inluded, no mention anywhere of iconography, insignia, skulls, pelts or anything else.

That is all.

Does it? When making an assertion like this, it is nice if you provide a page reference for the rest of us. I, for example, can't seem to find it in the 5th ed rulebook at all. However, if it were there, I would assume that it would say something about the reason for this being that you want your opponent to have an easy time of seeing what your men have and can do. I would think, therefore, that putting out models clearly painted and modeled to belong to one codex, with the rules for another codex, would be violating the spirit of this rule if not the letter of it. Assuming, of course, that the rule still exists in 5th ed.

On the other hand, assuming that this is a strict rule, it is interesting to note that the basic "weapons and wargear" carried by a Space Wolf is not the same as the basic "weapons and wargear" carried by a Space Marine, so the same models, if they really are WYSIWYG, cannot be used in both armies, because WYSIWYG aren't the same. But I suppose you'll say something about it not counting for marines to need both bolt pistols and bolters. And you won't have a page number to back up that claim either.

AegisGrimm wrote:In what reality does something like painting up a pre-heresy World Eaters army and using the Blood Angels codex to represent their blood-thirstyness ever compare with plunking down Orks on the table as Necrons?

That's the hugest logic leap ever.

No one is saying that a planned out and intentional "counts-as" army is a bad thing. Or is even a 'proxy'. If you can't see the difference between spending the time and effort into creating a pre-heresy world eater army that happens to use blood angel rules, and taking your existing world eater army and just putting them on the table and calling them blood angels then there's really no point in trying to convince you any further.

Taking a purposefully build World Eater army, with all chaos parts and all chaos icons and calling it a blood angel army is not a huge logical leap from taking a basic ork army and calling it a necron army. The fact that they're both power-armour and bolt-weapons is no more relevant than the fact that the orks and necrons are both xenos armies.

BTW: Orks as necrons - done correctly.

AegisGrimm wrote:What if i want to field the 8yth company of Ultramarines, but I want to have a cool rule to represent that they are all assault marines and have a higher frequency of fielding bikes and land speeders. So I use the DA codex and all legal unit entries to have them hit the table with the ravenwing rules. I tell my opponent as such.
...
Am I honestly to believe that I just broke the entire theme of the 40K universe? I'm sorry to burst any bubbles, but a Blood Angels Sanguinary Priest model painted in Ultramarines colors in a vanilla codex army is a Ultramarines Apothecary.

Ah, but now you're starting to get it. If you do something intentionally, it's a conversion, or it's a "counts-as" army. That's all fine. If you put the effort into making your Sanguinary Priest look like an Ultra, then no one will ever say anything negative about it, and you'll probably get some kudos out of it (especially if you take the time to file off the blood-drop icons). If you deliberately make an Ultramarine 8th company army, which happens to need all-bike rules, you're doing it deliberately. (It could be argued, especially these days, that Marine all-bike armies are best done with Codex Marines and using Ravenwing rules isn't quite as beneficial as it may have been at one time, but that's another matter entirely). This is good hobbying. This is what wargaming is about. You had an idea, you put effort into it, you got a result.

On the other hand, if you just take that BA model and stick it on the table in BA colours, with no effort made at all, you're just proxying a model. It won't look good, it won't add anything to the game, and you deserve whatever ridicule you get. You put forth no effort in this second example.

And, as I've said several times already, so what. You're proxying. No one is going to refuse to play with you as a result.

Bolded the portion I am asking about:

So what if I painted my marines Hot Pink and gave them the correct weapons? Are they now not legal because you would have no idea what codex they were from unless I told you? How about if I painted my Ultramarines a 'dark' blue rather than the bright almost baby blue (which I did by the way) are they now so far off the reservation that you cannot figure out what they do? What if they were bright purple with lime trim and a home made decal on the shoulder, what then? The opponent would have to tell you what codex they were using.

I am guessing though that because they did not use the paint scheme GW chose for the codex they want to use that you'd just not wanna play with em?

How about this, we take all creative control for the player away and let GW and the lore-people tell everyone 'exactly' how to paint their models, exactly where decals go, and take away the fun side, hell, while we are at it lets just take painting away and sell booster packs with pre-painted miniatures.

FYI:
WYSIWYG is on page 47 of the rule book. The last sentence states: "While some tournaments may be more strict about his kind of thing, most opponents are happy to accomodate a small degree of one thing counting as another , so long as you explain exactly who has what at the start of the game."

Granted 'some' tournaments might be more strict (which is why many of us magnetize our models) this does not change the fact that in the rule book they mention this. Now you, as well as a few others might be in the minority of players who would complain and/or not play, that does not change the fact the people who wrote the book seem to be understanding of a small degree of variation.

I think that painting is a small degree, it is a huge difference if I am using model A to be model B when they are obviously not even close to the same thing.

If this is still in dispute, no idea how to approach you save you coming out and saying "I won't play anyone who paints their models the way they want, paint them by your codex or nothing! No custom colors!"

To the second portion of bolded information, in my case, I have shaved off every blood drop I could get to without messing the models up I've taken a dremel to the pewter stuff (Gabriel for example, I dremeled everything BA off of him and green stuffed a U onto his shoulder and into the center of his halo).

These conversions were done well before I even got the codex as well, simply because I liked the models. One day I wanted to try some new stuff, people were not cool with me doing so without running from that codex, so I grabbed it. On the same note I converted the Furiosos as well, no BA iconography on those unless it was something I simply could not get off without ruining a portion of the model.

ArbitorIan wrote:

Redbeard wrote:Does it? When making an assertion like this, it is nice if you provide a page reference for the rest of us. I, for example, can't seem to find it in the 5th ed rulebook at all. However, if it were there, I would assume that it would say something about the reason for etc etc etc etc

Sir, I agree with your opinion.

People can, of course, paint their models however they want. However, the spirit of the WYSIWYG idea is that your opponent is not confused. If I look across the table and see some Ultramarines, and then I have to remember that they're ACTUALLY Grey Hunters, this is confusing. Regardless if I've been told that at the start of the game. In fact, I would argue that it's MORE confusing to fight proxy marine armies than any other sort of proxy army, precisely because the models are so similar.

I play this game because of the hobby elements. I like the act of collecting and modelling unique armies, even if they're not optimal. I want to play players that like this too. Deciding that it's irrelevant what the models are and picking a more competitive codex tells me that my opponent doesn't like this - he likes winning more. And that means I don't want to play him.

Of course, that doesn't mean that people shouldn't do it if they want. But I wouldn't want to play like that, and I'd consider it unfair in a tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AegisGrimm wrote:What if i want to field the 8yth company of Ultramarines, but I want to have a cool rule to represent that they are all assault marines and have a higher frequency of fielding bikes and land speeders. So I use the DA codex and all legal unit entries to have them hit the table with the ravenwing rules. I tell my opponent as such.

Well, as pointed out, the purpose of the WYSYWYG idea is to avoid confusion. I have lots of counts-as armies, which I go to great lengths to make as non-confusing as possible, to the level of converting every model so that it's REALLY obvious what it is.

I would say that the least confusing way to represent the Ultramarines 8th Company as a biker force would be to use the Biker rules from the Space Marine codex. If you want to field a counts-as army, you should pick the least confusing rules that allow you to field it, for the sake of your opponent.

This reminds me of the Space Marine player who took the time to convert some amazing Imperial Jetbikes. They were just being finished as the Space Wolf codex arrived, and the player immediately decided they were 'Thunderwolves'. The problem wasn't that he was codex hopping (the marines were his own grey-painted chapter already, so no danger of confusion there...), the problem was that there were two obviously more suitable units present in the Codex already. He chose a confusing counts-as for a competitive advantage, and that annoyed people...

Having a unit on a jet bike count as a unit on a Wolf is far different than simply an army wide color change. As I noted here what happens if my custom colors do not obviously depict the codex I play out of, it is cheating? How so if I prefer to have pink marines instead of blue, red, black, green, or grey?

Personal note, in my case, in no way have I jumped to BA from C:SM because I want to be flavor of the month, I am trying new stuff for the sake of new stuff, furthermore check out my other threads where I am asking about BA tactica and am trying to utilize tacticals over the typical spammed assault marines (which unforunately seems to be the only option but that does not change the fact I am trying to do something fun and entertaining, not just trying to spam the "I Win button").

Redbeard wrote:

Blackskullandy wrote:The WYSIWYG rule states only that weapons and wargear are inluded, no mention anywhere of iconography, insignia, skulls, pelts or anything else.

That is all.

Does it? When making an assertion like this, it is nice if you provide a page reference for the rest of us. I, for example, can't seem to find it in the 5th ed rulebook at all. However, if it were there, I would assume that it would say something about the reason for this being that you want your opponent to have an easy time of seeing what your men have and can do. I would think, therefore, that putting out models clearly painted and modeled to belong to one codex, with the rules for another codex, would be violating the spirit of this rule if not the letter of it. Assuming, of course, that the rule still exists in 5th ed.

Page 47 in the BRB is where you can find the WYSWIG rule. It states "Character models in particular tend to have a lot of options as to what weapons and wargear they can use - given in the army list of their codex. The rule is that such equipment must be visually represented on the model..." So they are talking about equipment. and last I checked Ultramarine, and Blood Angel symbols and icons are not equipment.

Below is my squad of terminators with my Librarian. The Librarian has Terminator Armor, Storm Shield, and a Force Weapon. The librarian is kind of a counts as, because its the model for Kaldor Draigo, but it works as a SM Librarian due to the equipment. And there seems to be a lack of Terminator models that have a Storm Shield, and a weapon that is not a Thunderhammer. or Staff (I hate the way Staves look).

I still would like to know where it says that I can't take a bunch of my painted Ultramarine bikers and landspeeders and for a bit of variety use the Ravenwing rules from the Dark Angels codex to govern them in a battle, as long as those are the only rules that blanket the army that's on the table.

If there's no rule that says my Ravenwing have to be in black armor, there is certainly nothing about any required heraldry being that of the Dark Angels. As long as it's a Space Marine in power armor on a bike, I can use any of the rules that involve Space marines in power armor on bikes, as long as their equipment matches the army list entry I'm claiming to use.

Likewise, what if I use my painted 13th Company Space Wolves as normal Space Wolves? The established visual of Grey Hunters does not portray them in anything other than Imperial Power armor. So because about 50% of each of my models are from the Chaos plastics, and painted in Black Legion heraldry, I can;t use them as Grey Hunters, even if they follow all the rules in the SW codex?

What if my buddy wants to field his Black Templar marines using the vanilla codex instead of any BT one? Ts that somehow illegal fluff-wise, as they are no longer a vanilla chapter?

Taking a purposefully build World Eater army, with all chaos parts and all chaos icons and calling it a blood angel army is not a huge logical leap from taking a basic ork army and calling it a necron army. The fact that they're both power-armour and bolt-weapons is no more relevant than the fact that the orks and necrons are both xenos armies.

So both Chaos marines and loyalist marines using boltguns that use the exact same weapon profile is equal to Orks and Tyranids being the same because they are both non-humans? Wow.

I can take a Space marine and a chaos marine and immediately point out the things on both that are analogous, disregarding any painjob. Both have power armor, both have big shoulder pauldrons, both have boltguns (if each are so armed), both have vented backpacks, similar helmets, etc. Hell, usually they even have the exact same statline. The only comparison between Orks and Eldar is that they are both from the same game universe.

DeathReaper wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

Blackskullandy wrote:The WYSIWYG rule states only that weapons and wargear are inluded, no mention anywhere of iconography, insignia, skulls, pelts or anything else.

That is all.

Does it? When making an assertion like this, it is nice if you provide a page reference for the rest of us. I, for example, can't seem to find it in the 5th ed rulebook at all. However, if it were there, I would assume that it would say something about the reason for this being that you want your opponent to have an easy time of seeing what your men have and can do. I would think, therefore, that putting out models clearly painted and modeled to belong to one codex, with the rules for another codex, would be violating the spirit of this rule if not the letter of it. Assuming, of course, that the rule still exists in 5th ed.

Page 47 in the BRB is where you can find the WYSWIG rule. It states "Character models in particular tend to have a lot of options as to what weapons and wargear they can use - given in the army list of their codex. The rule is that such equipment must be visually represented on the model..." So they are talking about equipment. and last I checked Ultramarine, and Blood Angel symbols and icons are not equipment.

Below is my squad of terminators with my Librarian. The Librarian has Terminator Armor, Storm Shield, and a Force Weapon. The librarian is kind of a counts as, because its the model for Kaldor Draigo, but it works as a SM Librarian due to the equipment. And there seems to be a lack of Terminator models that have a Storm Shield, and a weapon that is not a Thunderhammer.

By the logic that a couple of posters keep bringing up, your force is not painted to match any codex, so they would 'be confused as to what you are indeed using.'

Like the bright colors though, definitely stands out.

AegisGrimm wrote:I still would like to know where it says that I can't take a bunch of my painted Ultramarine bikers and landspeeders and for a bit of variety use the Ravenwing rules from the Dark Angels codex to govern them in a battle, as long as those are the only rules that blanket the army that's on the table.

If there's no rule that says my Ravenwing have to be in black armor, there is certainly nothing about any required heraldry being that of the Dark Angels. As long as it's a Space Marine in power armor on a bike, I can use any of the rules that involve Space marines in power armor on bikes, as long as their equipment matches the army list entry I'm claiming to use.

Likewise, what if I use my painted 13th Company Space Wolves as normal Space Wolves? The established visual of Grey Hunters does not portray them in anything other than Imperial Power armor. So because about 50% of each of my models are from the Chaos plastics, and painted in Black Legion heraldry, I can;t use them as Grey Hunters, even if they follow all the rules in the SW codex?

What if my buddy wants to field his Black Templar marines using the vanilla codex instead of any BT one? Ts that somehow illegal fluff-wise, as they are no longer a vanilla chapter?

I'd have no problem with it, in the Vanilla book it explains what to do if you use two different chapter HQs, you choose who is 'commanding' (replace chapter tactics with their stuff). But you could still field 2 'different' chapter leaders and it would be ok, granted you'd have to tell your opponent what stuff you were using, and that is perfectly legal via that book.

How is it any different if you run UM as DA for the raven wing stuff, you are not bringing anything from one codex to the other save the models (which are WYSIWYG) and by the logic in the Codex: Space Marines one might argue that their force is being led by another chapter's leader for that battle, that is assuming in the lore space marines work together...oh right, because they fight for the imperium of man and have their own codex in the lore they won't be on the same 'team.'

I think the point that is confusing some, is that the ones who are against things such as using "Ultramarines" as "Blood Angels", or using "Black Templars" as "space wolves", etc.

The problem isn't "what codex is the color of the army from" it's more a "GW established this group in this codex, but is it the same"

For instance, many people who run Raven Guard armies, run either Shrike in Vanilla codex lists, OR they run a non-shrike (often times generic HQ) BA, DOA list. This is almost never brought up as a problem. The reason there seems to be a problem with The Big Four, is because they are literally the poster children, or the namesake of their individual books.


DiY, descendent, and Counts-As armies almost never have this problem, because there is usually much less "fluff" to go on, and thus IMHO would create much less confusion.

Cut'n pasted as it seems relevent----------------------


Your dudes

That's never going to happen to a major character of ANY FACTION.

Here is what 40k is about. Are you ready? Write this down, because it is important.

40k is about your own group of soldiers.

I don't care what faction you play or what lists you use. I don't care if you're an existing unit or you make up your own. 40k is about your dudes. It is about YOUR GUYS.

Let me tell you a story about one Erasmus Tycho: http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Tycho

Erasmus Tycho was a captain in an early after-action report in White Dwarf. At one point he got KOed by a Weirdboy's psychic blast. This was fluffed as him being severely injured, and that affected his characterization and so on. In-game events were strung together and then logically connected to a potential story - an EMERGENT story based on the guided events of the gameplay.

Do you see what that is? THAT IS AN EVOLVING STORY. THAT IS THE KIND OF THING YOU CAN DO WITH YOUR GUYS. You can give your dudes names and grow attached to them in the same way that you can with X-COM or Final Fantasy Tactics or any other game where you have generic dudes.

Hell, if you played Chaos Gate, that was basically the game! The last time someone played it for /tg/, there was a dude named APEMANTUS who was badass (based on in-game events), was killed (as an in-game event), and was brought back as a dreadnought (a stretch of the imagination that was connected to in-game events).

That's the kind of stuff 40k should be about. Evolving stories based on what you did, and how a battle went. It's what Necromunda does, it's what Mordheim does, and it's what every strategy game ought to do.

Don't worry about "the fluff". The fluff is background material. It exists to provide context for your own story. Worrying about fluff is like worrying about Drizzt and Elminster in the Forgotten Realms - it shouldn't be about them, it should be about your party. The same thing applies to 40k. Become the change you want.

Redbeard wrote:

Blackskullandy wrote:On WYSIWYG;

...The rule is that [such equipment] must be visually represented on the model so your opponents can clearly see what they are facing

The WYSIWYG rule states only that weapons and wargear are inluded, no mention anywhere of iconography, insignia, skulls, pelts or anything else.

That is all.

Does it? When making an assertion like this, it is nice if you provide a page reference for the rest of us. I, for example, can't seem to find it in the 5th ed rulebook at all. However, if it were there, I would assume that it would say something about the reason for this being that you want your opponent to have an easy time of seeing what your men have and can do. I would think, therefore, that putting out models clearly painted and modeled to belong to one codex, with the rules for another codex, would be violating the spirit of this rule if not the letter of it. Assuming, of course, that the rule still exists in 5th ed.

On the other hand, assuming that this is a strict rule, it is interesting to note that the basic "weapons and wargear" carried by a Space Wolf is not the same as the basic "weapons and wargear" carried by a Space Marine, so the same models, if they really are WYSIWYG, cannot be used in both armies, because WYSIWYG aren't the same. But I suppose you'll say something about it not counting for marines to need both bolt pistols and bolters. And you won't have a page number to back up that claim either.

Suppose whatever you like, I didn't say a thing about my thoughts on this subject, just what the BRB has to say on WYSIWYG.

Jstncloud wrote:
So what if I painted my marines Hot Pink and gave them the correct weapons? Are they now not legal because you would have no idea what codex they were from unless I told you? How about if I painted my Ultramarines a 'dark' blue rather than the bright almost baby blue (which I did by the way) are they now so far off the reservation that you cannot figure out what they do? What if they were bright purple with lime trim and a home made decal on the shoulder, what then? The opponent would have to tell you what codex they were using.

I am guessing though that because they did not use the paint scheme GW chose for the codex they want to use that you'd just not wanna play with em?

This is called a Straw Man argument. You're setting up a position that no one else is claiming, and then trying to knock it down.

No one cares if you use your own paint scheme. Go to town with it.

The issue is that if you use a paint scheme or models that are very obviously tied to one codex (space wolves, blood angels, ultramarines, etc), and then you just say that they're using a different set of rules, this can be just as confusing for an opponent as if you had them with the wrong weapons modeled.

Imagine it like, you've obviously got Blood Angels, but you're running them as normal Space Marines. Your opponent shoots your guys with pistols, prior to charging. You say 'I'll choose to fail this leadership test with Chapter Tactics, and fall back." And then your opponent goes, "oh, crap, I forgot you had that, normal Blood Angels can't do that. I wouldn't have shot you if I'd have remembered."

If you have your own colour scheme, that's not going to happen. No one is going to assume anything about them. That doesn't make things complicated for anyone. But if I see Blood Angels, I expect certain things, and Chapter Tactics isn't one of them.

If this is still in dispute, no idea how to approach you save you coming out and saying "I won't play anyone who paints their models the way they want, paint them by your codex or nothing! No custom colors!"

Again, STRAW MAN. No one has said this. Seriously, stop it. Go back and read the thread. I've even said, more than once, that I do play against people who do far worse things than codex-hop. I've played against cardboard boxes because an opponent hadn't assembled his tanks yet.

DeathReaper wrote:
Page 47 in the BRB is where you can find the WYSWIG rule. It states "Character models in particular tend to have a lot of options as to what weapons and wargear they can use - given in the army list of their codex. The rule is that such equipment must be visually represented on the model..." So they are talking about equipment. and last I checked Ultramarine, and Blood Angel symbols and icons are not equipment.

Thanks for the page reference. So, this rule, found in the character section, only applies to characters then? No, probably not.

How many Space Marines have you seen modeled with both their Bolt Pistol, and their Bolter? Probably a discussion for some other place. Point is, however, that if you want to play by the letter of the rules, you better make sure all your guys are modeled to the letter of the rules. If you want to play to the spirit of the rules, the one that is based around not misleading or confusing your opponent, then deliberately misrepresenting which army you're playing is probably a bad thing.

Below is my squad of terminators with my Librarian. The Librarian has Terminator Armor, Storm Shield, and a Force Weapon. The librarian is kind of a counts as, because its the model for Kaldor Draigo, but it works as a SM Librarian due to the equipment. And there seems to be a lack of Terminator models that have a Storm Shield, and a weapon that is not a Thunderhammer.

Hrm, your model doesn't have a psychic hood. By the letter of the rules that you're recommending, you probably shouldn't use him, as he doesn't have all his wargear represented...

AegisGrimm wrote:I still would like to know where it says that I can't take a bunch of my painted Ultramarine bikers and landspeeders and for a bit of variety use the Ravenwing rules from the Dark Angels codex to govern them in a battle, as long as those are the only rules that blanket the army that's on the table.

I would like to know where it says that I can't take a bunch of my painted orks, and buggies and for a bit of variety use the Ravenwing rules from the Dark Angels codex to govern them in a battle, as long as those are the only rules that blanket the army that's on the table.

If there's no rule that says my Ravenwing have to be in black armor, there is certainly nothing about any required heraldry being that of the Dark Angels. As long as it's a Space Marine in power armor on a bike, I can use any of the rules that involve Space marines in power armor on bikes, as long as their equipment matches the army list entry I'm claiming to use.

Well, you have to model all the wargear, right?

Ravenwing Attack Bikes list "teleport homers" among their wargear. Do your models have visibly represented teleport homers? If they do, then they're invalid as Ultramarine bikers, as Ultramarine bikes don't have teleport homers.

If the basis of your argument is that models with the same wargear should be interchangable between codexes, you should probably do a better job of picking examples that actually have the same wargear.

So both Chaos marines and loyalist marines using boltguns that use the exact same weapon profile is equal to Orks and Tyranids being the same because they are both non-humans? Wow.

But chaos marines and loyalist marines with boltguns do not have the exact same weapon profile. Chaos Marines list their wargear as "Power Armour, Bolt Pistol, Frag Grenades, Krak Grenades, Close Combat Weapon, Bolter", and Loyalist Marines list, "Power Armour, Bolt Pistol, Frag and Krak Grenades, Boltgun"

Again, if the basis of your argument is on identical profiles, shouldn't you be picking examples with identical profiles?


Now, to try and clearly state, again, my stance on this, so as to avoid additional potential strawman arguments, the issue is not about what the model is armed with, or is modeled with, for as fun as it is to pick apart your examples, this really has no bearing on my position. My concern is that when you field an army with an established appearance, which includes the paintjob, the iconography, the chapter markings, and so on, it is as confusing for an opponent to try and keep track of this as it is when you take a model with a defined weapon (say, a lascannon), and tell them before the game that it's going to count as a plasma cannon for this game.

Both of these cases are what we call proxies. Yes, you told me. But, in the heat of battle, I'm liable to forget. If I leave my guys bunched up because I SEE a lascannon, and you blast the whole squad off the table because you had told me it is a plasma cannon, well, I must not have remembered. I wouldn't have done this if I saw a plasma cannon. Visual cues make a difference. Likewise, if I SEE Ultramarines, I'm going to make certain assumptions. My expectations about your capabilities will be influenced by the fact that I am seeing Ultramarines. So, when I leave you a rear-armour shot because I forgot that your Blood Angel rhinos are fast, or when I fail to string my guys out because I forgot that your "Librarian" has Jaws of the World Wolf... it's the exact same thing. You're PROXYING, and that is influencing our game.

And, if you have a home-brew colour scheme, or you've taken the time and effort to do a pre-heresy army, or a thirteenth company, this isn't going to be an issue. You've got an army that is its own thing. It's only an issue when I look at one thing that creates an expectation, and it then doesn't behave as it is portrayed.

But chaos marines and loyalist marines with boltguns do not have the exact same weapon profile. Chaos Marines list their wargear as "Power Armour, Bolt Pistol, Frag Grenades, Krak Grenades, Close Combat Weapon, Bolter", and Loyalist Marines list, "Power Armour, Bolt Pistol, Frag and Krak Grenades, Boltgun"

I mean that their boltguns use the same weapon profile.

I would like to know where it says that I can't take a bunch of my painted orks, and buggies and for a bit of variety use the Ravenwing rules from the Dark Angels codex to govern them in a battle, as long as those are the only rules that blanket the army that's on the table.

Mainly because none of the models are human, none have have power armor, or any of the weapons and/or wargear that is visually associated with Space marines. Also none of the bikes are space marine bikes, and buggies are not landspeeders.

The only thing, model-wise, that separates a Ravenwing Force of bikes from an Ultramarine force of bikes is an established paintjob.

Ravenwing Attack Bikes list "teleport homers" among their wargear. Do your models have visibly represented teleport homers? If they do, then they're invalid as Ultramarine bikers, as Ultramarine bikes don't have teleport homers.

If the basis of your argument is that models with the same wargear should be interchangable between codexes, you should probably do a better job of picking examples that actually have the same wargear.

Do any actual Ravenwing models have that wargear modeled on the figure? Because if not, than even a Ravenwing force cannot use the Ravenwing rules by that logic.

Redbeard wrote:

Jstncloud wrote:
So what if I painted my marines Hot Pink and gave them the correct weapons? Are they now not legal because you would have no idea what codex they were from unless I told you? How about if I painted my Ultramarines a 'dark' blue rather than the bright almost baby blue (which I did by the way) are they now so far off the reservation that you cannot figure out what they do? What if they were bright purple with lime trim and a home made decal on the shoulder, what then? The opponent would have to tell you what codex they were using.

I am guessing though that because they did not use the paint scheme GW chose for the codex they want to use that you'd just not wanna play with em?

This is called a Straw Man argument. You're setting up a position that no one else is claiming, and then trying to knock it down.

No one cares if you use your own paint scheme. Go to town with it.

The issue is that if you use a paint scheme or models that are very obviously tied to one codex (space wolves, blood angels, ultramarines, etc), and then you just say that they're using a different set of rules, this can be just as confusing for an opponent as if you had them with the wrong weapons modeled.

Imagine it like, you've obviously got Blood Angels, but you're running them as normal Space Marines. Your opponent shoots your guys with pistols, prior to charging. You say 'I'll choose to fail this leadership test with Chapter Tactics, and fall back." And then your opponent goes, "oh, crap, I forgot you had that, normal Blood Angels can't do that. I wouldn't have shot you if I'd have remembered."

If you have your own colour scheme, that's not going to happen. No one is going to assume anything about them. That doesn't make things complicated for anyone. But if I see Blood Angels, I expect certain things, and Chapter Tactics isn't one of them.

If this is still in dispute, no idea how to approach you save you coming out and saying "I won't play anyone who paints their models the way they want, paint them by your codex or nothing! No custom colors!"

Again, STRAW MAN. No one has said this. Seriously, stop it. Go back and read the thread. I've even said, more than once, that I do play against people who do far worse things than codex-hop. I've played against cardboard boxes because an opponent hadn't assembled his tanks yet.

DeathReaper wrote:
Page 47 in the BRB is where you can find the WYSWIG rule. It states "Character models in particular tend to have a lot of options as to what weapons and wargear they can use - given in the army list of their codex. The rule is that such equipment must be visually represented on the model..." So they are talking about equipment. and last I checked Ultramarine, and Blood Angel symbols and icons are not equipment.

Thanks for the page reference. So, this rule, found in the character section, only applies to characters then? No, probably not.

How many Space Marines have you seen modeled with both their Bolt Pistol, and their Bolter? Probably a discussion for some other place. Point is, however, that if you want to play by the letter of the rules, you better make sure all your guys are modeled to the letter of the rules. If you want to play to the spirit of the rules, the one that is based around not misleading or confusing your opponent, then deliberately misrepresenting which army you're playing is probably a bad thing.

Below is my squad of terminators with my Librarian. The Librarian has Terminator Armor, Storm Shield, and a Force Weapon. The librarian is kind of a counts as, because its the model for Kaldor Draigo, but it works as a SM Librarian due to the equipment. And there seems to be a lack of Terminator models that have a Storm Shield, and a weapon that is not a Thunderhammer.

Hrm, your model doesn't have a psychic hood. By the letter of the rules that you're recommending, you probably shouldn't use him, as he doesn't have all his wargear represented...

AegisGrimm wrote:I still would like to know where it says that I can't take a bunch of my painted Ultramarine bikers and landspeeders and for a bit of variety use the Ravenwing rules from the Dark Angels codex to govern them in a battle, as long as those are the only rules that blanket the army that's on the table.

I would like to know where it says that I can't take a bunch of my painted orks, and buggies and for a bit of variety use the Ravenwing rules from the Dark Angels codex to govern them in a battle, as long as those are the only rules that blanket the army that's on the table.

If there's no rule that says my Ravenwing have to be in black armor, there is certainly nothing about any required heraldry being that of the Dark Angels. As long as it's a Space Marine in power armor on a bike, I can use any of the rules that involve Space marines in power armor on bikes, as long as their equipment matches the army list entry I'm claiming to use.

Well, you have to model all the wargear, right?

Ravenwing Attack Bikes list "teleport homers" among their wargear. Do your models have visibly represented teleport homers? If they do, then they're invalid as Ultramarine bikers, as Ultramarine bikes don't have teleport homers.

If the basis of your argument is that models with the same wargear should be interchangable between codexes, you should probably do a better job of picking examples that actually have the same wargear.

So both Chaos marines and loyalist marines using boltguns that use the exact same weapon profile is equal to Orks and Tyranids being the same because they are both non-humans? Wow.

But chaos marines and loyalist marines with boltguns do not have the exact same weapon profile. Chaos Marines list their wargear as "Power Armour, Bolt Pistol, Frag Grenades, Krak Grenades, Close Combat Weapon, Bolter", and Loyalist Marines list, "Power Armour, Bolt Pistol, Frag and Krak Grenades, Boltgun"

Again, if the basis of your argument is on identical profiles, shouldn't you be picking examples with identical profiles?


Now, to try and clearly state, again, my stance on this, so as to avoid additional potential strawman arguments, the issue is not about what the model is armed with, or is modeled with, for as fun as it is to pick apart your examples, this really has no bearing on my position. My concern is that when you field an army with an established appearance, which includes the paintjob, the iconography, the chapter markings, and so on, it is as confusing for an opponent to try and keep track of this as it is when you take a model with a defined weapon (say, a lascannon), and tell them before the game that it's going to count as a plasma cannon for this game.

Both of these cases are what we call proxies. Yes, you told me. But, in the heat of battle, I'm liable to forget. If I leave my guys bunched up because I SEE a lascannon, and you blast the whole squad off the table because you had told me it is a plasma cannon, well, I must not have remembered. I wouldn't have done this if I saw a plasma cannon. Visual cues make a difference. Likewise, if I SEE Ultramarines, I'm going to make certain assumptions. My expectations about your capabilities will be influenced by the fact that I am seeing Ultramarines. So, when I leave you a rear-armour shot because I forgot that your Blood Angel rhinos are fast, or when I fail to string my guys out because I forgot that your "Librarian" has Jaws of the World Wolf... it's the exact same thing. You're PROXYING, and that is influencing our game.

And, if you have a home-brew colour scheme, or you've taken the time and effort to do a pre-heresy army, or a thirteenth company, this isn't going to be an issue. You've got an army that is its own thing. It's only an issue when I look at one thing that creates an expectation, and it then doesn't behave as it is portrayed.

There is no real arguing with you, the points cannot be made. What if my codex marines were red and you thought they were Blood Angels anyways? What if my Blood Angels were blue and you thought they were Ultramarines. I am not starting the match with "Here is the back history of the army I am playing" I would stay by telling you what it is. Your argument is weak at best, in my opinion, and call my position what you want it is spot on for the thread.

If I had a set of marines who were green, because I wanted them to be and you made a play error thinking they were Dark Angels, not my fault so long as I told you prior to starting the game. There is no difference in me playing Ultramarines as Blood Angels or me playing BLUE Blood Angels, only that because I connect the lore of one to the use of another irritates you, which is your opinion.

I am entitled to paint my models in the fashion I wish, regardless of the lore, and if you look past the lore the color alone could be confusing, regardless of the 'why.'

Ribon Fox wrote:Cut'n pasted as it seems relevent----------------------


Your dudes

That's never going to happen to a major character of ANY FACTION.

Here is what 40k is about. Are you ready? Write this down, because it is important.

40k is about your own group of soldiers.

I don't care what faction you play or what lists you use. I don't care if you're an existing unit or you make up your own. 40k is about your dudes. It is about YOUR GUYS.

Let me tell you a story about one Erasmus Tycho: http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Tycho

Erasmus Tycho was a captain in an early after-action report in White Dwarf. At one point he got KOed by a Weirdboy's psychic blast. This was fluffed as him being severely injured, and that affected his characterization and so on. In-game events were strung together and then logically connected to a potential story - an EMERGENT story based on the guided events of the gameplay.

Do you see what that is? THAT IS AN EVOLVING STORY. THAT IS THE KIND OF THING YOU CAN DO WITH YOUR GUYS. You can give your dudes names and grow attached to them in the same way that you can with X-COM or Final Fantasy Tactics or any other game where you have generic dudes.

Hell, if you played Chaos Gate, that was basically the game! The last time someone played it for /tg/, there was a dude named APEMANTUS who was badass (based on in-game events), was killed (as an in-game event), and was brought back as a dreadnought (a stretch of the imagination that was connected to in-game events).

That's the kind of stuff 40k should be about. Evolving stories based on what you did, and how a battle went. It's what Necromunda does, it's what Mordheim does, and it's what every strategy game ought to do.

Don't worry about "the fluff". The fluff is background material. It exists to provide context for your own story. Worrying about fluff is like worrying about Drizzt and Elminster in the Forgotten Realms - it shouldn't be about them, it should be about your party. The same thing applies to 40k. Become the change you want.

Love the example, thanks.

Redbeard wrote:

Deathreaper wrote:
Below is my squad of terminators with my Librarian. The Librarian has Terminator Armor, Storm Shield, and a Force Weapon. The librarian is kind of a counts as, because its the model for Kaldor Draigo, but it works as a SM Librarian due to the equipment. And there seems to be a lack of Terminator models that have a Storm Shield, and a weapon that is not a Thunderhammer.

Hrm, your model doesn't have a psychic hood. By the letter of the rules that you're recommending, you probably shouldn't use him, as he doesn't have all his wargear represented...

It is under his Helmet :-P

i am not recommending playing it like this, I was just giving you the page and Quote of said rules.

Technically the rules only apply to characters, but tournaments play them that the rules apply army wide.

Even then, most tournaments only require that you use GW models (mostly), and model any and all upgraded equipment.

They are lenient on standard equipment from what I have seen.

Only wargear that is special or different from the norm is needed... that's why no Ravenwing models even come with a teleport homer

Who is so thick they cannot remember what army they are playing against? It is a 2-3 hour game; if you cannot remember what book I am running my models as in that time frame after I have told you at the beginning and let you look at my list, and you don't ask when you can't remember, you deserve to screw that up. Don't make the rest of the world dumb down so you don't have to think.

-cgmckenzie

Redbeard wrote:
On the other hand, assuming that this is a strict rule, it is interesting to note that the basic "weapons and wargear" carried by a Space Wolf is not the same as the basic "weapons and wargear" carried by a Space Marine, so the same models, if they really are WYSIWYG, cannot be used in both armies, because WYSIWYG aren't the same.

You are incorrectly making you logic to all-encompassing.

Had you said; "A Grey Hunter (armed according to WYSIWYG) model cannot stand-in for a Tactical Marine (armed according to WYSIWYG) model as they aren't aren't armed the same way" you would be right.
But you are expanding that logic to include all space wolfs and all space marines.

A SW Blood Claw and BA Assault Marine (sans jump pack, of course) CAN be represented by the same model (WYSIWYG), especially if painted in a "neutral" colour-scheme so nobody will have any preconceived notions about what the model is supposed to represent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:

No one cares if you use your own paint scheme. Go to town with it.

The issue is that if you use a paint scheme or models that are very obviously tied to one codex (space wolves, blood angels, ultramarines, etc), and then you just say that they're using a different set of rules, this can be just as confusing for an opponent as if you had them with the wrong weapons modeled.

Imagine it like, you've obviously got Blood Angels, but you're running them as normal Space Marines. Your opponent shoots your guys with pistols, prior to charging. You say 'I'll choose to fail this leadership test with Chapter Tactics, and fall back." And then your opponent goes, "oh, crap, I forgot you had that, normal Blood Angels can't do that. I wouldn't have shot you if I'd have remembered."

If you have your own colour scheme, that's not going to happen. No one is going to assume anything about them. That doesn't make things complicated for anyone. But if I see Blood Angels, I expect certain things, and Chapter Tactics isn't one of them.

OK. So DR and I, who have painted our armies in a "neutral" colour-scheme, won't have any problems with you playing SW one week and Blood Angels the next (assuming strict WYSIWYG, of course)?



...

Steelmage99 wrote:A SW Blood Claw and BA Assault Marine (sans jump pack, of course) CAN be represented by the same model (WYSIWYG).

Just as they both CAN be represented by a cork stuck to a base. But should they be?

Does anyone really care so little about their force that they'd take SW Bloodclaws and use them as Assault Marines?

A cork isn't WYSIWYG though. It's like comparing two cars and saying they're cars and you come along with a banana and say "so is this"...

Logic time.

I see alot of People saying that playing Marine's painted X as Codex Y is the same as using Orks as Eldar. I will now explain the fallacy.

Marines of Codex X, and Marines of Codex Y share the following basic features
L 1: models of nearly identical shape and size.
L 2: the majority of wargear options are identical.
L 3: stat lines for basic units are usually the same.
L 4: certain global special rules ("And they shall know no fear...")
they also have the following major differences
D 1: vastly different global special rules
D 2: different named characters.
D 3: Codex specific units

now lets compare these lists to the Ork=Eldar concept.
L 1: ork models are slightly shorter, and significantly wider than eldar models
L 2: few, if any wargear items are even similar
L 3: no units share even similar stats
L 4: they share no global special rules
D 1: these armies do have Vastly different global special rules
D 2: these armies do have Different named characters
D 3: these armies do have codex specific units.

That said, i would let someone use Orks as Eldar or vice versa, but only to TEST whether they could play that army, and only with the codex on hand.
also if you are codex hopping because you want to win, Feth you. if you are, like to OP said, wanting to try something different, more power to ya.

Note, as stated previously, the ONLY INSTANCE WHERE PAINT MATTERS, IN THE ENTIRETY OF THIS GAMES RULES IS WITH THE ORKS RED PAINT JOB UPGRADE!!!

AegisGrimm wrote:

I would like to know where it says that I can't take a bunch of my painted orks, and buggies and for a bit of variety use the Ravenwing rules from the Dark Angels codex to govern them in a battle, as long as those are the only rules that blanket the army that's on the table.

Mainly because none of the models are human, none have have power armor, or any of the weapons and/or wargear that is visually associated with Space marines. Also none of the bikes are space marine bikes, and buggies are not landspeeders

I get that, but I don't get why you'd care.

Whats the difference? If you want to take your beautifully painted and modelled Ultramarines army and run it with Blood Angels rules, why would you look down on me for taking my Ork army and running it with Ravenwing rules? Why is your proxying better than mine?

n0t_u wrote:A cork isn't WYSIWYG though. It's like comparing two cars and saying they're cars and you come along with a banana and say "so is this"...

You never heard of counts-as or proxying? What if I glue a bolt-pistol and chainsword to the cork?

cgmckenzie wrote:Who is so thick they cannot remember what army they are playing against? It is a 2-3 hour game; if you cannot remember what book I am running my models as in that time frame after I have told you at the beginning and let you look at my list, and you don't ask when you can't remember, you deserve to screw that up. Don't make the rest of the world dumb down so you don't have to think.

-cgmckenzie

Don't make the mistake of thinking this is anything other than ragehammer. Arguing in circles is just another game to play here.

Seriously, the problem of "counts as" is mitigated by simply leaving your codex on the table.

Kaldor wrote:Does anyone really care so little about their force that they'd take SW Bloodclaws and use them as Assault Marines?

I actually like the Blood Claw models more than the Vanilla Assault marines they sell.

The Vanilla Assault marines seem so plain, compared to the blood claws.

Kaldor wrote:

AegisGrimm wrote:Mainly because none of the models are human, none have have power armor, or any of the weapons and/or wargear that is visually associated with Space marines. Also none of the bikes are space marine bikes, and buggies are not landspeeders

I get that, but I don't get why you'd care.

Whats the difference?

The difference is that a Tactical Marine painted like an Ultramarine is exactly the same, WYSIWYG and model wise, as any other chapters Tactical Marine. The only difference between them is the paint you put on them.

This is not true of the Ork as a Eldar comparison. The space marines use the exact same model kit to make a tactical squad, no matter what codex it comes from. The Orks do not use the same models as the Eldar.

There is literally no way to figure out which model is a Tactical Marine for the Ultramarines and which model is a Tactical Marine for the Blood Angels before they are painted. Which is not true of the Orks and Eldar.

That is the difference.

Big Mek Dattrukk wrote:Logic time.

I see alot of People saying that playing Marine's painted X as Codex Y is the same as using Orks as Eldar. I will now explain the fallacy.

Well, you sure made a mess of that.

Allow me to correct you.

L 1: ork models are slightly shorter, and significantly wider than eldar models
L 2: few, if any wargear items are even similar
L 3: no units share even similar stats
L 4: they share no global special rules
D 1: these armies do have Vastly different global special rules
D 2: these armies do have Different named characters
D 3: these armies do have codex specific units.

By applying the 'counts as' or 'proxying' conventions, I can easily navigate all those points. For real WYSIWYG sticklers, I could even take the appropriate wargear and blu-tak it to the relevant models, but thats not strictly necessary.

So, logically, one must conclude that IF a force with established rules is being used with other rules, then the proxying or counts-as conventions must be in play.

IF those conventions are in play, there is no objective measure to determine what is acceptable, and what is not. Some people will happily use cardboard chits, others will not.

IF it is not possible to say one counts-as or proxy is better than another, then all proxies must be equal.

Therefore, using Ultramarines as Blood Angels is exactly the same as using cardboard chits, or using Orks as Eldar.

I'll be frank: this thread makes me feel like this:



Now to actually address the topic at hand, as long as I know what army you're using and what's what, idgaf if they're black,blue,red, grey, pink, orange, or the color of my .

I personally want to use the SW models for C:SM and BA. Why? CAUSE THEY LOOK AWESOME!

Now to the people who want me to have 4 different colors of MEQ. Go to hell. 1. It's a game. 2. Your proposal is expensive. 3. You're getting worked up over details at best and idiosyncrasies at worst. 4. It's a game. And lastly, to quote Tyler the Creator, "feth your traditions, feth your positions/ feth your religion (this one doesn't really apply here), feth your decisions"

So OP, go paint them whatever you want. Nice models btw!

Oh and Kaldor, your argument to me seems to be the very definition of a slippery slope.

Kaldor wrote:

n0t_u wrote:A cork isn't WYSIWYG though. It's like comparing two cars and saying they're cars and you come along with a banana and say "so is this"...

You never heard of counts-as or proxying? What if I glue a bolt-pistol and chainsword to the cork?

Then it is a cork with a bolt pistol and chainsword glued to it. Or in the earlier analogy a banana with an air freshener attached to it.
I'm not saying the whole idea is wrong, just that it isn't quite as cut and dry as it seems.

For example back to the Ultra's 8th company, a company completely made of assault units and the usual command. The normal codex for them cannot quite represent the force a you cannot have solely assault units as troops. Therefore you'd have to either use the BA codex (and maybe make up a reason for the rule they all have) or use the SW codex and take their assault troops but with limited options to represent it. Surely some of the other kits may have bits with nice poses or whatever that could be used with a different range of marines, but in the end it does indeed look better to try and stay with the look of one theme rather than blood wolf angel marines.

My point is it should have more effort put into it than simply a coat of paint. Conversions and proxying allow armies like the Squats, Adeptus Mechanicus, Traitor Guard, etc to exist on the table. In the case of the 8th company, they'd still look like Ultras they'd just be using a different ruleset.

Problem is, as I have shown, the Tactical Marine painted like an Ultramarines and the Tactical Marine painted like a Blood Angel have the exact same model kit, so pre-paint they look exactly the same.

So they are not a proxy or a counts-as, they are the real deal.

The conversation goes like this:

O = Opponent, M = Me.

O: I thought you were using Blood Angels?
M: I am.
O: then why do you have Ultramarines on the table?
M: are you referring to the Blue blood angel that has a U symbol on it?
O: Yes.
M: That is not an Ultramarine, that is a Omega Marine from the planet Baal Prime.
O: What?
M: The Omega Marines have mastered the red thirst and refuse to wear the red of their founding chapter (Blood Angels) so they paint their armor blue, and have an upside down Omega symbol on their shoulder.
O: why is the symbol upside down?
M: so they do not run out of luck.
O: Enough roleplay, lets play.

DeathReaper wrote:Problem is, as I have shown, the Tactical Marine painted like an Ultramarines and the Tactical Marine painted like a Blood Angel have the exact same model kit, so pre-paint they look exactly the same.

So they are not a proxy or a counts-as, they are the real deal.

Ah, but you're demonstrably wrong.

Do Ultramarines have rules?

Yes.

Do Blood Angels have rules?

Yes.

Therfore, using an Ultramarine model with Blood Angels rules is either a proxy or a counts-as.

You can make up any backstory you want to justify your counts-as or proxying, but that doesn't change what it is.

That is not using an ultramarine as a blood angel.

It is Using a Tactical Marine as a Tactical Marine. Using Tactical marines as Tactical marines is not proxying, or counts as.

Slight, but important difference.

DeathReaper wrote:That is not using an ultramarine as a blood angel.

It is Using a Tactical Marine as a Tactical Marine. Using Tactical marines as Tactical marines is not proxying, or counts as.

Slight, but important difference.

Absolutely right. I agree with you.

But once a model is painted UM blue, given UM iconography, and an UM style, it is no longer a tactical marine. It is an Ultramarine tactical marine. As I said, you can make up any backstory to justify it (oh yeah, my homebrew chapter just happens to be identical to the ultramarines) but it's still taking one thing that has a rule-set, and using it with a different rule-set.

Kaldor wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Problem is, as I have shown, the Tactical Marine painted like an Ultramarines and the Tactical Marine painted like a Blood Angel have the exact same model kit, so pre-paint they look exactly the same.

So they are not a proxy or a counts-as, they are the real deal.

Ah, but you're demonstrably wrong.

Do Ultramarines have rules?

Yes.

Do Blood Angels have rules?

Yes.

Therfore, using an Ultramarine model with Blood Angels rules is either a proxy or a counts-as.

You can make up any backstory you want to justify your counts-as or proxying, but that doesn't change what it is.

What if it isn't painted as an Ultramarine? What if it mainly contains parts from the SM, DA and BT range (cos I simply like the look)?

Steelmage99 wrote:
What if it isn't painted as an Ultramarine? What if it mainly contains parts from the SM, DA and BT range (cos I simply like the look)?

Then you are breaking the rules and might as well use cardboard with words on them. Oh, and a special hit squad will come in during the night and excise vengeance upon you and waterboard you until you finally pick one codex and only codex and modify all your models to fit the designs. Least, that's what these modeling-nazis think.

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:
What if it isn't painted as an Ultramarine? What if it mainly contains parts from the SM, DA and BT range (cos I simply like the look)?

Then you are breaking the rules and might as well use cardboard with words on them. Oh, and a special hit squad will come in during the night and excise vengeance upon you and waterboard you until you finally pick one codex and only codex and modify all your models to fit the designs. Least, that's what these modeling-nazis think.

Well, to be fair the No-Hopping side of the argument has a point (somewhere in there).

The main sin concerning codex-hopping seems to be painting an army in a colour-scheme (including markings and insignia) already associated with an established codex, and then using the same models to play using a different codex.
I agree with this. That can be somewhat annoying and confusing.

The problem is that that attitude is extended to include ALL codex-hopping whatever kind of models you use, the colours you paint them in and irrespective of how WYSIWYG those models are.

This is famously then extended even further into "using card-board chits", which is a logical fallacy of great magnitude.


Even worse is the misdirections employed by that side of the argument.
Once the "extensions" are shown to be absurd and petty, we are usually served a side-order of "counts-as" and "proxy" as an argument, as if it had any relevance to the original issue.


To me it seems to boil down to two main arguments;

1. "It isn't fair that marines (of all stripes) can so easily codex-hop while other cannot."

and

2. "You should put greater weight of this particular facet of the hobby".

Agree or disagree at your own peril.



...

Steelmage99 wrote: What if it isn't painted as an Ultramarine? What if it mainly contains parts from the SM, DA and BT range (cos I simply like the look)?

Knock yourself out.

Personally, I have no problems with what the OP is suggesting. He's not doing it to codex-hop to the flavour of the month or anything like that, it's just to try something new that's still related to his current army. I'm cool with this - like many have said, it's a bloody expensive hobby, both in money and time. Having to buy/paint an entirely new army that only has some minor cosmetic differences just to have some fun with a different codex is pretty damn impractical.

Here's a question for you all, related to a comment earlier about seeing a particular army and expecting a particular rule-set for it - if someone fields a pre-Heresy Thousand Sons army against you, and it is CLEARLY modelled and painted as pre-Heresy Thousand Sons... which codex would you expect them to be using? I'm honestly curious here.

Skits wrote:Personally, I have no problems with what the OP is suggesting. He's not doing it to codex-hop to the flavour of the month or anything like that, it's just to try something new that's still related to his current army. I'm cool with this - like many have said, it's a bloody expensive hobby, both in money and time. Having to buy/paint an entirely new army that only has some minor cosmetic differences just to have some fun with a different codex is pretty damn impractical.

Here's a question for you all, related to a comment earlier about seeing a particular army and expecting a particular rule-set for it - if someone fields a pre-Heresy Thousand Sons army against you, and it is CLEARLY modelled and painted as pre-Heresy Thousand Sons... which codex would you expect them to be using? I'm honestly curious here.

Thanks for the post, I was sifting through deviant art and had a question much like yours:
http://angrymarines.deviantart.com/#/d4tfs3r
So that being the Angry Marines chapter what codex would they expect that to be played from because honestly I find those miniatures far more off the reservation than anything else suggested in this thread. (Not sure how one gets away with F-Bombs painted on their models at tournaments).

Kaldor wrote:

Abyssel wrote: Once again, paint is paint

Paint is not just paint. At what point do we stop playing a miniatures wargame and start playing with cardboard chits with 'plasma gunner' and 'landraider' written on it? Where exactly is the line?
For me, as soon as we decide we don't care what rules should be associated with our models, and we use whatever rules we want, we have crossed that line and we may as well be playing with bits of cardboard.

I totally agree in what you are saying.
A ultramarine painted army shall be played as a ultramarine army(space marine rules). Other rules for that army is, according to me, wrong and goes against everything that has to do with this game. Background, paintingscheme and its rules to it.
Be proud of your army, not just use the best rules to make for your army to win. Its more then that.

In my gaming club for example, one player used to play Iron Hands(just as me), but then he feelt the space wolves rules where much better and goes with those instead. Still using his iron hands miniatures with iron hands icons.
We even ended up meeting each other in a tournament a while back, where he got my but handed to me(when i used my iron hands with space marine rules), well because his rules where much better then mine.
But that isnt the point, he didnt have any pride in his army, he just wanted to win. I gladly take a loss with my army, as long as I stay true.

Im really annoyed when people do this, just leaves their army in favor of better rules. Its a real shame that it has come to this.
Thats my way of seeing this and I stand by that.

Relativity wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Abyssel wrote: Once again, paint is paint

Paint is not just paint. At what point do we stop playing a miniatures wargame and start playing with cardboard chits with 'plasma gunner' and 'landraider' written on it? Where exactly is the line?
For me, as soon as we decide we don't care what rules should be associated with our models, and we use whatever rules we want, we have crossed that line and we may as well be playing with bits of cardboard.

I totally agree in what you are saying.
A ultramarine painted army shall be played as a ultramarine army(space marine rules). Other rules for that army is, according to me, wrong and goes against everything that has to do with this game. Background, paintingscheme and its rules to it.
Be proud of your army, not just use the best rules to make for your army to win. Its more then that.

In my gaming club for example, one player used to play Iron Hands(just as me), but then he feelt the space wolves rules where much better and goes with those instead. Still using his iron hands miniatures with iron hands icons.
We even ended up meeting each other in a tournament a while back, where he got my but handed to me(when i used my iron hands with space marine rules), well because his rules where much better then mine.
But that isnt the point, he didnt have any pride in his army, he just wanted to win. I gladly take a loss with my army, as long as I stay true.

Im really annoyed when people do this, just leaves their army in favor of better rules. Its a real shame that it has come to this.
Thats my way of seeing this and I stand by that.

That is of course assuming someone is doing this simply for the 'better rules.' Some of us attempt to modify our models and convert them to something more our own, not just the standard scheme of things. I explained early on in this thread that my Ultramarines army is a successor chapter that I came up with, Alpha Company. The back story for them, in short, is that they are a company of marines outside of the normal parameters set forth in the codex because they are sent on suicide type missions. I take great pride in what my army looks like and the fact that my models are considerably adapted to the visual that I prefer. Simply because I want to run 'my' marines out of another codex does not mean I have any less pride with them, same amount of time was spent on them whether they are sitting on the shelf or sitting on the battlefield.

Swapping armies for better rules, that bugs me, swapping armies because you want to enjoy the game, that does not. There is a big difference between flavor of the month swappers and people who play the same codex every weekend and want to try something new without breaking the bank.

Skits wrote:pre-Heresy Thousand Sons... which codex would you expect them to be using? I'm honestly curious here.

Either Grey Knights or codex Marines, I reckon. The extra rules of Blood and Dark Angels don't seem to fit what I know of the Thousand Sons, and neither does the SW. Grey Knights kinda does with all the psychic powers, but gets wierd with the anti-daemon stuff. It'd be up to player discretion to avoid the GK choices that would be anti-thematic.

Jstncloud wrote:By the logic that a couple of posters keep bringing up, your force is not painted to match any codex, so they would 'be confused as to what you are indeed using.'

Um, you're really misunderstanding our point here.

His force is not painted or modelled like any specific codex, so there's no danger of his opponent confusing it for any specific codex. He can use it as anything.

If you play with a force painted and modelled like Ultramarines, but using Space Wolf rules, there's a danger of the opponent confusing it for Ultramarines mid-game. Even if it's a really simple slip ('oh, I forgot they had counter-attack, I was thinking 'Ultramarines') it's enough to make a difference.

Kaldor wrote:

Skits wrote:pre-Heresy Thousand Sons... which codex would you expect them to be using? I'm honestly curious here.

Either Grey Knights or codex Marines, I reckon. The extra rules of Blood and Dark Angels don't seem to fit what I know of the Thousand Sons, and neither does the SW. Grey Knights kinda does with all the psychic powers, but gets wierd with the anti-daemon stuff. It'd be up to player discretion to avoid the GK choices that would be anti-thematic.

Thanks for the reply! I never even considered Blood/Dark Angels, and my Sons characters are screaming bloody murder at the mere thought of using Space Wolves rules.

What about the Chaos Marine codex though? Again, like the GK one, avoiding choices that'd be anti-thematic. Granted, that limits the choices a fair bit, but I'm used to that since I have a pure post-heresy Thousand Sons army already, and at least it's got Ahriman, an actual Thousand Sons character (albeit, these days an overpriced and understrength choice ).

Anyway, to the point of the question - since the pre-Heresy Sons don't have their own codex, and instead have at least two, maybe three codices they could be at least somewhat accurately represented by - would you have a problem with switching between codices here? Not for WAAC or FotM reasons, but purely for what best suited the story of the fight at hand/my mood at the time? (If I were the sort of player worried about nothing but winning, I wouldn't be playing pure, fluff-based Thousand Sons armies in the first place. )

AegisGrimm wrote:

Ravenwing Attack Bikes list "teleport homers" among their wargear. Do your models have visibly represented teleport homers? If they do, then they're invalid as Ultramarine bikers, as Ultramarine bikes don't have teleport homers.

If the basis of your argument is that models with the same wargear should be interchangable between codexes, you should probably do a better job of picking examples that actually have the same wargear.

Do any actual Ravenwing models have that wargear modeled on the figure? Because if not, than even a Ravenwing force cannot use the Ravenwing rules by that logic.

Sure, what do you think those antennas on the back are.

Jstncloud wrote:

Redbeard wrote:... My concern is that when you field an army with an established appearance, which includes the paintjob, the iconography, the chapter markings, and so on, it is as confusing for an opponent to try and keep track of this as it is when you take a model with a defined weapon (say, a lascannon), and tell them before the game that it's going to count as a plasma cannon for this game....

There is no real arguing with you, the points cannot be made. What if my codex marines were red and you thought they were Blood Angels anyways? What if my Blood Angels were blue and you thought they were Ultramarines. I am not starting the match with "Here is the back history of the army I am playing" I would stay by telling you what it is. Your argument is weak at best, in my opinion, and call my position what you want it is spot on for the thread.

If I had a set of marines who were green, because I wanted them to be and you made a play error thinking they were Dark Angels, not my fault so long as I told you prior to starting the game. There is no difference in me playing Ultramarines as Blood Angels or me playing BLUE Blood Angels, only that because I connect the lore of one to the use of another irritates you, which is your opinion.

So you're putting words in my mouth, again, that are clearly in opposition to what I actually wrote. If you want to have a discussion with your own multiple personalities, why not do that instead? But if you want to actually discuss this issue with other people, how about you read what they write, not what you think they're writing.

Lobukia wrote:Only wargear that is special or different from the norm is needed... that's why no Ravenwing models even come with a teleport homer

Do you have a page reference for this claim? And they do, that's what those antenna looking things are.

cgmckenzie wrote:Who is so thick they cannot remember what army they are playing against? It is a 2-3 hour game; if you cannot remember what book I am running my models as in that time frame after I have told you at the beginning and let you look at my list, and you don't ask when you can't remember, you deserve to screw that up. Don't make the rest of the world dumb down so you don't have to think.

Now we're using the 'you're stupid, so I should be allowed to disrespect you' argument? That's a mature one. It has nothing to do with dumbing down the game, it has to do with showing your opponent respect. It has to do with not seeking an advantage you didn't pay for, even if you think that your opponent should be able to negate that advantage. You may think it's easy to keep all the various rules for different marine armies separate and never get confused about them. A lot of people don't. There's no need to insult them just because you want to proxy one army as another.

Skits wrote:Personally, I have no problems with what the OP is suggesting. He's not doing it to codex-hop to the flavour of the month or anything like that, it's just to try something new that's still related to his current army. I'm cool with this - like many have said, it's a bloody expensive hobby, both in money and time. Having to buy/paint an entirely new army that only has some minor cosmetic differences just to have some fun with a different codex is pretty damn impractical.

Here's a question for you all, related to a comment earlier about seeing a particular army and expecting a particular rule-set for it - if someone fields a pre-Heresy Thousand Sons army against you, and it is CLEARLY modelled and painted as pre-Heresy Thousand Sons... which codex would you expect them to be using? I'm honestly curious here.

Grey Knights would be the best I suppose. Though the anti daemon stuff shouldn't be there. And familiars were used by the TS, weren't they? And the psychic powers should be different... maybe a custom dex based on the GKs.

Another question: will there ever be a codex that can adequately represent the Alpha Legion?

Anyway, as regards OP, I wouldn't really have a problem with it. I'd point out that the Ultramarines have 90% of a codex to themselves, but that's it. If someone's using a codex and has told you, there's not really any reason to object IMO unless the game is in a competition or something.

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:
I personally want to use the SW models for C:SM and BA. Why? CAUSE THEY LOOK AWESOME!

My group will play you! You just have to tell us what's unit is in each rhino!


Joke from another thread...

If you can remember all the rules to this game, the special rules for each unit, the stat line for your units and the units across the board, you should be able to remember what army you are playing against. To claim you can't and to then not ask when you forget is stupid.

-cgmckenzie

SImply put take your BA codex photo copy the entry for storm raven put it in you book in the fast attack section.

it should be okay i don't like that the BA and GK are the only ones who are supposed to have this model.

its cool and my terminators want 1

cgmckenzie wrote:If you can remember all the rules to this game, the special rules for each unit, the stat line for your units and the units across the board, you should be able to remember what army you are playing against. To claim you can't and to then not ask when you forget is stupid.

So you have never made a mistake based on how something looks?

You've never played an opponent who needed to proxy a model, and then forgotten that the flamer in that guys hand was actually a meltagun? But, he told you, forgetting would be "stupid".

And, it's not about forgetting what army you're playing against, it's about that subconscious association that lets you know what something can do. I'm sorry we can't all be perfect like you.

Redbeard wrote:

cgmckenzie wrote:If you can remember all the rules to this game, the special rules for each unit, the stat line for your units and the units across the board, you should be able to remember what army you are playing against. To claim you can't and to then not ask when you forget is stupid.

So you have never made a mistake based on how something looks?

You've never played an opponent who needed to proxy a model, and then forgotten that the flamer in that guys hand was actually a meltagun? But, he told you, forgetting would be "stupid".

And, it's not about forgetting what army you're playing against, it's about that subconscious association that lets you know what something can do. I'm sorry we can't all be perfect like you.

Ladies and gentlemen!

I give you....


*Drum-roll*

The Proxy Argument!

Cyclical argument is cyclical.

On the argument about the colour of marines,the anti-camp seem to forget the social aspect of the game.

They say itmakes it harder for them to play because it makes them think its a different codex (an arguement that is a little pointless as the vast majority of players do not have every codex and only know the general rules of an enemy codex), but they forget a very simple way to resolve this, by talking to your opponent and interacting with them.

If my opponents are proxying something(flamers are meltaguns for example) and I can't remember what it is or I am not 100% sure, I ask. Forgetting isn't stupid, not asking when you don't know is.

If I am playing against a codex I don't personally play, and sometimes ones I do play, I will talk to my opponent and make sure that what I think they are doing, what they think they are doing, and what they are actually doing all match up.

-cgmckenzie

ArbitorIan wrote:

Jstncloud wrote:By the logic that a couple of posters keep bringing up, your force is not painted to match any codex, so they would 'be confused as to what you are indeed using.'

Um, you're really misunderstanding out point here.

His force is not painted or modelled like any specific codex, so there's no danger of his opponent confusing it for any specific codex. He can use it as anything.

If you play with a force painted and modelled like Ultramarines, but using Space Wolf rules, there's a danger of the opponent confusing it for Ultramarines mid-game. Even if it's a really simple slip ('oh, I forgot they had counter-attack, I was thinking 'Ultramarines') it's enough to make a difference.

Sicarius can give a tactical squad counter-attack, what then? Same example. If you are a Warhammer 40k player of any length you've dealt with proxies and made mistakes for whatever reason, to blame it on coloration is ridiculous. I can see the point, but I'd rather deal with having to remember a color scheme difference than to look at an Angry Marine model that says "F***" all over it.

cgmckenzie wrote:If you can remember all the rules to this game, the special rules for each unit, the stat line for your units and the units across the board, you should be able to remember what army you are playing against. To claim you can't and to then not ask when you forget is stupid.

-cgmckenzie

Agreed.

captain collius wrote:SImply put take your BA codex photo copy the entry for storm raven put it in you book in the fast attack section.

it should be okay i don't like that the BA and GK are the only ones who are supposed to have this model.

its cool and my terminators want 1

My group was not cool with that, so I bought the codex that would allow me to use the model I wanted.

cgmckenzie wrote:If my opponents are proxying something(flamers are meltaguns for example) and I can't remember what it is or I am not 100% sure, I ask. Forgetting isn't stupid, not asking when you don't know is.

If I am playing against a codex I don't personally play, and sometimes ones I do play, I will talk to my opponent and make sure that what I think they are doing, what they think they are doing, and what they are actually doing all match up.

-cgmckenzie

I do the same thing, it is not practical for me to know EVERYTHING about EVERY codex. I could be playing against BA and overlook something or even C:SM, so like you said, I ask. "Hey does this squad have a flamer? This one has a metla? Ok thanks." because as you pointed out if you don't know, ask, and they should inform you of what you do not know. Though admittedly it is nice to not HAVE to ask but it does not change the fact that sometimes you do, for example, one of our players plays the new SoB book. I am not familiar with it so I ask a load of questions, I could complain and 'forget' stuff or I could just ask. Seeing as I don't like to lose, I ask, thus allowing for better tactical gameplay.

BluntmanDC wrote:On the argument about the colour of marines,the anti-camp seem to forget the social aspect of the game.

They say itmakes it harder for them to play because it makes them think its a different codex (an arguement that is a little pointless as the vast majority of players do not have every codex and only know the general rules of an enemy codex), but they forget a very simple way to resolve this, by talking to your opponent and interacting with them.

Have you conveniently skipped the parts of the thread where we say we will actually play with people who are doing these things, yet prefer not to. We're not anti-social you know.

cgmckenzie wrote:
If I am playing against a codex I don't personally play, and sometimes ones I do play, I will talk to my opponent and make sure that what I think they are doing, what they think they are doing, and what they are actually doing all match up.

Right, we've already established that you're perfect and don't make mistakes, you don't need to keep rubbing it in. I'm (probably) older and am likely to have a few beers in me while playing, so sometimes I'll forget to ask, precisely because I forgot that my opponent was proxying something. See how that works. If I remembered that he was proxying, I wouldn't need to ask, but because I forgot, I also forgot that I needed to ask.

Besides, it's also harder for those of us who do know all the rules. I know that Ultramarine rhinos, for example, are not fast. So when I see them, I know what their threat radius is. When they turn out to actually be Blood Angel rhinos with an extra 6" move, that throws that off. Is it really so much to ask that people who want to play Blood Angels not paint their rhinos blue with upside-down Omegas all over them?

Skits wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Skits wrote:pre-Heresy Thousand Sons... which codex would you expect them to be using? I'm honestly curious here.

Either Grey Knights or codex Marines, I reckon. The extra rules of Blood and Dark Angels don't seem to fit what I know of the Thousand Sons, and neither does the SW. Grey Knights kinda does with all the psychic powers, but gets wierd with the anti-daemon stuff. It'd be up to player discretion to avoid the GK choices that would be anti-thematic.

Thanks for the reply! I never even considered Blood/Dark Angels, and my Sons characters are screaming bloody murder at the mere thought of using Space Wolves rules.

What about the Chaos Marine codex though? Again, like the GK one, avoiding choices that'd be anti-thematic. Granted, that limits the choices a fair bit, but I'm used to that since I have a pure post-heresy Thousand Sons army already, and at least it's got Ahriman, an actual Thousand Sons character (albeit, these days an overpriced and understrength choice ).

Anyway, to the point of the question - since the pre-Heresy Sons don't have their own codex, and instead have at least two, maybe three codices they could be at least somewhat accurately represented by - would you have a problem with switching between codices here? Not for WAAC or FotM reasons, but purely for what best suited the story of the fight at hand/my mood at the time? (If I were the sort of player worried about nothing but winning, I wouldn't be playing pure, fluff-based Thousand Sons armies in the first place. )

I'd have no problem with you swapping books at your discretion, so long as I know before the match starts what is what and what codex is being used. However that is basically the same things as running one army as another paint scheme wise. Thousands suns out of Chaos "Ok now I am used to you running chaos" Thousands suns as GK "Ok now I am use to you running GK" Thousand suns as..."Oh wait I am confused or made a play error."

That seems to be the position they are taking, as soon as you say Thousands Suns in my presence I immediately think "Chaos" whether is it post or pre heresy, just the facts, but that does not mean I am going to cry if you use the book you want because it fits what you want to do, knock yourself out and lets have a blast.

I never said I was perfect, that was you. I simply understand basic problem solving; when in doubt, ask.

And I do enjoy a beer while playing. If you drink to the point of not being able to remember my army, that is your own fault, and not my problem to solve.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:I never said I was perfect, that was you. I simply understand basic problem solving; when in doubt, ask.

And I do enjoy a beer while playing. If you drink to the point of not being able to remember my army, that is your own fault, and not my problem to solve.

-cgmckenzie

He did state that he was of an older persuasion, and more naturally prone to forgetting things

And drinking to the point of not being able to remember things could quite easily happen, especially if you are playing an apocalypse game

Well, I don't think I could remember everything in an apocalypse game while sober Apocalypse games are only worth playing if done as 'floorhammer'!

-cgmckenzie

Redbeard wrote:

BluntmanDC wrote:On the argument about the colour of marines,the anti-camp seem to forget the social aspect of the game.

They say itmakes it harder for them to play because it makes them think its a different codex (an arguement that is a little pointless as the vast majority of players do not have every codex and only know the general rules of an enemy codex), but they forget a very simple way to resolve this, by talking to your opponent and interacting with them.

Have you conveniently skipped the parts of the thread where we say we will actually play with people who are doing these things, yet prefer not to. We're not anti-social you know.

cgmckenzie wrote:
If I am playing against a codex I don't personally play, and sometimes ones I do play, I will talk to my opponent and make sure that what I think they are doing, what they think they are doing, and what they are actually doing all match up.

Right, we've already established that you're perfect and don't make mistakes, you don't need to keep rubbing it in. I'm (probably) older and am likely to have a few beers in me while playing, so sometimes I'll forget to ask, precisely because I forgot that my opponent was proxying something. See how that works. If I remembered that he was proxying, I wouldn't need to ask, but because I forgot, I also forgot that I needed to ask.

Besides, it's also harder for those of us who do know all the rules. I know that Ultramarine rhinos, for example, are not fast. So when I see them, I know what their threat radius is. When they turn out to actually be Blood Angel rhinos with an extra 6" move, that throws that off. Is it really so much to ask that people who want to play Blood Angels not paint their rhinos blue with upside-down Omegas all over them?

The fact that my reply included a solution that requires you to be playing them shows that i have not skipped anything. You should also know that there is a difference between being willing to play someone and being social, if you talked with your oppenent for a while before and during the game you could remember. Also if you are so worried about making tactical errors during a game, drinking alcohol would probably be the first thing to put down.

Here's the deal where it breaks down for me. Let's say I have a 10-man squad of Space Marine figures holding boltguns, with one of them holding a flamer instead of a boltgun.

I should be able to use them in any one-codex Space Marine-based list where a squad equipped like that is legal on the table, regardless of the color they are, as long as i am perfectly clear with my opponent before-hand how that it's what I am doing.

Nowhere does GW have any rules about models and how their paint jobs or affixed decals must fit within the conventions of the fluff, or with games-Workshop published photos/artwork.

Saying I can't use the Ultramarines blue coloration and upside-down Omega on my Blood Angels is like saying I can't use any decals that are traditionally Saim-Hann specific on my Dark Eldar, even if I like them, because those decals "aren't meant for those models and so useing them that way isn't legal".

If that sole convention 'wrecks the feel of the game' for any gamer out there, and is enough to keep them from playing against another player, I would count myself as being in luck, as they are way too flaky to be the type of gamer I would want to play anyway.