Recently I have become quite tired of running CSM and finding that in order to field a list that will not be tabled almost every game in my meta I need to rely on units that are not Chaos Marines. My local meta includes a plethora of people running, necron decurions and stars, optimized tau detachments and multiple riptides, and super friends. I have found that using CSM, my only chance to win is using non marine troop choices and either resorting to demons or IA for the punch necessary. While I do have some IA units, I find the lack of marines in a CSM army to be less than satisfying, and I know if I resort to using them as they are now, I will stand no chance. My question is, would you mind someone using Codex: SM while their army scheme is definitely chaos (in my case Iron Warriors)? Obviously I would not use my units such as oblits, heldrake or spawn if I did this, but would use choices such as chapter tactics, detachments, the all so elusive grav and most importantly FINALLY USE SOME DROP PODS(!). And this would be at least until an update arrives for the current CSM codex.
I think it's fine. We do stuff like this all the time at our store. Use 40k Marines for 30k Marines (and vice versa). As long as it's easy to tell what's what, you should be fine.
Just say it's a recently turned to chaos renegade chapter, so has most of it's resources and doctrines in tact.
Does anyone have any recommendations for a chapter that would be inline with IW? I was thinking maybe something for imperial fists, since they are rivals... but I do not know SM formations/supplements very well
Iron warriors are my first choice for CSM played as straight SM.
In the fluff they are very pragmatic and have no real allegiance to chaos gods.
They were also known for cutting off mutation and replacing with cybernetics.
I would suggest you field as "Iron Hands" and for added flavor, IG/AM allies and get some hardware out there.
All the steel and hazard stripe is quite striking in numbers.
A Chaos IK is a nice thought... in IW colors it would be awesome.
Ooooh! Baneblade!
For conversion, most "normal" SM armor is fine, using some knight like helmets from the Templar upgrade pack or Grey Knights would work.
These were the original "angry marines" so many studs on the armor would work well.
I second Talizvar, using Iron Warriors as the "Warriors of Iron", a Succesor Chapter of the Iron Hands would totally fit with IW doctrines. Allying in an Emperor's Wrath Artillery formation would also keep nicely to the fluff. It's what I intend to do should I ever feel the need to run my IW again if I actually wanted to win a game.
I will probably keep the IW theme, and if anyone asks either say; they were a loyalist Grand Battalion lost in the Warp and they only recently re-entered the materium and time has warped, or that they looted/control a forge world from which they had access to Imperial gear.
Iron hands sound about right, thanks for the suggestion!
Selym wrote: Where's the option for "LOOT THE LOYALIST SCUM'S STUFF, IT SHOULD BE OURS ANYWAY!!!" ?
You'll find something similar yet reversed in the Space Wolves 13th company. The Wulfen have been looting Chaos equipment since they chased them into the warp.
Selym wrote: Where's the option for "LOOT THE LOYALIST SCUM'S STUFF, IT SHOULD BE OURS ANYWAY!!!" ?
You'll find something similar yet reversed in the Space Wolves 13th company. The Wulfen have been looting Chaos equipment since they chased them into the warp.
Well now they all have relic weapons from around the Fang and everyone is a Wulfen for some reason.
I have sometimes thought of using Codex: Space Marines to make a Night Lords army using the Raven Guard rules. Or Death Guard using Iron Hands. Or Emperor's Children using White Scars. Honestly, as long as the models match the rules in terms of equipment, I don't care what my opponent is using. I think using C:SM as a stopgap between now and when a good CSM codex comes is perfectly acceptable.
I'm sure there will be some who have an issue with it, but really there shouldn't be one. Unless people are unwilling to play against space marines normally, they shouldn't have a problem with them having a few extra spikes.
Not sure on specifics, but using legion rules from HH might give more flavour, IF your opponents are willing.
i.e. Proxy CSM as being not-yet-excommunicated-but-soon-to-be-Space-marines?
So, just for the chapter tactics with CSM equipment? I mean, sure - give 'em Iron Hand CT and anything Slaanesh becomes annoyingly hard to kill. I don't know.. probably misunderstanding that..
Selym wrote: Where's the option for "LOOT THE LOYALIST SCUM'S STUFF, IT SHOULD BE OURS ANYWAY!!!" ?
You'll find something similar yet reversed in the Space Wolves 13th company. The Wulfen have been looting Chaos equipment since they chased them into the warp.
Well now they all have relic weapons from around the Fang and everyone is a Wulfen for some reason.
Some reason would be their gene seed, all Space Wolves have the potential to turn Wulfen, the bigger question is why Murderfang doesn't have the curse bubble.
King Amroth wrote: I use my Iron Warriors in 40k as Imperial Fists Chapter tacs, mostly because the rules are more in line with what Iron Warriors do.
That certainly makes sense. The Imperial Fists penchant for tearing stuff down (their Tank Hunters ability and their Demolition Expertise from Angels of Death) is absolutely in line with what the Iron Warriors do.
Just to clarify, I would NOT be using CSM wargear with SM chapter tactics, I would be using all SM wargear, with only the color scheme and spikey bits of CSM.
Ehh, while it is effectively just using alternative models, the fact that those models represent another playable faction is going to get people a bit confused at times.
I mean, imagine someone using Space Wolves models to play vanilla Space Marines while having every weapon and piece of wargear represented accurately. Their opponent's going to treat those Space Wolves as Space Wolves when planning their gameplay, because the human brain is incapable of separating how things look and how they work. If you put on a doctor's lab coat, you will behave and think differently than you would just wearing casual clothes. If you put on that same labcoat but someone tells you it's an artist's smock instead, the effects are different.
sturgeondtd wrote: Just to clarify, I would NOT be using CSM wargear with SM chapter tactics, I would be using all SM wargear, with only the color scheme and spikey bits of CSM.
That's perfectly fine. I would avoid C:SM wargear that isn't available to CSM though. Like I said, I have considered this same exact thing a number of times. Running Emperor's Children using White Scars is one of the ones I am leaning toward.
lol I started my Iron Warriors with BAC and forgeworld heresy models so i dont need to worry about silly spikes and mutations everywhere. My marines look like super soldiers not the losers in a halloween dress up contest.
If you don't find a way to play a fluffy CSm army with the CSM Codex it's totally viable to use a more fitting codex. Raven Guard/White Scars as Night Lords, Space Wolves as World Eaters, Imperial Fists as Iron Warriors and so on. However, if you just use the loyalist codes to get free transports, space marines inside space marines and OP psykers, I'd consider that lazy.
Selym wrote: Where's the option for "LOOT THE LOYALIST SCUM'S STUFF, IT SHOULD BE OURS ANYWAY!!!" ?
You'll find something similar yet reversed in the Space Wolves 13th company. The Wulfen have been looting Chaos equipment since they chased them into the warp.
Well now they all have relic weapons from around the Fang and everyone is a Wulfen for some reason.
Some reason would be their gene seed, all Space Wolves have the potential to turn Wulfen, the bigger question is why Murderfang doesn't have the curse bubble.
So after centuries if not millenia all the 13th Company just decide to go Wulfen in a matter of years. Right.
If the rules of a book fit a specific theme better than another one, there is no problem to switch.
As long as there is nothing better available, Thousand Sond will be represented better on the table with Codex Grey Knights and World Eaters with Codex SW.
As long as all conversions are done well, no one will complain.
All of my units, barring my heldrakes, are 30k units, so I shouldn't have much of a problem with units being the same size, the only difference is my tanks have those spiked railings all over them.
I have decided to use Iron Hands tactics and run a CAD using command squads in drop pods. Was thinking about a formation, but I don't want to buy a ton of new units.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: If you don't find a way to play a fluffy CSm army with the CSM Codex it's totally viable to use a more fitting codex. Raven Guard/White Scars as Night Lords, Space Wolves as World Eaters, Imperial Fists as Iron Warriors and so on. However, if you just use the loyalist codes to get free transports, space marines inside space marines and OP psykers, I'd consider that lazy.
You do realise that at this point, the "current" CSM codex is damn near unplayable?!
The only reason to actually use the CSM codex as it stands, is because;
- you want lots of Daemon engines
- you're a Nurgle fan, and thus, can at least cobble something half-way decent together out of MSU Plaguemarines, plus MoN Lord/Bikes/Spawn/Oblits.
- you're adding a Cyclopia Cabal or AoBF Jugger Lord to another Chaos list.
Otherwise, playing CSM's at this point is akin to playing the game on lunatic setting because you enjoy getting beaten senseless and/or want the single greatest challenge that 40k can offer.
And let's be honest, it's not like CSM players are the only 'Marine' players who'd readily codex/chapter tactics hop for advantage...
I'm personally a big fan of the unbound rules. I'd use them to mix the csm and sm units into the army you want to use. Use sm marine rules for your marines, use grav centurions, use oblits and heldrakes. As long as I know what's what and no one is trying to gain advantage in any way I'm happy.
I notice a lot of people allowing it because they don't care rather than some kind of sympathy for the players with a rubbish codex. The only real good CSM codex seems to grant is lesser risk when casting from the Malific Daemonology powers.
Selym wrote: Where's the option for "LOOT THE LOYALIST SCUM'S STUFF, IT SHOULD BE OURS ANYWAY!!!" ?
You'll find something similar yet reversed in the Space Wolves 13th company. The Wulfen have been looting Chaos equipment since they chased them into the warp.
Well now they all have relic weapons from around the Fang and everyone is a Wulfen for some reason.
Some reason would be their gene seed, all Space Wolves have the potential to turn Wulfen, the bigger question is why Murderfang doesn't have the curse bubble.
So after centuries if not millenia all the 13th Company just decide to go Wulfen in a matter of years. Right.
Actually the Curse has been pretty consistent throughout the Space Wolves fluff, they lose a good number of Aspirants to the Curse in the Test of Morkai, the thing that has changed is that the Curse is now infectious, being near Wulfen and hearing their cries triggers the Canis Helix more violently than normal, probably some warp juice from their time in the Eye of Terror which would explain to some degree why Murderfang doesn't have it.
Dakka Wolf wrote: I notice a lot of people allowing it because they don't care rather than some kind of sympathy for the players with a rubbish codex. The only real good CSM codex seems to grant is lesser risk when casting from the Malific Daemonology powers.
Selym wrote: Where's the option for "LOOT THE LOYALIST SCUM'S STUFF, IT SHOULD BE OURS ANYWAY!!!" ?
You'll find something similar yet reversed in the Space Wolves 13th company. The Wulfen have been looting Chaos equipment since they chased them into the warp.
Well now they all have relic weapons from around the Fang and everyone is a Wulfen for some reason.
Some reason would be their gene seed, all Space Wolves have the potential to turn Wulfen, the bigger question is why Murderfang doesn't have the curse bubble.
So after centuries if not millenia all the 13th Company just decide to go Wulfen in a matter of years. Right.
Actually the Curse has been pretty consistent throughout the Space Wolves fluff, they lose a good number of Aspirants to the Curse in the Test of Morkai, the thing that has changed is that the Curse is now infectious, being near Wulfen and hearing their cries triggers the Canis Helix more violently than normal, probably some warp juice from their time in the Eye of Terror which would explain to some degree why Murderfang doesn't have it.
Dakka Wolf wrote: I notice a lot of people allowing it because they don't care rather than some kind of sympathy for the players with a rubbish codex. The only real good CSM codex seems to grant is lesser risk when casting from the Malific Daemonology powers.
Selym wrote: Where's the option for "LOOT THE LOYALIST SCUM'S STUFF, IT SHOULD BE OURS ANYWAY!!!" ?
You'll find something similar yet reversed in the Space Wolves 13th company. The Wulfen have been looting Chaos equipment since they chased them into the warp.
Well now they all have relic weapons from around the Fang and everyone is a Wulfen for some reason.
Some reason would be their gene seed, all Space Wolves have the potential to turn Wulfen, the bigger question is why Murderfang doesn't have the curse bubble.
So after centuries if not millenia all the 13th Company just decide to go Wulfen in a matter of years. Right.
Actually the Curse has been pretty consistent throughout the Space Wolves fluff, they lose a good number of Aspirants to the Curse in the Test of Morkai, the thing that has changed is that the Curse is now infectious, being near Wulfen and hearing their cries triggers the Canis Helix more violently than normal, probably some warp juice from their time in the Eye of Terror which would explain to some degree why Murderfang doesn't have it.
Okay. None of this explains away my criticism.
Are you really expecting an answer beyond "wolfwolfwolf sell more models" or are you just being pugnacious?
sturgeondtd wrote: Just to clarify, I would NOT be using CSM wargear with SM chapter tactics, I would be using all SM wargear, with only the color scheme and spikey bits of CSM.
Why not? My son does C:SM and I wouldn't have an issue if he showed up with drop pods and a heldrake.
Dakka Wolf wrote: I notice a lot of people allowing it because they don't care rather than some kind of sympathy for the players with a rubbish codex. The only real good CSM codex seems to grant is lesser risk when casting from the Malific Daemonology powers.
Selym wrote: Where's the option for "LOOT THE LOYALIST SCUM'S STUFF, IT SHOULD BE OURS ANYWAY!!!" ?
You'll find something similar yet reversed in the Space Wolves 13th company. The Wulfen have been looting Chaos equipment since they chased them into the warp.
Well now they all have relic weapons from around the Fang and everyone is a Wulfen for some reason.
Some reason would be their gene seed, all Space Wolves have the potential to turn Wulfen, the bigger question is why Murderfang doesn't have the curse bubble.
So after centuries if not millenia all the 13th Company just decide to go Wulfen in a matter of years. Right.
Actually the Curse has been pretty consistent throughout the Space Wolves fluff, they lose a good number of Aspirants to the Curse in the Test of Morkai, the thing that has changed is that the Curse is now infectious, being near Wulfen and hearing their cries triggers the Canis Helix more violently than normal, probably some warp juice from their time in the Eye of Terror which would explain to some degree why Murderfang doesn't have it.
Okay. None of this explains away my criticism.
Are you really expecting an answer beyond "wolfwolfwolf sell more models" or are you just being pugnacious?
Well, it's a false assumption that the Wulfen just sprung up, they've been around since Russ made his 'Sword Brothers' into Space Marines, the Canis Helix and Curse of the Wulfen are the reasons the Space Wolves don't have a successor chapter, the 13th company which was made up of Marines who had fallen to the curse chased the Thousand Sons into the warp so they aren't just a fad, their new look on the other hand is a bit different to the old models. You'll probably find a better explanation of how the warp mutates things in Chaos Marines or Daemonkin codex, I'm sure a Chaos player will lend you one for a read, especially while you're letting them play by the Space Marine codex.
While it's a shame that people have to play CSM as Loyalists for a fair shake at the game, I don't have a problem with people proxying marines as a different flavour of marines as long as it's clear what is what. I'll probably be using my 40k Death Guard as a 30k Death Guard army at some point in the near future myself.
I can understand some reservation about proxying: lads at the local gaming club used to lunch boxes as proxy Rhinos and Drop Pods, one guy in particular had a random assortment of 25mm based minis that would proxied as almost any infantry unit week to week and that got terribly confusing.
I think personally, in many circumstances you can come up with a -more- fluff driven list by doing such things, so I'm all for using the SM book for CSM.
I saw one list that had an Alpha Legion player using the Black Templars rules and loved it.
A couple things to also mention that is a stronger way to combat some player saying "I do not like CSM played at SM" is "Rule of Cool" and "WYSIWYG".
I think that is why Iron Warriors are a good fit: they look like how they play and when done consistently, they look pretty cool.
Funny how it was mentioned using the Imperial Fists: these guys have been the classic arch-enemy to the IW's since their Primarch was shooting off his mouth about the Imperial Palace being impervious.
Perturabo was many times ready to say "challenge accepted".
There will be nothing confusing about these guys.
I would argue further that after IW's smacked around a loyalist chapter, they would have zero issues with using their gear as spoils of war.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
IronMaster wrote: I saw one list that had an Alpha Legion player using the Black Templars rules and loved it.
Heresy!
Those schemers cannot match the Bt's sublime simplicity of righteous anger applied to the enemy in honorable close combat!
The Ravenguard are a closer match at least from the sneaky end of things but Alpha Legion you would swear are the favored sons of Tzeentch: schemes within schemes.
Speaking of that, the thousand sons always "avoided" them for some reason not confirmed according to the Lexicanum.
They usually used all manner of non-direct "messing" with their enemy before a multi-directional simultaneous strike is made (the "harrowing" I think it was?).
I could see special rules for these guys is that none of your units in reserve arrive on-time (if at all) or undamaged with one big lightening strike applied to those who remain.
Talizvar wrote: A couple things to also mention that is a stronger way to combat some player saying "I do not like CSM played at SM" is "Rule of Cool" and "WYSIWYG".
I think that is why Iron Warriors are a good fit: they look like how they play and when done consistently, they look pretty cool.
Funny how it was mentioned using the Imperial Fists: these guys have been the classic arch-enemy to the IW's since their Primarch was shooting off his mouth about the Imperial Palace being impervious.
Perturabo was many times ready to say "challenge accepted".
There will be nothing confusing about these guys.
I would argue further that after IW's smacked around a loyalist chapter, they would have zero issues with using their gear as spoils of war.
Hell, the Iron Warriors don't use their hated enemy's gear, they even used their stolen gene-seed to make a bunch of equally hated b****** marines, who turned out to be better than 'real' Imp Fists, while also being worthless dogs in the eyes of their pure-bred brethren!
Any suggestions for formations/detachments and chapter tactics to use? I kind of wanted to use a stormraven, as I have always wanted to do a conversion to extend the model and include a sky hook for the dreadnought.
Other than that, I don't know if Iron Hands and using a bunch of techmarines with servo arms or go for Fists, heck maybe a gladous? I'm so lost with all of these crazy rules loyalists have.... please send help
Edit:
Through various sources of acquisition, I will be the proud owner of 7 drop pods, and 1 dread drop pod. I would like to use at least a few of these, and I was thinking using command squads in them could be fun
I use the Imperial Fists Sternhammer from angels of death, it gives you improved bolter drill (reroll ALL misses with bolters) and army wide stubborn if the general is alive when you just want to have all of the infantry and it has better options for including things like vindis, thunderfire cannons,extra devastator units and dreads plus all the usual C:SM gems.
Recently I have become quite tired of running CSM and finding that in order to field a list that will not be tabled almost every game in my meta I need to rely on units that are not Chaos Marines. My local meta includes a plethora of people running, necron decurions and stars, optimized tau detachments and multiple riptides, and super friends. I have found that using CSM, my only chance to win is using non marine troop choices and either resorting to demons or IA for the punch necessary. While I do have some IA units, I find the lack of marines in a CSM army to be less than satisfying, and I know if I resort to using them as they are now, I will stand no chance. My question is, would you mind someone using Codex: SM while their army scheme is definitely chaos (in my case Iron Warriors)? Obviously I would not use my units such as oblits, heldrake or spawn if I did this, but would use choices such as chapter tactics, detachments, the all so elusive grav and most importantly FINALLY USE SOME DROP PODS(!). And this would be at least until an update arrives for the current CSM codex.
Embrace it completely. Use it as an excuse to expand your artistic side by adding in marine units but converting them into a more chaosy context. Just make sure they are easily WYSIWYG in general. For example, tweek some terminators with a little modeling to look like an assault cannon is literally growing out of their arm and maybe has a nice demon head snout. Any heavies can be tweeked to look a little demon enginey, that sort of thing. Just make it all look cool and coherent.
Remember, codexes change. When the chaos dex again becomes the best you'll be set.
Remember to the Eldar, all you Mon-Keigh look alike...
Don't see much difference with loyals chapter hopping between imperial fist, dark angels, grey knights etc with same models so...Shoot. If you want go for it.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Yes, I do mind. Play space marines if you're playing Space marines. Play chaos space marines if you're doing chaos, that simple.
With that attitude I sure hope every one of your models is painted in the chapter colours of the chapter you're using. Otherwise, you're playing with models that aren't 100% right too.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Yes, I do mind. Play space marines if you're playing Space marines. Play chaos space marines if you're doing chaos, that simple.
With that attitude I sure hope every one of your models is painted in the chapter colours of the chapter you're using. Otherwise, you're playing with models that aren't 100% right too.
Haha yeah no more iron hands with white scar chapter. Or some custom colour scheme that mystically changes chapter every game...
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Yes, I do mind. Play space marines if you're playing Space marines. Play chaos space marines if you're doing chaos, that simple.
With that attitude I sure hope every one of your models is painted in the chapter colours of the chapter you're using. Otherwise, you're playing with models that aren't 100% right too.
Actually they are. That's the whole point of different codices...
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Yes, I do mind. Play space marines if you're playing Space marines. Play chaos space marines if you're doing chaos, that simple.
Space Marine players, when you being slated for being elitist anus's look no further than people with this kind of attitude.
Beg to differ on that point (awesome they are painted "properly" though!)
It is to get a slightly different play style for a given "vanilla" space marines.
Black Templar are my main go-to and the black and white scheme is striking but their running at the enemy when angry is kinda fun, or the 5 man squads or the 20 man squads or the please oh please issue a challenge.
There are a few neat twists in each group not just the colour scheme.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Yes, I do mind. Play space marines if you're playing Space marines. Play chaos space marines if you're doing chaos, that simple.
What about this is significantly different than using a made-up chapter? Think of it as he's playing Space Marines using [whichever chapter tactics he decided] and calling them Iron Warriors while modeling them as chaos/renegades. Much better than "If you wanna play Chaos you have to get gak on."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Now THAT is a TFG attitude. Not letting someone use a better codex instead of the unplayable one?
Or hell, even if it wasn't an unplayable codex, if someone wants to use rules that they believe will fit their models better, why not?
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Yes, I do mind. Play space marines if you're playing Space marines. Play chaos space marines if you're doing chaos, that simple.
Space Marine players, when you being slated for being elitist anus's look no further than people with this kind of attitude.
Actually I don't play space marines, lol. But my models are still painted the "correct" way for the factions I play.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Now THAT is a TFG attitude. Not letting someone use a better codex instead of the unplayable one?
Im a TFG for playing the game properly? It's not my fault (or anyone else's) that chaos is bad. That's like me using space wolves with the dark angels codex, doesn't make much sense, does it? If anything switching codex is the TFG thing, get a godly codex with no downsides by still being chaos, sounds pretty WAAC to me.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Yes, I do mind. Play space marines if you're playing Space marines. Play chaos space marines if you're doing chaos, that simple.
What about this is significantly different than using a made-up chapter? Think of it as he's playing Space Marines using [whichever chapter tactics he decided] and calling them Iron Warriors while modeling them as chaos/renegades. Much better than "If you wanna play Chaos you have to get gak on."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Now THAT is a TFG attitude. Not letting someone use a better codex instead of the unplayable one?
Or hell, even if it wasn't an unplayable codex, if someone wants to use rules that they believe will fit their models better, why not?
If it was a homebrew chapter sure, go ahead, they are space marines. But as soon as I see a maulerfiend being used as an ironclad dreadnought or something like that it just makes me think, why don't you just stay faithful to your dex? Very simple to me.
You're TFG for not allowing a completely reasonable request.
I quoted correct because it is what I see as correct, as in something that is not completely nutters like pink dots or something, I usually do an already existing forge world or kabal or something like that.
How is this TFG? I want him to play the game correctly. Its extremely WAAC if you just trade dex's because one is better. Might as well just run my knight as a riptide.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Yes, I do mind. Play space marines if you're playing Space marines. Play chaos space marines if you're doing chaos, that simple.
What about this is significantly different than using a made-up chapter? Think of it as he's playing Space Marines using [whichever chapter tactics he decided] and calling them Iron Warriors while modeling them as chaos/renegades. Much better than "If you wanna play Chaos you have to get gak on."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Now THAT is a TFG attitude. Not letting someone use a better codex instead of the unplayable one?
Or hell, even if it wasn't an unplayable codex, if someone wants to use rules that they believe will fit their models better, why not?
If it was a homebrew chapter sure, go ahead, they are space marines. But as soon as I see a maulerfiend being used as an ironclad dreadnought or something like that it just makes me think, why don't you just stay faithful to your dex? Very simple to me.
So you're against proxying, is your point. I'm pretty sure he didn't say anything about putting a maulerfiend down as an ironclad, though, or anything like that, unless I missed it. Honestly, in this scenario, I would more expect him to place an ironclad as an ironclad. There's no reason Iron Warriors couldn't or wouldn't have dreadnoughts other than the CSM codex doesn't have them.
Remember, also, he's not using csm rules on top of space marine stuff. He's using entirely Codex Space Marines rules. It's essentially a custom chapter, crunch-wise. And if he were to convert a chaos daemon engine to use as a dreadnought, that would be freakin' awesome. If he were to roll up to a game with a non-converted 'fiend and said "Hey I'm using this as a dread," most reasonable people would probably okay it. They're the same base size, right? About the same footprint, rough outline?
If you're against proxying, okay then, that's a little different.
Unless you mean that a trilas predator with an eye of horus on it cannot be used as a trilas predator in C:SM as Iron Hands or similar. If that is the root of your argument, you are beyond reason.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Yes, I do mind. Play space marines if you're playing Space marines. Play chaos space marines if you're doing chaos, that simple.
What about this is significantly different than using a made-up chapter? Think of it as he's playing Space Marines using [whichever chapter tactics he decided] and calling them Iron Warriors while modeling them as chaos/renegades. Much better than "If you wanna play Chaos you have to get gak on."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Now THAT is a TFG attitude. Not letting someone use a better codex instead of the unplayable one?
Or hell, even if it wasn't an unplayable codex, if someone wants to use rules that they believe will fit their models better, why not?
If it was a homebrew chapter sure, go ahead, they are space marines. But as soon as I see a maulerfiend being used as an ironclad dreadnought or something like that it just makes me think, why don't you just stay faithful to your dex? Very simple to me.
You're TFG for not allowing a completely reasonable request.
I quoted correct because it is what I see as correct, as in something that is not completely nutters like pink dots or something, I usually do an already existing forge world or kabal or something like that.
How is this TFG? I want him to play the game correctly. Its extremely WAAC if you just trade dex's because one is better. Might as well just run my knight as a riptide.
Well, shall we begin?
The Chaos codex is lacking a hell of a lot and its few 'advantages' actually turn out to be major disadvantages, such as the Gifts of Chaos table (dont make me laugh)
In the mean time Codex SM is getting more and more buffs. Centurions functionally are better than Obliterators and function in a similar vein, SM Dreads have more attacks and come with better rules whilst Chaod dreads are prone to attacking their own side for no reason other than Jarvis's "forge the narrative" idealistics. In the meantime the Vanilla marines recently got an entire expansion which gave them access to psycjic powers that by all rights should belong to the Chaos marines, powers such as the Geomancy tree's Shifting Worldscape and Earthblood really should be Tzeentchian whilst the machine powers are far more Iron Warriors than vanilla SM. The favoured of Jarvis also have access to Formations that should be Chaos only as well, such as the Librarius Conclave (Tzeench), Siege Breaker (Iron Warriors), Landraider Spearhead (Legion Tactic), and so on.
In the meantime the Chaos forces have what? Nothing.
It says something when you can build a better and fluffier Chaos list from the Vanilla Marine codex than you can from the actual Chaos codex.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Yes, I do mind. Play space marines if you're playing Space marines. Play chaos space marines if you're doing chaos, that simple.
What about this is significantly different than using a made-up chapter? Think of it as he's playing Space Marines using [whichever chapter tactics he decided] and calling them Iron Warriors while modeling them as chaos/renegades. Much better than "If you wanna play Chaos you have to get gak on."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Now THAT is a TFG attitude. Not letting someone use a better codex instead of the unplayable one?
Or hell, even if it wasn't an unplayable codex, if someone wants to use rules that they believe will fit their models better, why not?
If it was a homebrew chapter sure, go ahead, they are space marines. But as soon as I see a maulerfiend being used as an ironclad dreadnought or something like that it just makes me think, why don't you just stay faithful to your dex? Very simple to me.
You're TFG for not allowing a completely reasonable request.
I quoted correct because it is what I see as correct, as in something that is not completely nutters like pink dots or something, I usually do an already existing forge world or kabal or something like that.
How is this TFG? I want him to play the game correctly. Its extremely WAAC if you just trade dex's because one is better. Might as well just run my knight as a riptide.
You're talking about a very poor proxy to try and gain an advantage purely for the sake of winning. We're talking about models that are almost the same as one another to avoid automatically losing every game. You're TFG because you're basically saying "I don't want you to have fun because it goes against my idea of right".
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Im a TFG for playing the game properly? It's not my fault (or anyone else's) that chaos is bad. That's like me using space wolves with the dark angels codex, doesn't make much sense, does it? If anything switching codex is the TFG thing, get a godly codex with no downsides by still being chaos, sounds pretty WAAC to me.
And please tell who gave you the authority to decide what is the correct way to play the game?
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Im a TFG for playing the game properly? It's not my fault (or anyone else's) that chaos is bad. That's like me using space wolves with the dark angels codex, doesn't make much sense, does it? If anything switching codex is the TFG thing, get a godly codex with no downsides by still being chaos, sounds pretty WAAC to me.
And please tell who gave you the authority to decide what is the correct way to play the game?
GW. CSM has their own codex and DA has their own codex and SM has their own codex. Doing anything else pretty much goes against the spirit of the game.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Yes, I do mind. Play space marines if you're playing Space marines. Play chaos space marines if you're doing chaos, that simple.
What about this is significantly different than using a made-up chapter? Think of it as he's playing Space Marines using [whichever chapter tactics he decided] and calling them Iron Warriors while modeling them as chaos/renegades. Much better than "If you wanna play Chaos you have to get gak on."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Now THAT is a TFG attitude. Not letting someone use a better codex instead of the unplayable one?
Or hell, even if it wasn't an unplayable codex, if someone wants to use rules that they believe will fit their models better, why not?
If it was a homebrew chapter sure, go ahead, they are space marines. But as soon as I see a maulerfiend being used as an ironclad dreadnought or something like that it just makes me think, why don't you just stay faithful to your dex? Very simple to me.
You're TFG for not allowing a completely reasonable request.
I quoted correct because it is what I see as correct, as in something that is not completely nutters like pink dots or something, I usually do an already existing forge world or kabal or something like that.
How is this TFG? I want him to play the game correctly. Its extremely WAAC if you just trade dex's because one is better. Might as well just run my knight as a riptide.
You're talking about a very poor proxy to try and gain an advantage purely for the sake of winning. We're talking about models that are almost the same as one another to avoid automatically losing every game. You're TFG because you're basically saying "I don't want you to have fun because it goes against my idea of right".
Is he not proxying for an advantage? To you that's not a problem, so why can't I run my knight as a riptide? Similar in size, footprint, maybe if I put some tau symbols on it I can say they stole it! I'm using my models they way I want, right?
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Im a TFG for playing the game properly? It's not my fault (or anyone else's) that chaos is bad. That's like me using space wolves with the dark angels codex, doesn't make much sense, does it? If anything switching codex is the TFG thing, get a godly codex with no downsides by still being chaos, sounds pretty WAAC to me.
And please tell who gave you the authority to decide what is the correct way to play the game?
GW. CSM has their own codex and DA has their own codex and SM has their own codex. Doing anything else pretty much goes against the spirit of the game.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Im a TFG for playing the game properly? It's not my fault (or anyone else's) that chaos is bad. That's like me using space wolves with the dark angels codex, doesn't make much sense, does it? If anything switching codex is the TFG thing, get a godly codex with no downsides by still being chaos, sounds pretty WAAC to me.
And please tell who gave you the authority to decide what is the correct way to play the game?
GW. CSM has their own codex and DA has their own codex and SM has their own codex. Doing anything else pretty much goes against the spirit of the game.
And Codex CSM is pretty much an auto lose choice unless your facing Guard in which case you will still have a tough time. In the mean time Codex SM and codex DA and codex SW can pretty much curb stomp Chaos and anything else beneath them with ease.
Like I said ShieldBrother. You aren't playing a codex that puts you at a huge disadvantage therefore you shouldn't use a terrible proxy for pure advantage.
OP wants to use very reasonable alternative models to fight on a level playing field.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Im a TFG for playing the game properly? It's not my fault (or anyone else's) that chaos is bad. That's like me using space wolves with the dark angels codex, doesn't make much sense, does it? If anything switching codex is the TFG thing, get a godly codex with no downsides by still being chaos, sounds pretty WAAC to me.
And please tell who gave you the authority to decide what is the correct way to play the game?
GW. CSM has their own codex and DA has their own codex and SM has their own codex. Doing anything else pretty much goes against the spirit of the game.
I disagree. Plus the rules themselves give you ways to make custom chapters, as a community conversions and kitbashing is encouraged. The whole thing is very customizable, and the only true guiding philosophy is "Have fun."
Keep in mind that he's playing Space Marines using Space Marine rules, and the models themselves are what are different. He may be using CSM models, but he's playing Space Marines. He wants to play Space Marines and call his army Iron Warriors. Even if CSM didn't have a gak codex, there's literally nothing wrong with that.
But OP, let this remind you that some people will always object to something out of the norm. That's really all there is to say without people starting to fight and call each other TFG and WAAC.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Im a TFG for playing the game properly? It's not my fault (or anyone else's) that chaos is bad. That's like me using space wolves with the dark angels codex, doesn't make much sense, does it? If anything switching codex is the TFG thing, get a godly codex with no downsides by still being chaos, sounds pretty WAAC to me.
And please tell who gave you the authority to decide what is the correct way to play the game?
GW. CSM has their own codex and DA has their own codex and SM has their own codex. Doing anything else pretty much goes against the spirit of the game.
And GW has said you cannot use models of one faction with other codex...Where?
If anything GW is likely to say anything. GW cares not why models were bought as long as they are bought. If they can sell more chaos models thanks to them using codex:SM they are all for it.
But sure. Show me quote from GW saying you cannot use chaos models with codex:SM. I'm waiting.
I don't want to hear your OPINIONS. I want to see OFFICIAL STATEMENT from GW where they forbid it.
Untill you can show that what you are saying has pretty much zero value.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: To you that's not a problem, so why can't I run my knight as a riptide? Similar in size, footprint, maybe if I put some tau symbols on it I can say they stole it! I'm using my models they way I want, right?
Yes. Absolutely. That's what I'm saying. It would be amazing if you could convert it up somewhat, but otherwise it's a new experimental Riptide suit model.
Another clarification, all of my models are Horus Heresy era I am not using and/or do not have maulerfiends, heldrakes or anything else that does not exist in C:SM. I for the most part have a lot of rhinos, a few predators, MKIII marines, some Cataphractii terminators and a few dreadnoughts from old SM starter sets. All are painted in heresy IW colors.
My thought was to say they are either Silver Skulls (they are thought to maybe be IW) or IW who had remained loyal during the heresy.
sturgeondtd wrote: Another clarification, all of my models are Horus Heresy era I am not using and/or do not have maulerfiends, heldrakes or anything else that does not exist in C:SM. I for the most part have a lot of rhinos, a few predators, MKIII marines, some Cataphractii terminators and a few dreadnoughts from old SM starter sets. All are painted in heresy IW colors.
My thought was to say they are either Silver Skulls (they are thought to maybe be IW) or IW who had remained loyal during the heresy.
I like the Silver Skulls better. Then it could be suspected they are a successor chapter from the IW geneseed or something. Or a chapter made from loyalist IW.
I think (but am not sure) any loyalists from the traitor legions got rolled into new chapters and to talk openly about being from a traitor legion is basically death. If someone tells me I'm wrong then I'm getting traitor legion shoulderpads for some of my Deathwatch haha.
I think CSM should be something like a supplement that adds chaos abilities and weapons to the troops in Codex Space Marines. That way CSM will keep up with SM indefinitely, instead of the ridiculous joke we have now.
Csm isn't an auto lose, by a mile. They are bad, yes, but anyone who just rolls over and accepts they will be ground into dust every game is doing something wrong. Play smart, use what effective stuff you have and don't play with donkey-caves.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Csm isn't an auto lose, by a mile. They are bad, yes, but anyone who just rolls over and accepts they will be ground into dust every game is doing something wrong. Play smart, use what effective stuff you have and don't play with donkey-caves.
Guard armies can face competitive Chaos lists and have a decent chance. That should say something.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Yes, I do mind. Play space marines if you're playing Space marines. Play chaos space marines if you're doing chaos, that simple.
Space Marine players, when you being slated for being elitist anus's look no further than people with this kind of attitude.
Lets play nice now. Everyone is entitled to a good faith opinion (unless you like cats, in which case you're dead to me).
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Yes, I do mind. Play space marines if you're playing Space marines. Play chaos space marines if you're doing chaos, that simple.
Space Marine players, when you being slated for being elitist anus's look no further than people with this kind of attitude.
Lets play nice now. Everyone is entitled to a good faith opinion (unless you like cats, in which case you're dead to me).
*Looks at the purring cat on his lap* Well.... Gak.
DarkBlack wrote: I think CSM should be something like a supplement that adds chaos abilities and weapons to the troops in Codex Space Marines. That way CSM will keep up with SM indefinitely, instead of the ridiculous joke we have now.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Im a TFG for playing the game properly? It's not my fault (or anyone else's) that chaos is bad. That's like me using space wolves with the dark angels codex, doesn't make much sense, does it? If anything switching codex is the TFG thing, get a godly codex with no downsides by still being chaos, sounds pretty WAAC to me.
And please tell who gave you the authority to decide what is the correct way to play the game?
GW. CSM has their own codex and DA has their own codex and SM has their own codex. Doing anything else pretty much goes against the spirit of the game.
And Codex CSM is pretty much an auto lose choice unless your facing Guard in which case you will still have a tough time. In the mean time Codex SM and codex DA and codex SW can pretty much curb stomp Chaos and anything else beneath them with ease.
And? I play Codex: Orks as Orks and run Nobz, I don't run my Nobz as Wulfen even though they're much better geared and statted out.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Im a TFG for playing the game properly? It's not my fault (or anyone else's) that chaos is bad. That's like me using space wolves with the dark angels codex, doesn't make much sense, does it? If anything switching codex is the TFG thing, get a godly codex with no downsides by still being chaos, sounds pretty WAAC to me.
And please tell who gave you the authority to decide what is the correct way to play the game?
GW. CSM has their own codex and DA has their own codex and SM has their own codex. Doing anything else pretty much goes against the spirit of the game.
And GW has said you cannot use models of one faction with other codex...Where?
If anything GW is likely to say anything. GW cares not why models were bought as long as they are bought. If they can sell more chaos models thanks to them using codex:SM they are all for it.
But sure. Show me quote from GW saying you cannot use chaos models with codex:SM. I'm waiting.
I don't want to hear your OPINIONS. I want to see OFFICIAL STATEMENT from GW where they forbid it.
Untill you can show that what you are saying has pretty much zero value.
The fact that they're labeled under the site as CSM models, not "Power armor models"? But hey, guess what, this goes both ways. Until you can show me where GW says you can run CSM as SM, YOUR opinion has pretty much zero value. Happy?
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Im a TFG for playing the game properly? It's not my fault (or anyone else's) that chaos is bad. That's like me using space wolves with the dark angels codex, doesn't make much sense, does it? If anything switching codex is the TFG thing, get a godly codex with no downsides by still being chaos, sounds pretty WAAC to me.
And please tell who gave you the authority to decide what is the correct way to play the game?
GW. CSM has their own codex and DA has their own codex and SM has their own codex. Doing anything else pretty much goes against the spirit of the game.
And Codex CSM is pretty much an auto lose choice unless your facing Guard in which case you will still have a tough time. In the mean time Codex SM and codex DA and codex SW can pretty much curb stomp Chaos and anything else beneath them with ease.
And? I play Codex: Orks as Orks and run Nobz, I don't run my Nobz as Wulfen even though they're much better geared and statted out.
And where does it say you couldn't do that?
Still waiting for that official word from GW...You said there is one. You admitt having lied about it? Or are you going to actually prove your statement in a near future?
Now you're just being petty. Everyone knows each faction has its own models because those are the intended models in their codex entry etc. Go to your local gamestore and yell everyone your daemon prince is a Warhound titan. I dare you. You'll get laughed out of the store.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Im a TFG for playing the game properly? It's not my fault (or anyone else's) that chaos is bad. That's like me using space wolves with the dark angels codex, doesn't make much sense, does it? If anything switching codex is the TFG thing, get a godly codex with no downsides by still being chaos, sounds pretty WAAC to me.
And please tell who gave you the authority to decide what is the correct way to play the game?
GW. CSM has their own codex and DA has their own codex and SM has their own codex. Doing anything else pretty much goes against the spirit of the game.
And Codex CSM is pretty much an auto lose choice unless your facing Guard in which case you will still have a tough time. In the mean time Codex SM and codex DA and codex SW can pretty much curb stomp Chaos and anything else beneath them with ease.
And? I play Codex: Orks as Orks and run Nobz, I don't run my Nobz as Wulfen even though they're much better geared and statted out.
And where does it say you couldn't do that?
Still waiting for that official word from GW...You said there is one. You admitt having lied about it? Or are you going to actually prove your statement in a near future?
Pretty clear you're just splitting hairs and being asinine. Not even worth continuing discussion now.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Now you're just being petty. Everyone knows each faction has its own models because those are the intended models in their codex entry etc. Go to your local gamestore and yell everyone your daemon prince is a Warhound titan. I dare you. You'll get laughed out of the store.
Except your ideas are more along the lines of "Your Tau aren't yellow, therefore they aren't official Tau models".
The fact that they're labeled under the site as CSM models, not "Power armor models"? But hey, guess what, this goes both ways. Until you can show me where GW says you can run CSM as SM, YOUR opinion has pretty much zero value. Happy?
Have we not always been able to use any models we want (within agreed-upon reason between opponents)? Did scratch-built stop being a thing? I know that GW stores only allow GW models, but the game itself only has pictures of models and rules and options for units. I haven't seen a page that applies rules to the actual physical models, barring limited edition release models. It could be argued the pictures/models are only examples of what the units *could* look like.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Now you're just being petty. Everyone knows each faction has its own models because those are the intended models in their codex entry etc. Go to your local gamestore and yell everyone your daemon prince is a Warhound titan. I dare you. You'll get laughed out of the store.
"Your power armored guys being different power armored guys is as laughable as a 50mm (or whatever) base being a model that takes up 10% of the table." Do we see the fallacy?
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Csm isn't an auto lose, by a mile. They are bad, yes, but anyone who just rolls over and accepts they will be ground into dust every game is doing something wrong. Play smart, use what effective stuff you have and don't play with donkey-caves.
Donkey-caves can be anyone just using an averagely-built army, because the average army can beat a competitive CSM list. Make it just a bit more efficient and it is a slaughter.
So yeah you're wrong. Who cares if someone proxies a Maulerfiend into an Ironclad? An Ironclad having two Flamers sounds like a Maulerfiend breathing fire which is neat. There's plenty of good reasoning to do things like this (Rubric Marines carrying exotic ammo ala Sternguard? Makes sense to me).
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Now you're just being petty. Everyone knows each faction has its own models because those are the intended models in their codex entry etc. Go to your local gamestore and yell everyone your daemon prince is a Warhound titan. I dare you. You'll get laughed out of the store.
Except your ideas are more along the lines of "Your Tau aren't yellow, therefore they aren't official Tau models".
Never said that, however swapping codices is too much.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Csm isn't an auto lose, by a mile. They are bad, yes, but anyone who just rolls over and accepts they will be ground into dust every game is doing something wrong. Play smart, use what effective stuff you have and don't play with donkey-caves.
Donkey-caves can be anyone just using an averagely-built army, because the average army can beat a competitive CSM list. Make it just a bit more efficient and it is a slaughter.
So yeah you're wrong. Who cares if someone proxies a Maulerfiend into an Ironclad? An Ironclad having two Flamers sounds like a Maulerfiend breathing fire which is neat. There's plenty of good reasoning to do things like this (Rubric Marines carrying exotic ammo ala Sternguard? Makes sense to me).
To you, what is an average codex? Because to me, Imperial guard is about pretty average. I have a friend who plays guard, my brother who plays chaos, and I play kdk occasionally. Out of all of us the guard player loses most. (Neither me or my brother play formations) Now this may be anecdotal, but from my experience chaos can do fine against guard.
And I care if he proxies a Maulerfiend for an Ironclad, use the correct models for the correct faction and don't just be WAAC that changes codex depending on the flavour of the week.
I use the SM codex, with an army that has a roughly 50/50 mix at a guess of CSM power armour models, old 3rd edition tactical marines with some minor bits added on like cloaks, extra bits of armour extra to give them a more renagade look and then the rest is the modern SM models, with the odd minor conversion to give them a more chaos/renagade feeling.
The paint schemes unifies them, the army started in 3rd ed as space marines, then they went to the dark side, and after a long break from the game, in 7th I updated the army and use the SM codex, because that codex best represents how I want the army to play (lots of marines..)
In my mind, it's perfectly acceptable, chaos fluff lends itself to all kinds of possibilities. The models are armed wysiwyg.
Back in the day, GW even had paint schemes for loyalists who turn to chaos and use the CSM codex. Always thought that would be pretty neat, lots of painting diversity. I don't think GW gave two craps what you did with your power armour models back then, I doubt they do now! (Within reason).
@ShieldBrother: That's it right there. Do you believe proxying to be WAAC behavior? You're really ascribing a lot of TFG-ness to a person who really isn't acting like TFG, and is even asking how people feel about it *before he even does it.* Spoiler alert, 5 out of 6 are okay with it being a permanent thing for him. No amount of your logical fallacies is going to change that, although you are entitled to disagree with and dislike the actions. Your disagreement doesn't simply make him TFG though. It's everyone's hobby, and not even the great GW gets to dictate all of it.
Would you have a different opinion if he said "You know, I've got all these space marines, but I'd like to play CSM"? Honestly, is it because he's going to a stronger codex, or is it because he's using models that are very dang similar for another codex?
Internet is anecdotal at best. It's really going to come down to what your opponents say. However, if the opinions of members of Dakka matter in this regard, you have all but two people in this thread telling you to go for it. Two people are telling you that you're ruining their fun (although another 5 just voted it bothered them and skipped off). Chances are you wouldn't want to game with those two people, but they're also a tiny drop of the people in the thread. You might, at best, have one person upset about it in your local area. Just tell that guy that if your SM army appearance bothers him, he doesn't have to ever bother asking you for a game. In regards to tournaments, just clear it with the TO ahead of time.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Now you're just being petty. Everyone knows each faction has its own models because those are the intended models in their codex entry etc. Go to your local gamestore and yell everyone your daemon prince is a Warhound titan. I dare you. You'll get laughed out of the store.
A marine model and a chaos marine model are the same model.
Prior to some of the current goodness you had the raid the chaos inventories for earlier armor types. Several items (twin linked bolter, autocannons) are explicitly noted in fluff as early versions of current marine gear. Further, some of the more recent chaos warbands are just marine formations that finally saw the light and got religion.
As long as its WYSIWYG it would work in a tournament and explicitly works via the books. You may not like the concept and thats fine, but as long as your opponent uses a legal marine list with legal war gear he's good to go in the gaming circuit.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Now you're just being petty. Everyone knows each faction has its own models because those are the intended models in their codex entry etc. Go to your local gamestore and yell everyone your daemon prince is a Warhound titan. I dare you. You'll get laughed out of the store.
A marine model and a chaos marine model are the same model.
Prior to some of the current goodness you had the raid the chaos inventories for earlier armor types. Several items (twin linked bolter, autocannons) are explicitly noted in fluff as early versions of current marine gear. Further, some of the more recent chaos warbands are just marine formations that finally saw the light and got religion.
As long as its WYSIWYG it would work in a tournament and explicitly works via the books. You may not like the concept and thats fine, but as long as your opponent uses a legal marine list with legal war gear he's good to go in the gaming circuit.
Yet another reason I'm a dog person. They make so much sense.
I will note, I've played marines using chaos rules in the past, with mild conversions (the infamous and never victorious Zincwarriors-Zinc Within Zinc Without!), and I've played demon lists using Nid rules before there was a Demon Codex, so my view may be slightly different (see this really big Centaur with the giant machine gun? Yes thats a Carnifex...with a giant machine gun).
I have seen many great conversions of entire armies that hinged on being used for a particular codex for it's mechanics since it fit the way that army worked or "counts as".
I found many times the actual rules of an army did not extend the hardware far enough to what the "fluff" stated.
So using a codex that "better" suits what you want in the army makes sense.
Not sure how we got into an "elitist" discussion a while back... we pick our models because we think they look cool right?
I use the same Calth marines for 30k, CSM and SM, it's not like they're different.
In 30k, they're obviously Death Guard (I have a lot of MKII/III models too, for you anti-Calth DG purists ), recently turned traitor.
As loyalist-rule SM they've been traitors for a while, but still haven't reached the chaosy conclusion that dumping all your drop pods is strategically sound. I even have nurgled up Centurions, but who's to say that they didn't loot them or got them from a rogue space marine force that turned traitor and got incorporated into a larger warband, and took up their colours?
As CSM they've reached a point where their warband is filled with daemonic engines and cultists, with only a few actual marines remaining.
It's not like people could possibly get confused about which army they face at the sight of slightly chaos-looking marines, because I doubt most people have faced an actual Chaos Marine model (except Sorcerers) in about 4 years, and have largely forgotten that they exist.
So as long as the models are essentially the same, a marine being a marine, a Predator a Predator, etc. I would say a person is completely unreasonable for objecting to this. Of course, saying that Obliterators are actually Grav-Centurions or that a Maulerfiend is actually a Dreadnought is pushing it too far, imo.
Just do as Games Workshop tells you to do: forge the narrative.
The 40k setting is so large, and stretches over a 10 000 year period, so you have to be pretty unimaginative to not find a way to find a fluffy way to have spiky marines in drop pods. I understand it when Heresy-players get upset over things like using MK7-8 on traitor forces in that setting, but 40k is much more open to personal customizations.
In the current instance, this (using a Maulerfiend as an Ironclad) would not happen as I would only use models the SM have, except with slight changes to their armor. Such as no Aquila symbols, no mutations, no 8 pointed stars, or anything related to the chaos gods.
It is funny how some people dislike the idea so much, and keep referring to obvious instances where proxying would be the main issue. As of course you would have to talk to your opponent if you used non standard models to represent something else, though usually as long as the base is the same size, and you tell me, it's ok in my book.
So far, I see no issues with using my army how I intend to use it. I should have probably used a slightly different title, as I doubt anyone would have a problem if I said I wanted to make a fluffy SM army that was originally part of the 4th legion and now has been sworn to secrecy with regards to thier true origins. As people have taken my request as literally using all CSM units as proxy SM units, even though the majority overlap.
GrafWattenburg wrote: I use the same Calth marines for 30k, CSM and SM, it's not like they're different.
In 30k, they're obviously Death Guard (I have a lot of MKII/III models too, for you anti-Calth DG purists ), recently turned traitor.
As loyalist-rule SM they've been traitors for a while, but still haven't reached the chaosy conclusion that dumping all your drop pods is strategically sound. I even have nurgled up Centurions, but who's to say that they didn't loot them or got them from a rogue space marine force that turned traitor and got incorporated into a larger warband, and took up their colours?
As CSM they've reached a point where their warband is filled with daemonic engines and cultists, with only a few actual marines remaining.
It's not like people could possibly get confused about which army they face at the sight of slightly chaos-looking marines, because I doubt most people have faced an actual Chaos Marine model (except Sorcerers) in about 4 years, and have largely forgotten that they exist.
So as long as the models are essentially the same, a marine being a marine, a Predator a Predator, etc. I would say a person is completely unreasonable for objecting to this. Of course, saying that Obliterators are actually Grav-Centurions or that a Maulerfiend is actually a Dreadnought is pushing it too far, imo.
Just do as Games Workshop tells you to do: forge the narrative.
The 40k setting is so large, and stretches over a 10 000 year period, so you have to be pretty unimaginative to not find a way to find a fluffy way to have spiky marines in drop pods. I understand it when Heresy-players get upset over things like using MK7-8 on traitor forces in that setting, but 40k is much more open to personal customizations.
As a further note, ForgeWorld displays 40k Chaos Cultists and Catachan models in their Imperial Militia/Warp Cult section of a 30k book. Isn't this clearly breaking with what a model "is"? If they can get away with portraying one type of human with a lasgun as another type of human with a lasgun 10,000 years earlier, I don't see the problem with doing the same with standard marine units.
I personally would not care at all. This boils down to be simply a fluff based discussion/opinion. What if you "invented" your own Space Marine chapter which happened to be super rusty/spiky? No different than running a Space Marine force with Chaos-esque models.
As long as they're using the whole codex rather than cherry picking bits from both books I'm all for it.
I might even choose to ignore that Daemonkin would be 'Come the Apocalypse' level of alliance to any chapter in the Codex Space Marines the next time we play.
BossJakadakk wrote: @ShieldBrother: That's it right there. Do you believe proxying to be WAAC behavior? You're really ascribing a lot of TFG-ness to a person who really isn't acting like TFG, and is even asking how people feel about it *before he even does it.* Spoiler alert, 5 out of 6 are okay with it being a permanent thing for him. No amount of your logical fallacies is going to change that, although you are entitled to disagree with and dislike the actions. Your disagreement doesn't simply make him TFG though. It's everyone's hobby, and not even the great GW gets to dictate all of it.
Would you have a different opinion if he said "You know, I've got all these space marines, but I'd like to play CSM"? Honestly, is it because he's going to a stronger codex, or is it because he's using models that are very dang similar for another codex?
I know people disagree with me, but asked for what people thought, and I told him. Nothing wrong with that. Never called him a TFG, but swapping codices is very WAAC. He is switching for the sole purpose of being stronger, because he wants to win. I simply don't like that, that's all I'm saying. And yes, I would have a different opinion. That person changed what army they want to play, given they de chaos most of their stuff I'd be fine with that. If they've got dead imperial guard trophies on their tanks a year later then I've got a problem.
Hmmm interesting take on it. Referring back to my initial post, I am changing so that I can field a fluffy list (based on how I want my army to play, ie with a lot of marine squads) as fielding a lot of CSM marines against optimized stealth cadres or necron decurions will almost certainly lead to my army being tabled. I am not jumping into this to run a White Scars/Space Wolves super friends list. Though I do realize that someone could have malicious intent when changing armies like this, I play this game to have fun. This idea was actually suggested to me after I played a 1500 point game where a SM player brought a knight, 2 stormtalons and white scars against my list of marines, cultists and havocs in rhinos. Needless to say, it did not end well for me, and he mentioned that I might have more luck if I try to use Chapter Tactics to help give my guys staying power and mobility. I figured it might be worth a try, but wanted to know the general opinion first.
sturgeondtd wrote: Hmmm interesting take on it. Referring back to my initial post, I am changing so that I can field a fluffy list (based on how I want my army to play, ie with a lot of marine squads) as fielding a lot of CSM marines against optimized stealth cadres or necron decurions will almost certainly lead to my army being tabled. I am not jumping into this to run a White Scars/Space Wolves super friends list. Though I do realize that someone could have malicious intent when changing armies like this, I play this game to have fun. This idea was actually suggested to me after I played a 1500 point game where a SM player brought a knight, 2 stormtalons and white scars against my list of marines, cultists and havocs in rhinos. Needless to say, it did not end well for me, and he mentioned that I might have more luck if I try to use Chapter Tactics to help give my guys staying power and mobility. I figured it might be worth a try, but wanted to know the general opinion first.
Do it, people are often small minded. You said you werent gonna be proxying so it doesnt matter what others think in the slightest, if they refuse to play you ignore them.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Now you're just being petty. Everyone knows each faction has its own models because those are the intended models in their codex entry etc. Go to your local gamestore and yell everyone your daemon prince is a Warhound titan. I dare you. You'll get laughed out of the store.
Except your ideas are more along the lines of "Your Tau aren't yellow, therefore they aren't official Tau models".
Never said that, however swapping codices is too much.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Csm isn't an auto lose, by a mile. They are bad, yes, but anyone who just rolls over and accepts they will be ground into dust every game is doing something wrong. Play smart, use what effective stuff you have and don't play with donkey-caves.
Donkey-caves can be anyone just using an averagely-built army, because the average army can beat a competitive CSM list. Make it just a bit more efficient and it is a slaughter.
So yeah you're wrong. Who cares if someone proxies a Maulerfiend into an Ironclad? An Ironclad having two Flamers sounds like a Maulerfiend breathing fire which is neat. There's plenty of good reasoning to do things like this (Rubric Marines carrying exotic ammo ala Sternguard? Makes sense to me).
To you, what is an average codex? Because to me, Imperial guard is about pretty average. I have a friend who plays guard, my brother who plays chaos, and I play kdk occasionally. Out of all of us the guard player loses most. (Neither me or my brother play formations) Now this may be anecdotal, but from my experience chaos can do fine against guard.
And I care if he proxies a Maulerfiend for an Ironclad, use the correct models for the correct faction and don't just be WAAC that changes codex depending on the flavour of the week.
The average codex is pretty much anything outside the CSM codex. The only things it gives a good fight against is the Sub-Faction codices (like, PURE MT, Harlies, Inquisition) and when going all out with the "cheese" of the codex, anything outside the Big 4 using super mediocre lists.
The codex is SO horribly written that it isn't funny. Any of the "good" of the codex pretty much has a superior in the SM codex, and wanting a specific playstyle is better done with other codices as a whole. What you're suggesting is that CSM players like 626 suck it up and deal with the fact their codex is THE worst one in the game. That's unacceptable because wanting to win doesn't make you WAAC.
In fact, we should be openly telling newer CSM players to use all the rules from the new SM codex outside Heldrakes (which aren't really good anymore because of only having one weapon that's a pain to aim. Would it REALLY have been hard to give a thing with a neck 180 degrees of a firing arc?)
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Im a TFG for playing the game properly? It's not my fault (or anyone else's) that chaos is bad. That's like me using space wolves with the dark angels codex, doesn't make much sense, does it? If anything switching codex is the TFG thing, get a godly codex with no downsides by still being chaos, sounds pretty WAAC to me.
And please tell who gave you the authority to decide what is the correct way to play the game?
GW. CSM has their own codex and DA has their own codex and SM has their own codex. Doing anything else pretty much goes against the spirit of the game.
Someone better tell Jervis Johnson he's playing against that 'spirit of the game' he loves to harp on about with his custom marine chapter that jumps around and uses different loyalists codexes depending on his mood.
And no, I'm not just making gak up, Jervis does (or at least did, not sure if he still does) have that SM/BA/DA/SW army
Power armour is power armour, and a bolter is a bolter. The paint job doesn't matter as long as the wargear is WYSIWYG or a rule of cool counts as model that is equally WYSIWYG.
Its the same way that a vanilla marine player who wants to run a 1st company army could make use of C: DA for the more detailed all terminator army, or a Khorne CSM player using C:SW for a better melee oriented power armoured army.
BossJakadakk wrote: @ShieldBrother: That's it right there. Do you believe proxying to be WAAC behavior? You're really ascribing a lot of TFG-ness to a person who really isn't acting like TFG, and is even asking how people feel about it *before he even does it.* Spoiler alert, 5 out of 6 are okay with it being a permanent thing for him. No amount of your logical fallacies is going to change that, although you are entitled to disagree with and dislike the actions. Your disagreement doesn't simply make him TFG though. It's everyone's hobby, and not even the great GW gets to dictate all of it.
Would you have a different opinion if he said "You know, I've got all these space marines, but I'd like to play CSM"? Honestly, is it because he's going to a stronger codex, or is it because he's using models that are very dang similar for another codex?
I know people disagree with me, but asked for what people thought, and I told him. Nothing wrong with that. Never called him a TFG, but swapping codices is very WAAC. He is switching for the sole purpose of being stronger, because he wants to win. I simply don't like that, that's all I'm saying. And yes, I would have a different opinion. That person changed what army they want to play, given they de chaos most of their stuff I'd be fine with that. If they've got dead imperial guard trophies on their tanks a year later then I've got a problem.
Yeah. Hard idea to have to actually face possibility of losing when you are playing on even terms rather than having ridiculous advantage by virtue of codex Guess tough game is not in your interests...
And guess you are then also deadset against non-GW models...After all they aren't official GW models approved by GW! If using GW codex is wrong how much more using non-GW model is!
(despite GW not saying any word whatsoever against using chaos models in codex:SM. But guess that's too hard for some people to admit so they instead twist and lie)
If they've got dead imperial guard trophies on their tanks a year later then I've got a problem.
But why? Grey Knights have literally covered themselves in the blood of Sisters of Battle, Space Marine loyalists wear trophies from killed traitors and xenos, who is to say that the dead guardsmen weren't traitors who had to be put down? Or signs that a once-loyal chapter is about to turn to the forces of the Dark Gods?
Don't worry, SM are incorruptible good guys, and it's against cannon to have them ever do anything morally questionable or evil.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Nvm, this guy is either a troll or a hypocrite:
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: So I'm making a dark eldar army and I would like to use some talos, but the models just don't do it for me. I was browsing AOS stuff and saw the skaven stormfiends and they look pretty dark eldar-ish with all their tubed and modified limbs etc. So I was going to convert (pretty much paint them differently ) stormfiends as talos counts as.
My question is, would most gamers be okay with this? I know my group would be, but I don't want to get turned down at the gw when I visit. Second question, are they close to the same skze? I don't want to model for advantage but they look pretty similar in size, I just think the talos is taller. Third question, any ideas for the conversion? I.e. bits I could use etc. Because I think the rat heads could fly with some people because DE are messed up like that, but I'd rather some personality to them rather than aos models slapped into 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post: While I'm here;
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: I've been kicking around the idea of making another army, and I really like GK and Mechanicus. So, instead of making 2 armies I can make 1 big one. I stick to the fluff pretty religiously so while they're battle bros in game, is it common for these alliances to happen?
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: use the correct models for the correct faction and don't just be WAAC that changes codex depending on the flavour of the week.
There is a difference between WAAC and the Need to use a different Codex to be able to play a "fluffy" army
The Codex CSM is missing a lot of possibilities to play something else than a 08/15 Black Legion Warband, while players want to have god specific warbands, rules for for the traiter legions, dark mechanicum etc.
the same like the Codex SW has always been the better option to play Iron Hands even after they got their own supplement.
Selym wrote: What if someone started 40k by buying the C:SM book, and then choosing CSM marines to represent his tactical marines?
Some years ago this was called the 13th Company and was official sold by GW
As long as everything is wysiwyg and clearly identifiable as what it's meant to be I don't see the issue. There's a lot of false equivalence going on in this thread, using slightly different space marine models to represent space marines is nothing like using a wraithknight as a riptide or whatever else. We're not talking about proxying, but essentially kitbashing.
Are we honestly saying that a converted space marine army, wysiwyg and using units solely from that book, is somehow unacceptable?
And no, I'm not just making gak up, Jervis does (or at least did, not sure if he still does) have that SM/BA/DA/SW army
Ah yes, the old Dark Blood Wolves chapter. Used to see a lot of them during 5th ed and then a few got promoted to the Dark Grey Space Blood Knights when the GK book came out.
Selym wrote: Don't worry, SM are incorruptible good guys, and it's against cannon to have them ever do anything morally questionable or evil.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Nvm, this guy is either a troll or a hypocrite:
NO. His opinion was asked. While you may disagree with it, that does not mean he's a troll or hypocrite, he just has his opinion. Thats what the thread is about-player's thoughts on it. That doesn't make him a troll. Come down to the OT and you'll see what trolls are*. We all float down here.
Selym wrote: Don't worry, SM are incorruptible good guys, and it's against cannon to have them ever do anything morally questionable or evil.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Nvm, this guy is either a troll or a hypocrite:
NO. His opinion was asked. While you may disagree with it, that does not mean he's a troll or hypocrite, he just has his opinion. Thats what the thread is about-player's thoughts on it.
That doesn't make him a troll. Come down to the OT and you'll see what trolls are*. We all float down here.
*Better yet, don't.
You're a troll too, I guess? Selym just pointed out that this guy, who will not abide by anything but the official model for each unit, is using alternate models for his units as proven by his posts in other threads. I guess you're one of those guys that don't really care to read a whole post before commenting.
Compared to selectively adding Grav-Cents and Stormwolves to a Blood Angels army, using Space Marines rules wholesale for Chaos Space Marines seems like small potatoes.
Compared to selectively adding Grav-Cents and Stormwolves to a Blood Angels army, using Space Marines rules wholesale for Chaos Space Marines seems like small potatoes.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Nvm, this guy is either a troll or a hypocrite:
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: So I'm making a dark eldar army and I would like to use some talos, but the models just don't do it for me. I was browsing AOS stuff and saw the skaven stormfiends and they look pretty dark eldar-ish with all their tubed and modified limbs etc. So I was going to convert (pretty much paint them differently ) stormfiends as talos counts as.
My question is, would most gamers be okay with this? I know my group would be, but I don't want to get turned down at the gw when I visit. Second question, are they close to the same skze? I don't want to model for advantage but they look pretty similar in size, I just think the talos is taller. Third question, any ideas for the conversion? I.e. bits I could use etc. Because I think the rat heads could fly with some people because DE are messed up like that, but I'd rather some personality to them rather than aos models slapped into 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post: While I'm here;
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: I've been kicking around the idea of making another army, and I really like GK and Mechanicus. So, instead of making 2 armies I can make 1 big one. I stick to the fluff pretty religiously so while they're battle bros in game, is it common for these alliances to happen?
Selym wrote: Don't worry, SM are incorruptible good guys, and it's against cannon to have them ever do anything morally questionable or evil.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Nvm, this guy is either a troll or a hypocrite:
NO. His opinion was asked. While you may disagree with it, that does not mean he's a troll or hypocrite, he just has his opinion. Thats what the thread is about-player's thoughts on it.
That doesn't make him a troll. Come down to the OT and you'll see what trolls are*. We all float down here.
*Better yet, don't.
You're a troll too, I guess? Selym just pointed out that this guy, who will not abide by anything but the official model for each unit, is using alternate models for his units as proven by his posts in other threads. I guess you're one of those guys that don't really care to read a whole post before commenting.
Actually I never went through with the idea, for this very reason, lol. Nice try looking through all my posts to get dirt on me though.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: use the correct models for the correct faction and don't just be WAAC that changes codex depending on the flavour of the week.
There is a difference between WAAC and the Need to use a different Codex to be able to play a "fluffy" army
The Codex CSM is missing a lot of possibilities to play something else than a 08/15 Black Legion Warband, while players want to have god specific warbands, rules for for the traiter legions, dark mechanicum etc.
the same like the Codex SW has always been the better option to play Iron Hands even after they got their own supplement.
Selym wrote: What if someone started 40k by buying the C:SM book, and then choosing CSM marines to represent his tactical marines?
Some years ago this was called the 13th Company and was official sold by GW
Space Wolves as iron hands? Lol, what? Are you going to have them riding robo wolves?
sturgeondtd wrote: Just to clarify, I would NOT be using CSM wargear with SM chapter tactics, I would be using all SM wargear, with only the color scheme and spikey bits of CSM.
Got it.
You're playing the Space Marine Codex, with only space marine options for your Chaos Space Marines.
I have no problem with that. That is a reasonable way to play them as Renegade Space Marines that are not aligned with any Chaos Gods.
sturgeondtd wrote: Just to clarify, I would NOT be using CSM wargear with SM chapter tactics, I would be using all SM wargear, with only the color scheme and spikey bits of CSM.
Why not? My son does C:SM and I wouldn't have an issue if he showed up with drop pods and a heldrake.
Some of us prefer NOT to play unbound, which is exactly what you described.
If you like Unbound, that's cool. But since you asked "Why not?", that is my answer for "Why Not?"
Space Wolves as iron hands? Lol, what? Are you going to have them riding robo wolves?
So you don't know anything about the fluff of some Legions and the possibilities about the Codex outside the usual Copy&Paste lists but argue that those people are only doing it for WAAC.
But just for you why the SW Codex suited Iron Hands better before they got their Sup (and is it still up to a point)
Techmarine and Dreadnought as HQ Terminator armour for Troop Sergeant
the possibility to get more Dreadnoughts
If you go World Eaters with C:SW, than you are playing your Lord on Juggernaut as TWC
I was being facetious. I know Space Wolf lists can be more than t-wolves, and I know that iron hands are big on the techmarine and dreadnought thing. Still doesn't really explain Bloodclaws, (and all their variants), wolf priests, shield dreads, or anything else that isn't copy pasted from the space marine dex.
You don't need to use them (specially not for Iron Hands who are not into Bikes and Jump Packs, have no Priests and a shield Dread can be exactly that)
No one will use everything that a Codex provides, but if the one Codex that should be used is missing the essential possibilities to play a fluffy list while another Codex has them, why not change.
The OP posing the question of just having CSM modes play as SM and use all the SM gear is reasonable and would be a "bound" army.
I see nothing going against the rules of the models not being represented "correctly".
Proposed "mix and match" troops that do not fit in a specific codex "but you want it anyway" then becomes an unbound list... simple as that (as outlined by the BA article: using all space marines) or you find a way to fit them in as allied troops.
This had more arguments than I thought.
Guys barely even blinked when I did the very thing proposed with my CSMs.
Well, if we didn't care, there would be no discussion...
Selym wrote: Because that would hurt SB's precious sensibilities.
Cmon, no need to be like that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: You don't need to use them (specially not for Iron Hands who are not into Bikes and Jump Packs, have no Priests and a shield Dread can be exactly that)
No one will use everything that a Codex provides, but if the one Codex that should be used is missing the essential possibilities to play a fluffy list while another Codex has them, why not change.
Where's your "fluffy" iron hands dreadnought with an axe and shield? Doesn't make much sense, again. So you're saying ignore 3/4 of a codex because the 1/4 represents the way you want to play them? When the other codex is literally how they were intended to play?
Selym wrote: Because that would hurt SB's precious sensibilities.
Cmon, no need to be like that.
It does point to the issue that say I took "proper" loyalist marine models and painted them all in the Iron Warrior colours and used the SM codex.
From what you said earlier, that would be unacceptable to you.
They would not be sufficiently WYSIWYG due to their army colours.
It makes a person VERY interested to want to find out why.
I agree that making things too confusing for your opponent is not fair but how is a paint scheme a road-block?
When did I say paint schemes mattered? I said I like to see them painted (in my eyes) the correct way. I have problems with swapping codices, not different paint schemes.
Besides, silver skulls have copy pasted iron warriors colours anyways, so I'd be completely fine with that.
Where's your "fluffy" iron hands dreadnought with an axe and shield? Doesn't make much sense, again. So you're saying ignore 3/4 of a codex because the 1/4 represents the way you want to play them? When the other codex is literally how they were intended to play?
I see, a WAAC Codex SM Iron Hands army with Pod Centurions and Grav Spam (non of them were used by the IH) is okay, while a fluffy list is not because it used the wrong book.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: When did I say paint schemes mattered? I said I like to see them painted (in my eyes) the correct way. I have problems with swapping codices, not different paint schemes.
Besides, silver skulls have copy pasted iron warriors colours anyways, so I'd be completely fine with that.
My Zincwarriors were white with each squad having its own shoulder pad color (as my eyes suck). As long as weaponry and gear are WYSIWYG would it matter to you what codex they used?
Sure why not? They're all Marines in the end-- filthy mutant abominations that need to be cleansed, and only exist at the good graces of hte Emperor forgiving them for their betrayal.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: When did I say paint schemes mattered? I said I like to see them painted (in my eyes) the correct way. I have problems with swapping codices, not different paint schemes.
Besides, silver skulls have copy pasted iron warriors colours anyways, so I'd be completely fine with that.
My Zincwarriors were white with each squad having its own shoulder pad color (as my eyes suck). As long as weaponry and gear are WYSIWYG would it matter to you what codex they used?
We're the models displayed in the codex entries the model you're putting on the tabletop?
Where's your "fluffy" iron hands dreadnought with an axe and shield? Doesn't make much sense, again. So you're saying ignore 3/4 of a codex because the 1/4 represents the way you want to play them? When the other codex is literally how they were intended to play?
I see, a WAAC Codex SM Iron Hands army with Pod Centurions and Grav Spam (non of them were used by the IH) is okay, while a fluffy list is not because it used the wrong book.
Yep. One is playing the game properly, the other is hopping between codices depending on what he decides he wants to play during breakfast.
The smug arrogance in this thread is astounding. Just get over it, you're all marine players in the end, none of you will never be one of the cool kids so accept each other and move on.
Melissia wrote: The smug arrogance in this thread is astounding. Just get over it, you're all marine players in the end, none of you will never be one of the cool kids so accept each other and move on.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: When did I say paint schemes mattered? I said I like to see them painted (in my eyes) the correct way. I have problems with swapping codices, not different paint schemes.
Besides, silver skulls have copy pasted iron warriors colours anyways, so I'd be completely fine with that.
My Zincwarriors were white with each squad having its own shoulder pad color (as my eyes suck). As long as weaponry and gear are WYSIWYG would it matter to you what codex they used?
We're the models displayed in the codex entries the model you're putting on the tabletop?
Sorry, please clarify. My minis predate the last several editions. Do you mean did they have the correct wargear- is so that would be yes.
Yep. One is playing the game properly, the other is hopping between codices depending on what he decides he wants to play during breakfast.
How is that playing the game improperly? As long as the list is follows the legal rules for that codex and is properly pointed, then they're legal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: The smug arrogance in this thread is astounding. Just get over it, you're all marine players in the end, none of you will never be one of the cool kids so accept each other and move on.
Be nice, we are having a discussion. Insults are unneeded. Besides IIRC you play witches. As we all know the only good witch is a dead witch.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: When did I say paint schemes mattered? I said I like to see them painted (in my eyes) the correct way. I have problems with swapping codices, not different paint schemes.
Besides, silver skulls have copy pasted iron warriors colours anyways, so I'd be completely fine with that.
My Zincwarriors were white with each squad having its own shoulder pad color (as my eyes suck). As long as weaponry and gear are WYSIWYG would it matter to you what codex they used?
We're the models displayed in the codex entries the model you're putting on the tabletop?
Sorry, please clarify. My minis predate the last several editions. Do you mean did they have the correct wargear- is so that would be yes.
Yep. One is playing the game properly, the other is hopping between codices depending on what he decides he wants to play during breakfast.
How is that playing the game improperly? As long as the list is follows the legal rules for that codex and is properly pointed, then they're legal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: The smug arrogance in this thread is astounding. Just get over it, you're all marine players in the end, none of you will never be one of the cool kids so accept each other and move on.
Be nice, we are having a discussion. Insults are unneeded. Besides IIRC you play witches. As we all know the only good witch is a dead witch.
I mean are they from the codex you are using? i.e. the chaos space marine box of models being used for chaos space marines. If they were wyches from 3 editions ago, sure, as long as you use the dark eldar codex and the wych unit. (and yes, correct wargear is important)
And to me playing the game properly is using the correct models for the correct codex. Mixing Iron Hands and Space Wolves is not "proper" to me.
You realize that playing an "Iron Hands" army using "Space Wolves" rules is really playing "Space Wolves" and doing nothing more than using the words "Iron Hands" when you tell someone what your army is called, right?
I mean are they from the codex you are using? i.e. the chaos space marine box of models being used for chaos space marines. If they were wyches from 3 editions ago, sure, as long as you use the dark eldar codex and the wych unit. (and yes, correct wargear is important)
They are converted (and badly! in your face golden demons I have the power of play do and marks alot markers!) so your question is not relevant.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Yeah but they're space wolves painted black with a bunch of cybernetic implants.
just stop trolling
Let me clarify.
I meant paint schemes didn't matter in his scenario "yellow tau aren't tau" however, changing 2 pre established chapters is a very different thing. Space wolves are grey, iron hands are black. End of.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: I meant paint schemes didn't matter in his scenario "yellow tau aren't tau" however, changing 2 pre established chapters is a very different thing. Space wolves are grey, iron hands are black. End of.
IOW: "PAINT YOUR MODELS LIKE I WANT YOU TO PAINT THEM OR YOU ARE TFG"
Everyone calm down, he asked for people's opinions and I gave them. I don't like people swapping codices and I don't like people using ridiculous colours for their faction. And @kodos, no, all SW are the same colour. Where'd you get the idea different companies are different colours? And iron hands and iron hand successors are 2 different things.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: I meant paint schemes didn't matter in his scenario "yellow tau aren't tau" however, changing 2 pre established chapters is a very different thing. Space wolves are grey, iron hands are black. End of.
IOW: "PAINT YOUR MODELS LIKE I WANT YOU TO PAINT THEM OR YOU ARE TFG"
Never said it like that. Do you prefer your models a certain way? Realistic? Stylized? I like mine as how they're depicted in the books. It's simply my preference.
Just to throw some kreoscene on this whole thing, back in 2E I started work on my own custom chapter - The Avengers (of Horus) [no relation to the comic book group]. It was a loyalist legion, built from renegades/traitors who had quit their ways to return back into the arms of the Empire*. I initially made this legion because I liked the looks of many of the Chaos models, but didn't want to play the bad guys.
According to the old fluff, the legion was (secretly) sanctioned by the Grey Knights (back when the only models were in terminator armor with halbards and they didn't exist as an army), consisting of primarily former chaos marines. They were not allowed to use their own geneseed (which was secretly pulled from Ultramarine tithes so it would be uncorrupted), and new recruits came from either renegade marines seeking redemption or from guardsmen forces that had battled chaos forces (the Master of the order seeing it a waste to destroy such guardsmen troops, and instead putting them to good use on the battlefield; the marines being taken in [after extensive re-education and testing] with their absolution to only be granted on the battlefield dying for their Emperor).
Fast forward to today; I use the SM codex, with Grey Knight allies (to represent the 1st company) and Imperial guard allies (to represent the 6th-10th "reserve" companies) [all something I couldn't contemplate doing until the Allies matrix in 6E]. My veteran SM minis are actually thousand son marine minis, and known as Terror Guard - using the chaos armor to sow confusion among the enemies.
So am I breaking the game with my fluff army too? Is using Thousand Sons minis for my Veteran troops something that would drive you away from playing me?
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Everyone calm down, he asked for people's opinions and I gave them. I don't like people swapping codices and I don't like people using ridiculous colours for their faction. And @kodos, no, all SW are the same colour. Where'd you get the idea different companies are different colours? And iron hands and iron hand successors are 2 different things.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: I meant paint schemes didn't matter in his scenario "yellow tau aren't tau" however, changing 2 pre established chapters is a very different thing. Space wolves are grey, iron hands are black. End of.
IOW: "PAINT YOUR MODELS LIKE I WANT YOU TO PAINT THEM OR YOU ARE TFG"
Never said it like that. Do you prefer your models a certain way? Realistic? Stylized? I like mine as how they're depicted in the books. It's simply my preference.
Please answer my question (no this isn't an attack, I am interested in your response and you may have missed my follow up). Would my white marines be acceptable if they are WYSIWYG?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormonu wrote: Just to throw some kreoscene on this whole thing, back in 2E I started work on my own custom chapter - The Avengers (of Horus) [no relation to the comic book group]. It was a loyalist legion, built from renegades/traitors who had quit their ways to return back into the arms of the Empire*. I initially made this legion because I liked the looks of many of the Chaos models, but didn't want to play the bad guys.
According to the old fluff, the legion was (secretly) sanctioned by the Grey Knights (back when the only models were in terminator armor with halbards and they didn't exist as an army), consisting of primarily former chaos marines. They were not allowed to use their own geneseed (which was secretly pulled from Ultramarine tithes so it would be uncorrupted), and new recruits came from either renegade marines seeking redemption or from guardsmen forces that had battled chaos forces (the Master of the order seeing it a waste to destroy such guardsmen troops, and instead putting them to good use on the battlefield; the marines being taken in [after extensive re-education and testing] with their absolution to only be granted on the battlefield dying for their Emperor).
Fast forward to today; I use the SM codex, with Grey Knight allies (to represent the 1st company) and Imperial guard allies (to represent the 6th-10th "reserve" companies) [all something I couldn't contemplate doing until the Allies matrix in 6E]. My veteran SM minis are actually thousand son marine minis, and known as Terror Guard - using the chaos armor to sow confusion among the enemies.
So am I breaking the game with my fluff army too? Is using Thousand Sons minis for my Veteran troops something that would drive you away from playing me?
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Never said it like that. Do you prefer your models a certain way? Realistic? Stylized? I like mine as how they're depicted in the books. It's simply my preference.
No, that's exactly what you said. This is a discussion of how someone else's models are painted (and what rules they use), now how you choose to paint your own.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Everyone calm down, he asked for people's opinions and I gave them. I don't like people swapping codices and I don't like people using ridiculous colours for their faction. And @kodos, no, all SW are the same colour. Where'd you get the idea different companies are different colours? And iron hands and iron hand successors are 2 different things.
I remember around 3rd edition CSM I was allowed to take Basilisks for my Iron Warriors.
Things change, not always to our liking.
Many times I would wrack my brains on how to get my army to reflect "properly" the fluff of those guys.
Now there is no better to time to mix and match what you want to "better" reflect what your army "should" be.
@SB: Do you at least see this perspective that the "jumping codex's" is another means to get your army to behave the way you think better reflects them?
Needing the models to be the ones pictured in the codex is being pretty hard on those who like to convert to make a single model (or bunch) "better" reflect how they want them to look.
Are we totally assuming anyone wanting to mix and match are completely playing for advantage?
You are a fine example of someone who would be disagreeable to what the OP proposes to field as his army and I genuinely want to understand.
Thanks!
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Everyone calm down, he asked for people's opinions and I gave them. I don't like people swapping codices and I don't like people using ridiculous colours for their faction. And @kodos, no, all SW are the same colour. Where'd you get the idea different companies are different colours? And iron hands and iron hand successors are 2 different things.
I remember around 3rd edition CSM I was allowed to take Basilisks for my Iron Warriors.
Things change, not always to our liking.
Many times I would wrack my brains on how to get my army to reflect "properly" the fluff of those guys.
Now there is no better to time to mix and match what you want to "better" reflect what your army "should" be.
@SB: Do you at least see this perspective that the "jumping codex's" is another means to get your army to behave the way you think better reflects them?
Needing the models to be the ones pictured in the codex is being pretty hard on those who like to convert to make a single model (or bunch) "better" reflect how they want them to look.
Are we totally assuming anyone wanting to mix and match are completely playing for advantage?
You are a fine example of someone who would be disagreeable to what the OP proposes to field as his army and I genuinely want to understand.
Thanks!
Yep I remember having a basilisk, a war altar representing a defiler, an angel with sword for demonlord, and converted grey knight terminators as oblits. Ah the good old days.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Yeah but they're space wolves painted black with a bunch of cybernetic implants.
just stop trolling
Let me clarify.
I meant paint schemes didn't matter in his scenario "yellow tau aren't tau" however, changing 2 pre established chapters is a very different thing. Space wolves are grey, iron hands are black. End of.
Actually, not end of. Pre-heresy Space Wolves were black and red and according to the Lone Wolves novel so are a few companies of current Space Wolves.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Everyone calm down, he asked for people's opinions and I gave them. I don't like people swapping codices and I don't like people using ridiculous colours for their faction. And @kodos, no, all SW are the same colour. Where'd you get the idea different companies are different colours? And iron hands and iron hand successors are 2 different things.
I remember around 3rd edition CSM I was allowed to take Basilisks for my Iron Warriors.
Things change, not always to our liking.
Many times I would wrack my brains on how to get my army to reflect "properly" the fluff of those guys.
Now there is no better to time to mix and match what you want to "better" reflect what your army "should" be.
@SB: Do you at least see this perspective that the "jumping codex's" is another means to get your army to behave the way you think better reflects them?
Needing the models to be the ones pictured in the codex is being pretty hard on those who like to convert to make a single model (or bunch) "better" reflect how they want them to look.
Are we totally assuming anyone wanting to mix and match are completely playing for advantage?
You are a fine example of someone who would be disagreeable to what the OP proposes to field as his army and I genuinely want to understand.
Thanks!
I see the perspective, but I don't like it. A codex is made for that faction to be used.
Frazzled wrote:
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Everyone calm down, he asked for people's opinions and I gave them. I don't like people swapping codices and I don't like people using ridiculous colours for their faction. And @kodos, no, all SW are the same colour. Where'd you get the idea different companies are different colours? And iron hands and iron hand successors are 2 different things.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: I meant paint schemes didn't matter in his scenario "yellow tau aren't tau" however, changing 2 pre established chapters is a very different thing. Space wolves are grey, iron hands are black. End of.
IOW: "PAINT YOUR MODELS LIKE I WANT YOU TO PAINT THEM OR YOU ARE TFG"
Never said it like that. Do you prefer your models a certain way? Realistic? Stylized? I like mine as how they're depicted in the books. It's simply my preference.
Please answer my question (no this isn't an attack, I am interested in your response and you may have missed my follow up). Would my white marines be acceptable if they are WYSIWYG?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormonu wrote: Just to throw some kreoscene on this whole thing, back in 2E I started work on my own custom chapter - The Avengers (of Horus) [no relation to the comic book group]. It was a loyalist legion, built from renegades/traitors who had quit their ways to return back into the arms of the Empire*. I initially made this legion because I liked the looks of many of the Chaos models, but didn't want to play the bad guys.
According to the old fluff, the legion was (secretly) sanctioned by the Grey Knights (back when the only models were in terminator armor with halbards and they didn't exist as an army), consisting of primarily former chaos marines. They were not allowed to use their own geneseed (which was secretly pulled from Ultramarine tithes so it would be uncorrupted), and new recruits came from either renegade marines seeking redemption or from guardsmen forces that had battled chaos forces (the Master of the order seeing it a waste to destroy such guardsmen troops, and instead putting them to good use on the battlefield; the marines being taken in [after extensive re-education and testing] with their absolution to only be granted on the battlefield dying for their Emperor).
Fast forward to today; I use the SM codex, with Grey Knight allies (to represent the 1st company) and Imperial guard allies (to represent the 6th-10th "reserve" companies) [all something I couldn't contemplate doing until the Allies matrix in 6E]. My veteran SM minis are actually thousand son marine minis, and known as Terror Guard - using the chaos armor to sow confusion among the enemies.
So am I breaking the game with my fluff army too? Is using Thousand Sons minis for my Veteran troops something that would drive you away from playing me?
OT but I like this!
Yes, they're acceptable. You didn't just swap codices.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Everyone calm down, he asked for people's opinions and I gave them. I don't like people swapping codices and I don't like people using ridiculous colours for their faction. And @kodos, no, all SW are the same colour. Where'd you get the idea different companies are different colours? And iron hands and iron hand successors are 2 different things.
I remember around 3rd edition CSM I was allowed to take Basilisks for my Iron Warriors.
Things change, not always to our liking.
Many times I would wrack my brains on how to get my army to reflect "properly" the fluff of those guys.
Now there is no better to time to mix and match what you want to "better" reflect what your army "should" be.
@SB: Do you at least see this perspective that the "jumping codex's" is another means to get your army to behave the way you think better reflects them?
Needing the models to be the ones pictured in the codex is being pretty hard on those who like to convert to make a single model (or bunch) "better" reflect how they want them to look.
Are we totally assuming anyone wanting to mix and match are completely playing for advantage?
You are a fine example of someone who would be disagreeable to what the OP proposes to field as his army and I genuinely want to understand.
Thanks!
I see the perspective, but I don't like it. A codex is made for that faction to be used.
Frazzled wrote:
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Everyone calm down, he asked for people's opinions and I gave them. I don't like people swapping codices and I don't like people using ridiculous colours for their faction. And @kodos, no, all SW are the same colour. Where'd you get the idea different companies are different colours? And iron hands and iron hand successors are 2 different things.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: I meant paint schemes didn't matter in his scenario "yellow tau aren't tau" however, changing 2 pre established chapters is a very different thing. Space wolves are grey, iron hands are black. End of.
IOW: "PAINT YOUR MODELS LIKE I WANT YOU TO PAINT THEM OR YOU ARE TFG"
Never said it like that. Do you prefer your models a certain way? Realistic? Stylized? I like mine as how they're depicted in the books. It's simply my preference.
Please answer my question (no this isn't an attack, I am interested in your response and you may have missed my follow up). Would my white marines be acceptable if they are WYSIWYG?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormonu wrote: Just to throw some kreoscene on this whole thing, back in 2E I started work on my own custom chapter - The Avengers (of Horus) [no relation to the comic book group]. It was a loyalist legion, built from renegades/traitors who had quit their ways to return back into the arms of the Empire*. I initially made this legion because I liked the looks of many of the Chaos models, but didn't want to play the bad guys.
According to the old fluff, the legion was (secretly) sanctioned by the Grey Knights (back when the only models were in terminator armor with halbards and they didn't exist as an army), consisting of primarily former chaos marines. They were not allowed to use their own geneseed (which was secretly pulled from Ultramarine tithes so it would be uncorrupted), and new recruits came from either renegade marines seeking redemption or from guardsmen forces that had battled chaos forces (the Master of the order seeing it a waste to destroy such guardsmen troops, and instead putting them to good use on the battlefield; the marines being taken in [after extensive re-education and testing] with their absolution to only be granted on the battlefield dying for their Emperor).
Fast forward to today; I use the SM codex, with Grey Knight allies (to represent the 1st company) and Imperial guard allies (to represent the 6th-10th "reserve" companies) [all something I couldn't contemplate doing until the Allies matrix in 6E]. My veteran SM minis are actually thousand son marine minis, and known as Terror Guard - using the chaos armor to sow confusion among the enemies.
So am I breaking the game with my fluff army too? Is using Thousand Sons minis for my Veteran troops something that would drive you away from playing me?
OT but I like this!
Yes, they're acceptable. You didn't just swap codices.
Well I guess I should also mention that a couple of the dreadnought models are the old 2E chaos models (with a plasma arm) as well as some of the models use chaos terminator models - still using WSYIWYG SM rules. I hadn't thought of it until this thread, but I could use cultist models for my Imp Guard platoons. I'm sure I could make other model substitutions as well (Heldrake carrying a roboegg and call it a Stormraven? - but that's stretching things) I am, in many ways doing the exact opposite of the OP - using chaos models to represent a loyalist legion - you have been arguing I should use the Chaos Marine codex because my models are "Chaos". Why then is it so wrong to use SM rules for an all CSM model army?
SB, you should really try to sit down and think about what exactly it is you take offense at. You're incredibly inconsistent. Now I'm gonna go paint my Tech Priest Dominus without any red on it. Heresy.
We're the models displayed in the codex entries the model you're putting on the tabletop?
Which would mean that all of my plague marines are unacceptable as they are converted or OOP, so none of the minis I use are displayed in the codex entries. I'm also using the pre-heresy scheme, would that be as unacceptable as painting my Space Wolves army like Iron Hands -- since the pre-heresy and post-heresy Death Guard are very different entities with different colour schemes? What if I decided to use my army with the Horus Heresy rules to represent them during the Heresy?
As for the codex swapping aspect, I have a friend who is building a traitor guard army, converting the cultist minis and using the IG codex, should I tell him that he should be using the Chaos Space Marine Codex they're from instead?
Purifier wrote:SB, you should really try to sit down and think about what exactly it is you take offense at. You're incredibly inconsistent. Now I'm gonna go paint my Tech Priest Dominus without any red on it. Heresy.
No, I'm perfectly fine with that. In fact, I get bored of the red in 40k sometimes, which other forgeworld are you doing? And I'm not taking offence to any of this. It's 40k for God's sake.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Everyone calm down, he asked for people's opinions and I gave them. I don't like people swapping codices and I don't like people using ridiculous colours for their faction. And @kodos, no, all SW are the same colour. Where'd you get the idea different companies are different colours? And iron hands and iron hand successors are 2 different things.
I remember around 3rd edition CSM I was allowed to take Basilisks for my Iron Warriors.
Things change, not always to our liking.
Many times I would wrack my brains on how to get my army to reflect "properly" the fluff of those guys.
Now there is no better to time to mix and match what you want to "better" reflect what your army "should" be.
@SB: Do you at least see this perspective that the "jumping codex's" is another means to get your army to behave the way you think better reflects them?
Needing the models to be the ones pictured in the codex is being pretty hard on those who like to convert to make a single model (or bunch) "better" reflect how they want them to look.
Are we totally assuming anyone wanting to mix and match are completely playing for advantage?
You are a fine example of someone who would be disagreeable to what the OP proposes to field as his army and I genuinely want to understand.
Thanks!
I see the perspective, but I don't like it. A codex is made for that faction to be used.
Frazzled wrote:
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Everyone calm down, he asked for people's opinions and I gave them. I don't like people swapping codices and I don't like people using ridiculous colours for their faction. And @kodos, no, all SW are the same colour. Where'd you get the idea different companies are different colours? And iron hands and iron hand successors are 2 different things.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: I meant paint schemes didn't matter in his scenario "yellow tau aren't tau" however, changing 2 pre established chapters is a very different thing. Space wolves are grey, iron hands are black. End of.
IOW: "PAINT YOUR MODELS LIKE I WANT YOU TO PAINT THEM OR YOU ARE TFG"
Never said it like that. Do you prefer your models a certain way? Realistic? Stylized? I like mine as how they're depicted in the books. It's simply my preference.
Please answer my question (no this isn't an attack, I am interested in your response and you may have missed my follow up). Would my white marines be acceptable if they are WYSIWYG?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormonu wrote: Just to throw some kreoscene on this whole thing, back in 2E I started work on my own custom chapter - The Avengers (of Horus) [no relation to the comic book group]. It was a loyalist legion, built from renegades/traitors who had quit their ways to return back into the arms of the Empire*. I initially made this legion because I liked the looks of many of the Chaos models, but didn't want to play the bad guys.
According to the old fluff, the legion was (secretly) sanctioned by the Grey Knights (back when the only models were in terminator armor with halbards and they didn't exist as an army), consisting of primarily former chaos marines. They were not allowed to use their own geneseed (which was secretly pulled from Ultramarine tithes so it would be uncorrupted), and new recruits came from either renegade marines seeking redemption or from guardsmen forces that had battled chaos forces (the Master of the order seeing it a waste to destroy such guardsmen troops, and instead putting them to good use on the battlefield; the marines being taken in [after extensive re-education and testing] with their absolution to only be granted on the battlefield dying for their Emperor).
Fast forward to today; I use the SM codex, with Grey Knight allies (to represent the 1st company) and Imperial guard allies (to represent the 6th-10th "reserve" companies) [all something I couldn't contemplate doing until the Allies matrix in 6E]. My veteran SM minis are actually thousand son marine minis, and known as Terror Guard - using the chaos armor to sow confusion among the enemies.
So am I breaking the game with my fluff army too? Is using Thousand Sons minis for my Veteran troops something that would drive you away from playing me?
OT but I like this!
Yes, they're acceptable. You didn't just swap codices.
Well I guess I should also mention that a couple of the dreadnought models are the old 2E chaos models (with a plasma arm) as well as some of the models use chaos terminator models - still using WSYIWYG SM rules. I hadn't thought of it until this thread, but I could use cultist models for my Imp Guard platoons. I'm sure I could make other model substitutions as well (Heldrake carrying a roboegg and call it a Stormraven? - but that's stretching things) I am, in many ways doing the exact opposite of the OP - using chaos models to represent a loyalist legion - you have been arguing I should use the Chaos Marine codex because my models are "Chaos". Why then is it so wrong to use SM rules for an all CSM model army?
I would argue the same point against OP as I would against you. Those models are for a different codex and should be treated as such.
We're the models displayed in the codex entries the model you're putting on the tabletop?
Which would mean that all of my plague marines are unacceptable as they are converted or OOP, so none of the minis I use are displayed in the codex entries. I'm also using the pre-heresy scheme, would that be as unacceptable as painting my Space Wolves army like Iron Hands -- since the pre-heresy and post-heresy Death Guard are very different entities with different colour schemes? What if I decided to use my army with the Horus Heresy rules to represent them during the Heresy?
As for the codex swapping aspect, I have a friend who is building a traitor guard army, converting the cultist minis and using the IG codex, should I tell him that he should be using the Chaos Space Marine Codex they're from instead?
No, he shouldn't use the chaos space marine codex, he should use the lost and the damned one from forge world. (Or whatever it's called)
My criteria for an acceptable model: Did you buy those models for the intended codex? (In this case, plague marines, so yes, even if they are oop.) Are you using the correct codex from which the models came from? Are they wysiwyg? If all your answers are yes then you are fine.
And honestly, sure, paint them hh colours. It could be an army straight after the heresy. Like I said, as long as you don't paint ultramarines pink, I'm alright with it. However, don't use HH rules. If you came to a HH game with bloated up 40k plague marines that'd be just lazy.
Purifier wrote:SB, you should really try to sit down and think about what exactly it is you take offense at. You're incredibly inconsistent. Now I'm gonna go paint my Tech Priest Dominus without any red on it. Heresy.
No, I'm perfectly fine with that. In fact, I get bored of the red in 40k sometimes, which other forgeworld are you doing?
None, the scheme is Blue with lighter blue on it, with orange details. It doesn't match anything from the fluff.
And in the entry for the Tech Priest Dominus, it states that they *always,* not matter what forgeworld, have something red on them to show their allegiance to Mars.
Looks pretty cool, you paint your models how you want. (Remember I dont hold anything against you for the way you spend your money and paint your models) And I didn't know that about the priest, guess you learn something every day. And 3 of the anti air versions? How many flyers do you play against? Lol.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Looks pretty cool, you paint your models how you want. (Remember I dont hold anything against you for the way you spend your money and paint your models) And I didn't know that about the priest, guess you learn something every day. And 3 of the anti air versions? How many flyers do you play against? Lol.
And honestly, sure, paint them hh colours. It could be an army straight after the heresy. Like I said, as long as you don't paint ultramarines pink, I'm alright with it. However, don't use HH rules. If you came to a HH game with bloated up 40k plague marines that'd be just lazy.
Call it a just-post-heresy army, they're all bloated up because they're devoted to Nurgle, but you use the 30k rules because that's the time-frame the army is from.
It's not "just lazy." It's also a way to play multiple different formats without having to spend several hundred extra dollars and hours just so someone can say "Wow, nice" once in a while, IMO.
@ShieldBrother:
So by your almighty decree, I'd be a loathsome, power gaming, WaaC's TFG because I use 'Counts As', (which btw, was originally GW itself coming out and doing entire WD articles on why you should do 'counts as' for various armies/themes!), to better represent my Tzeentch warband?
Let me explain a few things to you, since you seem entirely ignorant of just why so many Chaos players especially are jumping on board the 'counts as' train...
Our codex is utter gak. No wait, let's be real about it, our codex is literally the exact same copy/paste pile of a raging dumpster fire from its original 3rd edition iteration, with the only big changes being a handful of new units and a handful of 'relics'! (Daemon engines of all sorts, Muties, Talons, Cultists, Vindicators, Apostles & Warpsmiths + a couple added SC's being "new".)
Not only are we still left with what is basically the same stagnant mess of 3rd edition, we also have not been blessed with any new wargear or weapon upgrades.
And as for 'fluffy rules', well, we don't deserve them apparently, because we have none, except for a handful of random tables & the game's single worst army-wide rule that is the Champions of Chaos clusterfeth! Our army actively works against us most of the time, especially if you want to play anything other than Nurgle & friends with an occasional AoBF Lord for lols.
Want to play Alpha Legion? Sorry, but you either need to pray for a 1/6 shot at landing the Infiltration Warlord trait, or take ****ing Ahriman/Huron to get D3 Infiltrating units! (and btw, neither of those boys are remotely fluffy for any Alpha Legion army!)
Want Night Lords and their terror tactics? Oh wait, you gotta go to Crimson Slaughter for army-wide 'Fear', but then can't take the VotLW ability which would again, be a core fluffy rule for the majority of Night Lords marines, because... "reasons". And don't even think you can get Stealth/Night Fighting, which Night Lords used to have as one of their defining traits, because again, thanks to Jervis being a complete & utter toolbag when it comes to CSM's, every single Marine, from siege master IW's, to zealous WB's, to sneaky Alpha Legionnaires, to World Eaters, Thousand Sons, and recent Renegades of the Red Corsairs are 100% the exact same thing! (because as we all know, only Loyalist Marines deserve special snowflake status)
Hell, we're so out of touch with reality, that our entire army's basic strategy is still based entirely around putting our numerous dedicated assault units into Rhinos and rushing forwards to assault out of them!
But yet, if I wanted to do say a fluffy Tzeentchian Alpha Legion warband, (ie: like the one from CotW), and instead of using the useless excuse of a codex that CSM's are saddled with, I choose to use say C:SM's w/Ravenguard tactics + some allied IG infantry to represent their Chaos Cultist underlings, I'm automatically TFG?
Or to put it in simpler terms;
I've been a dedicated Chaos player since mid 3rd edition. Since Oct. 2007, I've been forced to use a flavourless, dull as rodent gak turd of a book, which has routinely had all of maybe 3-5 actual decent choices to field. (and most of them being Nurgle marked to boot!)
So, despite taking it strait up the poop chute from everyone and their mother for the better part of a whole decade, you'd refuse to play me & consider me TFG if I wanted to make my army more fluffy & fun to use, just because I use the rules for Vanilla Marines + allied IG?
If you say yes, then basically you need to admit that what you're really saying is, "I don't think Chaos players should be allowed to have fun, and they should be forced to lose 90+% of the games they'll ever play."
And then Loyalist players wonder why Chaos players especially look at them as a bunch of whiney elitists.
Experiment 626 wrote: @ShieldBrother: So by your almighty decree, I'd be a loathsome, power gaming, WaaC's TFG because I use 'Counts As', (which btw, was originally GW itself coming out and doing entire WD articles on why you should do 'counts as' for various armies/themes!), to better represent my Tzeentch warband?
Let me explain a few things to you, since you seem entirely ignorant of just why so many Chaos players especially are jumping on board the 'counts as' train...
Our codex is utter gak. No wait, let's be real about it, our codex is literally the exact same copy/paste pile of a raging dumpster fire from its original 3rd edition iteration, with the only big changes being a handful of new units and a handful of 'relics'! (Daemon engines of all sorts, Muties, Talons, Cultists, Vindicators, Apostles & Warpsmiths + a couple added SC's being "new".) Not only are we still left with what is basically the same stagnant mess of 3rd edition, we also have not been blessed with any new wargear or weapon upgrades.
And as for 'fluffy rules', well, we don't deserve them apparently, because we have none, except for a handful of random tables & the game's single worst army-wide rule that is the Champions of Chaos clusterfeth! Our army actively works against us most of the time, especially if you want to play anything other than Nurgle & friends with an occasional AoBF Lord for lols. Want to play Alpha Legion? Sorry, but you either need to pray for a 1/6 shot at landing the Infiltration Warlord trait, or take ****ing Ahriman/Huron to get D3 Infiltrating units! (and btw, neither of those boys are remotely fluffy for any Alpha Legion army!) Want Night Lords and their terror tactics? Oh wait, you gotta go to Crimson Slaughter for army-wide 'Fear', but then can't take the VotLW ability which would again, be a core fluffy rule for the majority of Night Lords marines, because... "reasons". And don't even think you can get Stealth/Night Fighting, which Night Lords used to have as one of their defining traits, because again, thanks to Jervis being a complete & utter toolbag when it comes to CSM's, every single Marine, from siege master IW's, to zealous WB's, to sneaky Alpha Legionnaires, to World Eaters, Thousand Sons, and recent Renegades of the Red Corsairs are 100% the exact same thing! (because as we all know, only Loyalist Marines deserve special snowflake status)
Hell, we're so out of touch with reality, that our entire army's basic strategy is still based entirely around putting our numerous dedicated assault units into Rhinos and rushing forwards to assault out of them!
But yet, if I wanted to do say a fluffy Tzeentchian Alpha Legion warband, (ie: like the one from CotW), and instead of using the useless excuse of a codex that CSM's are saddled with, I choose to use say C:SM's w/Ravenguard tactics + some allied IG infantry to represent their Chaos Cultist underlings, I'm automatically TFG?
Or to put it in simpler terms; I've been a dedicated Chaos player since mid 3rd edition. Since Oct. 2007, I've been forced to use a flavourless, dull as rodent gak turd of a book, which has routinely had all of maybe 3-5 actual decent choices to field. (and most of them being Nurgle marked to boot!) So, despite taking it strait up the poop chute from everyone and their mother for the better part of a whole decade, you'd refuse to play me & consider me TFG if I wanted to make my army more fluffy & fun to use, just because I use the rules for Vanilla Marines + allied IG?
If you say yes, then basically you need to admit that what you're really saying is, "I don't think Chaos players should be allowed to have fun, and they should be forced to lose 90+% of the games they'll ever play."
And then Loyalist players wonder why Chaos players especially look at them as a bunch of whiney elitists.
Not that I dont agree with the point you are making, but it was the 4th Edition Codex that made CSM Bland. 3.5 had Legion Specific rules (but was still a hot mess, nicely themed, but a hot mess).
(I had said disagree when I ment agree, I should read before I post)
Experiment 626 wrote: @ShieldBrother:
So by your almighty decree, I'd be a loathsome, power gaming, WaaC's TFG because I use 'Counts As', (which btw, was originally GW itself coming out and doing entire WD articles on why you should do 'counts as' for various armies/themes!), to better represent my Tzeentch warband?
Let me explain a few things to you, since you seem entirely ignorant of just why so many Chaos players especially are jumping on board the 'counts as' train...
Our codex is utter gak. No wait, let's be real about it, our codex is literally the exact same copy/paste pile of a raging dumpster fire from its original 3rd edition iteration, with the only big changes being a handful of new units and a handful of 'relics'! (Daemon engines of all sorts, Muties, Talons, Cultists, Vindicators, Apostles & Warpsmiths + a couple added SC's being "new".)
Not only are we still left with what is basically the same stagnant mess of 3rd edition, we also have not been blessed with any new wargear or weapon upgrades.
And as for 'fluffy rules', well, we don't deserve them apparently, because we have none, except for a handful of random tables & the game's single worst army-wide rule that is the Champions of Chaos clusterfeth! Our army actively works against us most of the time, especially if you want to play anything other than Nurgle & friends with an occasional AoBF Lord for lols.
Want to play Alpha Legion? Sorry, but you either need to pray for a 1/6 shot at landing the Infiltration Warlord trait, or take ****ing Ahriman/Huron to get D3 Infiltrating units! (and btw, neither of those boys are remotely fluffy for any Alpha Legion army!)
Want Night Lords and their terror tactics? Oh wait, you gotta go to Crimson Slaughter for army-wide 'Fear', but then can't take the VotLW ability which would again, be a core fluffy rule for the majority of Night Lords marines, because... "reasons". And don't even think you can get Stealth/Night Fighting, which Night Lords used to have as one of their defining traits, because again, thanks to Jervis being a complete & utter toolbag when it comes to CSM's, every single Marine, from siege master IW's, to zealous WB's, to sneaky Alpha Legionnaires, to World Eaters, Thousand Sons, and recent Renegades of the Red Corsairs are 100% the exact same thing! (because as we all know, only Loyalist Marines deserve special snowflake status)
Hell, we're so out of touch with reality, that our entire army's basic strategy is still based entirely around putting our numerous dedicated assault units into Rhinos and rushing forwards to assault out of them!
But yet, if I wanted to do say a fluffy Tzeentchian Alpha Legion warband, (ie: like the one from CotW), and instead of using the useless excuse of a codex that CSM's are saddled with, I choose to use say C:SM's w/Ravenguard tactics + some allied IG infantry to represent their Chaos Cultist underlings, I'm automatically TFG?
Or to put it in simpler terms;
I've been a dedicated Chaos player since mid 3rd edition. Since Oct. 2007, I've been forced to use a flavourless, dull as rodent gak turd of a book, which has routinely had all of maybe 3-5 actual decent choices to field. (and most of them being Nurgle marked to boot!)
So, despite taking it strait up the poop chute from everyone and their mother for the better part of a whole decade, you'd refuse to play me & consider me TFG if I wanted to make my army more fluffy & fun to use, just because I use the rules for Vanilla Marines + allied IG?
If you say yes, then basically you need to admit that what you're really saying is, "I don't think Chaos players should be allowed to have fun, and they should be forced to lose 90+% of the games they'll ever play."
And then Loyalist players wonder why Chaos players especially look at them as a bunch of whiney elitists.
Not that I dont agree with the point you are making, but it was the 4th Edition Codex that made CSM Bland. 3.5 had Legion Specific rules (but was still a hot mess, nicely themed, but a hot mess).
(I had said disagree when I ment agree, I should read before I post)
Oh I know! The 3.5ed codex had it's issues for sure, and could very easily be abused like no other book short of Kraftworld chEldar at the time. The 4th ed book was inflicted upon us in Oct. 2007. And ever since, we've been the laughing stock of 40k.
I'd much rather a hot mess, (look at what we know about the new DW codex!), that's at least chalk full of flavour and awesome themes, even if it's still literally a near auto-lose codex. The vast majority of the fun after all comes from being able to evoke the background stories & seeing the fluff take shape on the gaming table!
CSM's currently are nothing more than a hollow shell that have been reduced to nothing more than gormless NPC cartoon villains who's only reason for existing is to act as bolter fodder for our Imperial betters.
Experiment 626 wrote: @ShieldBrother:
So by your almighty decree, I'd be a loathsome, power gaming, WaaC's TFG because I use 'Counts As', (which btw, was originally GW itself coming out and doing entire WD articles on why you should do 'counts as' for various armies/themes!), to better represent my Tzeentch warband?
Let me explain a few things to you, since you seem entirely ignorant of just why so many Chaos players especially are jumping on board the 'counts as' train...
Our codex is utter gak. No wait, let's be real about it, our codex is literally the exact same copy/paste pile of a raging dumpster fire from its original 3rd edition iteration, with the only big changes being a handful of new units and a handful of 'relics'! (Daemon engines of all sorts, Muties, Talons, Cultists, Vindicators, Apostles & Warpsmiths + a couple added SC's being "new".)
Not only are we still left with what is basically the same stagnant mess of 3rd edition, we also have not been blessed with any new wargear or weapon upgrades.
And as for 'fluffy rules', well, we don't deserve them apparently, because we have none, except for a handful of random tables & the game's single worst army-wide rule that is the Champions of Chaos clusterfeth! Our army actively works against us most of the time, especially if you want to play anything other than Nurgle & friends with an occasional AoBF Lord for lols.
Want to play Alpha Legion? Sorry, but you either need to pray for a 1/6 shot at landing the Infiltration Warlord trait, or take ****ing Ahriman/Huron to get D3 Infiltrating units! (and btw, neither of those boys are remotely fluffy for any Alpha Legion army!)
Want Night Lords and their terror tactics? Oh wait, you gotta go to Crimson Slaughter for army-wide 'Fear', but then can't take the VotLW ability which would again, be a core fluffy rule for the majority of Night Lords marines, because... "reasons". And don't even think you can get Stealth/Night Fighting, which Night Lords used to have as one of their defining traits, because again, thanks to Jervis being a complete & utter toolbag when it comes to CSM's, every single Marine, from siege master IW's, to zealous WB's, to sneaky Alpha Legionnaires, to World Eaters, Thousand Sons, and recent Renegades of the Red Corsairs are 100% the exact same thing! (because as we all know, only Loyalist Marines deserve special snowflake status)
Hell, we're so out of touch with reality, that our entire army's basic strategy is still based entirely around putting our numerous dedicated assault units into Rhinos and rushing forwards to assault out of them!
But yet, if I wanted to do say a fluffy Tzeentchian Alpha Legion warband, (ie: like the one from CotW), and instead of using the useless excuse of a codex that CSM's are saddled with, I choose to use say C:SM's w/Ravenguard tactics + some allied IG infantry to represent their Chaos Cultist underlings, I'm automatically TFG?
Or to put it in simpler terms;
I've been a dedicated Chaos player since mid 3rd edition. Since Oct. 2007, I've been forced to use a flavourless, dull as rodent gak turd of a book, which has routinely had all of maybe 3-5 actual decent choices to field. (and most of them being Nurgle marked to boot!)
So, despite taking it strait up the poop chute from everyone and their mother for the better part of a whole decade, you'd refuse to play me & consider me TFG if I wanted to make my army more fluffy & fun to use, just because I use the rules for Vanilla Marines + allied IG?
If you say yes, then basically you need to admit that what you're really saying is, "I don't think Chaos players should be allowed to have fun, and they should be forced to lose 90+% of the games they'll ever play."
And then Loyalist players wonder why Chaos players especially look at them as a bunch of whiney elitists.
Not that I dont agree with the point you are making, but it was the 4th Edition Codex that made CSM Bland. 3.5 had Legion Specific rules (but was still a hot mess, nicely themed, but a hot mess).
(I had said disagree when I ment agree, I should read before I post)
Oh I know! The 3.5ed codex had it's issues for sure, and could very easily be abused like no other book short of Kraftworld chEldar at the time. The 4th ed book was inflicted upon us in Oct. 2007. And ever since, we've been the laughing stock of 40k.
I'd much rather a hot mess, (look at what we know about the new DW codex!), that's at least chalk full of flavour and awesome themes, even if it's still literally a near auto-lose codex. The vast majority of the fun after all comes from being able to evoke the background stories & seeing the fluff take shape on the gaming table!
CSM's currently are nothing more than a hollow shell that have been reduced to nothing more than gormless NPC cartoon villains who's only reason for existing is to act as bolter fodder for our Imperial betters.
Oh yeah, I know it. There is a reason I started losing motivation to work on my CSM until gradually they just came to sit in a closet. Even 4th felt like it had more going for it that the recent book.
I totally hear you with the DW, its one of the reasons Im gonna go for a DW army, the chance to build to the back ground (and go for a Specialized Force, which I've wanted for a long time).
As much as I want the CSM to come back stronger, I wont hold my breath, we will be cartoon villains for life.
Maybe someone payed too much attention back in the early days of Apoc when I said I wanted to make the Doomsday Device and have a Snidely Whiplash Chaos Lord with a Bomb Plunger on top of it.
Experiment 626 wrote: @ShieldBrother:
So by your almighty decree, I'd be a loathsome, power gaming, WaaC's TFG because I use 'Counts As', (which btw, was originally GW itself coming out and doing entire WD articles on why you should do 'counts as' for various armies/themes!), to better represent my Tzeentch warband?
Let me explain a few things to you, since you seem entirely ignorant of just why so many Chaos players especially are jumping on board the 'counts as' train...
Our codex is utter gak. No wait, let's be real about it, our codex is literally the exact same copy/paste pile of a raging dumpster fire from its original 3rd edition iteration, with the only big changes being a handful of new units and a handful of 'relics'! (Daemon engines of all sorts, Muties, Talons, Cultists, Vindicators, Apostles & Warpsmiths + a couple added SC's being "new".)
Not only are we still left with what is basically the same stagnant mess of 3rd edition, we also have not been blessed with any new wargear or weapon upgrades.
And as for 'fluffy rules', well, we don't deserve them apparently, because we have none, except for a handful of random tables & the game's single worst army-wide rule that is the Champions of Chaos clusterfeth! Our army actively works against us most of the time, especially if you want to play anything other than Nurgle & friends with an occasional AoBF Lord for lols.
Want to play Alpha Legion? Sorry, but you either need to pray for a 1/6 shot at landing the Infiltration Warlord trait, or take ****ing Ahriman/Huron to get D3 Infiltrating units! (and btw, neither of those boys are remotely fluffy for any Alpha Legion army!)
Want Night Lords and their terror tactics? Oh wait, you gotta go to Crimson Slaughter for army-wide 'Fear', but then can't take the VotLW ability which would again, be a core fluffy rule for the majority of Night Lords marines, because... "reasons". And don't even think you can get Stealth/Night Fighting, which Night Lords used to have as one of their defining traits, because again, thanks to Jervis being a complete & utter toolbag when it comes to CSM's, every single Marine, from siege master IW's, to zealous WB's, to sneaky Alpha Legionnaires, to World Eaters, Thousand Sons, and recent Renegades of the Red Corsairs are 100% the exact same thing! (because as we all know, only Loyalist Marines deserve special snowflake status)
Hell, we're so out of touch with reality, that our entire army's basic strategy is still based entirely around putting our numerous dedicated assault units into Rhinos and rushing forwards to assault out of them!
But yet, if I wanted to do say a fluffy Tzeentchian Alpha Legion warband, (ie: like the one from CotW), and instead of using the useless excuse of a codex that CSM's are saddled with, I choose to use say C:SM's w/Ravenguard tactics + some allied IG infantry to represent their Chaos Cultist underlings, I'm automatically TFG?
Or to put it in simpler terms;
I've been a dedicated Chaos player since mid 3rd edition. Since Oct. 2007, I've been forced to use a flavourless, dull as rodent gak turd of a book, which has routinely had all of maybe 3-5 actual decent choices to field. (and most of them being Nurgle marked to boot!)
So, despite taking it strait up the poop chute from everyone and their mother for the better part of a whole decade, you'd refuse to play me & consider me TFG if I wanted to make my army more fluffy & fun to use, just because I use the rules for Vanilla Marines + allied IG?
If you say yes, then basically you need to admit that what you're really saying is, "I don't think Chaos players should be allowed to have fun, and they should be forced to lose 90+% of the games they'll ever play."
And then Loyalist players wonder why Chaos players especially look at them as a bunch of whiney elitists.
Not that I dont agree with the point you are making, but it was the 4th Edition Codex that made CSM Bland. 3.5 had Legion Specific rules (but was still a hot mess, nicely themed, but a hot mess).
(I had said disagree when I ment agree, I should read before I post)
Oh I know! The 3.5ed codex had it's issues for sure, and could very easily be abused like no other book short of Kraftworld chEldar at the time. The 4th ed book was inflicted upon us in Oct. 2007. And ever since, we've been the laughing stock of 40k.
I'd much rather a hot mess, (look at what we know about the new DW codex!), that's at least chalk full of flavour and awesome themes, even if it's still literally a near auto-lose codex. The vast majority of the fun after all comes from being able to evoke the background stories & seeing the fluff take shape on the gaming table!
CSM's currently are nothing more than a hollow shell that have been reduced to nothing more than gormless NPC cartoon villains who's only reason for existing is to act as bolter fodder for our Imperial betters.
Oh yeah, I know it. There is a reason I started losing motivation to work on my CSM until gradually they just came to sit in a closet. Even 4th felt like it had more going for it that the recent book.
I totally hear you with the DW, its one of the reasons Im gonna go for a DW army, the chance to build to the back ground (and go for a Specialized Force, which I've wanted for a long time).
As much as I want the CSM to come back stronger, I wont hold my breath, we will be cartoon villains for life.
Maybe someone payed too much attention back in the early days of Apoc when I said I wanted to make the Doomsday Device and have a Snidely Whiplash Chaos Lord with a Bomb Plunger on top of it.
Nah, we screwed ourselves for life when we had the sheer audacity to actually 'win' the EoT campaign when Jervis didn't want us to.
This is our punishment for such a crime against Jervis' delicate sensibilities... To be nothing more than a worthless trope, and relegated to watch half our model soon up and vanish since Finecast is officially on death row.
I know we have a rumored new "book" coming, supposedly called 'Traitors Hate', but really, let's be honest about it... The only model that's rumored to be coming with it is a new plastic Kharn the Betrayer. Hence, no new wargear options for us.
The expanded psychic lores will be done in the exact same manner as the Daemon ones, so Tzeentch for example will keep all 4 of our currently laughably abysmal spells.
Supposedly we do get the dataslate for the Renegade Knight. (which is still a lesser version of the true FW Chaos Knight)
Maybe, (hopefully?!), we might also get Cypher's dataslate as well, for those of us who don't own an e-device?
We'll get a handful of 'new' formations, none of which will even remotely outweigh the overall crappiness of the units themselves.
We might get a proper Decurion, but odds are, it'll be completely unwieldy due to requiring obnoxiously over-sized Core + Auxiliary formations. (think 'Tzeentch Daemon formations' from CotW in unit requirements, but costing twice as much pts-wise!)
Probably the only bright spot will be maybe some new relics that will make Chaos Lords roughly on par with Loyalist Captains, though still on a level well below Chapter Masters.
At least, that's about where I'm setting my personal expectations bar! The lower we set it, the less overall disappointment when inevitably, we still remain Loyalists -10.
Experiment 626 wrote: @ShieldBrother:
So by your almighty decree, I'd be a loathsome, power gaming, WaaC's TFG because I use 'Counts As', (which btw, was originally GW itself coming out and doing entire WD articles on why you should do 'counts as' for various armies/themes!), to better represent my Tzeentch warband?
Let me explain a few things to you, since you seem entirely ignorant of just why so many Chaos players especially are jumping on board the 'counts as' train...
Our codex is utter gak. No wait, let's be real about it, our codex is literally the exact same copy/paste pile of a raging dumpster fire from its original 3rd edition iteration, with the only big changes being a handful of new units and a handful of 'relics'! (Daemon engines of all sorts, Muties, Talons, Cultists, Vindicators, Apostles & Warpsmiths + a couple added SC's being "new".)
Not only are we still left with what is basically the same stagnant mess of 3rd edition, we also have not been blessed with any new wargear or weapon upgrades.
And as for 'fluffy rules', well, we don't deserve them apparently, because we have none, except for a handful of random tables & the game's single worst army-wide rule that is the Champions of Chaos clusterfeth! Our army actively works against us most of the time, especially if you want to play anything other than Nurgle & friends with an occasional AoBF Lord for lols.
Want to play Alpha Legion? Sorry, but you either need to pray for a 1/6 shot at landing the Infiltration Warlord trait, or take ****ing Ahriman/Huron to get D3 Infiltrating units! (and btw, neither of those boys are remotely fluffy for any Alpha Legion army!)
Want Night Lords and their terror tactics? Oh wait, you gotta go to Crimson Slaughter for army-wide 'Fear', but then can't take the VotLW ability which would again, be a core fluffy rule for the majority of Night Lords marines, because... "reasons". And don't even think you can get Stealth/Night Fighting, which Night Lords used to have as one of their defining traits, because again, thanks to Jervis being a complete & utter toolbag when it comes to CSM's, every single Marine, from siege master IW's, to zealous WB's, to sneaky Alpha Legionnaires, to World Eaters, Thousand Sons, and recent Renegades of the Red Corsairs are 100% the exact same thing! (because as we all know, only Loyalist Marines deserve special snowflake status)
Hell, we're so out of touch with reality, that our entire army's basic strategy is still based entirely around putting our numerous dedicated assault units into Rhinos and rushing forwards to assault out of them!
But yet, if I wanted to do say a fluffy Tzeentchian Alpha Legion warband, (ie: like the one from CotW), and instead of using the useless excuse of a codex that CSM's are saddled with, I choose to use say C:SM's w/Ravenguard tactics + some allied IG infantry to represent their Chaos Cultist underlings, I'm automatically TFG?
Or to put it in simpler terms;
I've been a dedicated Chaos player since mid 3rd edition. Since Oct. 2007, I've been forced to use a flavourless, dull as rodent gak turd of a book, which has routinely had all of maybe 3-5 actual decent choices to field. (and most of them being Nurgle marked to boot!)
So, despite taking it strait up the poop chute from everyone and their mother for the better part of a whole decade, you'd refuse to play me & consider me TFG if I wanted to make my army more fluffy & fun to use, just because I use the rules for Vanilla Marines + allied IG?
If you say yes, then basically you need to admit that what you're really saying is, "I don't think Chaos players should be allowed to have fun, and they should be forced to lose 90+% of the games they'll ever play."
And then Loyalist players wonder why Chaos players especially look at them as a bunch of whiney elitists.
Not that I dont agree with the point you are making, but it was the 4th Edition Codex that made CSM Bland. 3.5 had Legion Specific rules (but was still a hot mess, nicely themed, but a hot mess).
(I had said disagree when I ment agree, I should read before I post)
Oh I know! The 3.5ed codex had it's issues for sure, and could very easily be abused like no other book short of Kraftworld chEldar at the time. The 4th ed book was inflicted upon us in Oct. 2007. And ever since, we've been the laughing stock of 40k.
I'd much rather a hot mess, (look at what we know about the new DW codex!), that's at least chalk full of flavour and awesome themes, even if it's still literally a near auto-lose codex. The vast majority of the fun after all comes from being able to evoke the background stories & seeing the fluff take shape on the gaming table!
CSM's currently are nothing more than a hollow shell that have been reduced to nothing more than gormless NPC cartoon villains who's only reason for existing is to act as bolter fodder for our Imperial betters.
Oh yeah, I know it. There is a reason I started losing motivation to work on my CSM until gradually they just came to sit in a closet. Even 4th felt like it had more going for it that the recent book.
I totally hear you with the DW, its one of the reasons Im gonna go for a DW army, the chance to build to the back ground (and go for a Specialized Force, which I've wanted for a long time).
As much as I want the CSM to come back stronger, I wont hold my breath, we will be cartoon villains for life.
Maybe someone payed too much attention back in the early days of Apoc when I said I wanted to make the Doomsday Device and have a Snidely Whiplash Chaos Lord with a Bomb Plunger on top of it.
Nah, we screwed ourselves for life when we had the sheer audacity to actually 'win' the EoT campaign when Jervis didn't want us to.
This is our punishment for such a crime against Jervis' delicate sensibilities... To be nothing more than a worthless trope, and relegated to watch half our model soon up and vanish since Finecast is officially on death row.
I know we have a rumored new "book" coming, supposedly called 'Traitors Hate', but really, let's be honest about it... The only model that's rumored to be coming with it is a new plastic Kharn the Betrayer. Hence, no new wargear options for us.
The expanded psychic lores will be done in the exact same manner as the Daemon ones, so Tzeentch for example will keep all 4 of our currently laughably abysmal spells.
Supposedly we do get the dataslate for the Renegade Knight. (which is still a lesser version of the true FW Chaos Knight)
Maybe, (hopefully?!), we might also get Cypher's dataslate as well, for those of us who don't own an e-device?
We'll get a handful of 'new' formations, none of which will even remotely outweigh the overall crappiness of the units themselves.
We might get a proper Decurion, but odds are, it'll be completely unwieldy due to requiring obnoxiously over-sized Core + Auxiliary formations. (think 'Tzeentch Daemon formations' from CotW in unit requirements, but costing twice as much pts-wise!)
Probably the only bright spot will be maybe some new relics that will make Chaos Lords roughly on par with Loyalist Captains, though still on a level well below Chapter Masters.
At least, that's about where I'm setting my personal expectations bar! The lower we set it, the less overall disappointment when inevitably, we still remain Loyalists -10.
Maybe we'll also get to be the one of the first codex of a new Edition again, add another -10 to it.
I have enough CSM's for them to fight amongst themselves for each chaos god.
I think this was my favorite codex:
The 3rd edition.
That had so much choice it was almost confusing.
It has been rather bland / useless ever since.
To think my original intentions for fielding Inquisition Daemon Hunters was to have an army to fight CSM for fun.
Now they are my go-to army... oh wait... Inquisition is one codex, grey knights another.
Any people who tried to tell me they were "cheese" can heft my mainly metal figures.
Then to field Black Templar since I guess my CSM's needed a similarly gimped SM army to play against.
Bah, anyone saying that they "prefer / demand / require" I use a CSM codex over a chosen "close enough" SM codex I could say is looking for a win rather than a fair match.
Just got back from my first game in about a year. My CSM vs a Deathwing army. It was game over in turn 3. Even my opponent took pity on me and felt bad.
Been playing this game for 20 years and I've never wanted to just bin the lot, as much as I do right now.
Talizvar wrote: I have enough CSM's for them to fight amongst themselves for each chaos god.
I think this was my favorite codex:
The 3rd edition.
That had so much choice it was almost confusing.
It has been rather bland / useless ever since.
Proposed "mix and match" troops that do not fit in a specific codex "but you want it anyway" then becomes an unbound list... simple as that (as outlined by the BA article: using all space marines) or you find a way to fit them in as allied troops.
.
What make you think he's playing his Blood Angel Centurions and Stormwolves as Unbound?
We're the models displayed in the codex entries the model you're putting on the tabletop?
What models should CSM players use for Chosen? Or an Ork player who wants to field a warboss in Mega-Armour?
You're obviously pretty new to the game if you cannot remember when units didn't always have official models, which makes this kind of metric to determine whether someone is using the "correct model" useless.
And honestly, sure, paint them hh colours. It could be an army straight after the heresy. Like I said, as long as you don't paint ultramarines pink, I'm alright with it. However, don't use HH rules. If you came to a HH game with bloated up 40k plague marines that'd be just lazy.
Call it a just-post-heresy army, they're all bloated up because they're devoted to Nurgle, but you use the 30k rules because that's the time-frame the army is from.
It's not "just lazy." It's also a way to play multiple different formats without having to spend several hundred extra dollars and hours just so someone can say "Wow, nice" once in a while, IMO.
I know DG fell pretty quickly but taking 40k models and plopping them in 40k makes little sense. Their armour marks and general aesthetic would be far off, hence why they have 2 separate model lines and game systems.
Purifier wrote:
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: Looks pretty cool, you paint your models how you want. (Remember I dont hold anything against you for the way you spend your money and paint your models) And I didn't know that about the priest, guess you learn something every day. And 3 of the anti air versions? How many flyers do you play against? Lol.
Magnetised, so I can swap those weapons.
Experiment 626 wrote:@ShieldBrother:
So by your almighty decree, I'd be a loathsome, power gaming, WaaC's TFG because I use 'Counts As', (which btw, was originally GW itself coming out and doing entire WD articles on why you should do 'counts as' for various armies/themes!), to better represent my Tzeentch warband?
Let me explain a few things to you, since you seem entirely ignorant of just why so many Chaos players especially are jumping on board the 'counts as' train...
Our codex is utter gak. No wait, let's be real about it, our codex is literally the exact same copy/paste pile of a raging dumpster fire from its original 3rd edition iteration, with the only big changes being a handful of new units and a handful of 'relics'! (Daemon engines of all sorts, Muties, Talons, Cultists, Vindicators, Apostles & Warpsmiths + a couple added SC's being "new".)
Not only are we still left with what is basically the same stagnant mess of 3rd edition, we also have not been blessed with any new wargear or weapon upgrades.
And as for 'fluffy rules', well, we don't deserve them apparently, because we have none, except for a handful of random tables & the game's single worst army-wide rule that is the Champions of Chaos clusterfeth! Our army actively works against us most of the time, especially if you want to play anything other than Nurgle & friends with an occasional AoBF Lord for lols.
Want to play Alpha Legion? Sorry, but you either need to pray for a 1/6 shot at landing the Infiltration Warlord trait, or take ****ing Ahriman/Huron to get D3 Infiltrating units! (and btw, neither of those boys are remotely fluffy for any Alpha Legion army!)
Want Night Lords and their terror tactics? Oh wait, you gotta go to Crimson Slaughter for army-wide 'Fear', but then can't take the VotLW ability which would again, be a core fluffy rule for the majority of Night Lords marines, because... "reasons". And don't even think you can get Stealth/Night Fighting, which Night Lords used to have as one of their defining traits, because again, thanks to Jervis being a complete & utter toolbag when it comes to CSM's, every single Marine, from siege master IW's, to zealous WB's, to sneaky Alpha Legionnaires, to World Eaters, Thousand Sons, and recent Renegades of the Red Corsairs are 100% the exact same thing! (because as we all know, only Loyalist Marines deserve special snowflake status)
Hell, we're so out of touch with reality, that our entire army's basic strategy is still based entirely around putting our numerous dedicated assault units into Rhinos and rushing forwards to assault out of them!
But yet, if I wanted to do say a fluffy Tzeentchian Alpha Legion warband, (ie: like the one from CotW), and instead of using the useless excuse of a codex that CSM's are saddled with, I choose to use say C:SM's w/Ravenguard tactics + some allied IG infantry to represent their Chaos Cultist underlings, I'm automatically TFG?
Or to put it in simpler terms;
I've been a dedicated Chaos player since mid 3rd edition. Since Oct. 2007, I've been forced to use a flavourless, dull as rodent gak turd of a book, which has routinely had all of maybe 3-5 actual decent choices to field. (and most of them being Nurgle marked to boot!)
So, despite taking it strait up the poop chute from everyone and their mother for the better part of a whole decade, you'd refuse to play me & consider me TFG if I wanted to make my army more fluffy & fun to use, just because I use the rules for Vanilla Marines + allied IG?
If you say yes, then basically you need to admit that what you're really saying is, "I don't think Chaos players should be allowed to have fun, and they should be forced to lose 90+% of the games they'll ever play."
And then Loyalist players wonder why Chaos players especially look at them as a bunch of whiney elitists.
Loathsome, TFG, waac, Power gamer seems like a bit much, let's not get carried away. I know exactly why chaos players change codices. It's a bad dex. They don't want a bad dex, so they resort to their loyalist counter parts. I find this distasteful because it's akin to me trading all my dark eldar for craft world eldar. It's not sticking to your guns and it's mixing rules, models, and codices. That's why I have a problem with it. And may I ask how old is that WD? I know they promote conversions and the such (there'd be no reason for green stuff otherwise) but with the way they act now I doubt they'd care about the community that much. (Sheer curiosity) and if your for conversion so much, it wouldn't be too hard to make your own custom alpha legion lord with axe, claw, and flamer?
And I'm not calling anyone TFG. I am stating what I consider to be correct. (Yes I know I said trading codices for power is WAAC behaviour, but I was mirroring what someone else had said, and to be fair WAAC isn't even TFG) I wouldn't even refuse to play you either, even if you did what OP is doing.
And what's with all the loyalist talk? I play chaos too. Or is it just that rabid jealousy of GWs favourite lap dogs setting in?
We're the models displayed in the codex entries the model you're putting on the tabletop?
What models should CSM players use for Chosen? Or an Ork player who wants to field a warboss in Mega-Armour?
You're obviously pretty new to the game if you cannot remember when units didn't always have official models, which makes this kind of metric to determine whether someone is using the "correct model" useless.
From my knowledge chosen are csm with extra rules. And yes, I know stuff doesn't have models. I should have clarified that in a situation like this (where you have no other choice) it would be perfectly acceptable to me to use unnoficial models. And yes, I may be only a year in but stuff still doesn't have models. As far as GW is concerned there is no wolf priest model. Its still not completely unheard of.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: I know DG fell pretty quickly but taking 40k models and plopping them in 40k makes little sense. Their armour marks and general aesthetic would be far off, hence why they have 2 separate model lines and game systems.
I'm curious as to where my DG would fall in this -- quite a bit of the army is converted from the WHFB Lord of Plagues kit along with various Mark IV, SM and CSM bits. So the core of the miniature isn't recognizably any particular armour pattern, and given that the "present day" Mark VII armour was in use before the end of the heresy, my DG could be from any particular period of 30k-40k history from the Heresy onwards.
Also how would the matching proper paint scheme and miniatures to appropriate rules idea work with successor chapters? Some successor chapters are relatively obscure, even to long time players. How would you feel about someone using say the Blood Angels codex to field a successor chapter that may not be immediately recognizable? Or even things like the previously mentioned Space Wolves 13th company or Guy Haley's Relictors, which were kitbashed from CSM and SM kits but used the SW and SM codex respectively?
I'd have no issue playing against CSM using loyalist rules as long as it's easy to see what is what, but I'd be reluctant to do it myself because when CSM do get a major update I could end up having to completely change my army to fit the new (hopefully improved) rules
Talizvar wrote: I have enough CSM's for them to fight amongst themselves for each chaos god.
I think this was my favorite codex:
The 3rd edition.
That had so much choice it was almost confusing.
It has been rather bland / useless ever since.
To think my original intentions for fielding Inquisition Daemon Hunters was to have an army to fight CSM for fun.
Now they are my go-to army... oh wait... Inquisition is one codex, grey knights another.
Any people who tried to tell me they were "cheese" can heft my mainly metal figures.
Then to field Black Templar since I guess my CSM's needed a similarly gimped SM army to play against.
Bah, anyone saying that they "prefer / demand / require" I use a CSM codex over a chosen "close enough" SM codex I could say is looking for a win rather than a fair match.
That was my first ever codex. I played an all Death Guard army (plague marine troops, Nurgle daemons and the rest just painted to look Nurgle) and had that T5 GUO that got nuked by vindicators every now and then. Good times.
Aren't you referring to the 3.5 ed codex though? The one after this was the codex with all of the options for characters, USR's for chaos marine units and legion rules. That was the best codex I've ever played with- so much choice you could build more or less whatever you wanted
I'd have no issue playing against CSM using loyalist rules as long as it's easy to see what is what, but I'd be reluctant to do it myself because when CSM do get a major update I could end up having to completely change my army to fit the new (hopefully improved) rules
Its a conversion opportunity. You can always keep playing marines. Inversely marines could also keep playing chaos rules, or even other codex rules as long as they are WYSIWYG. Thats one advantage of your own chapter-there's no issue here. Do what you want.
Or even better use the rules for your Squat Army...
Snake Tortoise wrote: Aren't you referring to the 3.5 ed codex though? The one after this was the codex with all of the options for characters, USR's for chaos marine units and legion rules. That was the best codex I've ever played with- so much choice you could build more or less whatever you wanted
You may be right, I will have to check my "archives".
I think it was where they first tried to define just having a "mark" of chaos vs. being the actual "cult" units like "noise marines".
Honestly, that codex tried to do with one army what the BRB's are doing now: to create the flavor of army you like with few restrictions (at least many that made sense).
Getting a bit more on topic, other than opinion of if it was not the actual official model associated with a particular codex: I do not see any rules reason where the colour or shape of your models prevent you from using any codex you wish. I forced my friend to put a blob of red paint on his unpainted model when he tried to claim the "go fasta red" rule but that is about it (That was so funny when he said "And 1" extra for go fasta red!" I said "Where??"... that was awesome).
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: I know DG fell pretty quickly but taking 40k models and plopping them in 40k makes little sense. Their armour marks and general aesthetic would be far off, hence why they have 2 separate model lines and game systems.
I'm curious as to where my DG would fall in this -- quite a bit of the army is converted from the WHFB Lord of Plagues kit along with various Mark IV, SM and CSM bits. So the core of the miniature isn't recognizably any particular armour pattern, and given that the "present day" Mark VII armour was in use before the end of the heresy, my DG could be from any particular period of 30k-40k history from the Heresy onwards.
Also how would the matching proper paint scheme and miniatures to appropriate rules idea work with successor chapters? Some successor chapters are relatively obscure, even to long time players. How would you feel about someone using say the Blood Angels codex to field a successor chapter that may not be immediately recognizable? Or even things like the previously mentioned Space Wolves 13th company or Guy Haley's Relictors, which were kitbashed from CSM and SM kits but used the SW and SM codex respectively?
I've stated several times paint jobs do not restrict your codex. However, if you are clearly swapping codices, rules, and models, I dislike that. (I also dislike unrealistic paintjobs, but you guys don't care) 13th company is cool and Guy Haley's relictors would be the only thing I have an issue with because he's not using the SM or CSM dex. (I usually pin them to one dex but they are in a grey area of renegade and non-renegade, so I would accept using either or) And from my knowledge, there is no need for chaos parts, they were just called renegades by Dante for refusing help on Armageddon because they were looking for the monolith?
And about your DG, it would also be a grey area. I'm short on heresy fluff for the DG but if what you say is true then you probably could get away with playing them in both 40k and heresy, but I'd be unimpressed (as stated before) if someone came to a 30k game with 40k models.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: I know DG fell pretty quickly but taking 40k models and plopping them in 40k makes little sense. Their armour marks and general aesthetic would be far off, hence why they have 2 separate model lines and game systems.
I'm curious as to where my DG would fall in this -- quite a bit of the army is converted from the WHFB Lord of Plagues kit along with various Mark IV, SM and CSM bits. So the core of the miniature isn't recognizably any particular armour pattern, and given that the "present day" Mark VII armour was in use before the end of the heresy, my DG could be from any particular period of 30k-40k history from the Heresy onwards.
Also how would the matching proper paint scheme and miniatures to appropriate rules idea work with successor chapters? Some successor chapters are relatively obscure, even to long time players. How would you feel about someone using say the Blood Angels codex to field a successor chapter that may not be immediately recognizable? Or even things like the previously mentioned Space Wolves 13th company or Guy Haley's Relictors, which were kitbashed from CSM and SM kits but used the SW and SM codex respectively?
I've stated several times paint jobs do not restrict your codex. However, if you are clearly swapping codices, rules, and models, I dislike that. (I also dislike unrealistic paintjobs, but you guys don't care) 13th company is cool and Guy Haley's relictors would be the only thing I have an issue with because he's not using the SM or CSM dex. (I usually pin them to one dex but they are in a grey area of renegade and non-renegade, so I would accept using either or) And from my knowledge, there is no need for chaos parts, they were just called renegades by Dante for refusing help on Armageddon because they were looking for the monolith?
And about your DG, it would also be a grey area. I'm short on heresy fluff for the DG but if what you say is true then you probably could get away with playing them in both 40k and heresy, but I'd be unimpressed (as stated before) if someone came to a 30k game with 40k models.
Selym wrote:A couple of scenarios below, which does SB consider acceptable?
1) New player buys C:SM. Later decides to use CSM models as tactical marines with boltguns.
2) New player buys the CSM codex. Later decides to use a tactical marine box as his CSM infantry with boltguns.
3) Player has an army of marines painted red and green. Uses IF chapter tactics.
4) New player buys a CSM box. Later buys C:SM to represent those models wielding boltguns.
5) New player buys a tactical marine box. Later buys the CSM codex to represent them wielding boltguns.
Selym wrote: A couple of scenarios below, which does SB consider acceptable?
1) New player buys C:SM. Later decides to use CSM models as tactical marines with boltguns.
2) New player buys the CSM codex. Later decides to use a tactical marine box as his CSM infantry with boltguns.
3) Player has an army of marines painted red and green. Uses IF chapter tactics.
4) New player buys a CSM box. Later buys C:SM to represent those models wielding boltguns.
5) New player buys a tactical marine box. Later buys the CSM codex to represent them wielding boltguns.
1. De-chaos them.
2. Chaos them.
3. Go right ahead.
4. De-chaos them.
5. Chaos them.
I want models and rules to correspond with their respective codex and units.
(and just called the space marine codex SM, if I'm flicking through a post I sometimes don't notice the colon so I confuse it with CSM, just a pet peeve )
It was more of a joke than anything. Guess that's hard to detect on the internet though.
And yes, I know I combated SW being black but that was strictly in the case of swapping codices and rules with iron hands. If that person painted their SW black and called them SW, that'd be ok. (as much as I dislike it)
Selym wrote: A couple of scenarios below, which does SB consider acceptable?
1) New player buys C:SM. Later decides to use CSM models as tactical marines with boltguns.
2) New player buys the CSM codex. Later decides to use a tactical marine box as his CSM infantry with boltguns.
3) Player has an army of marines painted red and green. Uses IF chapter tactics.
4) New player buys a CSM box. Later buys C:SM to represent those models wielding boltguns.
5) New player buys a tactical marine box. Later buys the CSM codex to represent them wielding boltguns.
1. De-chaos them.
2. Chaos them.
3. Go right ahead.
4. De-chaos them.
5. Chaos them.
I want models and rules to correspond with their respective codex and units.
(and just called the space marine codex SM, if I'm flicking through a post I sometimes don't notice the colon so I confuse it with CSM, just a pet peeve )
Define "Chaos" and what you mean by de-chaosing the models. Are you saying that loyalist marines will never have spikes on their armour? What advantage do these chaos apsects on a chaos model give in the game that requires their removal?
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: I want models and rules to correspond with their respective codex and units.
So then, we have established you would not do this.
You have made the criteria / law rather clear and the motivation as not being "true' to the codex and is "wrong".
Rather than being unhappy, would you still play someone with an army as the OP proposed?
Selym wrote: A couple of scenarios below, which does SB consider acceptable?
1) New player buys C:SM. Later decides to use CSM models as tactical marines with boltguns.
2) New player buys the CSM codex. Later decides to use a tactical marine box as his CSM infantry with boltguns.
3) Player has an army of marines painted red and green. Uses IF chapter tactics.
4) New player buys a CSM box. Later buys C:SM to represent those models wielding boltguns.
5) New player buys a tactical marine box. Later buys the CSM codex to represent them wielding boltguns.
6) New player writes his own fluff regarding an Eldar Craftworld fallen to Slaanesh, utilizes Dire Avengers as CSM (playing their shuriken catapults as counts-as bolters or just replacing the weapons with bolters), models Dark Reapers with the master blaster (or whatever it's called, I don't play CSM, my friend does), models a Daemon Prince with Wraithlord bits (this I did for my Slaanesh DP for Daemons, Wraithlord head, warp vanes, and sword put on a DP body), and so on and so forth. Would be 95% WYSIWYG (possibly 100% depending on replacing guns or using "counts-as").
7) New player likes the spikes of CSM and knows that there are successor chapters that are loyalist but bloodthirsty as all get-out, and decides those models better represent his custom chapter that are violent yet disciplined using Ultramarine chapter tactics.
But really, because I know they're my models, if I did anything like this I just probably wouldn't get to play games with the 7% that have a problem with it (looking at poll at time of posting). Some people think GW models are the only acceptable way to play, and that's fine. Game with other people.
@SB, though - you do know there's a difference between WAAC and looking at rules and believing they fit your army better, right? In this instance, yeah he's going to a top tier codex from a bottom tier, but WAAC is an attitude. It's not necessarily TFG, you're absolutely right, but it's still an attitude, and one I'm honestly not getting from the OP. Wanting to win some games is not the same as WAAC. It's an expectation gamers are allowed to have. He's not bending any rules to make a super strong army, he's using rules that exist for an army that is how he now wants to play the game. Reading your posts, it doesn't even seem like you have a problem that he's going to be using SM rules, you don't like that he's using models (that actually represent legionaries from 30k IIRC, so they're essentially any flavor of marine) that were first used as CSM (even though the paint scheme matches an SM chapter, or can be considered a custom chapter) to do it. Or that he's using the same army to do two different forces depending on how he feels like playing. In both cases, though, he's WYSIWYG and good to roll. Honestly, with how he says they're painted, if he came to game with you and said "Here's my Silver Skulls army," you wouldn't even know they were originally meant as CSM (but I haven't seen them so can't confirm).
My point is, sure you didn't say TFG, but WAAC is still an attitude that people have, and wanting to win games or be able to put up more of a fight with the models you already possess isn't really all of it.
EDIT: I took so long to post that I missed so much!
adamsouza wrote: ShieldBrother is entitled to his opinion. No matter how much you question or berate him, you are not likely to change his stance on the matter.
Also very true. So like I said, if ~7% of people have an issue with it, play with the other ~93%.
If a craftworld fell to slaanesh, wouldn't it get eaten?
You can still represent savages with the SM kits. Apply liberal blood spatter and use the more brutal weapons SM have. (power axes, chainswords, etc) World Eaters managed to do it in the HH line without mass spikes, daemons, and horns.
Yes, I know the difference of WAAC and flavour. And I get that he's not a WAAC player, he seems like a fine person. I just have an issue with people mixing models rules, and codices. (whether for power gain or not)
And since they are heresy why doesn't OP just play 30k? But, since AoD all that stuff is considered legal so yeah, if he showed up and said, "Hey, these are my silver skulls, they got the pre heresy stuff from close ties to the minitorum" or something like that I'd be cool with it.
When he says, "Hey, these are my iron warriors, but I use the SM dex." That's what I dislike (nothing against OP, just using as an example)
It gives no advantage in game. That's not why I want them removed.
However what does give an advantage is swapping codices. Proxying models is merely the luggage that comes with it.
Except that in scenarios 1 and 2, no codex swapping is involved, and in 5 the player has nerfed themselves.
He was asking what advantage it gives, in OP's scenario it gives an advantage. That's what I was referring to. And 1 and 2 has model swapping, another thing I'm not fond of. In 5, yes, they do nerf themselves but power gain/loss is not my main gripe. (once again, just the baggage that comes with changing codices, and models.)
And from my knowledge, there is no need for chaos parts, they were just called renegades by Dante for refusing help on Armageddon because they were looking for the monolith?
The Relictors also like to used things like Daemonweapons, in a Radical Ordo Malleus way. Plus they were excommunicated and fled to the Eye of Terror and it's unknown whether they remain Radicals fighting chaos or have gone fully renegade and thrown in their lot with Chaos. For those reasons some people like to kitbash them with some chaos gear to represent their misguided, possible fallen, nature along with the warping influence of the, erm, warp. And I guess there could be a case made for using either the SM or CSM codex to represent them on the table depending on which path you'd like to think they took.
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: And about your DG, it would also be a grey area. I'm short on heresy fluff for the DG but if what you say is true then you probably could get away with playing them in both 40k and heresy, but I'd be unimpressed (as stated before) if someone came to a 30k game with 40k models.
As the Imperium is rather technologically regressive, a lot of the standard tech used during the Heresy would be the same or nigh identical to the "present day" gear used by marines. There are exceptions like the MKVIII armour you see on sergeants, but most of the core gear is pretty much the same. Even the unique looking chaos backpacks are just a variant of imperial tech that would have been used by loyalist marines. I'm just curious in this instance, because, with the exception of newer tech like Defilers, it is case where codex swapping is possible because the army is essentially the same in both periods. Don't get me wrong, it's not like I'd be rocking up to a 30k game with Obliterators or Defilers, but merely using Death Guard plague marines as Death Guard during the heresy (during which they were turning into plague marines).
It's akin to a priest and atheist sitting in pub trying to convice each other that they are wrong, and it's gone on long enough that the other people in the pub are getting uncomfortable.
And from my knowledge, there is no need for chaos parts, they were just called renegades by Dante for refusing help on Armageddon because they were looking for the monolith?
The Relictors also like to used things like Daemonweapons, in a Radical Ordo Malleus way. Plus they were excommunicated and fled to the Eye of Terror and it's unknown whether they remain Radicals fighting chaos or have gone fully renegade and thrown in their lot with Chaos. For those reasons some people like to kitbash them with some chaos gear to represent their misguided, possible fallen, nature along with the warping influence of the, erm, warp. And I guess there could be a case made for using either the SM or CSM codex to represent them on the table depending on which path you'd like to think they took.
Ah, yes. I liked the Chapter Master's screaming flail
I've seen Orks with shuriken cannons used as sluggaz, clearly they must be banned from use as they aren't wyswyg.
Seriously, they're all Marines. Doesn't matter if there's different colors on them, or perhaps an extra spike, wire, or wolf pelt, they're just marines in the end. I don't see a reason why there's a need to make a big deal out of which marine dex is used.
Hell I did far more to alter my Orks than anyone here has suggested for their marines.
It's akin to a priest and atheist sitting in pub trying to convice each other that they are wrong, and it's gone on long enough that the other people in the pub are getting uncomfortable.
And they discussion can be brought outside the pub, and continued harmlessly. Or the audience can choose not to be around as an audience.
Seriously, if we're about to have someone say that the arguing should stop, despite it being on topic, then I'm going to have to start an entire thread disagreeing with that.
He was asking what advantage it gives, in OP's scenario it gives an advantage. That's what I was referring to. And 1 and 2 has model swapping, another thing I'm not fond of. In 5, yes, they do nerf themselves but power gain/loss is not my main gripe. (once again, just the baggage that comes with changing codices, and models.)
#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote: If anything switching codex is the TFG thing, get a godly codex with no downsides by still being chaos, sounds pretty WAAC to me.
Trying very hard not to throw out a "strawman" to the mix.
Trying to convince #1ShieldBrother3++ he is "wrong" on not liking the CSM miniatures used with SM codex's is like convincing me to like sauerkraut.
I hate the stuff for no good reason.
"But it is only pickled cabbage, do you like cabbage?"
"Yes"
"Do you like vinegar or pickles?"
"Yes"
"Then you have no good reason to hate it!"
"No, I almost vomit when eating it, you cannot say I can like the stuff."
So yeah, folding a map wrong in front of me can offend my delicate sensibilities luckily we have smart phones / GPS's rapidly replacing them.
We have at least established the guy may not agree with the list but he will play against it... that is all the OP asked.
I say the OP go for it, all is well and I darn well want to see a huge Iron Warriors army on the table (send pics!!!).
@SB I guess I am still a little confused in your stance. I am a semi new player, and have played a dozen games or less. My reason for wanting to switch is purely to be able to field a large number of marines without resorting to demons or marks. IW refuse to worship the pantheon of Chaos, and have been known to use loyalist gear/geneseed as well as having their own forge world's and a good chunk of dark mechanicists from the HH setting. In my Grand Battalion fluff, my army relies heavily on plasma weapons, and attrition to win battles. I had never considered using SM codex until it was suggested by my opponent in my last game, as apparently several chapter tactics fit this theme. I had no idea these rules existed until recently, so is it wrong for me to want to try to be more fluffy by using a more fitting codex?
sturgeondtd wrote: @SB I guess I am still a little confused in your stance. I am a semi new player, and have played a dozen games or less. My reason for wanting to switch is purely to be able to field a large number of marines without resorting to demons or marks. IW refuse to worship the pantheon of Chaos, and have been known to use loyalist gear/geneseed as well as having their own forge world's and a good chunk of dark mechanicists from the HH setting. In my Grand Battalion fluff, my army relies heavily on plasma weapons, and attrition to win battles. I had never considered using SM codex until it was suggested by my opponent in my last game, as apparently several chapter tactics fit this theme. I had no idea these rules existed until recently, so is it wrong for me to want to try to be more fluffy by using a more fitting codex?
I'm sorry? Which Chapter Tactic fits this theme?
Plasma is accessible by both Chaos and Loyalist
Loyalist gear and geneseed means nothing to Chapter Tactic.
Attrition isn't represented as a Chapter Tactic
The only one I understand could be Iron Hands, purely because of more vehicle endurance.
It's not like you're particularly stealthy (RG), good with bolters (IF), tactically flexible (UM), durable (IH), evasive (WS), good with flamers/meltas (Sallies) or combat proficient with a hatred of psykers (BT), unless you've omitted something?
I've been told IH or IF, as IH are durable, which is what the fluff of IW is. IF as they are both siege centric armies. And yes, they are supposed to be more proficient with ranged weapons such as bolters. They also have tactical flexibility as they were the emporers work horse during the heresy (the reason they fell to chaos was due to always being assigned campaigns that would be long, arduous and lacking glory, but needed to be done). So how does this not fit several of the above mentioned chapters?
sturgeondtd wrote: @SB I guess I am still a little confused in your stance. I am a semi new player, and have played a dozen games or less. My reason for wanting to switch is purely to be able to field a large number of marines without resorting to demons or marks. IW refuse to worship the pantheon of Chaos, and have been known to use loyalist gear/geneseed as well as having their own forge world's and a good chunk of dark mechanicists from the HH setting. In my Grand Battalion fluff, my army relies heavily on plasma weapons, and attrition to win battles. I had never considered using SM codex until it was suggested by my opponent in my last game, as apparently several chapter tactics fit this theme. I had no idea these rules existed until recently, so is it wrong for me to want to try to be more fluffy by using a more fitting codex?
What exactly would make chapter tactics more fluffy for your iron warriors? No chapter tactic gives bonuses to plasma or attrition.
And iron warriors can still fall to chaos. In the Honsou books doesn't kreuger have khorne berzerkers in everything but name as a vanguard?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sturgeondtd wrote: I've been told IH or IF, as IH are durable, which is what the fluff of IW is. IF as they are both siege centric armies. And yes, they are supposed to be more proficient with ranged weapons such as bolters. They also have tactical flexibility as they were the emporers work horse during the heresy (the reason they fell to chaos was due to always being assigned campaigns that would be long, arduous and lacking glory, but needed to be done). So how does this not fit several of the above mentioned chapters?
Iron Warriors aren't extra durable, their normal space marines. Iron Hands get it because of their implants and the extra resilience replacing flesh with metal.
Since when are IW known for good bolter training? They are more artillery based.
One of the disadvantages of of the IW is that they only know one tactic. The meat grinder one.
sturgeondtd wrote: I've been told IH or IF, as IH are durable, which is what the fluff of IW is. IF as they are both siege centric armies. And yes, they are supposed to be more proficient with ranged weapons such as bolters. They also have tactical flexibility as they were the emporers work horse during the heresy (the reason they fell to chaos was due to always being assigned campaigns that would be long, arduous and lacking glory, but needed to be done). So how does this not fit several of the above mentioned chapters?
Ah, you're doing Iron Warriors then. Must have glossed over that part and focused on the plasma and loyalist armour themes, which IW don't embody.
Tactical flexibility is not an IW trait - at least, not as you describe it. If it was described that way, practically every legion would have that. They didn't have that many deployments, but were just assigned to long sieges instead of the rapid strikes other Legions got. They fought in mainly two theatres - breaking sieges, and holding them. That's not really a prerequisite for "tactical flexibility".
IW aren't THAT durable. They're just tenacious. Death Guard are the best analogue to durability, so would benefit far more than IW.
Their proficiency with bolters is not explored in any IW lore AFAIK. However, the additional tank hunter rules the IF get would suit the IW well. I'd choose this if you had to.
Again, the HH rules are your best basis on which Legion had which traits. As such, UM would suit AL well, RG would suit NL well, IH or Sallies would suit DG well, WS would suit EC well, and IF suiting IW.
Trying to convince #1ShieldBrother3++ he is "wrong" on not liking the CSM miniatures used with SM codex's is like convincing me to like sauerkraut. I hate the stuff for no good reason.
Convince SB? Two debaters rarely ever convince each other of a different opinion. The purpose of an argument is to educate the audience, and possibly to entertain the debaters.
I'm continuing for the latter purpose, and hoping for the former.
So let's tackle the "using a better codex" gripe. Temporarily as separate from the models =/= codex argument;
Let's say a new player buys a rhino transport. He then wants to play the game, so he researches the available codexes, and learns the strengths and weaknesses of each SM codex. Which codex is the non-waac choice:
Attrition would be the FNP granted to IH as well as any SM squad with an apothecary. Same with the bolter rules for IF. As attrition is reducing the strength of someone through sustained attack or pressure, which arguably both of these tactics do. As well as granting me the ability to use mechanical formations unheard of in chaos books.
In the book, the berserker are not revered/respected by the other IW. (Spoiler) You can see this as to when the Warsmith literally says kroeger (the captain berzerker) was/is unfit to rule. Also, after 10k years of hate I am sure some will fall to the influences, however the vast majority do not.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In response the durability, IW readily replace their own limbs/organs with mechanical parts similar to iron hands. Plus they will keep on fighting until they are completely destroyed. And tank hunters definitely suit their fighting style. In a perfect world, they would be granted their own legion tactics from GW that would encompass their fluff similar to the loyalist chapters for now I will have to make due with what is present. Also I would like to know what you think gives the CSM codex more fluff towards this legion as opposed to the SM one, as to me, it seems that C:CSM focuses more on demons and renegades as opposed to marines.
Trying to convince #1ShieldBrother3++ he is "wrong" on not liking the CSM miniatures used with SM codex's is like convincing me to like sauerkraut.
I hate the stuff for no good reason.
Convince SB? Two debaters rarely ever convince each other of a different opinion. The purpose of an argument is to educate the audience, and possibly to entertain the debaters.
I'm continuing for the latter purpose, and hoping for the former.
So let's tackle the "using a better codex" gripe. Temporarily as separate from the models =/= codex argument;
Let's say a new player buys a rhino transport.
He then wants to play the game, so he researches the available codexes, and learns the strengths and weaknesses of each SM codex.
Which codex is the non-waac choice:
BA?
DA?
SW?
C:SM?
GK?
None of them would be WAAC, the rhino kit is designed for all codices and power doesn't always have a say in codex choice. (As many in this thread would agree)
sturgeondtd wrote:Attrition would be the FNP granted to IH as well as any SM squad with an apothecary. Same with the bolter rules for IF. As attrition is reducing the strength of someone through sustained attack or pressure, which arguably both of these tactics do. As well as granting me the ability to use mechanical formations unheard of in chaos books.
In the book, the berserker are not revered/respected by the other IW. (Spoiler) You can see this as to when the Warsmith literally says kroeger (the captain berzerker) was/is unfit to rule. Also, after 10k years of hate I am sure some will fall to the influences, however the vast majority do not.
How is extra proficiency in shooting attrition? That's skill.
The FNP is the only thing that would make sort of sense for the IW because they could take a lot of beatings. Even then, their legion took a lot of heavy losses and they were known for how many of their men died because of the reckless tactics, so it's not like they could do these long sieges because of their individual marines toughness, but more because they had so many bodies.
sturgeondtd wrote: Attrition would be the FNP granted to IH as well as any SM squad with an apothecary. Same with the bolter rules for IF. As attrition is reducing the strength of someone through sustained attack or pressure, which arguably both of these tactics do. As well as granting me the ability to use mechanical formations unheard of in chaos books.
Attrition is NOT durability. If it was, Guardsmen would be the most durable army in the game. Attrition is just throwing bodies at a problem until it goes away. Neither tactic is hallmark of attrition - hell, the fluff of the SM tactics don't even support that notion. Now, the Tank Hunters rule granted to IF units and the tank Squadrons would fit and suit IW tactics, but at that point - why not 30k? That's generally my advice to anyone wanting to play a Legion-accurate army - use the 30k rules for them.
In the book, the berserker are not revered/respected by the other IW. (Spoiler) You can see this as to when the Warsmith literally says kroeger (the captain berzerker) was/is unfit to rule. Also, after 10k years of hate I am sure some will fall to the influences, however the vast majority do not.
To be honest, that's not because he's a aligned to Khorne, but rather that he IS incapable of command by being so bloodthirsty. An IW commander can still dedicate themselves to a God (a Nurglite or Tzeentchian Warsmith would fit in well), but in Kroeger's case, he was just too mad to do it.
In response the durability, IW readily replace their own limbs/organs with mechanical parts similar to iron hands. Plus they will keep on fighting until they are completely destroyed.
Citation needed on the last part. All SM do that as per lore. Hardly unusual. Mechanical parts are only added to IW to replace Daemonic tainted limbs. Not out of will. Again - where is the rule evidence (30k as a best source) for IW being more durable?
And tank hunters definitely suit their fighting style. In a perfect world, they would be granted their own legion tactics from GW that would encompass their fluff similar to the loyalist chapters for now I will have to make due with what is present.
In a perfect world, yes. We're not in that situation, evidenced by this thread.
Also I would like to know what you think gives the CSM codex more fluff towards this legion as opposed to the SM one, as to me, it seems that C:CSM focuses more on demons and renegades as opposed to marines.
CSM has a single renegade unit (Cultists) and a few Daemonic units who are just mutated CSM. It's still more focused on portraying Chaos Space Marines than the SM book is.
Now, what you COULD argue is that the CSM book should have more options and fairness in portraying a playable or Legion playstyle. And you'd be right. It SHOULD let you have Legion traits, and fair options, and a competitive codex. But you can't claim that the SM book was designed to support Chaos Space Marine warbands.
"Reckless tactics" sounds like something a loyalist would say
Perturabo was and still is a brilliant tactician that's why he was in charge of laying seige to some of the most inhospitable and dangerous system campaigns that would have demolished lesser legions. Some legions resorted to hit and run tactics as opposed to world wide attacks because they lacked the ability to plan and carry out such wars (having one of the larger legions did help).
Bolter tactics reflect their ideal combat, which is sitting back and shooting to soften up the enemy. More shots=increased ability to weaken defensive position and erode the enemy=attrition
sturgeondtd wrote: Perturabo was and still is a brilliant tactician that's why he was in charge of laying seige to some of the most inhospitable and dangerous system campaigns that would have demolished lesser legions. Some legions resorted to hit and run tactics as opposed to world wide attacks because they lacked the ability to plan and carry out such wars (having one of the larger legions did help).
He was a brilliant SIEGE tactician. Not in hit and run tactics or alpha strikes. Siege. His skills were limited.
Bolter tactics reflect their ideal combat, which is sitting back and shooting to soften up the enemy. More shots=increased ability to weaken defensive position and erode the enemy=attrition
Except they didn't use bolters to do it.
They used artillery, Quad Mortars, Basilisks, Medusas - not bolters. Bolters, funnily enough, will not help erode a curtain wall.
Not to mention their *ideal combat* was either blasting with artillery, or advancing into close range to deny the enemy of their fortifications to use various tools like power fists, thunder hammers etc etc.
Yes, I worded it wrong. Rather it was a reckless use of troops with no concern of their lives.
The IF tactic doesn't give more shots, it makes them more accurate, you know that right? And bolters don't hurt fortresses, massive artillery batteries do, hence why they were so popular for the IW.
Another example for tactical prowess, IF basically challenged the heresy legions by saying the Imperial palace was unbreakable which the IW responded "challenge accepted" or in the book Storm of Iron, the citadel was also considered to be unassailable, however due to tactical ability the IW made quick work of it, with acceptable losses
Automatically Appended Next Post: Clarification: I didn't mean it as in me shots akin to rapid fire, but more shots that can hit their target
Another example for tactical prowess, IF basically challenged the heresy legions by saying the Imperial palace was unbreakable which the IW responded "challenge accepted" or in the book Storm of Iron, the citadel was also considered to be unassailable, however due to tactical ability the IW made quick work of it, with acceptable losses
Okay, so it was their SIEGE prowess, represented by the IF siege wrecker rules, not the flexible UM ones.
The IW are not Tactics experts, they are Siege Tactics experts.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Clarification: I didn't mean it as in me shots akin to rapid fire, but more shots that can hit their target
Still doesn't matter when your bolter is trying to knock down a curtain wall. Siege weaponry is needed - Vindicators, Basilisks and Medusas. All of which can be found in the 30k books.
Sounds like you are making more of a fuss regarding the wording of tactics than necessary, as tactics in general is a vague term to refer to many different sub types.
And yup, I know. The only problem is not many people play 30K in my area. I have toyed with the idea of allies to bring these things and might still try and include them
It doesn't really matter who plays 40k and 30k. 30k might as well just be more codices for 40k. They both use the same core rulebook, and they're ridiculously easy to combine.
sturgeondtd wrote: Sounds like you are making more of a fuss regarding the wording of tactics than necessary, as tactics in general is a vague term to refer to many different sub types.
Well, if we take Tactics to mean generally like you are, then why hasn't everyone got UM tactics then?
The Imperial Fists have the same tactics as the IW. Give them UM tactics!
The Raven Guard have stealth tactics. Give them UM tactics!
The White Scars have fast moving, hit and run tactics. Give them UM tactics!
The Alpha Legion have exceptional infiltration tactics. Give them UM tactics!
And so on, ad infinitum.
IW have SIEGE tactics, and are best represented by the other SIEGE tactic faction, Imperial Fists.
And yup, I know. The only problem is not many people play 30K in my area. I have toyed with the idea of allies to bring these things and might still try and include them
I'm not sure if you bring 40k and 30k SM as an allied force, but if you just want the artillery as allies, bring an Artillery Company from the AM codex. No need to dabble in 30k then.
If you want a FULLY integrated IW force, 30k is best. You don't need to rely on other people to play it, and hell - you won't have a massive strength over them due to the restrictions of 30k armies.
sturgeondtd wrote: Attrition would be the FNP granted to IH as well as any SM squad with an apothecary. Same with the bolter rules for IF. As attrition is reducing the strength of someone through sustained attack or pressure, which arguably both of these tactics do. As well as granting me the ability to use mechanical formations unheard of in chaos books.
In the book, the berserker are not revered/respected by the other IW. (Spoiler) You can see this as to when the Warsmith literally says kroeger (the captain berzerker) was/is unfit to rule. Also, after 10k years of hate I am sure some will fall to the influences, however the vast majority do not.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In response the durability, IW readily replace their own limbs/organs with mechanical parts similar to iron hands. Plus they will keep on fighting until they are completely destroyed. And tank hunters definitely suit their fighting style. In a perfect world, they would be granted their own legion tactics from GW that would encompass their fluff similar to the loyalist chapters for now I will have to make due with what is present. Also I would like to know what you think gives the CSM codex more fluff towards this legion as opposed to the SM one, as to me, it seems that C:CSM focuses more on demons and renegades as opposed to marines.
If you *really* want a simply 'as close to 100% fluffy as is currently possible' Iron Warriors list, using 'counts as' Imperial rules, then I would highly suggest the following set-up;
1. Use IF chapter tactics.
Iron Warriors are essentially the traitor 'mirror' of the Fists. The only huge difference, is that where the Fists are bolter specialists, the Iron Warriors have grown much better shock assault units through their Khornate cults.
However, the most important aspect - namely the siege specialists, is why you take the trait, since the IW's were superior to even the much more glorified lapdogs of Dorn. (hence their insane bitterness - as they got nothing more than a bare passing mention, while those they viewed as inferior had every single praise imaginable heaped upon them!)
Iron Hands are entirely inappropriate, as the IW's are not religious in any way. Iron Hands however, view their heavy use of bionics as a religious act, eschewing the weakness of mortal flesh for the perfection of the machine, and in a sense, bringing them closer to their Primarch & the Machine God. Hell, part of the Chapter's most central initiation right involves a Neophyte ritually having his hand removed and replaced with a bionic one, in imitation of their Primarch, who drowned an 'iron dragon' in a river of molten rock!
As an IH's service continues, he ritually and routinely replaces as much of his mortal body as possible with the machine, to the point that the likes of their Iron Fathers, (re: Chaplain/Captain hybrids), are in many cases perhaps only 25% or so of their 'weak mortal flesh' remaining to them!
IW's on the other hand, simply view bionic replacement & augmentation as a useful tool. Mutated limbs are replaced with bionics, simply because the Iron Warriors look down upon those who give into religion as being inferior. (hence why their Khornate cults, while accepted for their critical use as siege breakers, are less respected than the rest of their company brethren).
2. The 'Khornate' aspects can be best represented by allying in a very small number of Blood Angels or Carcharadons. (rules wise, they're the closest thing thanks to rules like Furious Charge/Death Co., etc...)
3. Iron Warriors make heavy, heavy use of both artillery & daemon engines, AND, hordes of cultists.
Hence, make sure you bring some allied IG and their toys! (namely, Basilisks/Medusas/Wyverns, Hydras for AA, and if looking at FW options, the artillery guns) Lots of generic grunts in the form of Infantry Platoons + some Heavy Weapon Squads. Conscripts are a brilliant way to portray the use of slave soldiers - either captured Imperials, or else just the thousands of random unfortunates that the IW's will take as prisoners and use as force labour when constructing their siege lines.
This is where the 'winning through attrition' aspect of the 'modern' Iron Warriors comes into play!! Iron Warriors themselves, are extremely embittered and 'lazy' in a sense. They will not conduct work themselves that they perceive as being unworthy of their true talents... digging the siege lines, days to weeks long sustained bombardments, probing attacks - these are things that remind them only of how abused they were by the Emperor and his pet lapdog Dorn.
Instead, the IW's will use their massive slave labour & indentured soldiery for such tasks.
When it comes to the actual fighting, the IW's will happily send tens of thousands of these slaves & 'cannon fodder' soldiery to soak up the enemy's resources. Many Warsmiths will even view their daemonic engines in a similar vein, seeing them as shock suicide units & terror weapons!
IH tactics seem to fit IW just fine. The 6+++ is due to bionics, which IW also use extensively. They also have a focus on war machines like IH (Warsmiths, anyone?).
Sgt smudge, I don't know why your post seems to be so redundant. Those are all specialized tactics and fit under the general tactics of smurfs. As such UM can be used to generalize any chapter or for this case legion, as all chapters use a mulatitude of tactics in addition to the ones the excel at. Though you can continue down this path of stating additional chapters and tactics, I won't and cannot stop you.
sturgeondtd wrote: Sgt smudge, I don't know why your post seems to be so redundant. Those are all specialized tactics and fit under the general tactics of smurfs. As such UM can be used to generalize any chapter or for this case legion, as all chapters use a mulatitude of tactics in addition to the ones the excel at. Though you can continue down this path of stating additional chapters and tactics, I won't and cannot stop you.
Cheers
Could you rephrase this better, I'm afraid I don't understand.
If what I can gather is true, you've just said that everyone's grasp of tactics can be represented Ultramarine tactics.
My reply to you - if that IS the case, then why don't the other Chapters have Ultramarine tactics in the rules? Why don't I see IF having UM tactics alongside their own? Why bother with the Chapter Tactic system if everyone is just a derivative of the UM? What would even make the UM unique in that regard?
Don't even trip dog, I got you, although I am doing this from my phone so bare with me.
UM chapter tactics are combat doctrines, so in our example they are the main do whatever, not so specialized army. As each doctrine gives several units a great boost and a not so bad boost.
Now lets go to other chapter tactics. Most chapters can take thier own detachment, from this chapters CAN take a demi company and have the tactical doctrine, or they can just take the formation. So in essence you can use theirs, while drilling down a level and using a more specific chapter. UM are and will always be the generalists for the space marines.
And the whole tactic system was introduced so people could use their favorite chapters and get some fun fluffy rules with it.
sturgeondtd wrote: Don't even trip dog, I got you, although I am doing this from my phone so bare with me.
UM chapter tactics are combat doctrines, so in our example they are the main do whatever, not so specialized army. As each doctrine gives several units a great boost and a not so bad boost.
Now lets go to other chapter tactics. Most chapters can take thier own detachment, from this chapters CAN take a demi company and have the tactical doctrine, or they can just take the formation. So in essence you can use theirs, while drilling down a level and using a more specific chapter. UM are and will always be the generalists for the space marines.
And the whole tactic system was introduced so people could use their favorite chapters and get some fun fluffy rules with it.
Yes, but if so - where are the Ultramarines' unique rules? Surely they should have them?
The Gladius only uses UM-esque traits because they are using Ultramarine Codex tactics - which are POST-heresy. So, no access to UM tactics via Gladius for the IW.
Next - the tactics themselves. They are based around a versatile system, to move around the army and be more competent where necessary. This does not fit with the stoic advancing and siege warfare of the IW.
UM tactics represent flexibility - IW have never expressed this.
And consider this - UM tactics existed before the Gladius allowed them to be taken by all other Chapters. They are considerably more than just combat tactics.
EDIT - What is it about the UM general tactics that make them more ideal than the SIEGE ORIENTATED Imperial Fist ones?
Haha I think you are too concentrated on UM tactics as an independent entity, almost any chapter can use them based on the UM basically being the parental chapter for subsequent foundings. This can be applied to IW as you can define the fluff any way, including saying that combat doctrine correspond to IW concentrating their efforts on a push during a seige. Speaking of, a seige is not a half hearted meat grinder, rather it is a highly complex and calculated effort. As in order for a seige to be successful, you must be able to react and modify tactics to respond to different threats. (Only people who do not understand warfare throw their troops in unending waves towards their goal, though maybe someone should tell this to the Imperial guard, for IW it is true they win through attrition, however each death is a calculated risk as opposed to a needless death)
Additionally I do not understand the whole post heresy no tactics thing. As I would argue, the tactics can be traced back to each legion and their primarchs.
sturgeondtd wrote: Haha I think you are too concentrated on UM tactics as an independent entity, almost any chapter can use them based on the UM basically being the parental chapter for subsequent foundings.
That theory can't work because the Iron Warriors were never exposed to the Codex or second founding, and thus the Ultramarine way of war, which is represented via the Doctrines.
This can be applied to IW as you can define the fluff any way, including saying that combat doctrine correspond to IW concentrating their efforts on a push during a seige. Speaking of, a seige is not a half hearted meat grinder, rather it is a highly complex and calculated effort. As in order for a seige to be successful, you must be able to react and modify tactics to respond to different threats. (Only people who do not understand warfare throw their troops in unending waves towards their goal, though maybe someone should tell this to the Imperial guard, for IW it is true they win through attrition, however each death is a calculated risk as opposed to a needless death)
Yes, a siege requires tactics. Guess which Chapter has tactics which are described as made for sieges? Oh, the Imperial Fists.
UM tactics are for general battle. The IW did not often fight in general battle, instead doing sieges, which would be best represented by IF tactics. If you're just going to say that "sieges require tactics therefore I'll use UM because they had tactics", then UM should apply for every Legion. Surgical strikes for the Sons of Horus require tactics = UM Infiltration tactics of the Alpha Legion = UM Fast moving precision tactics of the Emperor's Children = UM Unstoppable advance tactics of the Death Guard = UM Terror tactics of the Night Lords = UM Tactics GENERALLY are best personified by the UM. However, the Iron Warriors were NOT general tacticians. They were SIEGE tacticians, and SIEGE tactics come from the Imperial Fists.
Additionally I do not understand the whole post heresy no tactics thing. As I would argue, the tactics can be traced back to each legion and their primarchs.
Exactly. So, if we go to the HH rules for the IW and Perty, I don't see anything relating to tactics at all. In fact, they gain bonuses when being in the enemy deployment zone and gain stubborn around him. That would actually fit Carcharodons Chapter Tactics instead. As for their actual Legion stats, there are NO tactical bonuses. Only siege related ones, such as Wrecker.
Again, I ask - Why choose the general tactics of the UM over the actual siege tactics of the Imperial Fists, which are DESCRIBED as Siege Tactics? Do you not want to have fluffy siege tactics?
While the IW excelled at siege warfare, they were the emporers work horseand used for almost any campaign that would otherwise result in failure.
My whole "theory" was referris to your questions regrading UM being used for other chapters.
Anywho, it's been fun, but I see that this is a moot point. It's always interesting to see how others interpret things, let's do it again some time when I don't have anything I need to do.
sturgeondtd wrote: While the IW excelled at siege warfare, they were the emporers work horseand used for almost any campaign that would otherwise result in failure.
My whole "theory" was referris to your questions regrading UM being used for other chapters.
Anywho, it's been fun, but I see that this is a moot point. It's always interesting to see how others interpret things, let's do it again some time when I don't have anything I need to do.
They were a work horse in that they were sent to the worst possible places to throw bodies at things until they died, or seconded to other Legions so those Legions could use them as they saw fit. That doenst make them tactical masterminds.
sturgeondtd wrote: While the IW excelled at siege warfare, they were the emporers work horseand used for almost any campaign that would otherwise result in failure.
My whole "theory" was referris to your questions regrading UM being used for other chapters.
Anywho, it's been fun, but I see that this is a moot point. It's always interesting to see how others interpret things, let's do it again some time when I don't have anything I need to do.
They were a work horse in that they were sent to the worst possible places to throw bodies at things until they died, or seconded to other Legions so those Legions could use them as they saw fit. That doenst make them tactical masterminds.
This.
The IW were not tactical geniuses. They were sent into sieges because they had good siege tactics, were more afraid of Perturabo than the enemy guns, and were generally good at dying in droves. Other legions had a bit of an issue with being sent into sieges with no honour or glory, so the Emperor in all his wisdom gave that duty to Perty.
They were never a lynchpin to do a surgical strike or rid a pesky Legion like the SoH or SW. They were a workhorse in that they advanced and died taking impregnable fortresses. Which the IF tactics would represent flawlessly. The UM ones simply don't support the fluff you claim.
