So with all of the cool rules for IG coming out for different Regiments, I had a thought. What if someone wants to play using the Mordian Regiment, yet all their models are Cadian and painted as such. Then they want the tanks, which are in a separate FOC to all be Catachan Regiment, but the too a printed Cadian. I mean I would let this person do that, but they would get an eye roll. However, it is interesting because space marine models really can be any Chapter, even if painted a particular chapter color scheme without to much complaint as long as they don't have a bunch of Chapter specific markings (again I would let you use your Ultramariens as Raven Guard, even if fully painted and displayed as Ultramarines, but you would get an eye roll). But what are people thinking. Do you expect people to have the old metal models to use the Regiment? What if they are Cadian models with some mods and painted in a unique way? Could you use those models as anything? And what about Vehicles in other Detachments using a different Regiment, but painted in such a way that they match the infantry in the other detachment? Since most of the Regiments are in metal what do people think?

Honestly I think an eye roll is too harsh. Mixing and matching detachments and trying out new kinds of armies and making use of "successor Chapters" is exactly what you're supposed to be doing. The rules and fluff strike me as being pretty distinct. There's nothing about Ultramarines models or fluff that screams "these guys are good at falling back while still shooting". If someone wants to take their blue dudes with Ultramarines symbols on them and say "these count as Salamanders", then that's great. It's not like it's immersion-breaking to imagine that Ultramarines shoot and fight a bit better than the vanilla rules would suggest.

Likewise, fluffy Guard fight in mixed armies all the time. But I really don't see the problem with someone saying that their tanks are from a different regiment than their infantry even though all are painted according to the same scheme. Again, it's not like Mordians just obviously have better Overwatch on everything, fluff-wise. It seems perfectly reasonable for a Mordian infantry regiment to be trained in defensive fire while their tank regiment specializes in reloading their artillery quickly (using Catachan rules).

The main thing is just readability. I need to be able to distinguish your regiments mid-game. If all your tanks are Catachans and all your infantry is Mordian, that's fine. But if you have one Leman Russ right next to another, painted the same, and one is Catachan and the other is Cadian, then that's a problem.

I'm a Vostroyan Firstborn player. All my models are Vostroyan (Or support such as the Wyrdvane Psykers) and will be run as such across the board.

If someone wants to run an army like that, with different regimental rules for their already all-painted-like-Cadians force, I would allow it, but they'd have to bring a different detachment for each Regimental rules set and those rules wouldn't interact within the army.

For example, they'd have to bring one detachment for their "Mordian" infantry, a second detachment for their "Catachan" tanks, etc.

I'd allow it, but you'd be starting to tread into TFG territory instead of just playing your army as what it is: Cadians, or whatever regiment it is (Vostroyan Firstborn, in my case). I'd also request that you use no more than two detachments, as that's kind of a standard gaming rule in our club for games ranging from 1000 to 2000 points. Anything 1000 or smaller we typically keep to one detachment. Your mileage may vary.

None of the regimental rules are bad, so far. Each of them are unique, flavorful, and good without seeming overpowered.

I LOVE the Vostroyan rules. Longer range on every weapon I have access to on my guard, including tanks, except for shotguns (Wooo... ) meltaguns, flamers, and pistol weapons? PLUS the ability to shoot while engaged in melee without any penalty with an order that doesn't cost CP? Yes sir, may I have another sir?!

I like the other regimental doctrines that have been shown/teased so far, and people who like and play those forces are happy with their rules as well. It's a win-win in my book.

I look forward to seeing more guard, and more balanced guard, in the near future. Hopefully people who try to cherry pick regiments will be reduced in that somewhat by people only allowing single, or at most, two detachment lists.

Take it easy for now.

-Red__Thirst-

It depends.

If I see someone playing Vostroyan models as Catachan, I'll probably poke fun at them about it.

If I see someone running Catachan models as Vostroyan, same thing. I'll poke a bit of fun.

If I play someone more than once, though, and their <Regiment> changes from game to game I'll probably get a little harsher than poked fun - including accusing them of having no army loyalty! DUN DUN DUNN

That said, I'm not going to tell people to feth off, or curse at them, or anything like that over it.

And I will also note that I won't even judge for the next six months or so, because some people don't get to play often and I think the new regiment rules may take some getting used to for people to figure out what playstyle they want.

Personally, I am going to do some mathhammer and thinking and maybe a couple of weeks of gaming to settle onto a regimental doctrine, and then that will be my regimental doctrine. I'm too deeply in love with the fluff to do anything else. My superheavy tank regiment is the 2nd Concordian and will always be the 2nd Concordian, whichever doctrine they end up with.

I would be fine with it on the caveat that I can tell the Mordian Infantry from the Catachan Infantry (if any). I should not have to stop and ask "are these the Mordian-Cadians or the Catachan-Cadians?"

I'm never going to have a problem with anyone playing Cadians as whatever they want. Most people dislike the metal models, and don't want to field an army of expensive, option-less, mostly OOP tan-painted potatoes just to get the Tallarn rules. The plastic kits are cheaper, available, and up until *just* now had zero rules attached to them.

I pretty much draw the line at one of two things.

1) using another subfaction's rules because their rules are stronger (in the instance of guard because of what I explained before the cadian sculpts are the exception, I would have a problem for instance if I used the Vostroyan sculpts but wanted to get the Catachan rules because they were better, just like someone with clearly painted Ultramarines should probably use UM tactics).

2) mixing and matching for powergame purposes. I treat this basically on par as someone playing your "classic" Guilliman+Conscripts+Celestine+Assbacks+whatever soup list....I'm probably just not gonna play that guy.

I've found subfaction powergaming irritating since 6th, but it's the attitude. There's a difference between someone using particular tactics to try and achieve their army playing the way they want to, and the guy who just primes his marines gray so he can use whatever the strongest CTs are at any given time. it's a level of effort thing.

IF, GW had an entire range of models for each Regiment Doctrine... then I would be strict and say, that model is Valhallan, not Mordian (etc.).

As is. Idgaf as long as they choose a regiment that suits their fluff and sticks with it.

E.g. the Vostroyan fluff suits my regiment because they're elite and had great gear from a nearby forgeworld. The rules suit my army too (yet my models are a mix of Cadians (case of having to) and Steel Legion (because I like them)).

 Otto Weston wrote:
IF, GW had an entire range of models for each Regiment Doctrine... then I would be strict and say, that model is Valhallan, not Mordian (etc.).

As is. Idgaf as long as they choose a regiment that suits their fluff and sticks with it.

E.g. the Vostroyan fluff suits my regiment because they're elite and had great gear from a nearby forgeworld. The rules suit my army too (yet my models are a mix of Cadians (case of having to) and Steel Legion (because I like them)).

See this is fine.

My Superheavy Tank Regiment has to choose between Tallarn, Catachan, Valhallan, or Vostroyan rules, because they each fit the fluff of my regiment rather well. The infantry (what little I have) are merely the household bodyguard of Katerina Malinenko, the Regimental Commander - I am using Solar Auxilia models. They could be anything.

Once I do pick, however, I'm intending to stay that way come hell or high water.

I'm in kind of a rough spot, as I have a platoon of several regiments. This was because with 7th and back, platoons were huge things and could easily blend on the table. Telling my opponent "the Valhallans are one platoon, the catachans another, and the Cadians a 3rd" made it easier for my opponent to tell where one unit began and another ended and also matched my background that they were a bunch of scattered survivors combined into a single catch-all regiment. Now, I lack the numbers to fill a single detachment at much more than 6-700pts per regiment, so I'm probably going to have to run several batallions to field my army "correctly".

I'm going to talk to my friends and see what would be easiest on them, I may pick one tactic and say they all follow it, or I may play each regiment RAW. My local playerbase has a hard enough time understanding what a commissar is compared to guardsmen so odds are I'll have to do the former, but it would be fun to see each regiment type on the table contributing different things to the fight. I just dont want to confuse a player with the classic "these muscley guys get +1 strength but these space Russians cut their battleshock in half and the Cadians get reroll 1's" shenanigans.

That in mind I'd be pretty lenient, as long as you've made an honest effort and keep things consistent. If you're running Cadians as Valhallans, ALL of your Cadians better be Valhallans, and I shouldn't see Creed unless he's proxied as a normal commander. For the most part I think everyone is happy with their traits, odds are if you collected a regiment you wanted to play them like their lore suggested, so most regiment traits shouldn't be a surprise, but I could see someone expecting +1 was their mordians or Carapace options for their vostroyans wanting to try a different trait at least once or twice.

I wouldn't care if someone were using Cadians as different regiments, as long as everything were still pretty much WYSIWYG and they weren't trying to pull any shenanigans like passing units from one detachment off as another mid game or something like that.

On the other hand, if they wanted to go all out with unique units and wargear options available to only one regiment then they should just bite the bullet and model them that way. That's my opinion, anyway.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
I'm in kind of a rough spot, as I have a platoon of several regiments. This was because with 7th and back, platoons were huge things and could easily blend on the table. Telling my opponent "the Valhallans are one platoon, the catachans another, and the Cadians a 3rd" made it easier for my opponent to tell where one unit began and another ended and also matched my background that they were a bunch of scattered survivors combined into a single catch-all regiment. Now, I lack the numbers to fill a single detachment at much more than 6-700pts per regiment, so I'm probably going to have to run several batallions to field my army "correctly".

I'm going to talk to my friends and see what would be easiest on them, I may pick one tactic and say they all follow it, or I may play each regiment RAW. My local playerbase has a hard enough time understanding what a commissar is compared to guardsmen so odds are I'll have to do the former, but it would be fun to see each regiment type on the table contributing different things to the fight. I just dont want to confuse a player with the classic "these muscley guys get +1 strength but these space Russians cut their battleshock in half and the Cadians get reroll 1's" shenanigans.

That in mind I'd be pretty lenient, as long as you've made an honest effort and keep things consistent. If you're running Cadians as Valhallans, ALL of your Cadians better be Valhallans, and I shouldn't see Creed unless he's proxied as a normal commander. For the most part I think everyone is happy with their traits, odds are if you collected a regiment you wanted to play them like their lore suggested, so most regiment traits shouldn't be a surprise, but I could see someone expecting +1 was their mordians or Carapace options for their vostroyans wanting to try a different trait at least once or twice.

If your platoons were 3 squads each, just run them as their separate battalion detachments.

This is kind of why, like i brought up about Space Marine Chapter Tactics and Legion rules, it's better if they just gave the traits nondescript names and say that "An example of this would be Valhallans" or something along those lines. You really should just pick the rule that matches your army rather than because of the paint or model.

Another thing to keep in mind is that when you hold people to keeping the same rules as the models, is that it favors models that don't have rules, because they can mix and match at will.

For example, I have a Praetorian army, which means I can literally pick and choose what regiment I am. (Currently catachan, because Harker is crazy good).

I'm not going to judge a person that has Vostroyans, because he liked those models, but wants to use Mordian doctrines.

One neat idea that I just thought of reading about Polonius's Praetorians:

What if Games Workshop, at some later date with a Chapter Approved, or something, either make even more regimental doctrines (Praetorians, Lucky 13s, Tanith 1st, 1st Koenig, just to name a few mentioned in the fluff that they could expand)?

Or even came out with a DIY regimental doctrines thing? Even if it's just for narrative play, that'd be cool.

I think it's silly to punish someone for wanting to play different chapter or regiment tactics. I never mind SM players counting as whatever chapter they want to call it, but then again I'm more of a casual player and would probably never goto a tournament.

That said, guard was my first army and the Cadian models, although boring to a lot of people, I enjoy the whole starship troopers aesthetic.

I think the fact that no one could quite foresee them turning IG into the new SM with all the chapter like tactics they will now have, and the fact that most of these models may be metal (eww) or OOP, It wouldn't bother me if someone counted their catachans as vostroyans for all I care.

I think they should have stayed away from explicitly naming these as regiments. Should have just been "Line infantry" or "Guerilla fighters". Stuff like that.

I personally like to use my own chapter/regiment/Hive fleet/Dyanisty/ect...

This way I just pick the effect I want for mine...

That said If I wanted to use multiple regiments I would for sure paint them differently so people can tell one from the other.

Just like I tell anyone who uses proxies, as long as you know and remember what is what, I trust you to it.

As long as you can tell what each units regiment is, that is fine.

The fact is that GW has no cheap models for half of the regiments so I will not fault someone for doing Cadians painted as Mordians.

Personally I would love to see some snow camo pattern Cadians for Valhallas, jungle camo for catachans, drab black and silver for Steel Legion etc. But I wouldn't expect it.

It's a game to have fun. Some of you guys take this way too seriously. Lighten up. Let people use what rules with what models they want.

Or don't play them. I'm sure they won't mind.

As with everything in this game, it comes down to intent. Are you trying out a new army? Are you feeling out regiments to determine which one you like. Are you doing a narrative game based around a regiment which you don't have models for...sure, whatever.

If you're just min-maxing every detachment to get the very best combination then you're not a person I'd be playing anyway - so it has little effect on me. Personally I find that limiting oneself to a specific army is part of the fun. It's more interesting to me to suffer the penalties of not cherry-picking a dozen different specialities to benefit from. That's part of the challenge. Same reason I play WYSIWYG regardless if it hinders me against a certain army.

 argonak wrote:
It's a game to have fun. Some of you guys take this way too seriously. Lighten up. Let people use what rules with what models they want.

Or don't play them. I'm sure they won't mind.

Some people are into "historical" accuracy and stuff and will look down on people for having a slightly off colored army because in 1865 they changed the flag color for some reason. people find that fun and you cant put one over the other.

ultimately its who you play with.

put effort into your army and no one will complain. start coming in every day with the same unpainted models but different rules every single time then you will probably start losing people to play with that dont share the same mindset of gaming over models.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
This is kind of why, like i brought up about Space Marine Chapter Tactics and Legion rules, it's better if they just gave the traits nondescript names and say that "An example of this would be Valhallans" or something along those lines. You really should just pick the rule that matches your army rather than because of the paint or model.

Exactly.

Kind of like the Doctrine-rules of the olden days. You could collect a Cadian-looking force and then use the exact Doctrine-rules the Catachans use and then name their home world, let's say... Norway.

And it'll be all okay, as long as their weapons are wysiwyg.

RedCommander wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
This is kind of why, like i brought up about Space Marine Chapter Tactics and Legion rules, it's better if they just gave the traits nondescript names and say that "An example of this would be Valhallans" or something along those lines. You really should just pick the rule that matches your army rather than because of the paint or model.

Exactly.

Kind of like the Doctrine-rules of the olden days. You could collect a Cadian-looking force and then use the exact Doctrine-rules the Catachans use and then name their home world, let's say... Norway.

And it'll be all okay, as long as their weapons are wysiwyg.

I mean, you're clearly allowed to do exactly this. Just go ahead and pretend that the doctrines have nondescript names if that makes you more comfortable, right?

Dionysodorus wrote:

RedCommander wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
This is kind of why, like i brought up about Space Marine Chapter Tactics and Legion rules, it's better if they just gave the traits nondescript names and say that "An example of this would be Valhallans" or something along those lines. You really should just pick the rule that matches your army rather than because of the paint or model.

Exactly.

Kind of like the Doctrine-rules of the olden days. You could collect a Cadian-looking force and then use the exact Doctrine-rules the Catachans use and then name their home world, let's say... Norway.

And it'll be all okay, as long as their weapons are wysiwyg.

I mean, you're clearly allowed to do exactly this. Just go ahead and pretend that the doctrines have nondescript names if that makes you more comfortable, right?

That's what I've been trying to say, but apparently "it's not the same thing." Or something. Honestly, no one cares more about irrelevant details than the people online.

How could anyone possibly be strict about models matching doctrines (as long as it's clear to the opponent what is what) when GW themselves are endorsing totally custom regiments made by kitbashing? Are you not allowed to have doctrines if you have a custom regiment? It's a silly position for anyone to take.

There are doctrines for certain model ranges. There are model ranges to match certain doctrines. This is no different to using your Space Wolves as Iron Hands to gain an advantage.

As far as I'm concerned, if you want to play Mordians, buy Mordians, or beautifully convert up your plastics to look like something that feels like it should play as Mordians. Everyone has the internet, third party bits are colossally available for Guard, and an actual box of real life Mordians costs only £2 more than a box of Cadians. It's all about making an effort to play to the fluff.

If you have an army of stock cadians, and you're minmaxing your detachments with different regimental rules to get the juiciest combination of buffs, you're a power gaming dick, and I won't be playing you. What the rules allow you to do is irrelevant - the rules don't force me to play you.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
How could anyone possibly be strict about models matching doctrines (as long as it's clear to the opponent what is what) when GW themselves are endorsing totally custom regiments made by kitbashing? Are you not allowed to have doctrines if you have a custom regiment? It's a silly position for anyone to take.

Yeah, very true.

I use Cadian models (because mini availability is an issue) but my dudes are not from Cadia. So, after I get my Codex, I'm going to take a look at the Regiment-rules and decide which one is the best match for my regiment.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
you're a power gaming dick

They do however apparently force you to start name-calling straight off the bat. So luckily, I wouldn't want to play you either, because that's just not the kind of people I want in my life, so we're good!

 Purifier wrote:
They do however apparently force you to start name-calling straight off the bat!

It's only name calling if you're identifying as that guy 'minmaxing detachments to get the juiciest combination of buffs'.

Are you that guy? If so, I feel the name-calling is totally justified.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
They do however apparently force you to start name-calling straight off the bat!

It's only name calling if you're identifying as that guy 'minmaxing detachments to get the juiciest combination of buffs'.

Are you that guy? If so, I feel the name-calling is totally justified.

So what's the difference between someone who plays a bunch of Cadians as different regiments in order to minmax, and someone who legitimately models their army to represent that same mixture of regiments?

Also, what's the problem with having the most efficient and effective list possible, and why is it preferable that people intentionally play lists that are less than optimal?

I have a bunch of Cadian models. I think I will usually end up playing them as Cadians, but if feel like using a different doctrine I wouldn't twice.

Personally I won't use different doctrine across multiple detachments unless I had clearly different looking models to fill then.

This is exactly how I have treated space marines. Did you paint your guys as white scars but want to use dark angel rules? Go right ahead. Want to play them as ultramarines next week? no problem. I would be a little lest crazy about those same white scars simultaneously forming a Dark angels detachment and an ultramarines detachment on the same table.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
They do however apparently force you to start name-calling straight off the bat!

It's only name calling if you're identifying as that guy 'minmaxing detachments to get the juiciest combination of buffs'.

Are you that guy? If so, I feel the name-calling is totally justified.

eh... I mean, what you're doing is judging people on their effort and intent, which is difficulty and judgmental, so I'm not sure I can endorse it.

Where do you draw the line? What if you use the same models, but some are veterans from a different regiment in Chimeras? Or Valkyries? What if you want to run a cadian Heavy Weapon squad Spearhead detachment with Mordian line infantry? Drawing the line between fairly common sense application of rules and being over the top is super subjective.

Keep in mind that right now, there is really no way, outside of asking, for my opponent to know whether a model is a member of an infantry squad, a veteran squad, or heavy/special weapon squad. I have the exact same model (lascannon team) in three different units. Yes, they have different squad markings in the epalleutaes, but that's hard to read across the table. I think keeping Valhallan Conscripts and Cadian Heavy Weapon Squads separate is not going to make things too much different.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
They do however apparently force you to start name-calling straight off the bat!

It's only name calling if you're identifying as that guy 'minmaxing detachments to get the juiciest combination of buffs'.

Are you that guy? If so, I feel the name-calling is totally justified.

Yes, I like to minmax to get juicy combinations of buffs. And then you feel namecalling is justified. Because I enjoy a game differently than you do. And you don't see a problem with that kind of attitude?

8th needs to kill the "Your maries are blue so they need to use Ultramarines rules!"

I'll use whatever rules I think I can like, and if I play 5 games with X rules and then after those games I want to try other rules to change a little the feel of my army and don't play the same thing over and over again, you can be sure that I'm gonna do it.

As my Tau have a custom paintjob I can have this with no problem. And my Dark Angels will have just one "chapter tactic" to choose so...
But nonetheless, I think that is stupid to force people to keep some kind of playstile or rules that have been arbitrarily sticked to their army aesthetic by GW.

"Oh man!,Iron Hands need that 6++, IF THEY HAD "IGNORE COVER" THEY'LL STOP TO FEEL LIKE IRON HANDS, YEAH. Muh inmersion! Ferrus Manus died to Fulgrim because he failed his 6++ roll save!" Stupid ,and I say this as a narrative player.
My narrative is my army, his history and their aesthetics, not some random bonuses GW think are appropiate for my army color scheme.

And if someone wants to do some slippery slope of "Omg but if you use Ultramarines as White Scars why don't you use Tyranids as orks?". Don't bother, is a stupid thing to say. Theres obvious lines and limits, this is no white or black.

Why can't all marines use Ultramarines chapter tactics anyway? All the Ultramarines do is follow the Codex Astartes to the letter. You know, the book every marine chapter supposedly has to abide by?

I wouldn't have a problem with it. Not all guard regiments are the exact same even if they come from the same world. The Cadian XVI Light Recon regiment likely fights very differently than the Cadian IX Tank Regiment. Then you have the case of chimeric regiments scraped together from the remnants of a bunch of depleted units! They should've gone with calling them generic doctrines and called it a day.

You can play and proxy however the hell you like as long as I can easily tell what I'm playing against.

If you have one conscript squad that's Valhalla becuase you want to use send in the next wave and another conscript squad mordian because you want 30in lasguns and they are all Cadian models unpainted and all look the same and then you jumble them all up in the center of the table and switch regiments whenever you feel like it! I reserve the right to flip the damn table and destroy your precious models......in other words don't be a douche!!! Make sure your opponent can easily tell what they are playing against. It takes 5 minutes to prime 10 dudes white and the other dudes black. I don't care what you do as long as I can tell what models represent Cadian and what represents valahallan.

Plus, Warhammer is all about "Your Dudes", not some kind of "Follow the dots" book for kindergardens. I can respect people that like to be totally sci-fi historically accurate. But trying to force that into others? No no, thanks.

Its a Marine only issue for me.
I wouldn't not play you, or get upset, but its a bit sad to see someone who has clearly spent a lot of time painting up say White Scars or Night Lords to then go "no no no, its Ultramarines/Alpha Legion for me."

When they get to Eldar Craftworlds I might get judgemental too.

Less of an issue with Imperial Guard. There have only plastic Cadians for ages (and I guess a few Catachans floating around). I don't think its reasonable to expect people to have scoured ebay for the past two decades picking up Valhallans.

Tyel wrote:
Its a Marine only issue for me.
I wouldn't not play you, or get upset, but its a bit sad to see someone who has clearly spent a lot of time painting up say White Scars or Night Lords to then go "no no no, its Ultramarines/Alpha Legion for me."

When they get to Eldar Craftworlds I might get judgemental too.

Less of an issue with Imperial Guard. There have only plastic Cadians for ages (and I guess a few Catachans floating around). I don't think its reasonable to expect people to have scoured ebay for the past two decades picking up Valhallans.

I still don't really get it, though. Like, White Scars are fast, mobile, known for hit and runs, etc. Surely being able to fall back from CC and then shoot you with the twin bolters on their bikes is a pretty fitting Chapter Tactic. Or maybe they're so evasive that they're hard to hit at long range. It seems to me that a person who really likes White Scars, and has a great, painted White Scars army, might 100% justifiably look at the codex and say "these rules really feel to me like how my White Scars should operate" and be looking at the Ultramarines or Raven Guard rules.

Now, maybe they've got a bunch of infantry painted up as White Scars and then Guilliman painted up as a White Scar, and so on. Not a very White Scars-y composition. But, like, surely this person isn't thinking of themselves as playing White Scars. They just like the color scheme.

It's a weird situation. Honestly, it ruins the game for me... Someone spends weeks painting an army, reading the lore and writing their own lore. Suddenly it's the meta to be this regiment so you ruin all the fluff you worked on just to win a friendly game at a club.... I play freebooter orks though so I see it as my clan can be what ever they like (and I write my lore that they're a mix of all clans so would know the tactics) so i'm probably a hypocrite.

 lolman1c wrote:
It's a weird situation. Honestly, it ruins the game for me... Someone spends weeks painting an army, reading the lore and writing their own lore. Suddenly it's the meta to be this regiment so you ruin all the fluff you worked on just to win a friendly game at a club.... I play freebooter orks though so I see it as my clan can be what ever they like (and I write my lore that they're a mix of all clans so would know the tactics) so i'm probably a hypocrite.

Special Characters are normally the better of their kind in the fluff, but many times they have totally unfitting rules, are many times underpowered or unusable. This "chapter/legion/regiment" tactics are in many, many cases, random bonuses that can fit perfectly various chapter/craftworls, etc... as the previous poster explained about White Scars with Ravenguard or Ultramarine rules.
So, why are those kind of normally very random rules, actually important to the fluff of an army? The models are the models, the narrative is the narrative, and the rules are the rules.

 Galas wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
It's a weird situation. Honestly, it ruins the game for me... Someone spends weeks painting an army, reading the lore and writing their own lore. Suddenly it's the meta to be this regiment so you ruin all the fluff you worked on just to win a friendly game at a club.... I play freebooter orks though so I see it as my clan can be what ever they like (and I write my lore that they're a mix of all clans so would know the tactics) so i'm probably a hypocrite.

Special Characters are normally the better of their kind in the fluff, but many times they have totally unfitting rules, are many times underpowered or unusable. This "chapter/legion/regiment" tactics are in many, many cases, random bonuses that can fit perfectly various chapter/craftworls, etc... as the previous poster explained about White Scars with Ravenguard or Ultramarine rules.
So, why are those kind of normally very random rules, actually important to the fluff of an army? The models are the models, the narrative is the narrative, and the rules are the rules.

I'm saying it is gw fault for not leaving it open for you to decide what is more fluffy for your army. Orks for example! My army lord is that they use tactics but I paint them red like evil sunz because I like tgat colour. So they should just have an open system thst says "if you like to go fast pick this but if you like sneaky tactics pick this". I get annoyed if someone brings dar angels and says they're grey knight for example because to me it just feels likd they're doing that to win the game rather than what I do which is tonhave fun. They might as well bring lollypop sticks and say they're what they want at that point. I know people in my club abuse these rules and mix their keywords just to have the most efficient army... in that way you should just be able to pick one bonus and that is it.

I agree, and even if Purifier insist in that it doesn't matter, the mere existence of something like this thread (And threads in other forums), proof that theres people that has very strong opinions about this kind of things.

Thats why I think they should have generic names to avoid all of this kind of problems.

Dionysodorus wrote:

I still don't really get it, though. Like, White Scars are fast, mobile, known for hit and runs, etc. Surely being able to fall back from CC and then shoot you with the twin bolters on their bikes is a pretty fitting Chapter Tactic. Or maybe they're so evasive that they're hard to hit at long range. It seems to me that a person who really likes White Scars, and has a great, painted White Scars army, might 100% justifiably look at the codex and say "these rules really feel to me like how my White Scars should operate" and be looking at the Ultramarines or Raven Guard rules.

Now, maybe they've got a bunch of infantry painted up as White Scars and then Guilliman painted up as a White Scar, and so on. Not a very White Scars-y composition. But, like, surely this person isn't thinking of themselves as playing White Scars. They just like the color scheme.

There's definitely a line not to be crossed though, for me anyway. There's a difference between playing your Cadians as different regimental detachments because you want to mix buffs or try something out and just basically making up your own rules for army composition. You want to play your White Scars as Dark Angels? Fine, as long as I know exactly what everything is supposed to be. You want to play your White Scars as Ravenwing that get Guilliman and cherry pick units and buffs from any chapter you want? Uh, no.

The doctrines really should have been based around a regiment type rather than a homeworld. That said, use the regiment doctrine you want, just be consistent and/or clear with your opponent. Life's too short to be worried about what colour your regiment is forcing you to use a specific set of rules you may not want.

Play what you want.

I won't be strict, and I certainly wouldn't expect my opponent to be strict. Be clear and upfront.

lolman1c wrote:I'm saying it is gw fault for not leaving it open for you to decide what is more fluffy for your army.

They have left it open for you to decide what is fluffy. You can create your own regiment, or chapter or whatever. They're even providing examples in the book of how to make a unique-looking regiment so that it doesn't confuse people by looking like X and playing like Y. You're totally free to make up your own regiment.

Galas wrote:The models are the models, the narrative is the narrative, and the rules are the rules.

It seems to me like this is most definitely not what GW think. One of the big selling factors if the game is that all three of those things are intertwined. This can be seen in things like the successor chapters rules - Novamarines are, in the fluff, an Ultramarine successor, so if you paint them as Novamarines you use specific rules. That's literally the rules of the game.

None of this stops you making up your own chapter. It just means that armies that look like Novamarines (or Cadians, or Mordians, or Tyranids) consistently play the way opponents would expect them too, whole still leaving room for players to make up their own stuff.

Polonius wrote:eh... I mean, what you're doing is judging people on their effort and intent, which is difficulty and judgmental, so I'm not sure I can endorse it.

Keep in mind that right now, there is really no way, outside of asking, for my opponent to know whether a model is a member of an infantry squad, a veteran squad, or heavy/special weapon squad.

Absolutely. The most important rule is the Rule of Cool, and in a game which can be abused so easily, the intent of your opponent is massively important. The OP asked for an opinion on if I would be strict or not. The answer can only be subjective, and my answer is based very much in the intent of my opponent, which is signalled by how much effort he puts in.

Plus, you could easily make it clear which units are infantry squads and which are veteran squads if you wanted to, through clear paint schemes, different models, conversions. Again, it's entirely up to you.

Luciferian wrote:So what's the difference between someone who plays a bunch of Cadians as different regiments in order to minmax, and someone who legitimately models their army to represent that same mixture of regiments?

Well, one person has put loads of effort into their army, presumably because they want to make it really clear to their opponent what is going on, or they have an amazing backstory, or their primary reason to play is because it's a cool army, and the other is trying to beat you by minmaxing. That's the difference. It's fuzzy, but you acknowledge that there IS a difference.


.

No I'm gonna be a dick about it because I can you want to use the rules better have models to match muwhahahahaha!!!!!!!!

Different detachements need different models. Otherwise it is okay with me if you want to run your Cadians with Valhallan rules or vice versa. Just make it clear before the game.

hobojebus wrote:
No I'm gonna be a dick about it because I can you want to use the rules better have models to match muwhahahahaha!!!!!!!!

Where in the rules does it specify which models are required to use those rules? Please cite a rule saying that, for example, you can't have Catachans equipped with Cadian-pattern equipment or a Valhallan "successor regiment" that uses Mordian colors. Until you can then "being a dick about it" is right, you're making up your own special version of 40k and expecting everyone else to comply with it.

A problem of rules lacking models, or in this case, not enough inexpensive models for infantry that are more available, in production, and for the love of God plastic. I got my Cadian armed troops of the Karevi 25th "Hell Sharks" trained by Mordians of 97th.

I think most people will allow it. Its pretty unrealistic for most people to try to collect 8 different IG regiments. Even if one had the money to do so, the amount of physical space it would take up would be insane. Many of the pewter metal models are completely OOP, which grants a little more justification for doing so. If GW actually updated all the IG regiments in plastic, I would feel differently about it. Its kind of a WAAC move, but given the rarity/cost of collecting some of these armies I think most reasonable people will overlook it.

I imagine Valhallans that are sent to fight on a jungle world would look a lot like Cadians, or some random higher gravity planet might make stronger guys, and get issued Cadian like gear. Heck, FW makes Cadian hostile environment gear, which could make a good looking Steel Legion knock off (though i bet in a less hostile environment even the Steel Legion might eschew the greatcloaks and environmental masks...)

At the end of the day, the Cadian models are pretty much your baseline, munitorum issued look, so they can pretty much fit into any planet if you want.

My Tallarn will be Tallarn, regardless of if the Regiment rules don't match the fluff or go well with how I built my army. I have too much pride in the collection of Tallarn I have struggled to complete with the actual models to run them as anything else.

I don't care what somebody else does with their army as long as it is consistent though. Your Cadian Drab painted Cadian models (shoot, if they are painted in the first place I am impressed) are going to be Steel Legion? Go for it, as long as they are all Steel Legion, or there are marking/different paint on models to represent another regiment. The galaxy is a big place, these regiments are likely to develop a specialty on the field of battle, or pick up stuff while being transported with other regiments.

I would hate to limit somebody else's enjoyment of their toy soldiers while we roll dice and make pew pew noises.

Anyone not playing because the models aren't "correct" need to be shunned and ignored. WYSIWYG is not a rule anymore.

And those of us with Praetorian armies are winners anyways as we can legit pick any of em \o/

 ArbitorIan wrote:
There are doctrines for certain model ranges. There are model ranges to match certain doctrines. This is no different to using your Space Wolves as Iron Hands to gain an advantage.

As far as I'm concerned, if you want to play Mordians, buy Mordians, or beautifully convert up your plastics to look like something that feels like it should play as Mordians. Everyone has the internet, third party bits are colossally available for Guard, and an actual box of real life Mordians costs only £2 more than a box of Cadians. It's all about making an effort to play to the fluff.

If you have an army of stock cadians, and you're minmaxing your detachments with different regimental rules to get the juiciest combination of buffs, you're a power gaming dick, and I won't be playing you. What the rules allow you to do is irrelevant - the rules don't force me to play you.

This. My Ultramarines are blue, have Ultramarine Chapter Markings and will always be played as Ultramarines no matter what Chapter Tactic is the current flavor of the month.
My Elysian Drop Troops are, well, Elysian Drop Troops. They will not magicaly become Catachan Junglefighters because I'd like to have S4.
I expect you to do the same.

I wouldn't mind cadian or catachan used as others much, as they are the "default easily acquired" models.
Using specialized models as something else, is a bit crooked.

Using cadian/catachan in a mixed way (these guys are iron guard, these are Valhallan, and they are tallaran) is right out.
You want multiple regiments, actually have multiple regiments.

My AdMech are painted in the space wolf blue (no one would call my army grey... ) colours. What kind of ridiculous ideas would you have about forcing me to play?

And if you think it's fine for me then to choose any forgeworld because none fits my colour scheme, that means you want to punish people for having painted an official scheme in the past? Ridiculous. Let people enjoy the game the way they want within the rules of the game instead of being so elitist about it. Name-calling and belittling people for choosing some of their absolutely legal rules is just petty behaviour.

We're on the brink of chaos. It's long been accepted that marine players *must* paint their armies the right colours, but now everyone is getting options? Madness! People will implode! And/or carry around magnifying glasses to ensure that colour schemes are applied *just* right.

For all marine players that don't give a crap about their colour scheme: you are no longer alone
For all other players that are suddenly getting told you painted your army the wrong colour: welcome to the marines

This discussion comes up every so often and it always boils down to personal opinion (like most things).

I've been playing the game for 25+ years at this point, my first love was for the Blood Angels and I have many thousand of points of space marines all painted red. That said though I don't always use them as blood angels, over the years I've played them as more or less every chapter (except Space wolves - can't bring myself to pretend to be a puppy) I have most of the space marine character models including Bobby G all painted in my red and gold scheme.

I can understand peoples point of view when they say"you're painted as blood angels why not play as blood angels!" but I disagree with them. I've played this game alot, I like to get a game in every week if I am able and unless I'm playing in a tournament I like to field a different list every time I play. I like the variety, one of the things I enjoy about the game is the ability to use my models to represent completely different forces that play in a different way and utilise different (chapter) tactics, I feel it gives me more enjoyment for the money I spend and makes the game more varied and diverse.

I know some people enjoy playing the same force game after game, developing certain tactics and a feel for their specific army, good on them but that's not me. I find the idea of someone telling me that I can't play my army the way I want because of the colour it is paint laughable, I can choose how I want to enjoy my hobby just as they could choose not to play me because of the colour of the models, silly as that sounds.

Telling others how they should gain enjoyment from their hobby is a bad idea, in the vast 40K galaxy it is very easy to invent a fluff reason for more or less anything (my bobby G has painted his armour solid gold in deference to his fathers internment in the golden throne) so if you need to do similar to appease your internal fluff then do so and get on with playing a good game :-)

I for one am really excited by the fact that I can now use my large IG army with various different regimental doctrines - It will make it a more varied and interesting army to play which is a win win in my book. My IG are of course painted red, they are the Baal PDF :-)

 Peregrine wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
No I'm gonna be a dick about it because I can you want to use the rules better have models to match muwhahahahaha!!!!!!!!

Where in the rules does it specify which models are required to use those rules? Please cite a rule saying that, for example, you can't have Catachans equipped with Cadian-pattern equipment or a Valhallan "successor regiment" that uses Mordian colors. Until you can then "being a dick about it" is right, you're making up your own special version of 40k and expecting everyone else to comply with it.

Really the laugh and 8 exclamation marks didn't give it away?

And what about a custom made Chapter / Regiment / Forge World / Legion ?

That means you can change each time wich "mainstream" faction rules you use, right (expect if you are chaos, you might be stuck with "Renegades") ? So you get an advantage over, say, a Iron Hand or Mordian player right ? Does not that sound stupid ?

I plan to start a new army, either eldar or guard, and I wanted to choose an "official" subfaction for my paintjob / style of play.
But truth is, as I don't want to deal with "eye-rolls" I will just make my own subfaction and will be able to choose whatever rules I feel like.

hobojebus wrote:
Really the laugh and 8 exclamation marks didn't give it away?

Well, no, not in a thread with several people saying the same thing but (apparently) 100% seriously.

IronSlug wrote:
And what about a custom made Chapter / Regiment / Forge World / Legion ?

That means you can change each time wich "mainstream" faction rules you use, right (expect if you are chaos, you might be stuck with "Renegades") ? So you get an advantage over, say, a Iron Hand or Mordian player right ? Does not that sound stupid ?

I plan to start a new army, either eldar or guard, and I wanted to choose an "official" subfaction for my paintjob / style of play.
But truth is, as I don't want to deal with "eye-rolls" I will just make my own subfaction and will be able to choose whatever rules I feel like.

Totally feel you. While it shouldn't need to be done, it's just easier to not have to deal with eye-rolls from elitists. Here's a suggestion though: Use the colour scheme from your favourite army, and then paint one arm in some contrasting colour. Mordians with one white sleeve are both your special Mordian regiment but also, if anyone asks, Definitely-Not-Mordians

It's the standard in gaming these days. Use what rules give most benefit with models in board. Just another reason why special snowflake rules for different chapters etc are bad as it is apart from quite likely promoting unfluffy armies.

Has the current marine codex even fixed the unfluffy biker horde being de facto for white scars when fluff wise that's very unfluffy?

tneva82 wrote:
Has the current marine codex even fixed the unfluffy biker horde being de facto for white scars when fluff wise that's very unfluffy?

What? I've re-read this a few times, and I still don't follow.

 Purifier wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Has the current marine codex even fixed the unfluffy biker horde being de facto for white scars when fluff wise that's very unfluffy?

What? I've re-read this a few times, and I still don't follow.

The answer is yes, i believe. You can't take biker marines as troops anymore. Also, fluff is transitory. Way back when i was knee-high to a grasshopper, my army got overcharged engines. And the first thing i thought was - why are we getting this and not whitescars?

White Scars fluff was always more about mounted Infantry with the bikes as support, but since the Khan mde bikes troops back in the day, and the unique white scars models were all bike related, its how they ended up being fixed in peoples minds.

 Purifier wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Has the current marine codex even fixed the unfluffy biker horde being de facto for white scars when fluff wise that's very unfluffy?

What? I've re-read this a few times, and I still don't follow.

Core of white scars is TACTICAL marines. White scars employ bikes lots yes but note they are still codex chapter which means basic combat unit is battle company(companies 2-5) that's 6xtactical marine squads, 2xassault squads(and these are the guys riding bikes) and 2xdevastators.

Thus for white scars it's tacticals on rhinos or drop pods that should be the core of army. Not biker swarm.

tneva82 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Has the current marine codex even fixed the unfluffy biker horde being de facto for white scars when fluff wise that's very unfluffy?

What? I've re-read this a few times, and I still don't follow.

Core of white scars is TACTICAL marines. White scars employ bikes lots yes but note they are still codex chapter which means basic combat unit is battle company(companies 2-5) that's 6xtactical marine squads, 2xassault squads(and these are the guys riding bikes) and 2xdevastators.

Thus for white scars it's tacticals on rhinos or drop pods that should be the core of army. Not biker swarm.

Biker swarm A) Looks cooler on the tabletop and B) gives an interesting alternative tactical space to play with instead of forcing everyone into the same exact setup "because Codex Astartes."
Plus, the biker swarm might only be the forward patrol of the White Scars in any given battle played between players. Fluff-wise, the rest of the army is a few hours behind, if that kind of stuff bothers you.

 Crazyterran wrote:
White Scars fluff was always more about mounted Infantry with the bikes as support, but since the Khan mde bikes troops back in the day, and the unique white scars models were all bike related, its how they ended up being fixed in peoples minds.

While I agree that theyre more flexible than 'just bikes', White Scars special rules had bikers as troops and bike command squads as far back as the 3ed Index Astartes books, before which there was very little fluff on scars at all. That's two editions before anyone invented Kor'sarro Khan.

Plus, you can take an all-bike army by using the Outrider detachment, they just don't score as well.

I can't believe people would say "I won't play you because your models are painted as cadians and want to use a different regiment" Like.. it's just toy soldiers.

 AaronWilson wrote:
I can't believe people would say "I won't play you because your models are painted as cadians and want to use a different regiment" Like.. it's just toy soldiers.

IKR? But yeah it's a thing. Originally a marine thing, but now it looks like it's going to apply to everyone. I won't judge (publicly). But yeah, its a thing.

Just wait for the threads about people using Behemoth rules when they are painted as Kraken, or Goff rules when painted as Speed Freakz.

Or, in Bizzaro world where we actually get Sisters, Ebon Chalice as Our Martyred Lady! :p

 Crazyterran wrote:
Just wait for the threads about people using Behemoth rules when they are painted as Kraken, or Goff rules when painted as Speed Freakz.

Or, in Bizzaro world where we actually get Sisters, Ebon Chalice as Our Martyred Lady! :p

Implying anyone knows what those paint schemes look like.

It's like a worse version of Ad Mech. Everyone knows Mars, Metalica and Ryza. The rest, most people would need to look up (until you realise they're all basically black and grey with red details.)

 Purifier wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
Just wait for the threads about people using Behemoth rules when they are painted as Kraken, or Goff rules when painted as Speed Freakz.

Or, in Bizzaro world where we actually get Sisters, Ebon Chalice as Our Martyred Lady! :p

Implying anyone knows what those paint schemes look like.

It's like a worse version of Ad Mech. Everyone knows Mars, Metalica and Ryza. The rest, most people would need to look up (until you realise they're all basically black and grey with red details.)

Ork clans paint schemes are a well known and quite old.

Behemoth are Red/Blue nids, Kraken is red/whiteish, Ebon Chalice is black/white, Our Martyred Lady is the baseline black/red. Goffs are Black, Speed Freakz are red (typically).

IronSlug wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
Just wait for the threads about people using Behemoth rules when they are painted as Kraken, or Goff rules when painted as Speed Freakz.

Or, in Bizzaro world where we actually get Sisters, Ebon Chalice as Our Martyred Lady! :p

Implying anyone knows what those paint schemes look like.

It's like a worse version of Ad Mech. Everyone knows Mars, Metalica and Ryza. The rest, most people would need to look up (until you realise they're all basically black and grey with red details.)

Ork clans paint schemes are a well known and quite old.

I was thinking of Sisters specifically.

I support the follow the rules arguments.

In that there are none.

No rule exists that requires you to model or paint any of your models any particular way. If every game you want to play your green guardsmen as different types of guardsmen to try out or mix up the rules then do it. There is no rule requiring people to paint their SM any way to get the rules. There is likewise no rule requiring you to paint or build your guardsmen a certain way use the rules of a regiment. Just make clear what regiment your detachment is to your opponent and play a good game. Anyone who gives you gak for it is dragging their idiotic house rules into the actual rules and trying to drag everyone down with them.

I think no matter the argument we can all agree cherry picking is the worst. I don't mind if you want an army to be cadian or what every but pick one! Don't have an entire army of cadian gaurds men and start to state that one unit is from cadia, the other is blah blah blah. The only case I would allow this is if the models were painted like that so I know exsactly what I am fighting (so if you had ultramarine with dark angels you have half your army green and the other half blue). Imagine if the player doesn't even state it and you attack something you think has short range or T3 but actually it is 30" range or T4 even though they're the exsact same models as the other squad. This is a clear advantage a player would have over another army who has painted all their squads correctly or stuck to one set of rules. I said earlier, it don't mind proxy models but if you start to give every single squad different rules that I can't even keep up with then you're abusing the game just to win.

With my Orks being a custom clan painted dark red I will be picking what I feel most fits my army. But I will only pick one for that game and not start saying my units are goff while my trukks are blood axes... or this will just get confusing and seem like I'm abusing the game to get the most effective army.

As always, it simply comes down to who you're playing. I get no joy in facing someone who will likely show up with a grey plastic Cadian army (maybe primed if I'm lucky) and says "Okay, this tank detachment is Valhallan, this heavy support detachment is Catachan, the troops are Mordian, and this elite detachment is Tallarn". etc.

If that's how you're interested in playing 40K, in a mathhammer-driven-unit-of-the-month method...I'm out. I don't say that in a hateful or spiteful way, we're just not going after the same things in our game of toy soldiers. No big deal.

 lolman1c wrote:
I think no matter the argument we can all agree cherry picking is the worst.

No, I think that's perfectly fine. If you want to hamstring yourself, go ahead, but don't go thinking everyone else will.

 lolman1c wrote:
if you start to give every single squad different rules that I can't even keep up with then you're abusing the game just to win.

First of all, there has to be some sort of marking to help your opponent know what is what. Second of all, what you call abusing the game, I call following the rules of the game.

 von Hohenstein wrote:

 ArbitorIan wrote:
There are doctrines for certain model ranges. There are model ranges to match certain doctrines. This is no different to using your Space Wolves as Iron Hands to gain an advantage.

As far as I'm concerned, if you want to play Mordians, buy Mordians, or beautifully convert up your plastics to look like something that feels like it should play as Mordians. Everyone has the internet, third party bits are colossally available for Guard, and an actual box of real life Mordians costs only £2 more than a box of Cadians. It's all about making an effort to play to the fluff.

If you have an army of stock cadians, and you're minmaxing your detachments with different regimental rules to get the juiciest combination of buffs, you're a power gaming dick, and I won't be playing you. What the rules allow you to do is irrelevant - the rules don't force me to play you.

This. My Ultramarines are blue, have Ultramarine Chapter Markings and will always be played as Ultramarines no matter what Chapter Tactic is the current flavor of the month.
My Elysian Drop Troops are, well, Elysian Drop Troops. They will not magicaly become Catachan Junglefighters because I'd like to have S4.
I expect you to do the same.

Well all the models I use as my veterans are a cadian/scion kit bash, so are you expecting me to run them as cadians and scions at the same time benefitting from both doctrines?

I know the ITC has been planning on ruling about needing to make your detachments identifiably different. I don't really care what doctrine you use for your models, you want cadian-catachans, sure that is fine. What I don't want is one detachment of cadian catachans, and an identically painted detachment of cadian mordians. I want to be able to look at the models and be able to identify which detachment, and benefits they will receive. So if it is my detachment all infantry is catachans, and my detachment of all tanks (including tank commander) is mordians. I'd be fine with that because I can look at the models and say - ok that is a tank so mordian and vice versa. What I don't want is having say leman russes in both detachments that are painted the same, and one has one rule, and the other a different rule.

I will say this is one reason I wish that "chapter tactics" and chapter specific benefits were only available if your whole army (not detachment) was made up of models with that keyword.

 Purifier wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
I think no matter the argument we can all agree cherry picking is the worst.

No, I think that's perfectly fine. If you want to hamstring yourself, go ahead, but don't go thinking everyone else will.

 lolman1c wrote:
if you start to give every single squad different rules that I can't even keep up with then you're abusing the game just to win.

First of all, there has to be some sort of marking to help your opponent know what is what. Second of all, what you call abusing the game, I call following the rules of the game.

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

Wouldn’t bother me. Hell, I’d even play against someone using bolt action models as guardsmen as long as I know what is what.

 edbradders wrote:
Wouldn’t bother me. Hell, I’d even play against someone using bolt action models as guardsmen as long as I know what is what.

This is what I'm expressing. People who use identical models as different troops just confuses other players. You can play what ever you want with what ever you want but just make it clear! If it's complicated it just seems like they're doing it to gain an advantage.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Behemoth are Red/Blue nids, Kraken is red/whiteish, Ebon Chalice is black/white, Our Martyred Lady is the baseline black/red. Goffs are Black, Speed Freakz are red (typically).

Goffs are actually black and white checked, so by your reasoning an ork army with black colors shouldn't be able to be goffs....Speed Freakz aren't even a Klan (they are called Evil Suns).

How you paint your army should never force your rules upon you unless you chose to.

Breng77 wrote:

How you paint your army should never force your rules upon you unless you chose to.

Couldn’t agree more with this.

I use Cadian models because they’re readily available and relatively cheap (and I don’t like the catachan models) but I have painted them in my own scheme and come up with background for them as my own regiment so I shouldn’t feel bad about using whatever doctrine I want. I will probably try each one out a couple of times to see how it plays before I decide on one I want to stick with and which suits my play style.

ITT:

People arguing back and forth about a situation that is easily and pretty much instantly resolved in person at a gaming table by anyone with a modicum of social skills.

Everyone knows the guy at the club who has a million unpainted marine models who has changed up his chapter tactics 150 times since sixth edition to try and have the best rules available at any given time. Odds are, that's not even the most annoying thing they do during the game to turn opponents off them, and if you call them out on it, they almost invariably get indignant and demand you show them where IN THE RULES it says they can't have all their units magnetized and switch between lascannons when he sees he's playing a tank army to heavy bolters when he's playing orks to grav cannons when he's playing marines, or where IN THE RULES it says he can't model all his units lying down on the ground to make it harder to gain LOS.

Likewise, everyone knows the guy who has his own custom chapter, and mixes and matches the existing CT rules to reflect his own lore. There's a guy at my own club who runs a dragon-themed space marine chapter and mixes the Salamander chapter tactics for the bulk of his army with a contingent of Blood Angels so he can get a librarian dread and a fragioso, because it's the closest thing the game has to a dreadnought with a flamer weapon as its main gun.

Everyone knows Player A is a pain in the ass to play with, and Player B is generally chill and enjoyable. And on the internet, both will be accused of being Player A, and both will defend themselves claiming to be Player B. Both the accusation and the defense is pointless, because the fact of the matter is you have to actually play against someone to know.

I remember that White Dwarf article of one of the Studio Design guys that talked about his "Grey space Wolves" and how he had used them throug 20 years as Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Ultramarines, and literally every different space marine chapter.

As other guy has said, maybe for people that only play 1 game every 1 or 2 months, is okay to always use the same list with the same rules, but at least for me, that play 2-3 times a week, even changing my lists, I want variety or things grown stagnant very fast. And yes, I have 3 different armies, but if one army can offer me 6-8 different stiles of play, is gonna give me much more run for my money and much more fun.

I think too that making your units of different regiments/chapter/etc... different is a sing of respect (And by different I say something as simple as having a different number in their shoulder, or a line of some colour in the base or their armour, etc...)

 lolman1c wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
I think no matter the argument we can all agree cherry picking is the worst.

No, I think that's perfectly fine. If you want to hamstring yourself, go ahead, but don't go thinking everyone else will.

 lolman1c wrote:
if you start to give every single squad different rules that I can't even keep up with then you're abusing the game just to win.

First of all, there has to be some sort of marking to help your opponent know what is what. Second of all, what you call abusing the game, I call following the rules of the game.

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

Ahh, so you're that player that thinks everyone has to have your opinion, and talks gak behind their backs. Anyone I play with would tell you that no, we're not going to make house rules dependant on the colour of your marines, but they wouldn't talk gak behind your back, because they're not that kind of people. They're actually friendly and inclusive, unlike your crowd.

Imo it's all about how you paint them. If you have your own custom theme them play them with whatever your background is (I'd avoid changing the background every time one unit becomes slightly better because then your leaning towards TFG status). For example I have/ am working on a crusade themed guard army. All are black and white Templar theme but I have different models representing different units EX Cadian guys are cadian but still black and white. I love all the guard (except jungle fighters) and thus wanted an army theme I could slow build over years without needing 100000 different tanks every time I felt like changing up the lore. So I have regiments from around the galaxy that are crusading with various different black templar crusades. My infantry will always be WYSIWYG but my tanks all look the same.

I personally would not have have an issue with someone using doctrines other than those associated with the color schemes of their models.

I say this for non-permissive reasons. There's a few things I have observed that often don't get discussed about counts-as armies. I feel like models and paint schemes matter in this game for reasons other than lining GW investor pockets.

1) Constantly switching up doctrines means you might be good, but probably will never be great, with any one. It takes dozens of games to really learn how an army works. You learn about non-evident synergies, you learn about combos that make your army more effective, you learn when / where / why to trigger said doctrines. So if someone wants a game and they're not set in their mechanics - that's usually not as much of a challenge. This seems to be more of a problem for counts-as players who want to try many different playstyles without sticking to one long enough to become talented.

2) My CSM army is painted as Black Legion, unmistakable paint job. When I have tried to play it as Alpha Legion or Emperor's Children, a few funny things happened. One, I did not always remember to stick to the rules of the faux chapter. When looking at Black Legion, your mind wants to play Black Legion (for example, with leadership - I have to stop myself from adding +1 to the rolls EVERY time I go to roll.) Two, opponents don't always know to respect the rules of the faux chapter. Maybe they agreed to do so, but there's a need for clarifications throughout the game. This can be tedious and I just don't like doing it.

So... while I have no problem playing against a counts-as army, it's probably not the same as playing against properly painted models, I probably have an advantage. Those colors / symbols / weapons / etc mean something, and it's not always simple to change how you think about them.

When playing as a counts-as army, I have more of a tendency to forget rules myself and make mistakes on the board. I do that in every game, it's just more of a problem when I am trying to remember a different set of rules than what I am used to. I feel more comfortable with my own Chapter while playing the game, which is more of an advantage than I would get from some cover save or interrupt cycle. Overall, I can do more better.

Very strict. Like this thread!

 Purifier wrote:
That's what I've been trying to say, but apparently "it's not the same thing." Or something. Honestly, no one cares more about irrelevant details than the people online.

Like I mentioned in the other thread, I know this is a trivial thing, but evidently it is big enough in our hobby to cause a ruckus. I have a similar issue with Special Characters but that's a story for another day.

The thing with "just use whatever doctrine you want" is that it locks you out of special characters. As I've said more than once. To Purifier. But she fails to understand.

An example:

The Tallarn are known for tanks. I want a badass above-the-grain Tallarn Tank Commander. I pick Pask, as he is a badass tank commander. I go to pick Regiment tactics, and I can no longer use Tallarn, because Pask has the Cadia keyword. I am now playing a Cadian tank company, and it no longer fits my fast & swift playstyle.

OR

I don't take pask. I now get my fast & swift playstyle. But my Tank Commander isn't as good as a Cadian one for some reason even though my planet is better than Cadia at tank warfare. So now I play against a Cadian tank company and lose the armoured battle, more often than not, despite the opposite being the case in the fluff. My tank commanders cannot receive orders from a higher tank commander, and even my company commander is less good than his, despite armoured cavalry being a Tallarn thing.

If, instead, the Regimental Doctrines were not tied to the same thing Special Characters were, you could, for example, play a "Swift as the Wind" Cadian tank company, getting Pask and the Tallarn playstyle in the same army.

That's part of the issue I have with special characters too (a bit too restrictive for essentially an otherwise straight upgrade to a vanilla character), but that and everything else is for another thread.

I'm not failing to understand it, your reasoning is just entirely based on fluff as you have no idea what balance is, and since I don't agree that anything in the rules should be dictated by fluff, I wholeheartedly disagree with your standpoint.

Basing buffs off of fluff is fine, but balancing around it is a travesty.

Plus, maybe the Tallarn are known to be great at tank warfare as a general rule, but maybe even the Tallarn defer to Pask as the one exception to the rule, because he is better than them, even being Cadian. Or maybe they don't but he is anyway.

Your reading of what is fluffy and what isn't is so narrow because if it doesn't fit your own head-cannon, you refuse it outright.

 Purifier wrote:
I'm not failing to understand it, your reasoning is just entirely based on fluff as you have no idea what balance is, and since I don't agree that anything in the rules should be dictated by fluff, I wholeheartedly disagree with your standpoint.

Basing buffs off of fluff is fine, but balancing around it is a travesty.

Plus, maybe the Tallarn are known to be great at tank warfare as a general rule, but maybe even the Tallarn defer to Pask as the one exception to the rule, because he is better than them, even being Cadian. Or maybe they don't but he is anyway.

Your reading of what is fluffy and what isn't is so narrow because if it doesn't fit your own head-cannon, you refuse it outright.

I don't know what to tell you.

You're essentially saying I'm not allowed to dislike the way things were handled because you personally don't agree with the way I view the game.

Okay then.

I disagree with your analysis of the way fluff is handled and believe fluff should not be sacrificed on the altar of balance. I also believe that having more options for an army allows players more freedom to make an army that conforms to their version of the fluff, whatever it may be, than having fewer options. Therefore, it is better to have more options, rather than fewer, if you want to satisfy a large number of fluffy players.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The thing with "just use whatever doctrine you want" is that it locks you out of special characters. As I've said more than once. To Purifier. But she fails to understand.

An example:

The Tallarn are known for tanks. I want a badass above-the-grain Tallarn Tank Commander. I pick Pask, as he is a badass tank commander. I go to pick Regiment tactics, and I can no longer use Tallarn, because Pask has the Cadia keyword. I am now playing a Cadian tank company, and it no longer fits my fast & swift playstyle.

OR

I don't take pask. I now get my fast & swift playstyle. But my Tank Commander isn't as good as a Cadian one for some reason even though my planet is better than Cadia at tank warfare. So now I play against a Cadian tank company and lose the armoured battle, more often than not, despite the opposite being the case in the fluff. My tank commanders cannot receive orders from a higher tank commander, and even my company commander is less good than his, despite armoured cavalry being a Tallarn thing.

If, instead, the Regimental Doctrines were not tied to the same thing Special Characters were, you could, for example, play a "Swift as the Wind" Cadian tank company, getting Pask and the Tallarn playstyle in the same army.

This seems like a pretty different issue. Presumably GW thought about what they were doing when they combined particular doctrines and warlord traits and stratagems and special characters. The game would be pretty different if you could just mix and match these at will -- probably we'd see a lot of Hard to Hit Ultramarines with Guilliman, for example. Now, I think that, often, special characters are badly implemented such that they tend to overshadow Chapter Tactics type rules when picking a subfaction (see Guilliman, Cawl, and maybe Harker), but I think everyone gets that if you want to use Raven Guard rules for your Ultramarines then they're not going to benefit as much from Guilliman's aura. This is just not what's meant when people talk about using whatever subfaction rules you want.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Therefore, it is better to have more options, rather than fewer, if you want to satisfy a large number of fluffy players.

Those same "fluffy players" are also going to cry the same rivers as everyone else when the game gets bloated and impossible to balance because everyone can take everything so everyone is taking the best choices with the best characters with whatever the best choice of regiment is for him etc etc because the more things you add that interact, the harder it will be to foresee how those things will interact.

 Purifier wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Therefore, it is better to have more options, rather than fewer, if you want to satisfy a large number of fluffy players.

Those same "fluffy players" are also going to cry the same rivers as everyone else when the game gets bloated and impossible to balance because everyone can take everything so everyone is taking the best choices with the best characters with whatever the best choice of regiment is for him etc etc because the more things you add that interact, the harder it will be to foresee how those things will interact.

I also disagree with you here; I haven't cried about balance since I decided I really only play 40k for the fluff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The thing with "just use whatever doctrine you want" is that it locks you out of special characters. As I've said more than once. To Purifier. But she fails to understand.

An example:

The Tallarn are known for tanks. I want a badass above-the-grain Tallarn Tank Commander. I pick Pask, as he is a badass tank commander. I go to pick Regiment tactics, and I can no longer use Tallarn, because Pask has the Cadia keyword. I am now playing a Cadian tank company, and it no longer fits my fast & swift playstyle.

OR

I don't take pask. I now get my fast & swift playstyle. But my Tank Commander isn't as good as a Cadian one for some reason even though my planet is better than Cadia at tank warfare. So now I play against a Cadian tank company and lose the armoured battle, more often than not, despite the opposite being the case in the fluff. My tank commanders cannot receive orders from a higher tank commander, and even my company commander is less good than his, despite armoured cavalry being a Tallarn thing.

If, instead, the Regimental Doctrines were not tied to the same thing Special Characters were, you could, for example, play a "Swift as the Wind" Cadian tank company, getting Pask and the Tallarn playstyle in the same army.

This seems like a pretty different issue. Presumably GW thought about what they were doing when they combined particular doctrines and warlord traits and stratagems and special characters. The game would be pretty different if you could just mix and match these at will -- probably we'd see a lot of Hard to Hit Ultramarines with Guilliman, for example. Now, I think that, often, special characters are badly implemented such that they tend to overshadow Chapter Tactics type rules when picking a subfaction (see Guilliman, Cawl, and maybe Harker), but I think everyone gets that if you want to use Raven Guard rules for your Ultramarines then they're not going to benefit as much from Guilliman's aura. This is just not what's meant when people talk about using whatever subfaction rules you want.

Yes but I don't want to see fluff sacrificed on the altar of balance.

Perhaps if GW made it so that special characters weren't just a "clearly better in every way" version of a regular character then people would be more inclined to make their own characters. It is a lack of options in the first place that causes this. "Oh, you want a tank commander who can give orders to other tank commanders? Seems reasonable and fluffy, as armour regiment commanders exist across the galaxy...

...oh, also they're all Cadians. Every single one. Because we couldn't be assed to give this option to a regular tank commander."

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I also disagree with you here; I haven't cried about balance since I decided I really only play 40k for the fluff.

That is one hell of a bold faced lie, when ee're in another thread RIGHT NOW where you are literally demanding that assault never be able to touch you, because otherwise you find it unbalanced.

 Purifier wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I also disagree with you here; I haven't cried about balance since I decided I really only play 40k for the fluff.

That is one hell of a bold faced lie, when ee're in another thread RIGHT NOW where you are literally demanding that assault never be able to touch you, because otherwise you find it unbalanced.

Yep, that's what I said. You're exactly right. Definitely didn't have more nuance or context than "I don't want assault to touch me."

And no, it's not because I find it unbalanced. It's because I think it is unfun. There is a difference, though I don't expect you to see it.

Isnt this the same as a ultramarine painted army using raven guard rules, just because they are better, it doesnt sit right with me but that wont stop me from letting other people do it, I just wont.

Again as long as I can easily identify which regiment your models belong to which is fine.

However if your a douche and tell me this conscript squad is vahallan for bring in next wave and this one is Cadian for reroll 1s and they are all Cadian models that your freely blob up together as a screen.

I reserve the right to flip the damn table over and ask you to tell me which models are vahallan and which are Cadian again!!!

Purifier, Unit, in how many Threads are you gonna be simultaneously arguing agains't each other ad nauseam?

 Galas wrote:
Purifier, Unit, in how many Threads are you gonna be simultaneously arguing agains't each other ad nauseam?

Till I finally put her on ignore, I think. She seems stubborn.

"It's unfun." It's unfun for you if the opponent has a chance to beat you. /facepalm.

 Purifier wrote:
"It's unfun." It's unfun for you if the opponent has a chance to beat you. /facepalm.

Keep punching that strawman.

When you get your anger out and want to get around to actually talking about what I said, you can bring it up in PMs or the other thread.

Enough off topic.

use the ignore and carry on.

It's not like the 8 regiments in the Codex are the only 8 regiments in the entire galaxy, so I'm totally fine with mixing doctrines and models to maybe represent a different regiment from a different planet.
Realistically, if you think about it, those 8 planets are just a tiny tiny fraction of all the planets in the Imperium At least 99% of all guard regiments will come from someplace else, and while they may look like Cadians (standard issue kit), they might not have the same doctrines.

Space Marines: Strip the paint and paint them color of the week to play how you'd like.

IG: Buy Pewter or Metal models that may or may not be out of production so you can play how you'd like.

Lance845 wrote:I support the follow the rules arguments.

In that there are none.

No rule exists that requires you to model or paint any of your models any particular way. If every game you want to play your green guardsmen as different types of guardsmen to try out or mix up the rules then do it. There is no rule requiring people to paint their SM any way to get the rules. There is likewise no rule requiring you to paint or build your guardsmen a certain way use the rules of a regiment. Just make clear what regiment your detachment is to your opponent and play a good game. Anyone who gives you gak for it is dragging their idiotic house rules into the actual rules and trying to drag everyone down with them.

Purifier wrote:Second of all, what you call abusing the game, I call following the rules of the game.

Ah, THE RULES..

This is an interesting one. How do you know which models, sold by Games Workshop, should be used to represent, say, a Space Marine Tactical Squad? Stupid question, right? We all know. But hey, we're looking for rules, and it turns out there are none. Therefore, I can use 10 grots, or 10 hormaguants, or a mix of different tanks to be my 'tactical squad'. I think most people would agree that this is stupid, and most RAW players would have a problem with this.

So, how DO we know? Well, first, there's a whole codex which constantly shows pictures of specific models with notes below them that say 'Tactical Marine' or 'Space Marine' or, specifically, for the blue ones, 'Ultramarine'. That's one way.

Also, GW sells a boxed set called a 'Space Marine Tactical Squad', so we could go by the box covers if that works better, and use the pictures in the book to determine which chapter they are. They make a box they call a Space Marine Tactical Squad, so that's what you should use. They clearly show named chapters with colour schemes, so that's how you know which chapter is which. Or you could make their own.

But hold on, none of those things are RULES. You can split hairs and say they're in the wrong bit of the codex or something. If that's true, you condone using literally anything (paperclips, dreadnoughts, blobs of putty, orks, coins) in any setting because, after all, there are no rules.

For Imperial Guard, there is no boxed set called an 'Imperial Guard Infantry Squad'. If you go online right now and try and buy one, you have the option to buy a box of 'Cadians', or a box called 'Valhallan Squad', and if you try and use the codexes, you'll find really clear images of which models are called what thing. They make it really really clear what models are for what unit entry, and what Cadians/Valhallans/Tallarn look like.

This is all really pernickety, of course. As far as I'm concerned, rule of cool is the most important one, and that's judged entirely by how much effort you put in to making your models look 'right' for the setting. And we all know what Ultramarines or Space Wolves or Steel Legion or Valhallans look like. I'm only pointing it out because, if you assume there are no rules about what model to use, then there really are NO rules. Rules-wise, using a Valhallan as a Tallarn is the same as using a Gretchin as a Tallarn.

Wow this thread got interesting.

To respond I would never tell someone, "Those models are painted Cadian (or Ultramarine, Black Legion or whatever), so you have to use Cadian(or Ultramarine or Black Legion) Regiment (or Chapter or Legion) or I am not playing you!!!". I am pretty liberal even with proxies as long as they are around the same size as the model, so using different tactics is fine. And if someone really wants to try something I wouldn't make a fuss.

However, I would like to say, and I am sorry if I offend, but if you have a whole army painted as Ultramarines or Cadia or whatever, and you are using them as something else solely because the rules are better, you are a power gamer. I know that they don't have plastic for many IG regiments and that really bottle necks people choices. But if you painted your whole army Cadian, put Cadian markings on vehicles etc., there is a reason. Clearly you liked the background or something. Same with Marines and Chaos. If you made an army a certain way there was a reason, where you liked the background, colors, god whatever. To change what you play just because some rules are better is power gaming. By the way, there is nothing wrong with power gaming, but don't sit there and act like your not using these rules that are better for an advantage in the game to win.

I have a few units of Tzeentch painted and marked models for Chaos Marines. I would never use them as Slannesh or Khorne just because the Marks or Stratagems or whatever are better even though I am well within my rights to do so because as someone pointed out earlier on this thread, there is no GW rule that says "this Chapter Tactic (or whatever) only applies if the model is painted this Chapter" or God or whatever. I will say that if I am trying to be competitive, I have bought my Tzeentch painted Marines and Rubrics as Alpha legion despite them not having anything that makes them more Alpha legion than Tzeentch or Thousand Sons. And when I use that list I am power gaming. I am ok doing that but not shifting gods. That is my preference and I don't begrudge anyone theirs. But again don't sit there and give me some fluff BS about how your Cadians are actually from Mordian or whatever, just say "I am using the Mordian Regiment on these models" and I will say cool and we will play. If I think you are a power gamer because of that, well that is my opinion and you really shouldn't care what I think anyway (my wife certainly doesn't lol)

 ArbitorIan wrote:

Lance845 wrote:I support the follow the rules arguments.

In that there are none.

No rule exists that requires you to model or paint any of your models any particular way. If every game you want to play your green guardsmen as different types of guardsmen to try out or mix up the rules then do it. There is no rule requiring people to paint their SM any way to get the rules. There is likewise no rule requiring you to paint or build your guardsmen a certain way use the rules of a regiment. Just make clear what regiment your detachment is to your opponent and play a good game. Anyone who gives you gak for it is dragging their idiotic house rules into the actual rules and trying to drag everyone down with them.

Purifier wrote:Second of all, what you call abusing the game, I call following the rules of the game.

Ah, THE RULES..

This is an interesting one. How do you know which models, sold by Games Workshop, should be used to represent, say, a Space Marine Tactical Squad? Stupid question, right? We all know. But hey, we're looking for rules, and it turns out there are none. Therefore, I can use 10 grots, or 10 hormaguants, or a mix of different tanks to be my 'tactical squad'. I think most people would agree that this is stupid, and most RAW players would have a problem with this.

So, how DO we know? Well, first, there's a whole codex which constantly shows pictures of specific models with notes below them that say 'Tactical Marine' or 'Space Marine' or, specifically, for the blue ones, 'Ultramarine'. That's one way.

Also, GW sells a boxed set called a 'Space Marine Tactical Squad', so we could go by the box covers if that works better, and use the pictures in the book to determine which chapter they are. They make a box they call a Space Marine Tactical Squad, so that's what you should use. They clearly show named chapters with colour schemes, so that's how you know which chapter is which. Or you could make their own.

But hold on, none of those things are RULES. You can split hairs and say they're in the wrong bit of the codex or something. If that's true, you condone using literally anything (paperclips, dreadnoughts, blobs of putty, orks, coins) in any setting because, after all, there are no rules.

For Imperial Guard, there is no boxed set called an 'Imperial Guard Infantry Squad'. If you go online right now and try and buy one, you have the option to buy a box of 'Cadians', or a box called 'Valhallan Squad', and if you try and use the codexes, you'll find really clear images of which models are called what thing. They make it really really clear what models are for what unit entry, and what Cadians/Valhallans/Tallarn look like.

This is all really pernickety, of course. As far as I'm concerned, rule of cool is the most important one, and that's judged entirely by how much effort you put in to making your models look 'right' for the setting. And we all know what Ultramarines or Space Wolves or Steel Legion or Valhallans look like. I'm only pointing it out because, if you assume there are no rules about what model to use, then there really are NO rules. Rules-wise, using a Valhallan as a Tallarn is the same as using a Gretchin as a Tallarn.

If modeled with a lasgun, if all other models were IG models (tanks etc) I would have little issue with someone making a grot guard army.

Arbitorlan, that's a bit of a strawman as well. The only rule that truly matters to me when it comes to modelling and using proxies or count-as is WYSIWYG. Meaning that if you're going to play 10 grots as a TAC squad with a rocket launcher and 9 bolters, those grots better have a rocket launcher and bolters.

Of course, WYSIWYG is a subjective guideline, but it's been expressed in the rulebooks before as something along the lines of, "...equipment must be visually represented on the model so your opponents can clearly see what they are facing."

Now, if you want to play grots as space marines, or Cadians as Kreig or whatever, I'm fine with that. Even if you're just trying to maximize your list in specific cases. BUT - if you are going to be switching around like that for whatever reason, whether it be that you can't afford the correct models or you just can't decide on one thing, then you better at least get some magnets and a pin vice. I don't care about grots-as-SM, but I DO expect whatever you're playing to have exactly the wargear you say it does. Otherwise there's just no way to keep track of what's what for anyone.

I'm not even that mad about WYSIWYG as long as is consisten.

Your Imperial Guardsmen don't use las-guns because they don't like them, and instead use tecno-laserbows? Thats totally fine as long as is consisten.

I'm too pretty liberal with units that only have one weapon choice. If your Black Templar Emperor Champion is model with an axe, a spear, a banner, two swords, etc... I don't care, because he only has 1 rule availible.

 Galas wrote:
I'm not even that mad about WYSIWYG as long as is consisten.

Your Imperial Guardsmen don't use las-guns because they don't like them, and instead use tecno-laserbows? Thats totally fine as long as is consisten.

I'm too pretty liberal with units that only have one weapon choice. If your Black Templar Emperor Champion is model with an axe, a spear, a banner, two swords, etc... I don't care, because he only has 1 rule availible.

Single characters are easier to keep track of so it's not that much of an issue. And yeah, I would be OK with counts-as wargear as well, with the rule being that no one piece of wargear as modeled could count as more than one thing.

I can't imagine being enough of a baby to care whether or not the Guardsmen across the table are wearing the right coats or not. Especially when the supposedly sacrosanct rules distinctions those coats entail don't even exist yet.

 Luciferian wrote:
Arbitorlan, that's a bit of a strawman as well. The only rule that truly matters to me when it comes to modelling and using proxies or count-as is WYSIWYG. Meaning that if you're going to play 10 grots as a TAC squad with a rocket launcher and 9 bolters, those grots better have a rocket launcher and bolters.

Of course, WYSIWYG is a subjective guideline, but it's been expressed in the rulebooks before as something along the lines of, "...equipment must be visually represented on the model so your opponents can clearly see what they are facing."

Now, if you want to play grots as space marines, or Cadians as Kreig or whatever, I'm fine with that. Even if you're just trying to maximize your list in specific cases. BUT - if you are going to be switching around like that for whatever reason, whether it be that you can't afford the correct models or you just can't decide on one thing, then you better at least get some magnets and a pin vice. I don't care about grots-as-SM, but I DO expect whatever you're playing to have exactly the wargear you say it does. Otherwise there's just no way to keep track of what's what for anyone.

Yeah, I mean, it's kind of intended to be a straw man. The purpose was to point out that, if your justification for using Cadians as Valhallans is 'there are no rules that tell me what model to use' then my grot-shaped Dreadnoughts are gonna be finding it much easier to get cover, since there are apparently no rules telling me what models to use as Dreadnoughts. It's an entire fallacy of an argument because GW make it really clear what models / paint schemes link to what rules.

It's annoying that WYSIWYG doesn't seem to be in the rule book any more, too. It makes everything your personal opinion on what is and isn't acceptable - but that's the point I've been making all thread. For me, I don't want ANY possibility that, during a game, I'll look at the sea of Cadians and forget that they're actually Mordians today. It's exactly the same logic as insisting that plasma guns look like plasma guns so you don't forget that your opponent said they were flamers an hour ago.

Almost all my armies are heavily converted/unique and I make sure that, through conversions and WYSIWYG, it's really clear what models are what for exactly that reason - I just expect the same of anyone else who is using non-standard models (like, say, Cadians for Mordians).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
I'm not failing to understand it, your reasoning is just entirely based on fluff as you have no idea what balance is, and since I don't agree that anything in the rules should be dictated by fluff, I wholeheartedly disagree with your standpoint.

Basing buffs off of fluff is fine, but balancing around it is a travesty.

Plus, maybe the Tallarn are known to be great at tank warfare as a general rule, but maybe even the Tallarn defer to Pask as the one exception to the rule, because he is better than them, even being Cadian. Or maybe they don't but he is anyway.

Your reading of what is fluffy and what isn't is so narrow because if it doesn't fit your own head-cannon, you refuse it outright.

I don't know what to tell you.

You're essentially saying I'm not allowed to dislike the way things were handled because you personally don't agree with the way I view the game.

Okay then.

I disagree with your analysis of the way fluff is handled and believe fluff should not be sacrificed on the altar of balance. I also believe that having more options for an army allows players more freedom to make an army that conforms to their version of the fluff, whatever it may be, than having fewer options. Therefore, it is better to have more options, rather than fewer, if you want to satisfy a large number of fluffy players.

Why would a games companies primary market be fluffy players?

Most people will never read all the fluff. Most players will barely read their own fluff.

Their primary market is people who play the game. Which means building an enjoyable game play experience. Which happens when the 2 forces involved are closer to balanced then not.

Or would you rather synapse and shadow in the warp have no range. Just blanket the table. Nids get to reinforce for free because the hive ships are clearly there otherwise the nids wouldn't be. Shadow would provide a -1 penalty to ld for all models unless they are in any way psychic, then it's a -3 and they have to make a ld test each turn to see if they have gone mad and/or died from the shadow.

Everything should be sacrificed on the alter of balance.

 xeen wrote:
Wow this thread got interesting.

To respond I would never tell someone, "Those models are painted Cadian (or Ultramarine, Black Legion or whatever), so you have to use Cadian(or Ultramarine or Black Legion) Regiment (or Chapter or Legion) or I am not playing you!!!". I am pretty liberal even with proxies as long as they are around the same size as the model, so using different tactics is fine. And if someone really wants to try something I wouldn't make a fuss.

However, I would like to say, and I am sorry if I offend, but if you have a whole army painted as Ultramarines or Cadia or whatever, and you are using them as something else solely because the rules are better, you are a power gamer. I know that they don't have plastic for many IG regiments and that really bottle necks people choices. But if you painted your whole army Cadian, put Cadian markings on vehicles etc., there is a reason. Clearly you liked the background or something. Same with Marines and Chaos. If you made an army a certain way there was a reason, where you liked the background, colors, god whatever. To change what you play just because some rules are better is power gaming. By the way, there is nothing wrong with power gaming, but don't sit there and act like your not using these rules that are better for an advantage in the game to win.

I have a few units of Tzeentch painted and marked models for Chaos Marines. I would never use them as Slannesh or Khorne just because the Marks or Stratagems or whatever are better even though I am well within my rights to do so because as someone pointed out earlier on this thread, there is no GW rule that says "this Chapter Tactic (or whatever) only applies if the model is painted this Chapter" or God or whatever. I will say that if I am trying to be competitive, I have bought my Tzeentch painted Marines and Rubrics as Alpha legion despite them not having anything that makes them more Alpha legion than Tzeentch or Thousand Sons. And when I use that list I am power gaming. I am ok doing that but not shifting gods. That is my preference and I don't begrudge anyone theirs. But again don't sit there and give me some fluff BS about how your Cadians are actually from Mordian or whatever, just say "I am using the Mordian Regiment on these models" and I will say cool and we will play. If I think you are a power gamer because of that, well that is my opinion and you really shouldn't care what I think anyway (my wife certainly doesn't lol)

Exactly my thoughts. If you have Cadians painted the typical color you are a Cadia player (same for ultramarines/ Black templars ect). If you have Cadia models painted a unique theme then you create the background for the world they are from and can choose whatever tactic you like (as long as you remain consistent and are not changing them every time we play to gain an advantage or every time a rule gets changed). But painting an army like ultramarines and saying "wow raven guard has better rules now so these are raven guard" is simply power gaming IMO. Im also fine in friendly games people saying "hey i really wanna try the tactics for x chapter mind if i proxie?" thats fine and just curdious but I wouldnt be ok with the same Cadia army switching every edition to the best option.

 Lance845 wrote:

Why would a games companies primary market be fluffy players?

Most people will never read all the fluff. Most players will barely read their own fluff.

Their primary market is people who play the game. Which means building an enjoyable game play experience. Which happens when the 2 forces involved are closer to balanced then not.

Or would you rather synapse and shadow in the warp have no range. Just blanket the table. Nids get to reinforce for free because the hive ships are clearly there otherwise the nids wouldn't be. Shadow would provide a -1 penalty to ld for all models unless they are in any way psychic, then it's a -3 and they have to make a ld test each turn to see if they have gone mad and/or died from the shadow.

Everything should be sacrificed on the alter of balance.

GW have repeatedly stated that they are a model company first and foremost, and their main product is the models. The recent development is that after years and years of having a clunky old game and STILL selling more than every other war gaming company combined they've finally made some game rules that are more modern.

If you're right that most wargamers are in it primarily for the competitive gaming experience, Warmahordes would sell better than Warhammer.

But it doesn't. Playing the game for me, like for a huge amount of hobbyists, is a fun thing to do with your models, not a test of gamesmanship. I spend way more time modelling and painting than I do playing, and share model photos online much more than I do reports of tactics. Competitive players and events have always been a minority within the greater part of GWs customers.

There is, of course, no bad side to having a balanced rule set, but GWs main selling point has always been its IP and it's models, not its game.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
I'm not failing to understand it, your reasoning is just entirely based on fluff as you have no idea what balance is, and since I don't agree that anything in the rules should be dictated by fluff, I wholeheartedly disagree with your standpoint.

Basing buffs off of fluff is fine, but balancing around it is a travesty.

Plus, maybe the Tallarn are known to be great at tank warfare as a general rule, but maybe even the Tallarn defer to Pask as the one exception to the rule, because he is better than them, even being Cadian. Or maybe they don't but he is anyway.

Your reading of what is fluffy and what isn't is so narrow because if it doesn't fit your own head-cannon, you refuse it outright.

I don't know what to tell you.

You're essentially saying I'm not allowed to dislike the way things were handled because you personally don't agree with the way I view the game.

Okay then.

I disagree with your analysis of the way fluff is handled and believe fluff should not be sacrificed on the altar of balance. I also believe that having more options for an army allows players more freedom to make an army that conforms to their version of the fluff, whatever it may be, than having fewer options. Therefore, it is better to have more options, rather than fewer, if you want to satisfy a large number of fluffy players.

Why would a games companies primary market be fluffy players?

Most people will never read all the fluff. Most players will barely read their own fluff.

Their primary market is people who play the game. Which means building an enjoyable game play experience. Which happens when the 2 forces involved are closer to balanced then not.

Or would you rather synapse and shadow in the warp have no range. Just blanket the table. Nids get to reinforce for free because the hive ships are clearly there otherwise the nids wouldn't be. Shadow would provide a -1 penalty to ld for all models unless they are in any way psychic, then it's a -3 and they have to make a ld test each turn to see if they have gone mad and/or died from the shadow.

Everything should be sacrificed on the alter of balance.

Games workshop regardless of its name is not a games company

its a model selling company

according to IIRC one of its old share holders report or something.

it seems to be changing in this age of round tree though which is nice.

because it shouldn't be one or the other

it should be both.

people can dick around and paint for days

others can shake their dice around till they figure out who won.

Sucks because some of the models look SO cool.

But I just spent so much time painting 50 cadian conscripts. Besides that I just use scions and elysians, some bullgryns.

Wont really effect me either way. Just sucks that if I use yarrick itll be kind of a waste. Maybe Ill go back to using pask. We will see when the codex comes out.

As for playing models that look different. Are people really expecting others to go out, buy completely differen regiments, build, and paint them in order to use them? No.

Unless youre playing a chimera as a leman russ. I dont see there being an issue.

If it doesnt affect how I play my army or give any kind of advantage. I wouldnt care.

As always, the mere existence of regiments without official rules or models kinda screws up any attempt to get really strict about it. The converted examples in the new IG codex include examples of genestealer neophytes and other such models being used as the base, for regiments without official models (or rules).

Personally, the one that I can see actually being an issue is if your army is using the same models to depict two different regiments. Which could be a power gamer thing or an attempt to model the armies fluff (these guys are a tank regiment from x and use these rules fitting for such a regiment, these guys are an infantry regiment also from x so use the same models but use these other rules to indicate it).

Regardless, I do kinda feel the need to draw the line if two identical squads have totally different rules with no visual indicator of it.

 rhinoceraids wrote:
Sucks because some of the models look SO cool.

But I just spent so much time painting 50 cadian conscripts. Besides that I just use scions and elysians, some bullgryns.

Wont really effect me either way. Just sucks that if I use yarrick itll be kind of a waste. Maybe Ill go back to using pask. We will see when the codex comes out.

As for playing models that look different. Are people really expecting others to go out, buy completely differen regiments, build, and paint them in order to use them? No.

Unless youre playing a chimera as a leman russ. I dont see there being an issue.

If it doesnt affect how I play my army or give any kind of advantage. I wouldnt care.

But nothing is stopping you from using those 50 Cadians as Cadia troops the only limitation is one put on players by themselves (I loved these models and painted them to match this specific worlds regiment but now because they are statistically slightly worse then this other worlds regiment I cant possibly use them in a game as what they are). Its not as if you can no longer use the models, often on Dakka it seems like people associate a slight drop in power as models becoming unplayable. Nobody expects you to go out and buy a new regiment. But not playing your army as is because of its statistical power is the definition of power gaming (Raven guard is statistically better then Black templars now so my entire black templar army is now Raven guard dispite obviosly being black templars).

This is very true. Ill likely still just use them as cadians.

The doctrines seem nice but nothing is "unplayable" Youre right.

Im excited for the strategems. Along with the relics and some other new updates.

 rhinoceraids wrote:
This is very true. Ill likely still just use them as cadians.

The doctrines seem nice but nothing is "unplayable" Youre right.

Im excited for the strategems. Along with the relics and some other new updates.

I absolutely love the new rules I think its the perfect combination of fluff and playable differences. I will most likely be adding a few regiments to my army maybe some Chem dogs... But never jungle fighting Rambos I just can't stand the look.

 Elbows wrote:
As with everything in this game, it comes down to intent. Are you trying out a new army? Are you feeling out regiments to determine which one you like. Are you doing a narrative game based around a regiment which you don't have models for...sure, whatever.

If you're just min-maxing every detachment to get the very best combination then you're not a person I'd be playing anyway - so it has little effect on me. Personally I find that limiting oneself to a specific army is part of the fun. It's more interesting to me to suffer the penalties of not cherry-picking a dozen different specialities to benefit from. That's part of the challenge. Same reason I play WYSIWYG regardless if it hinders me against a certain army.

This.

Hyperstrict.

If your Praetorians don't have Michael Caine, Stanly Baker and Jack Hawkins' faces painted on, you can't field them...

I don't care if someone brings a tupperware Land Raider so I'd be hard pushed to take umbrage because someone said some Valhalans were Mordians.

Models are expensive and rules take time to settle. So long as they're trying things out to see what's effective and what they gravitate towards, and not running proxies for years, I'm completely indifferent.

I think the codex solves this problem itself under the Doctrines entry where it says that if your not playing one of the listed armies just pick the doctrine that fits.

And as for multi regiment armies, the precedent for it in the fluff as well.

Personally I'm rocking a fully converted knightworlders army so if some want to try and pull the "thats not the right regiment" I'll just find another opponent. Alot of work and money has gone into the Vorradis 75th, I honestly could build two or three of the metal regiments for all the cash I've spent on bits and kits to get the look just right for my little plastic men and tanks. If someone what to be a model snob about toy soldiers they can be, but they can drone on somewhere else besides at my table.

Asmodios wrote:
If you have Cadians painted the typical color you are a Cadia player

There are a million and one different regiments in the Imperium, and the Cadian look (models and color) is probably the most generic of all. Unless you've painted the Cadian Gate motif on all their shoulder plates, there's no guarantee they're actually fron Cadia.
Not to mentian that there are a bunch of different regiments from Cadia too - including mechanized (the Armageddon doctrine) and White Shields (the Valhallan conscript doctrine). In fact, conscripts as we know them today were first introduced in the Cadian army list of Codex: Eye of Terror back in 3rd edition.


I'm using Steel Legium models for my army, but it was never supposed to be an actual Armageddon Steel Legion army - they're from a totally different planet. Will WYSIWYG-extremists sperg out if I don't use the Armageddon doctrine for my entire army, - which, being made up of Chimeras and Vanquishers, is obviously not made for power gaming?

Whiteshields aren't dedicated Regiments. They're part of the Shock Troop Regiment itself.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
Arbitorlan, that's a bit of a strawman as well. The only rule that truly matters to me when it comes to modelling and using proxies or count-as is WYSIWYG. Meaning that if you're going to play 10 grots as a TAC squad with a rocket launcher and 9 bolters, those grots better have a rocket launcher and bolters.

Of course, WYSIWYG is a subjective guideline, but it's been expressed in the rulebooks before as something along the lines of, "...equipment must be visually represented on the model so your opponents can clearly see what they are facing."

Now, if you want to play grots as space marines, or Cadians as Kreig or whatever, I'm fine with that. Even if you're just trying to maximize your list in specific cases. BUT - if you are going to be switching around like that for whatever reason, whether it be that you can't afford the correct models or you just can't decide on one thing, then you better at least get some magnets and a pin vice. I don't care about grots-as-SM, but I DO expect whatever you're playing to have exactly the wargear you say it does. Otherwise there's just no way to keep track of what's what for anyone.

Yeah, I mean, it's kind of intended to be a straw man. The purpose was to point out that, if your justification for using Cadians as Valhallans is 'there are no rules that tell me what model to use' then my grot-shaped Dreadnoughts are gonna be finding it much easier to get cover, since there are apparently no rules telling me what models to use as Dreadnoughts. It's an entire fallacy of an argument because GW make it really clear what models / paint schemes link to what rules.

It's annoying that WYSIWYG doesn't seem to be in the rule book any more, too. It makes everything your personal opinion on what is and isn't acceptable - but that's the point I've been making all thread. For me, I don't want ANY possibility that, during a game, I'll look at the sea of Cadians and forget that they're actually Mordians today. It's exactly the same logic as insisting that plasma guns look like plasma guns so you don't forget that your opponent said they were flamers an hour ago.

Almost all my armies are heavily converted/unique and I make sure that, through conversions and WYSIWYG, it's really clear what models are what for exactly that reason - I just expect the same of anyone else who is using non-standard models (like, say, Cadians for Mordians).

You must have hated playing against Imperial Guard in 2nd Edition. There were plenty of Regiments, but the rules were for Veteran Squads and you had ten (10) options, none of which were modeled or specific to a Regiment. You could have a Catachan Jungle Fighters Squad with the "Tank Hunters" Veteran rule and a Cadian Squad with the "Stealthy" or "Grizzled Fighers" abilities. The 2nd Ed Codex has oodles of uniform schemes. In later editions you could pick doctrines and get on with gaming without somebody getting judgy.

If somebody wants to say that their Cadian models have Catachan doctrines I really fail to see the problem. That Cadian regiment went to the Jungle Warfare School. That Mordian Regiment spent a tour on a desert world. That Valhallan Regiment had a cadre of Cadian Observer/Mentor Liaison Team (OMLT) when they were in warp transit. I think that folks should build a bridge and get over it. I can see an issue with confusion if a player has multiple regiments in a force with no way of telling them apart, but this has always existed. Its a Guardsman. The doctrines are flavourful and do have an effect, but they don't change that the Guardsman model is a Guardsman model. Looking down your nose at a player that wants to try different sub-factions without dropping $300 or more on new models is just snobbery.

I can also understand that some people will get judgy when they think that an opponent is mixing Regiments to be more effective. I can see their point to a degree if its mixed in a detachment, but even then what's wrong with having the infantry in a detachment from one regiment and the tanks from another? Combined arms - it happens. Going back to 2nd Edition, while Infantry Squads had to be from the same regiment as their Command Squad, you could mix Regiments in a force as long as you had the proper Command Squads. So if you had a Cadian Command Squad and a Catachan Command Squad you could have squads from both Regiments. Now, 2nd Edition also had Squats, cool Psychic powers and fun Wargear, but my point is that mixing Regiments and Doctrines is not a new concept. Heck, the intro to the 2nd Edition Codex states that "This allows players to choose armies which are either broadly uniform in type or wildly varied." I think that choice is a good thing.

I say build the list that you want to play and be cool with other people building the list that they want to play.

Cheers,

Iain

Again this ridiculous stigma would have not existed if GW didn't decide to tie the ability to specific Regiments (and we also wouldn't have the whole "I can't use x character with my force because it doesn't have y regiment keyword).

As for the situation we have now, the general rule *should* be that as long as you can differentiate between units with different regiment rules, it should be fine (again the whole "Is this a Mordian-Cadian infantry squad or is it a Catachan-Cadian infantry squad" question being the measuring stick)

Panzergraf wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
If you have Cadians painted the typical color you are a Cadia player

There are a million and one different regiments in the Imperium, and the Cadian look (models and color) is probably the most generic of all. Unless you've painted the Cadian Gate motif on all their shoulder plates, there's no guarantee they're actually fron Cadia.
Not to mentian that there are a bunch of different regiments from Cadia too - including mechanized (the Armageddon doctrine) and White Shields (the Valhallan conscript doctrine). In fact, conscripts as we know them today were first introduced in the Cadian army list of Codex: Eye of Terror back in 3rd edition.


I'm using Steel Legium models for my army, but it was never supposed to be an actual Armageddon Steel Legion army - they're from a totally different planet. Will WYSIWYG-extremists sperg out if I don't use the Armageddon doctrine for my entire army, - which, being made up of Chimeras and Vanquishers, is obviously not made for power gaming?

Most likely most people simply won't want to play you because clearly you're only interested in power gaming and outside a tournament setting probably won't have much fun playing you. A Cadia painted army or Steel legion painted army that clearly uses those colors were intended to be used for that planet and is now being cheery picked to gain a slight statistical advantage in a game. I don't play board games to win at all costs or power game so wouldn't want to play against someone changing an army just to gain an advantage (no different from a black templar player saying that these are now raven guard because there better). A player with that mindset is going to lead to an unfun game and thus a waste of time for me. Now if you had a Cadia army painted a unique theme then i would have no issue for them being from x planet and using a doctrine that mirrors y famous regiment.

Asmodios wrote:
Now if you had a Cadia army painted a unique theme then i would have no issue for them being from x planet and using a doctrine that mirrors y famous regiment.

So let me get this straight:

Using the Cadian models painted in Cadian colors with the Armageddon rules: NOT FUN WAAC TFG.

Using the Cadian models painted purple and green with the Armageddon rules: just fine.

Same exact rules being used for their army, but your enjoyment of the game is ruined by your paranoia about WAAC players. How exactly is this a reasonable position to hold?

In fairness, the only people who try to enforce anything particularly unreasonable on tabletop tend to be WAAC players trying to deny an opponent an advantage.

I have had a player try to tell me one of my unique characters was painted wrong so I couldn't use him for example.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Now if you had a Cadia army painted a unique theme then i would have no issue for them being from x planet and using a doctrine that mirrors y famous regiment.

So let me get this straight:

Using the Cadian models painted in Cadian colors with the Armageddon rules: NOT FUN WAAC TFG.

Using the Cadian models painted purple and green with the Armageddon rules: just fine.

Same exact rules being used for their army, but your enjoyment of the game is ruined by your paranoia about WAAC players. How exactly is this a reasonable position to hold?

My thought process is this

1. If you had any specific model (Cadia, Ultramarine, Black Templar,... ECT) and painted them that specific color then your intent was always to use them as that specific force in the Warhammer universe. You now deciding that the army you spent hundreds of hours painting and hundreds of dolors building like a specific regiment, chapter, ect is no longer that chapter because there is a slight statistical advantage to playing that model that way then you are clearly only using that rule because it is more powerful and thus are a power gamer. There's nothing wrong with this, different people want different things out of a board game. Someone willing to throw away that fluff and time put into an army for a slight statistical just isn't the type of person I want to play
2. If you had spent hundreds of hours painting an army that is uniquely colored (Purple Cadia with Snow bases, Bright orange Marines with a sun on their shoulders, whatever) then you clearly always envisioned that force being different from the standard regiments that the traditional paint scheme represented. If you have done this I have no problem with you saying "this is the doctrine they are using as this most closely represents how they fight on my homebrew planet. Now I would expect this player to be consistent with their choice and not be switching every time we get a new codex or an FAQ.

In my mind, if you were fine having Cadia for years then there is no reason why they now (count as x) purely outside of strictly power gaming and like I said I don't play this game competitively and thus wouldn't want to play you.

So what if someone doesn't see the doctrine rules as being appropriate fluff for their regiment? Say, they decided they liked the idea of playing the Brontian Longknives, a Cadian successor regiment from the FFG 40k line? They've got the same colors and armor as Cadians, so far as I can tell, but the Cadian doctrine doesn't really capture their fighting style, which is far more in-your-face; the Catachan doctrine would work a lot better, honestly. Or what if they're playing an elite Tallarn spearhead and want to use the Tempestus doctrine to represent that?

There's plenty of reasons to use a different doctrine than the models besides being That Guy.

Asmodios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Now if you had a Cadia army painted a unique theme then i would have no issue for them being from x planet and using a doctrine that mirrors y famous regiment.

So let me get this straight:

Using the Cadian models painted in Cadian colors with the Armageddon rules: NOT FUN WAAC TFG.

Using the Cadian models painted purple and green with the Armageddon rules: just fine.

Same exact rules being used for their army, but your enjoyment of the game is ruined by your paranoia about WAAC players. How exactly is this a reasonable position to hold?

My thought process is this

1. If you had any specific model (Cadia, Ultramarine, Black Templar,... ECT) and painted them that specific color then your intent was always to use them as that specific force in the Warhammer universe. You now deciding that the army you spent hundreds of hours painting and hundreds of dolors building like a specific regiment, chapter, ect is no longer that chapter because there is a slight statistical advantage to playing that model that way then you are clearly only using that rule because it is more powerful and thus are a power gamer. There's nothing wrong with this, different people want different things out of a board game. Someone willing to throw away that fluff and time put into an army for a slight statistical just isn't the type of person I want to play
2. If you had spent hundreds of hours painting an army that is uniquely colored (Purple Cadia with Snow bases, Bright orange Marines with a sun on their shoulders, whatever) then you clearly always envisioned that force being different from the standard regiments that the traditional paint scheme represented. If you have done this I have no problem with you saying "this is the doctrine they are using as this most closely represents how they fight on my homebrew planet. Now I would expect this player to be consistent with their choice and not be switching every time we get a new codex or an FAQ.

In my mind, if you were fine having Cadia for years then there is no reason why they now (count as x) purely outside of strictly power gaming and like I said I don't play this game competitively and thus wouldn't want to play you.

Do you try to read the mind and history of your opponent to check if he is truly loyal to his list and has spent years playing it? Do you also refuse to play somebody who suddenly plays a new army? How many years of total loyalty to his list does he have to display before you deem him worthy of a game with you? What are you afraid of? Losing?

Throwing the "power gamer" label around is easy to do, but its not necessarily fair. You are free to play with whomever you want, but maybe hold off on the judgements? Excluding someone based on trying different Regiments seems a little odd. Wouldn't it be more fun if your Guard opponent could come at you every month with a slightly different challenge for you to face without him having to dump hundreds of dollars and hours? Maybe he could spend that cash and time on a completely new force?

Cheers

 Spinner wrote:
So what if someone doesn't see the doctrine rules as being appropriate fluff for their regiment? Say, they decided they liked the idea of playing the Brontian Longknives, a Cadian successor regiment from the FFG 40k line? They've got the same colors and armor as Cadians, so far as I can tell, but the Cadian doctrine doesn't really capture their fighting style, which is far more in-your-face; the Catachan doctrine would work a lot better, honestly. Or what if they're playing an elite Tallarn spearhead and want to use the Tempestus doctrine to represent that?

There's plenty of reasons to use a different doctrine than the models besides being That Guy.

I would expect someone that modeled a specific regiment that's different from Cadia yet similar themed to have the correct markings and unit numbers depicting them as different. As for Custom Tallarn models to represent Tempestus soldiers from that world that's fine. Once again the issue is a Cadia regiment painted as Cadia functioning as something that's not Cadia. No different than having a bunch of Dark angels painted as Dark Angels but using as Ultramarines simply to gain a statistical advantage. It's clearly power gaming and just someone I wouldn't personally play and honestly id respect the person that just said "hey whats important to me is winning so I play these Cadia troops as x regiment clearly to gain a statistical advantage and I don't care about the lore behind the models the least bit".

Asmodios wrote:
1. If you had any specific model (Cadia, Ultramarine, Black Templar,... ECT) and painted them that specific color then your intent was always to use them as that specific force in the Warhammer universe. You now deciding that the army you spent hundreds of hours painting and hundreds of dolors building like a specific regiment, chapter, ect is no longer that chapter because there is a slight statistical advantage to playing that model that way then you are clearly only using that rule because it is more powerful and thus are a power gamer. There's nothing wrong with this, different people want different things out of a board game. Someone willing to throw away that fluff and time put into an army for a slight statistical just isn't the type of person I want to play
2. If you had spent hundreds of hours painting an army that is uniquely colored (Purple Cadia with Snow bases, Bright orange Marines with a sun on their shoulders, whatever) then you clearly always envisioned that force being different from the standard regiments that the traditional paint scheme represented. If you have done this I have no problem with you saying "this is the doctrine they are using as this most closely represents how they fight on my homebrew planet. Now I would expect this player to be consistent with their choice and not be switching every time we get a new codex or an FAQ.

In my mind, if you were fine having Cadia for years then there is no reason why they now (count as x) purely outside of strictly power gaming and like I said I don't play this game competitively and thus wouldn't want to play you.

IOW, you're paranoid about "intent" in selecting rules, as magically detected through paint scheme choices, and care more about that than the actual strength of the army on the table. For example, the player with Cadians painted as Cadians using the Cadian rules might be playing an optimized conscript spam army and have a very powerful list, while the player with Cadians painted in Cadian colors using the Catachan rules might have a bunch of weak units that they thought were cool and have a much weaker list. But your theory about WAAC players says "don't play the second guy" while having no problem with the much more powerful list.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Now if you had a Cadia army painted a unique theme then i would have no issue for them being from x planet and using a doctrine that mirrors y famous regiment.

So let me get this straight:

Using the Cadian models painted in Cadian colors with the Armageddon rules: NOT FUN WAAC TFG.

Using the Cadian models painted purple and green with the Armageddon rules: just fine.

Same exact rules being used for their army, but your enjoyment of the game is ruined by your paranoia about WAAC players. How exactly is this a reasonable position to hold?

My thought process is this

1. If you had any specific model (Cadia, Ultramarine, Black Templar,... ECT) and painted them that specific color then your intent was always to use them as that specific force in the Warhammer universe. You now deciding that the army you spent hundreds of hours painting and hundreds of dolors building like a specific regiment, chapter, ect is no longer that chapter because there is a slight statistical advantage to playing that model that way then you are clearly only using that rule because it is more powerful and thus are a power gamer. There's nothing wrong with this, different people want different things out of a board game. Someone willing to throw away that fluff and time put into an army for a slight statistical just isn't the type of person I want to play
2. If you had spent hundreds of hours painting an army that is uniquely colored (Purple Cadia with Snow bases, Bright orange Marines with a sun on their shoulders, whatever) then you clearly always envisioned that force being different from the standard regiments that the traditional paint scheme represented. If you have done this I have no problem with you saying "this is the doctrine they are using as this most closely represents how they fight on my homebrew planet. Now I would expect this player to be consistent with their choice and not be switching every time we get a new codex or an FAQ.

In my mind, if you were fine having Cadia for years then there is no reason why they now (count as x) purely outside of strictly power gaming and like I said I don't play this game competitively and thus wouldn't want to play you.

Do you try to read the mind and history of your opponent to check if he is truly loyal to his list and has spent years playing it? Do you also refuse to play somebody who suddenly plays a new army? How many years of total loyalty to his list does he have to display before you deem him worthy of a game with you? What are you afraid of? Losing?

Throwing the "power gamer" label around is easy to do, but its not necessarily fair. You are free to play with whomever you want, but maybe hold off on the judgements? Excluding someone based on trying different Regiments seems a little odd. Wouldn't it be more fun if your Guard opponent could come at you every month with a slightly different challenge for you to face without him having to dump hundreds of dollars and hours? Maybe he could spend that cash and time on a completely new force?

Cheers

Dont have to read a mind when you painted an army a specific theme and have now changed it the second a new codex is released to gain a specific statistical advantage. There is no mind reading, no pre conceved notions or anything like that. They simply painted an army to match a specific one in a book and now are switching it purley based on statistics..... its the definition of power gaming.

"The most diverse fighting force in the galaxy."

NO YOU CAN'T SAY YOUR CADIANS ARE MORDIAN TRAINED, THEY'RE PAINTED LIKE CADIA!

I can see some points of this whole argument in which bringing Cadian tanks, with Vahallan conscripts, and whatever other IG Alphabet soup lists some douche nozzles may want to cook up with for a WAAC list, but when you start saying someone is a power gamer for wanting to run their Cadians or whatever as a different regime when its pretty explicit in the fluff as well; I don't know what to tell you.

How about you just agree to disagree and not play these people instead of impose your will upon them? Simple. Everyone's happy.

Asmodios wrote:

Most likely most people simply won't want to play you because clearly you're only interested in power gaming and outside a tournament setting probably won't have much fun playing you. A Cadia painted army or Steel legion painted army that clearly uses those colors were intended to be used for that planet and is now being cheery picked to gain a slight statistical advantage in a game. I don't play board games to win at all costs or power game so wouldn't want to play against someone changing an army just to gain an advantage (no different from a black templar player saying that these are now raven guard because there better). A player with that mindset is going to lead to an unfun game and thus a waste of time for me. Now if you had a Cadia army painted a unique theme then i would have no issue for them being from x planet and using a doctrine that mirrors y famous regiment.

Yes, because if they're green and tan then taking the steel legion doctrine to make them good at jumping back into transports is totally WAAC but if they're painted some other color then it's totally cool.

Maybe they're just picking the doctrine that fits their particular regiment's skill set the best? Perhaps being less of a judgemental ass would be an idea?

Do you also flip out if someone picks a different warlord trait but uses the same model? I mean, that warlord hasn't just learned a new special skill since the last game, right? What a horrible power gamer.

 Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:
"The most diverse fighting force in the galaxy."

NO YOU CAN'T SAY YOUR CADIANS ARE MORDIAN TRAINED, THEY'RE PAINTED LIKE CADIA!

I can see some points of this whole argument in which bringing Cadian tanks, with Vahallan conscripts, and whatever other IG Alphabet soup lists some douche nozzles may want to cook up with for a WAAC list, but when you start saying someone is a power gamer for wanting to run their Cadians or whatever as a different regime when its pretty explicit in the fluff as well; I don't know what to tell you.

How about you just agree to disagree and not play these people instead of impose your will upon them? Simple. Everyone's happy.

How is not wanting to play someone who is clearly power gaming (literally no different than having a full painted Dark angels army and saying "these are salamanders now because they are better") imposing my will? Imposing my will would be not allowing that person to play in a store or kicking them out. I simply don't want to play against someone with that mindset. If you get that upset about people not wanting to play you then don't clearly run the most powerful version of a regiment or a chapter even though they are built and painted as a different one .

Asmodios wrote:

Dont have to read a mind when you painted an army a specific theme and have now changed it the second a new codex is released to gain a specific statistical advantage. There is no mind reading, no pre conceved notions or anything like that. They simply painted an army to match a specific one in a book and now are switching it purley based on statistics..... its the definition of power gaming.

Heaven forbid that people make choices in army composition that are intended to make an army that functions well. How terrible of them.

Presumably you'd also refuse to play someone that pulled some guns off a model to replace them with ones that are better under the new edition's rules? Or swapped models between squads for more effective composition? Or, in fact, varied their army composition in any way intended to improve it under the new rules. That's all about trying to gain a specific statistical advantage. I guess the only valid army construction method is to select units and upgrades at random?

I think that's pretty much what was said. I played steel legion guard since the days the models launched, before that, armored fist squads. My models where steel legion through thick and thin. I could of played them in another setting and made up some story to power game but why would I,

It's terribly unfluffy, unfun and power gamer-ish. If you want to magically make a new army and expect me to look past all the cadia transfers and standards fine, just don't play me. If your idea of competition is relying on dice rolls and skewed lists to win, I already feel like the gap in what you consider skill and contest is so sepearated from reality we don't need to be competing anyway lol.

 Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:


I can see some points of this whole argument in which bringing Cadian tanks, with Vahallan conscripts, and whatever other IG Alphabet soup lists some douche nozzles may want to cook up with for a WAAC list, but when you start saying someone is a power gamer for wanting to run their Cadians or whatever as a different regime when its pretty explicit in the fluff as well; I don't know what to tell you.

Honestly, I wouldn't even mind people using a vehicle detachment from one world and an infantry detachment from another, especially in a larger game. That happens a ton in the background, and honestly is more fluffy than having tanks and infantry from the same regiment; that's a big no-no in the Imperium, after all (Horus is why we can't have nice things!)

 Carl wrote:
If you want to magically make a new army and expect me to look past all the cadia transfers and standards fine, just don't play me.

The fact you'd rather not play a game than let someone use the rules they want with their expensive models says more about you than it does about them.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Carl wrote:
If you want to magically make a new army and expect me to look past all the cadia transfers and standards fine, just don't play me.

The fact you'd rather not play a game than let someone use the rules they want with their expensive models says more about you than it does about them.

That I play for the fun, friendships and enjoyment? I save my try face for something that doesn't come down to bad rolls and tailored lists.

 Spinner wrote:

 Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:


I can see some points of this whole argument in which bringing Cadian tanks, with Vahallan conscripts, and whatever other IG Alphabet soup lists some douche nozzles may want to cook up with for a WAAC list, but when you start saying someone is a power gamer for wanting to run their Cadians or whatever as a different regime when its pretty explicit in the fluff as well; I don't know what to tell you.

Honestly, I wouldn't even mind people using a vehicle detachment from one world and an infantry detachment from another, especially in a larger game. That happens a ton in the background, and honestly is more fluffy than having tanks and infantry from the same regiment; that's a big no-no in the Imperium, after all (Horus is why we can't have nice things!)

Fortunately, my infantry are all converted, nothing has a mark trying it to one of the standard worlds and my tanks are marked with a different regiment number to my infantry and transports. This means I can power game all I want with the regimental bonuses and the fluff bunnies will be fine with it, apparently.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Carl wrote:
If you want to magically make a new army and expect me to look past all the cadia transfers and standards fine, just don't play me.

The fact you'd rather not play a game than let someone use the rules they want with their expensive models says more about you than it does about them.

The fact that you want to win so bad you cant just use the models that you bought and painted a specific way as they are intended in the rule book says more about you than someone that just wants you to play what you put on the table.

Asmodios wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Carl wrote:
If you want to magically make a new army and expect me to look past all the cadia transfers and standards fine, just don't play me.

The fact you'd rather not play a game than let someone use the rules they want with their expensive models says more about you than it does about them.

The fact that you want to win so bad you cant just use the models that you bought and painted a specific way as they are intended in the rule book says more about you than someone that just wants you to play what you put on the table.

So if I have cadian models not painted green and tan then you're okay with me using any regiment rules that I want but green and tan cadians should be locked into one specific doctrine?

And you think that's the only color cadians ever are, they don't change their colors/camouflage to match the environment where they're fighting?

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Carl wrote:
If you want to magically make a new army and expect me to look past all the cadia transfers and standards fine, just don't play me.

The fact you'd rather not play a game than let someone use the rules they want with their expensive models says more about you than it does about them.

The fact that you want to win so bad you cant just use the models that you bought and painted a specific way as they are intended in the rule book says more about you than someone that just wants you to play what you put on the table.

So if I have cadian models not painted green and tan then you're okay with me using any regiment rules that I want but green and tan cadians should be locked into one specific doctrine?

And you think that's the only color cadians ever are, they don't change their colors/camouflage to match the environment where they're fighting?

I'm not sure if you are trying to obfuscate the issue or you are just ignorant. All anyone is saying is if you come out with a very specific theme(cadian, pask, colors, transfers) etc, and they are magically now jungle fighters, it's apparent what you are doing. If it was a space marine chapter of bright red jump pack assault troops who are magically now no longer blood angels just ultramarines, it's obvious what you are doing. You are someone who will ignore hundreds of dollars and massive amount of time for a slight statistical advantage. People like that tend to not
Make for very fun opponents. I would love to hear the back story on your custom regiment, admire new color schemes, etc

 Carl wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Carl wrote:
If you want to magically make a new army and expect me to look past all the cadia transfers and standards fine, just don't play me.

The fact you'd rather not play a game than let someone use the rules they want with their expensive models says more about you than it does about them.

The fact that you want to win so bad you cant just use the models that you bought and painted a specific way as they are intended in the rule book says more about you than someone that just wants you to play what you put on the table.

So if I have cadian models not painted green and tan then you're okay with me using any regiment rules that I want but green and tan cadians should be locked into one specific doctrine?

And you think that's the only color cadians ever are, they don't change their colors/camouflage to match the environment where they're fighting?

I'm not sure if you are trying to obfuscate the issue or you are just ignorant. All anyone is saying is if you come out with a very specific theme(cadian, pask, colors, transfers) etc, and they are magically now jungle fighters, it's apparent what you are doing. If it was a space marine chapter of bright red jump pack assault troops who are magically now no longer blood angels just ultramarines, it's obvious what you are doing. You are someone who will ignore hundreds of dollars and massive amount of time for a slight statistical advantage. People like that tend to not
Make for very fun opponents.

So there's no possibility that someone with, for example, an infantry squads and chimera heavy army (definitely not powergaming there) might want to pick steel legion because it makes sense for a regiment with that specialization?

You also keep referencing colors - cadians will be whatever colors are appropriate to the environment, as will other regiments. You can't look at the colors to determine if they're supposed to be cadian or not.

I mean, it's the most diverse fighting force in the history of ever. Not just by drawing from a ton of different planets, but also with what's on those planets. I have no problems believing that a Cadian mechanized regiment would have the Steel Legion doctrine, for example, or a desperate Mordian-led PDF could use the Valhallan doctrine to keep sending waves of troops at the enemy; heck, the Tallarn doctrine seems pretty good at representing a Catachan ambush!

Don't change it mid-battle, and if you're running multiple detachments with different doctrines, have some way to differentiate them. That's all I ask.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Carl wrote:
If you want to magically make a new army and expect me to look past all the cadia transfers and standards fine, just don't play me.

The fact you'd rather not play a game than let someone use the rules they want with their expensive models says more about you than it does about them.

The fact that you want to win so bad you cant just use the models that you bought and painted a specific way as they are intended in the rule book says more about you than someone that just wants you to play what you put on the table.

So if I have cadian models not painted green and tan then you're okay with me using any regiment rules that I want but green and tan cadians should be locked into one specific doctrine?

And you think that's the only color cadians ever are, they don't change their colors/camouflage to match the environment where they're fighting?

Yup, if you have a differently painted army then you make the fluff it's that easy run them as whatever you want. Just like painting Orange SM with custom marking you choose exactly what they line up with. But when you pick a specific SM chapter or IG regiment from the lore and paint it that way then yes you should play them as they appear in the codex and switching it to gain an advantage is clearly power gaming and i dont want to be a part of that.

You don't have much choice whether its OOP models, metal models with mono-poses, or you can buy 2-3 boxes of bits you'll need to convert the regiment you want to run.

Or, you can use the plastic Cadian models present, not have to go broke and/or insane working on conversions or buying OOP models, and come up with a custom regiment backstory.

All of this and you've only been given notice barely a week ago.

I guess I just better trash all the Cadian models I've been collecting because I want to try to run them as a Valhallan force. Regardless of the fact I may like the look of Cadia over some of the other historical copies of IG regiments.

But then again, I'm not bothered by my friend showing up with his blood angels and wanting to run them that game as a different chapter. This is the most expensive game of toy soldiers imaginable, I understand people don't have the financial means of collecting 3 different SM chapters, how could you expect someone to realistically kit bash one of the most expensive armies to collect as it is?

Asmodios wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Carl wrote:
If you want to magically make a new army and expect me to look past all the cadia transfers and standards fine, just don't play me.

The fact you'd rather not play a game than let someone use the rules they want with their expensive models says more about you than it does about them.

The fact that you want to win so bad you cant just use the models that you bought and painted a specific way as they are intended in the rule book says more about you than someone that just wants you to play what you put on the table.

So if I have cadian models not painted green and tan then you're okay with me using any regiment rules that I want but green and tan cadians should be locked into one specific doctrine?

And you think that's the only color cadians ever are, they don't change their colors/camouflage to match the environment where they're fighting?

Yup, if you have a differently painted army then you make the fluff it's that easy run them as whatever you want. Just like painting Orange SM with custom marking you choose exactly what they line up with. But when you pick a specific SM chapter or IG regiment from the lore and paint it that way then yes you should play them as they appear in the codex and switching it to gain an advantage is clearly power gaming and i dont want to be a part of that.

Again - IG use camoflague. They are whatever colors is appropriate to the environment. Being green and tan doesn't mean they're cadian, being some other color scheme doesn't mean they aren't.

If you're going to get stroppy about the crunch not matching the fluff at least get the fluff right.

I don't have a problem with someone wanting to try a different regiment either, I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp about that. If you nicely say, hey, I'm really wanting to give this chapter a shot before I start collecting, go for it. But if I notice a completely uniform army that is magically the best regiment for it's role on the field, that's the definition of power gaming. Is this a difficupt concept? Why are you so afraid of the title of power gamer?

 Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:
You don't have much choice whether its OOP models, metal models with mono-poses, or you can buy 2-3 boxes of bits you'll need to convert the regiment you want to run.

Or, you can use the plastic Cadian models present, not have to go broke and/or insane working on conversions or buying OOP models, and come up with a custom regiment backstory.

All of this and you've only been given notice barely a week ago.

I guess I just better trash all the Cadian models I've been collecting because I want to try to run them as a Valhallan force. Regardless of the fact I may like the look of Cadia over some of the other historical copies of IG regiments.

But then again, I'm not bothered by my friend showing up with his blood angels and wanting to run them that game as a different chapter. This is the most expensive game of toy soldiers imaginable, I understand people don't have the financial means of collecting 3 different SM chapters, how could you expect someone to realistically kit bash one of the most expensive armies to collect as it is?

Nobody is asking you to buy a new army just play them the way they are (blood angels are blood angels, not Salamanders because they got a buff). The only reason you would have to "throw away your models" is because you are such a power gamer at heart that you cant take playing a slightly less effective force.

 Carl wrote:
I don't have a problem with someone wanting to try a different regiment either, I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp about that. If you nicely say, hey, I'm really wanting to give this chapter a shot before I start collecting, go for it. But if I notice a completely uniform army that is magically the best regiment for it's role on the field, that's the definition of power gaming. Is this a difficupt concept? Why are you so afraid of the title of power gamer?

I'm not worried about it. As I said, my guard are non-standard and I even have different regiment markings on my tank regiment to my infantry regiment so according to you I can go ahead and pick the most powerful doctrines and it's not power gaming.

Kinda sucks for the guy that painted them tan/green and just wants to use the doctrine that fits his regiments fluff best when he runs into you.

 Carl wrote:
I don't have a problem with someone wanting to try a different regiment either, I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp about that. If you nicely say, hey, I'm really wanting to give this chapter a shot before I start collecting, go for it. But if I notice a completely uniform army that is magically the best regiment for it's role on the field, that's the definition of power gaming. Is this a difficupt concept? Why are you so afraid of the title of power gamer?

Exactly this.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Carl wrote:
I don't have a problem with someone wanting to try a different regiment either, I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp about that. If you nicely say, hey, I'm really wanting to give this chapter a shot before I start collecting, go for it. But if I notice a completely uniform army that is magically the best regiment for it's role on the field, that's the definition of power gaming. Is this a difficupt concept? Why are you so afraid of the title of power gamer?

I'm not worried about it. As I said, my guard are non-standard and I even have different regiment markings on my tank regiment to my infantry regiment so according to you I can go ahead and pick the best doctrines and it's not power gaming.

Kinda sucks for the guy that painted them tan/green and just wants to use the doctrine that fits his regiments fluff best when he runs into you.

Are you not picking those doctrines for the best statistical advantage? I'm not sure why you are so offended by the power gaming label. Some people play to win, that's fine. I'm not sure I understand why you are wearing it like it's a slur.

By your logic, even if I were to want to run a more mediocre regiment I'm still power gaming.

I don't understand. Why people think that the only reason to switch chapter/regiment/craftworld rules is because you want an statistical advantage?
Don't have you think that maybe that player just want to play a slighly different gameplay stile with the same army, because he is bored after playing the same rules for the 2-6 years that last an edition?
I think is pretty cool that the Imperial Guard Codex allows for so many different play styles in the same army-codex, using the same models but with different rules.
And then people wants to destroy that diversity and ... "fun", because in their minds or you are a pure historic-accurate narrative player or a powergaming/minmaxer-WAAC?
Thats pretty Manichean, guys.

And whats exactly "Ultramarine" about retreating and shoot, and whats exactly Salamander about re-rolling one dice for every unit? Why those totally arbitrary rules are so important that one NEEDS to use the SAME rules for years because thats... "narrative"? What? Thats just personal arbitrary standards that one shouldn't never expect from other people.

GW: "Ey guys here you have a bunch of rules, so you can play the same army in many different ways, so you can have all fun!"
""""Narrative player"""": "Ok guys you have heard GW, we need to pick one of those and stick to it NO MATTER WHAT.
GW: "What? That isn't what I have sa...."
""""Narrative player"""": "Shut up your Powergamer! What, why are you offended that I label you as a power-gamer, you filthy power-gamer, WAAC scum! I'm not insulting you, I'm just describing you"

 Carl wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Carl wrote:
I don't have a problem with someone wanting to try a different regiment either, I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp about that. If you nicely say, hey, I'm really wanting to give this chapter a shot before I start collecting, go for it. But if I notice a completely uniform army that is magically the best regiment for it's role on the field, that's the definition of power gaming. Is this a difficupt concept? Why are you so afraid of the title of power gamer?

I'm not worried about it. As I said, my guard are non-standard and I even have different regiment markings on my tank regiment to my infantry regiment so according to you I can go ahead and pick the best doctrines and it's not power gaming.

Kinda sucks for the guy that painted them tan/green and just wants to use the doctrine that fits his regiments fluff best when he runs into you.

Are you not picking those doctrines for the best statistical advantage? I'm not sure why you are so offended by the power gaming label. Some people play to win, that's fine. I'm not sure I understand why you are wearing it like it's a slur.

Yep. It's called making a good army and trying to be good at the game. I'm curious why you think that is some kind of sin with regard to the regimental rules but other things are different? Or are you one of those players that throws lists together at random then complains when other people have better armies? (I mean, surely you don't pick units for your army based on trying to obtain an effective composition - that's just trying to get a statistical advantage!)

Of course, I could just be picking the ones that fit my regiments' fluff best and the same is true of the guy that has them painted green/tan. You don't know. But you're prepared to get all judgemental over one of those players but not the other.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Carl wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Carl wrote:
I don't have a problem with someone wanting to try a different regiment either, I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp about that. If you nicely say, hey, I'm really wanting to give this chapter a shot before I start collecting, go for it. But if I notice a completely uniform army that is magically the best regiment for it's role on the field, that's the definition of power gaming. Is this a difficupt concept? Why are you so afraid of the title of power gamer?

I'm not worried about it. As I said, my guard are non-standard and I even have different regiment markings on my tank regiment to my infantry regiment so according to you I can go ahead and pick the best doctrines and it's not power gaming.

Kinda sucks for the guy that painted them tan/green and just wants to use the doctrine that fits his regiments fluff best when he runs into you.

Are you not picking those doctrines for the best statistical advantage? I'm not sure why you are so offended by the power gaming label. Some people play to win, that's fine. I'm not sure I understand why you are wearing it like it's a slur.

Yep. It's called making a good army and trying to be good at the game. I'm curious why you think that is some kind of sin with regard to the regimental rules but other things are different? Or are you one of those players that throws lists together at random then complains when other people have better armies? (I mean, surely you don't pick units for your army based on trying to obtain an effective composition - that's just trying to get a statistical advantage!)

I play a very fluffy list that's fun, I haven't won a single game with my newest army, I don't wear it with a badge of courage I just enjoy the game for different reasons. It's totally fine that you wish to run that way, that's perfectly fine and that was never part of any argument. As I said in my first post my ideas of what is a fair platform of competition and what is a fun hobby is so diametrically opposed to what yours is, it's just never going to find common ground. I have been playing this game for about 20 years, I have done tournaments. Won a few, and realized it wasn't for me. My idea of competition just isn't stacking a list and praying to the dice gods. I believe other hobbies are better suited for that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with you wanting to win, it's just sad to me that the fun gets lost along the way, and makes me sad you didn't experience competition the way I did in my life.

And no, I pick models based off of what they look like 90% of the time, the other 10% is filling out required slots in army competition

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Carl wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Carl wrote:
I don't have a problem with someone wanting to try a different regiment either, I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp about that. If you nicely say, hey, I'm really wanting to give this chapter a shot before I start collecting, go for it. But if I notice a completely uniform army that is magically the best regiment for it's role on the field, that's the definition of power gaming. Is this a difficupt concept? Why are you so afraid of the title of power gamer?

I'm not worried about it. As I said, my guard are non-standard and I even have different regiment markings on my tank regiment to my infantry regiment so according to you I can go ahead and pick the best doctrines and it's not power gaming.

Kinda sucks for the guy that painted them tan/green and just wants to use the doctrine that fits his regiments fluff best when he runs into you.

Are you not picking those doctrines for the best statistical advantage? I'm not sure why you are so offended by the power gaming label. Some people play to win, that's fine. I'm not sure I understand why you are wearing it like it's a slur.

Yep. It's called making a good army and trying to be good at the game. I'm curious why you think that is some kind of sin with regard to the regimental rules but other things are different? Or are you one of those players that throws lists together at random then complains when other people have better armies? (I mean, surely you don't pick units for your army based on trying to obtain an effective composition - that's just trying to get a statistical advantage!)

Dude that's fine if you're a power gamer just admit you are.... I'm just not into playing board games super competitively. I played minor pro hockey that was my super serious competition. I dont go to play board games to toss fluff out the window for minimal statistical advantages just to win.

Imperial Soup lists throw fluff out the damn window, two different IG regiments working along side has been a part of the fluff for 20+ years.

 Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:
Imperial Soup lists throw fluff out the damn window, two different IG regiments working along side has been a part of the fluff for 20+ years.

I completely agree. I'm not sure where you thought I said otherwise.

Asmodios wrote:

Dude that's fine if you're a power gamer just admit you are.... I'm just not into playing board games super competitively. I played minor pro hockey that was my super serious competition. I dont go to play board games to toss fluff out the window for minimal statistical advantages just to win.

 Carl wrote:

I play a very fluffy list that's fun, I haven't won a single game with my newest army, I don't wear it with a badge of courage I just enjoy the game for different reasons. It's totally fine that you wish to run that way, that's perfectly fine and that was never part of any argument. As I said in my first post my ideas of what is a fair platform of competition and what is a fun hobby is so diametrically opposed to what yours is, it's just never going to find common ground. I have been playing this game for about 20 years, I have done tournaments. Won a few, and realized it wasn't for me. My idea of competition just isn't stacking a list and praying to the dice gods. I believe other hobbies are better suited for that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with you wanting to win, it's just sad to me that the fun gets lost along the way, and makes me sad you didn't experience competition the way I did in my life.

And no, I pick models based off of what they look like 90% of the time, the other 10% is filling out required slots in army competition

Both of you are completely missing the point.

You've both said that you're going to get judgemental to the point of refusing to play with someone playing green/tan guard using anything other than cadian doctrines.

How do you know that guy isn't just picking the doctrine that fits his regiment's fluff best? (not least because being green/tan doesn't mean they're cadian and being some other color scheme doesn't mean they aren't. If you're going to be stroppy about fluff at least get it right.)

How is it even fluffy that every regiment with all of their various specializations should have the exact same skills just because they're from the same planet? Getting judgemental about someone because their fluff doesn't match the fluff you've got in your own head is pretty lame.


You also both seem to believe that there is zero middle ground between picking units at random and being a min-maxing tournament gamer. You're missing out on the best bit of 40K which is somewhere between those two extremes.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Dude that's fine if you're a power gamer just admit you are.... I'm just not into playing board games super competitively. I played minor pro hockey that was my super serious competition. I dont go to play board games to toss fluff out the window for minimal statistical advantages just to win.

 Carl wrote:

I play a very fluffy list that's fun, I haven't won a single game with my newest army, I don't wear it with a badge of courage I just enjoy the game for different reasons. It's totally fine that you wish to run that way, that's perfectly fine and that was never part of any argument. As I said in my first post my ideas of what is a fair platform of competition and what is a fun hobby is so diametrically opposed to what yours is, it's just never going to find common ground. I have been playing this game for about 20 years, I have done tournaments. Won a few, and realized it wasn't for me. My idea of competition just isn't stacking a list and praying to the dice gods. I believe other hobbies are better suited for that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with you wanting to win, it's just sad to me that the fun gets lost along the way, and makes me sad you didn't experience competition the way I did in my life.

And no, I pick models based off of what they look like 90% of the time, the other 10% is filling out required slots in army competition

Both of you are completely missing the point.

You've both said that you're going to get judgemental to the point of refusing to play with someone playing green/tan guard using anything other than cadian doctrines.

How do you know that guy isn't just picking the doctrine that fits his regiment's fluff best? (not least because being green/tan doesn't mean they're cadian and being some other color scheme doesn't mean they aren't. If you're going to be stroppy about fluff at least get it right.)

Because he painted a Cadia specific army and the codex says "this is how Cadia fights". You cant pick which fluff fits best when playing an army that tells you how the fluff fits "Hey these specific black templars are more like Salamanders". Just flat out say "Hey man i play to win so all these Green tanks that say Cadia on the side aren't anymore because winning this game is really important to me".

Asmodios wrote:

Because he painted a Cadia specific army and the codex says "this is how Cadia fights". You cant pick which fluff fits best when playing an army that tells you how the fluff fits "Hey these specific black templars are more like Salamanders". Just flat out say "Hey man i play to win so all these Green tanks that say Cadia on the side aren't anymore because winning this game is really important to me".

Are you really that simple minded to think that the name of the doctrine dictates how every regiment from cadia behaves compared to every regiment from armageddon?

So if the guy's fluff for his cadian regiment is that they're experts in mech infantry tactics so he wants armageddon rules to represent that you're going to point at the book and tell him he's wrong?

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Dude that's fine if you're a power gamer just admit you are.... I'm just not into playing board games super competitively. I played minor pro hockey that was my super serious competition. I dont go to play board games to toss fluff out the window for minimal statistical advantages just to win.

 Carl wrote:

I play a very fluffy list that's fun, I haven't won a single game with my newest army, I don't wear it with a badge of courage I just enjoy the game for different reasons. It's totally fine that you wish to run that way, that's perfectly fine and that was never part of any argument. As I said in my first post my ideas of what is a fair platform of competition and what is a fun hobby is so diametrically opposed to what yours is, it's just never going to find common ground. I have been playing this game for about 20 years, I have done tournaments. Won a few, and realized it wasn't for me. My idea of competition just isn't stacking a list and praying to the dice gods. I believe other hobbies are better suited for that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with you wanting to win, it's just sad to me that the fun gets lost along the way, and makes me sad you didn't experience competition the way I did in my life.

And no, I pick models based off of what they look like 90% of the time, the other 10% is filling out required slots in army competition

Both of you are completely missing the point.

You've both said that you're going to get judgemental to the point of refusing to play with someone playing green/tan guard using anything other than cadian doctrines.

How do you know that guy isn't just picking the doctrine that fits his regiment's fluff best? (not least because being green/tan doesn't mean they're cadian and being some other color scheme doesn't mean they aren't. If you're going to be stroppy about fluff at least get it right.)

How is it even fluffy that every regiment with all of their various specializations should have the exact same skills just because they're from the same planet?


You also both seem to believe that there is zero middle ground between picking units at random and being a min-maxing tournament gamer. You're missing out on the best bit of 40K which is somewhere between those two extremes.

Is that in a list of uniform units that magically all are specialized for the perfect role?

What does it say to me about the player who is sitting there with a uniform set of units, scheme, transfers etc that are all just magically min maxed. That's not compromise at all lol. I'm not sure why you are so offended we wouldn't welcome you into our gaming club.my group prefers to escape the wives, have some beers and laughs and just enjoy it. You seem to want to try and test your unbelievable ability to...roll...dice?

 Carl wrote:

Is that in a list of uniform units that magically all are specialized for the perfect role?

What does it say to me about the player who is sitting there with a uniform set of units, scheme, transfers etc that are all just magically min maxed. That's not compromise at all lol. I'm not sure why you are so offended we wouldn't welcome you into our gaming club.my group prefers to escape the wives, have some beers and laughs and just enjoy it. You seem to want to try and test your unbelievable ability to...roll...dice?

And now you're moving the goalposts.

You're talking about someone bringing a highly optimized list. Previously you said that painting an official color scheme whilst using some other regiment's rules = power gaming.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Because he painted a Cadia specific army and the codex says "this is how Cadia fights". You cant pick which fluff fits best when playing an army that tells you how the fluff fits "Hey these specific black templars are more like Salamanders". Just flat out say "Hey man i play to win so all these Green tanks that say Cadia on the side aren't anymore because winning this game is really important to me".

Are you really that simple minded to think that the name of the doctrine dictates how every regiment from cadia behaves compared to every regiment from armageddon?

Are you so simple minded to think the name of a SM chapter affects how they fight? The simple answer is yes this is no different than a full painted Black Templar army choosing to use a better codex just to gain a statistical advantage. The book tells you how black templars fight and that's the rules you use. Not sure why your so upset, just say "i use every statistical advantage i can use to play board games and win" and i will simply say "cool hope you have fun today but im gonna play that other guy over there"

You can't compare a Space Marine Chapter that by definition is a extremenly limited group of people and highly specialiced with literally with literally a whole planet.

Do you think that the Armageddon Ork Hunters have anything to do with Armageddon Steel Legion? They are much more like Catachans, puting an example.

And please stop with this passive-aggresive nonsense "Omg why are you so offended that I call you a power gamer? I'm only describing how you try to gain every advantage to gain in a game with toy soldiers like a spoiled child!"

Asmodios wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Because he painted a Cadia specific army and the codex says "this is how Cadia fights". You cant pick which fluff fits best when playing an army that tells you how the fluff fits "Hey these specific black templars are more like Salamanders". Just flat out say "Hey man i play to win so all these Green tanks that say Cadia on the side aren't anymore because winning this game is really important to me".

Are you really that simple minded to think that the name of the doctrine dictates how every regiment from cadia behaves compared to every regiment from armageddon?

Are you so simple minded to think the name of a SM chapter affects how they fight? The simple answer is yes this is no different than a full painted Black Templar army choosing to use a better codex just to gain a statistical advantage. The book tells you how black templars fight and that's the rules you use. Not sure why your so upset, just say "i use every statistical advantage i can use to play board games and win" and i will simply say "cool hope you have fun today but im gonna play that other guy over there"

Are you seriously trying to compare the enormous diversity of guard regiments from a single planet to a chapter of marines that's barely the size of single regiment?

Have fun telling people that their fluff is wrong and bad and that it makes them a power gamer. I'm sure they'll form an equally strong opinion of you.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Carl wrote:

Is that in a list of uniform units that magically all are specialized for the perfect role?

What does it say to me about the player who is sitting there with a uniform set of units, scheme, transfers etc that are all just magically min maxed. That's not compromise at all lol. I'm not sure why you are so offended we wouldn't welcome you into our gaming club.my group prefers to escape the wives, have some beers and laughs and just enjoy it. You seem to want to try and test your unbelievable ability to...roll...dice?

And now you're moving the goalposts.

You're talking about someone bringing a highly optimized list. Previously you said that painting an official color scheme whilst using some other regiment's rules = power gaming.

I said exactly what I have been. That if your list is completely uniform themed, with no effort at distinguishing them and are running each regiment as min-maxed, it's power gaming. Are you ok? You seem way too emotionally invested. You admitted you play to win, that's fine. In fact, I encourage you to do it within your circle of like minded people, just don't be offended if you catch me, I take one look at what you are doing and politely decline the match.

It's hopeless to argue if you truly believe that anyone who might want to try out different regiment traits game to game are all power gaming. That's a blanket statement plain and simple, almost as if in this universe no one who has an IG army simply wants to try a slight incremental change to the way their army plays week to week. They just want to powergame.

 Galas wrote:
You can't compare a Space Marine Chapter that by definition is a extremenly limited group of people and highly specialiced with literally with literally a whole planet.

Do you think that the Armageddon Ork Hunters have anything to do with Armageddon Steel Legion? They are much more like Catachans, puting an example.

And please stop with this passive-aggresive nonsense "Omg why are you so offended that I call you a power gamer? I'm only describing how you try to gain every advantage to gain in a game with toy soilders like a spoiled child!"

Yes, one specific chapter is equivalent to one specific world and the way they train and fight. Just like every Templar crusade fights the same Cadia troops trained on Cadia fight how the codex says Cadia soldiers fight. Its not passive aggressive.... he wants to disregard an entire regiments paint job, models and codex entry for a slight advantage..... that's power gaming i don't see the big deal.

 Carl wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Carl wrote:

Is that in a list of uniform units that magically all are specialized for the perfect role?

What does it say to me about the player who is sitting there with a uniform set of units, scheme, transfers etc that are all just magically min maxed. That's not compromise at all lol. I'm not sure why you are so offended we wouldn't welcome you into our gaming club.my group prefers to escape the wives, have some beers and laughs and just enjoy it. You seem to want to try and test your unbelievable ability to...roll...dice?

And now you're moving the goalposts.

You're talking about someone bringing a highly optimized list. Previously you said that painting an official color scheme whilst using some other regiment's rules = power gaming.

I said exactly what I have been. That if your list is completely uniform themed, with no effort at distinguishing them and are running each regiment as min-maxed, it's power gaming. Are you ok? You seem way too emotionally invested. You admitted you play to win, that's fine. In fact, I encourage you to do it within your circle of like minded people, just don't be offended if you catch me, I take one look at what you are doing and politely decline the match.

More goal post moving - go back and look at your posts in this thread. You said more than once - using different regiment rules = power gaming. Nothing about having an optimized army (and surely that is what you'd object to, it's not like if he's using the correct regimental rules for his highly optimized army then you're suddenly okay with it, is it?)

Asmodios wrote:
Are you so simple minded to think the name of a SM chapter affects how they fight? The simple answer is yes this is no different than a full painted Black Templar army choosing to use a better codex just to gain a statistical advantage. The book tells you how black templars fight and that's the rules you use. Not sure why your so upset, just say "i use every statistical advantage i can use to play board games and win" and i will simply say "cool hope you have fun today but im gonna play that other guy over there"

The black templars are a specific self contained army. Every black templars is from the same army. Cadia is a world, as is Catachan or Valhalla, or whatever, not a single army. The regiment tactics represent the most iconic regiments of those worlds, not every regiment ever raised on it.

For example, someone wants to make a Valhallan 597th regiment, the one from the commissar Cain books. An army that consists mainly of mechanized veterans, with no conscript squads etc. In short, an army that has little in common with the "typical" regiment of their home world, that far more resembles steel legion in tactics. It would be entirely reasonable to use steel legion to represent that regiment.

You aren't avoiding power gaming at all, you are actively telling someone their vision for their army is wrong.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Because he painted a Cadia specific army and the codex says "this is how Cadia fights". You cant pick which fluff fits best when playing an army that tells you how the fluff fits "Hey these specific black templars are more like Salamanders". Just flat out say "Hey man i play to win so all these Green tanks that say Cadia on the side aren't anymore because winning this game is really important to me".

Are you really that simple minded to think that the name of the doctrine dictates how every regiment from cadia behaves compared to every regiment from armageddon?

Are you so simple minded to think the name of a SM chapter affects how they fight? The simple answer is yes this is no different than a full painted Black Templar army choosing to use a better codex just to gain a statistical advantage. The book tells you how black templars fight and that's the rules you use. Not sure why your so upset, just say "i use every statistical advantage i can use to play board games and win" and i will simply say "cool hope you have fun today but im gonna play that other guy over there"

Are you seriously trying to compare the enormous diversity of guard regiments from a single planet to a chapter of marines that's barely the size of single regiment?

Have fun telling people that their fluff is wrong and bad and that it makes them a power gamer. I'm sure they'll form an equally strong opinion of you.

The people i play with would never try to pass their army off as a different one just to try to gain the advantage. The only time we ever do this is the "hey im thinking of getting this army mind if i gove it a shot" to which i say sure. But nobody i play with would want to play the guy changing what his army is every time the rules change just to gain an advantage

Asmodios wrote:

 Galas wrote:
You can't compare a Space Marine Chapter that by definition is a extremenly limited group of people and highly specialiced with literally with literally a whole planet.

Do you think that the Armageddon Ork Hunters have anything to do with Armageddon Steel Legion? They are much more like Catachans, puting an example.

And please stop with this passive-aggresive nonsense "Omg why are you so offended that I call you a power gamer? I'm only describing how you try to gain every advantage to gain in a game with toy soilders like a spoiled child!"

Yes, one specific chapter is equivalent to one specific world and the way they train and fight. Just like every Templar crusade fights the same Cadia troops trained on Cadia fight how the codex says Cadia soldiers fight. Its not passive aggressive.... he wants to disregard an entire regiments paint job, models and codex entry for a slight advantage..... that's power gaming i don't see the big deal.

Again, just incredibly simple minded.

A marine chapter is 1000 marines, often fighting and training together and with marines being part of that chapter for hundreds or thousands of years to ensure continuity of skills and traditions.

Each guard regiment is largely self contained, may never fight with another guard regiment from the same homeworld and typically don't return home to pass on the skills they've learned making each regiment quite idiosyncratic over time regardless of their original training. Furthermore, a world can produce hundreds or thousands of regiments and those regiments can be highly specialised in different ways. Each regiment is more akin to a chapter than a homeworld is to one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

The people i play with would never try to pass their army off as a different one just to try to gain the advantage. The only time we ever do this is the "hey im thinking of getting this army mind if i gove it a shot" to which i say sure. But nobody i play with would want to play the guy changing what his army is every time the rules change just to gain an advantage

Who said anything about changing anything? They've got from having no regimental doctrines available to now getting to choose one so they pick the one that fit's their regiment's fluff best.

SilverAlien wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Are you so simple minded to think the name of a SM chapter affects how they fight? The simple answer is yes this is no different than a full painted Black Templar army choosing to use a better codex just to gain a statistical advantage. The book tells you how black templars fight and that's the rules you use. Not sure why your so upset, just say "i use every statistical advantage i can use to play board games and win" and i will simply say "cool hope you have fun today but im gonna play that other guy over there"

The black templars are a specific self contained army. Every black templars is from the same army. Cadia is a world, as is Catachan or Valhalla, or whatever, not a single army. The regiment tactics represent the most iconic regiments of those worlds, not every regiment ever raised on it.

For example, someone wants to make a Valhallan 597th regiment, the one from the commissar Cain books. An army that consists mainly of mechanized veterans, with no conscript squads etc. In short, an army that has little in common with the "typical" regiment of their home world, that far more resembles steel legion in tactics. It would be entirely reasonable to use steel legion to represent that regiment.

You aren't avoiding power gaming at all, you are actively telling someone their vision for their army is wrong.

Sorry but the codex states how the people from those worlds gain advantages from being trained on that world. No different from any chapter the only difference it you would never except a SM player doing the same thing you're saying is fine here

The idea you really can't see this as anything other than "gaining an advantage" baffles me.

"I modeled my conscript heavy meat grinder style army as cadians because that's what is easily available but I think Valhallan rules fit it's theme better" isn't power gaming. Nor is a mechanized Valhallan army that works to minimize casualties not at all being accurately represented by normal Valhallan doctrines.

Also, I would accept a SM chapter doing it. I've already said I don't really care so long as I can distinguish what is in which regiment/chapter. If you've got six tactical squads painted all the same, half in one chapter half in another, then I have an issue.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Galas wrote:
You can't compare a Space Marine Chapter that by definition is a extremenly limited group of people and highly specialiced with literally with literally a whole planet.

Do you think that the Armageddon Ork Hunters have anything to do with Armageddon Steel Legion? They are much more like Catachans, puting an example.

And please stop with this passive-aggresive nonsense "Omg why are you so offended that I call you a power gamer? I'm only describing how you try to gain every advantage to gain in a game with toy soilders like a spoiled child!"

Yes, one specific chapter is equivalent to one specific world and the way they train and fight. Just like every Templar crusade fights the same Cadia troops trained on Cadia fight how the codex says Cadia soldiers fight. Its not passive aggressive.... he wants to disregard an entire regiments paint job, models and codex entry for a slight advantage..... that's power gaming i don't see the big deal.

Again, just incredibly simple minded.

A marine chapter is 1000 marines, often fighting and training together and with marines being part of that chapter for hundreds or thousands of years to ensure continuity of skills and traditions.

Each guard regiment is largely self contained and may never fight with another guard regiment from the same homeworld. A world can produce hundreds or thousands of regiments and those regiments can be highly specialised in different ways. Each regiment is more akin to a chapter than a homeworld is to one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

The people i play with would never try to pass their army off as a different one just to try to gain the advantage. The only time we ever do this is the "hey im thinking of getting this army mind if i gove it a shot" to which i say sure. But nobody i play with would want to play the guy changing what his army is every time the rules change just to gain an advantage

Who said anything about changing anything? They've got from having no regimental doctrines available to now getting to choose one so they pick the one that fit's their regiment's fluff best.

Yeah yu can pick the one that "fits best" if you have a unique army. If you have a Cadia painted army the book tells you exactly how they fight.

Asmodios wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Galas wrote:
You can't compare a Space Marine Chapter that by definition is a extremenly limited group of people and highly specialiced with literally with literally a whole planet.

Do you think that the Armageddon Ork Hunters have anything to do with Armageddon Steel Legion? They are much more like Catachans, puting an example.

And please stop with this passive-aggresive nonsense "Omg why are you so offended that I call you a power gamer? I'm only describing how you try to gain every advantage to gain in a game with toy soilders like a spoiled child!"

Yes, one specific chapter is equivalent to one specific world and the way they train and fight. Just like every Templar crusade fights the same Cadia troops trained on Cadia fight how the codex says Cadia soldiers fight. Its not passive aggressive.... he wants to disregard an entire regiments paint job, models and codex entry for a slight advantage..... that's power gaming i don't see the big deal.

Again, just incredibly simple minded.

A marine chapter is 1000 marines, often fighting and training together and with marines being part of that chapter for hundreds or thousands of years to ensure continuity of skills and traditions.

Each guard regiment is largely self contained and may never fight with another guard regiment from the same homeworld. A world can produce hundreds or thousands of regiments and those regiments can be highly specialised in different ways. Each regiment is more akin to a chapter than a homeworld is to one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

The people i play with would never try to pass their army off as a different one just to try to gain the advantage. The only time we ever do this is the "hey im thinking of getting this army mind if i gove it a shot" to which i say sure. But nobody i play with would want to play the guy changing what his army is every time the rules change just to gain an advantage

Who said anything about changing anything? They've got from having no regimental doctrines available to now getting to choose one so they pick the one that fit's their regiment's fluff best.

Yeah yu can pick the one that "fits best" if you have a unique army. If you have a Cadia painted army the book tells you exactly how they fight.

Like I said, have fun telling people that their fluff is wrong based on your trite and shallow views of the fluff. They probably won't judge you quite as harshly as you're judging them.

From what I see, people seem to see four distinct type of player mentalities:

The Dedicated Fluff Person: This person chose the army specifically because they like it, all aspects of it. Therefore even if the rules suck they will stick by it to the bitter end, because the lore of their army (including how they're represented on the tabletop) is the most important.

The Moderate Person: This person chose an army because they liked the lore and look, but also would like to play the game with a decent chance to win. To them, the fluff is disconnected from the crunch and they should be free to build an army based solely on the rules without having to worry about what it looks like.

The Count-as Person; This person likes the army lore but feels the tabletop game rules given to them does not represent them clearly. Therefore they use different rules to represent their army to get a better feel. In many ways this is the opposite of the Moderate, as they feel the fluff should be so attached to the crunch that they feel the current rules do not give a good representation of it. Note that the difference between this guy and a WAAC player is that this guy will field a mechanically inferior army if said mechanic suits the lore better, however this scenario is rare because usually you chose a superior ruleset because they give you a benefit found in lore that didn't exist in the main rules.

The Game Person: This person is in the hobby purely for the game. The models are mere game pieces, tokens, to represent a set of stats on the board. They have no connection to the rules other than the guidelines set by the parameters of the game.

Note that no one exists solely in a single set of this, it's more like a four-way spectrum. But people do lean heavily towards one of these as it looks like. All of these are valid ways of playing this game, so none of them are inherently "bad", they will only seem so depending on which one you gravitate towards.

The problem with this issue is that it causes opposing ones to disagree on how to handle it, and each is a valid complaint. Which is why I still say it would have been a lot better if these were simply listed as "generic" traits and not tied to any single world. This hobby is more than just the game, it's the lore and the models too, so people's feelings towards which rule should represent them on the tabletop are no less valid than those who think the rules are simply abstractions disconnected from the fluff (which is also valid).

Asmodios wrote:
Yeah yu can pick the one that "fits best" if you have a unique army. If you have a Cadia painted army the book tells you exactly how they fight.

Which is utterly idiotic considering most of these armies will be created long before they had official rules indicating how they fought. There was no way for people to know this ahead of time.

Also, I'm not sure the rules actually do that, considering it makes mention of ork hunters, who are from Armageddon a world with official tactics, as a custom regiment.

Asmodios wrote:

 Galas wrote:
You can't compare a Space Marine Chapter that by definition is a extremenly limited group of people and highly specialiced with literally with literally a whole planet.

Do you think that the Armageddon Ork Hunters have anything to do with Armageddon Steel Legion? They are much more like Catachans, puting an example.

And please stop with this passive-aggresive nonsense "Omg why are you so offended that I call you a power gamer? I'm only describing how you try to gain every advantage to gain in a game with toy soilders like a spoiled child!"

Yes, one specific chapter is equivalent to one specific world and the way they train and fight. Just like every Templar crusade fights the same Cadia troops trained on Cadia fight how the codex says Cadia soldiers fight. Its not passive aggressive.... he wants to disregard an entire regiments paint job, models and codex entry for a slight advantage..... that's power gaming i don't see the big deal.

I have give you an example of a Regiment from Armageddon that has nothing to do with how Armageddon Steel Legion fights. Why have you ignored that?

SilverAlien wrote:
The idea you really can't see this as anything other than "gaining an advantage" baffles me.

"I modeled my conscript heavy meat grinder style army as cadians because that's what is easily available but I think Valhallan rules fit it's theme better" isn't power gaming. Nor is a mechanized Valhallan army that works to minimize casualties not at all being accurately represented by normal Valhallan doctrines.

Also, I would accept a SM chapter doing it. I've already said I don't really care so long as I can distinguish what is in which regiment/chapter. If you've got six tactical squads painted all the same, half in one chapter half in another, then I have an issue.

Well, we just differ on what we find acceptable. I just don't want to play against someone that cant play their Cadia troops the way they function in the codex because they find x rule better. Just like i don't want to play a Black Templar player whos really now Salamanders because they got some good chapter tactics. Personal preference but i don't wanna waste my time playing someone with that mindset

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
From what I see, people seem to see four distinct type of player mentalities:

The Dedicated Fluff Person: This person chose the army specifically because they like it, all aspects of it. Therefore even if the rules suck they will stick by it to the bitter end, because the lore of their army (including how they're represented on the tabletop) is the most important.

The Moderate Person: This person chose an army because they liked the lore and look, but also would like to play the game with a decent chance to win. To them, the fluff is disconnected from the crunch and they should be free to build an army based solely on the rules without having to worry about what it looks like.

The Count-as Person; This person likes the army lore but feels the tabletop game rules given to them does not represent them clearly. Therefore they use different rules to represent their army to get a better feel. In many ways this is the opposite of the Moderate, as they feel the fluff should be so attached to the crunch that they feel the current rules do not give a good representation of it. Note that the difference between this guy and a WAAC player is that this guy will field a mechanically inferior army if said mechanic suits the lore better, however this scenario is rare because usually you chose a superior ruleset because they give you a benefit found in lore that didn't exist in the main rules.

The Game Person: This person is in the hobby purely for the game. The models are mere game pieces, tokens, to represent a set of stats on the board. They have no connection to the rules other than the guidelines set by the parameters of the game.

Note that no one exists solely in a single set of this, it's more like a four-way spectrum. But people do lean heavily towards one of these as it looks like. All of these are valid ways of playing this game, so none of them are inherently "bad", they will only seem so depending on which one you gravitate towards.

The problem with this issue is that it causes opposing ones to disagree on how to handle it, and each is a valid complaint. Which is why I still say it would have been a lot better if these were simply listed as "generic" traits and not tied to any single world. This hobby is more than just the game, it's the lore and the models too, so people's feelings towards which rule should represent them on the tabletop are no less valid than those who think the rules are simply abstractions disconnected from the fluff (which is also valid).

Well put. I'm not sure why people are so offended, the community already pretty much self segregated based on what they get out of the game enjoyment wise. I suppose if you are the player in the store no one wants to play, that may be an issue, but then it's time for some self reflection.

 Galas wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Galas wrote:
You can't compare a Space Marine Chapter that by definition is a extremenly limited group of people and highly specialiced with literally with literally a whole planet.

Do you think that the Armageddon Ork Hunters have anything to do with Armageddon Steel Legion? They are much more like Catachans, puting an example.

And please stop with this passive-aggresive nonsense "Omg why are you so offended that I call you a power gamer? I'm only describing how you try to gain every advantage to gain in a game with toy soilders like a spoiled child!"

Yes, one specific chapter is equivalent to one specific world and the way they train and fight. Just like every Templar crusade fights the same Cadia troops trained on Cadia fight how the codex says Cadia soldiers fight. Its not passive aggressive.... he wants to disregard an entire regiments paint job, models and codex entry for a slight advantage..... that's power gaming i don't see the big deal.

I have give you an example of a Regiment from Armageddon that has nothing to do with how Armageddon Steel Legion fights. Why have you ignored that?

Simple that don't have painted them steel legion with all the markings. If you have they are steel legion and the codex says how they fight. No different than saying "this Black Templar crusade was fighting over on this world so they are separate now and fight like salamanders" it would be equally lame and i wouldnt want to play the person who did it

Asmodios wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
The idea you really can't see this as anything other than "gaining an advantage" baffles me.

"I modeled my conscript heavy meat grinder style army as cadians because that's what is easily available but I think Valhallan rules fit it's theme better" isn't power gaming. Nor is a mechanized Valhallan army that works to minimize casualties not at all being accurately represented by normal Valhallan doctrines.

Also, I would accept a SM chapter doing it. I've already said I don't really care so long as I can distinguish what is in which regiment/chapter. If you've got six tactical squads painted all the same, half in one chapter half in another, then I have an issue.

Well, we just differ on what we find acceptable. I just don't want to play against someone that cant play their Cadia troops the way they function in the codex because they find x rule better. Just like i don't want to play a Black Templar player whos really now Salamanders because they got some good chapter tactics. Personal preference but i don't wanna waste my time playing someone with that mindset

Yet if someone wanted to run a more toned down regiment, you wouldn't have a problem? Because according to your statements before thats still considering power gaming.

 Carl wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
From what I see, people seem to see four distinct type of player mentalities:

The Dedicated Fluff Person: This person chose the army specifically because they like it, all aspects of it. Therefore even if the rules suck they will stick by it to the bitter end, because the lore of their army (including how they're represented on the tabletop) is the most important.

The Moderate Person: This person chose an army because they liked the lore and look, but also would like to play the game with a decent chance to win. To them, the fluff is disconnected from the crunch and they should be free to build an army based solely on the rules without having to worry about what it looks like.

The Count-as Person; This person likes the army lore but feels the tabletop game rules given to them does not represent them clearly. Therefore they use different rules to represent their army to get a better feel. In many ways this is the opposite of the Moderate, as they feel the fluff should be so attached to the crunch that they feel the current rules do not give a good representation of it. Note that the difference between this guy and a WAAC player is that this guy will field a mechanically inferior army if said mechanic suits the lore better, however this scenario is rare because usually you chose a superior ruleset because they give you a benefit found in lore that didn't exist in the main rules.

The Game Person: This person is in the hobby purely for the game. The models are mere game pieces, tokens, to represent a set of stats on the board. They have no connection to the rules other than the guidelines set by the parameters of the game.

Note that no one exists solely in a single set of this, it's more like a four-way spectrum. But people do lean heavily towards one of these as it looks like. All of these are valid ways of playing this game, so none of them are inherently "bad", they will only seem so depending on which one you gravitate towards.

The problem with this issue is that it causes opposing ones to disagree on how to handle it, and each is a valid complaint. Which is why I still say it would have been a lot better if these were simply listed as "generic" traits and not tied to any single world. This hobby is more than just the game, it's the lore and the models too, so people's feelings towards which rule should represent them on the tabletop are no less valid than those who think the rules are simply abstractions disconnected from the fluff (which is also valid).

Well put. I'm not sure why people are so offended, the community already pretty much self segregated based on what they get out of the game enjoyment wise. I suppose if you are the player in the store no one wants to play, that may be an issue, but then it's time for some self reflection.

Because you decided to get all judgemental without bothering to differentiate between the game person and count-as person?

Carl, nobody is offended, but your "Is okay to be a power gamer. It just means you are an adult that needs to win with in a game of rolling dice and little toys for self-confirmation. " is very passive-aggresive. So please, step down from your high horse.

Asmodios wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
The idea you really can't see this as anything other than "gaining an advantage" baffles me.

"I modeled my conscript heavy meat grinder style army as cadians because that's what is easily available but I think Valhallan rules fit it's theme better" isn't power gaming. Nor is a mechanized Valhallan army that works to minimize casualties not at all being accurately represented by normal Valhallan doctrines.

Also, I would accept a SM chapter doing it. I've already said I don't really care so long as I can distinguish what is in which regiment/chapter. If you've got six tactical squads painted all the same, half in one chapter half in another, then I have an issue.

Well, we just differ on what we find acceptable. I just don't want to play against someone that cant play their Cadia troops the way they function in the codex because they find x rule better. Just like i don't want to play a Black Templar player whos really now Salamanders because they got some good chapter tactics. Personal preference but i don't wanna waste my time playing someone with that mindset

I'm going to explain this real slow. They aren't picking them because they have better rules. They have rules which better fit their fluff. The mindset you keep ascribing to them is literally not the case in a lot of situations. Are you claiming such people don't exist or what?

Asmodios wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Dude that's fine if you're a power gamer just admit you are.... I'm just not into playing board games super competitively. I played minor pro hockey that was my super serious competition. I dont go to play board games to toss fluff out the window for minimal statistical advantages just to win.

 Carl wrote:

I play a very fluffy list that's fun, I haven't won a single game with my newest army, I don't wear it with a badge of courage I just enjoy the game for different reasons. It's totally fine that you wish to run that way, that's perfectly fine and that was never part of any argument. As I said in my first post my ideas of what is a fair platform of competition and what is a fun hobby is so diametrically opposed to what yours is, it's just never going to find common ground. I have been playing this game for about 20 years, I have done tournaments. Won a few, and realized it wasn't for me. My idea of competition just isn't stacking a list and praying to the dice gods. I believe other hobbies are better suited for that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with you wanting to win, it's just sad to me that the fun gets lost along the way, and makes me sad you didn't experience competition the way I did in my life.

And no, I pick models based off of what they look like 90% of the time, the other 10% is filling out required slots in army competition

Both of you are completely missing the point.

You've both said that you're going to get judgemental to the point of refusing to play with someone playing green/tan guard using anything other than cadian doctrines.

How do you know that guy isn't just picking the doctrine that fits his regiment's fluff best? (not least because being green/tan doesn't mean they're cadian and being some other color scheme doesn't mean they aren't. If you're going to be stroppy about fluff at least get it right.)

Because he painted a Cadia specific army and the codex says "this is how Cadia fights". You cant pick which fluff fits best when playing an army that tells you how the fluff fits "Hey these specific black templars are more like Salamanders". Just flat out say "Hey man i play to win so all these Green tanks that say Cadia on the side aren't anymore because winning this game is really important to me".

I think that you are very concerned about winning as well, or you wouldn't worry about it so much.

I've been playing Guard since 1996. The importance of Regiments has waxed and waned. The 2003 Codex used Doctrines and gave examples of which Doctrines were featured by a number of Regiments, but you still had tons of customization available. The camouflage examples all showed variation as well.

I'm OK with you calling me a power gamer because I adjust my list to find an advantage. We are not playing chess - we have choices. My world will keep on turning. I do have a question about how you build your lists - do you ever think about "How will this unit perform? Should I pick another?" Just wondering.

Most of my Guard are Cadians (metal and plastic) along with some Catachans, Last Chancers and Mordians, and I have applied a consistent (if drab and boring) paint scheme regardless of the models through the years. I suppose my leanings are Cadian, but I have happily applied different Veteran Skills in 2nd Ed and various doctrines in 4th Ed for variety. A force as big as the Cadians is going to have a wide range of styles and skills. I should say, though, that I only play my Dark Angels as Dark Angels. Their look and fluff is so distinct that I would not feel right playing them as something else. Its my army, though, and I play it how I want within the rules. I don't impose my quirks on others. You want to paint your Space Marines as Ultramarines but play them sometimes as Ravenguard? Go for it!

Cheers,

 Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
The idea you really can't see this as anything other than "gaining an advantage" baffles me.

"I modeled my conscript heavy meat grinder style army as cadians because that's what is easily available but I think Valhallan rules fit it's theme better" isn't power gaming. Nor is a mechanized Valhallan army that works to minimize casualties not at all being accurately represented by normal Valhallan doctrines.

Also, I would accept a SM chapter doing it. I've already said I don't really care so long as I can distinguish what is in which regiment/chapter. If you've got six tactical squads painted all the same, half in one chapter half in another, then I have an issue.

Well, we just differ on what we find acceptable. I just don't want to play against someone that cant play their Cadia troops the way they function in the codex because they find x rule better. Just like i don't want to play a Black Templar player whos really now Salamanders because they got some good chapter tactics. Personal preference but i don't wanna waste my time playing someone with that mindset

Yet if someone wanted to run a more toned down regiment, you wouldn't have a problem? Because according to your statements before thats still considering power gaming.

Id still have a problem. Its funny though all of a sudden ever Cadia players guys were trained in the jungle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverAlien wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
The idea you really can't see this as anything other than "gaining an advantage" baffles me.

"I modeled my conscript heavy meat grinder style army as cadians because that's what is easily available but I think Valhallan rules fit it's theme better" isn't power gaming. Nor is a mechanized Valhallan army that works to minimize casualties not at all being accurately represented by normal Valhallan doctrines.

Also, I would accept a SM chapter doing it. I've already said I don't really care so long as I can distinguish what is in which regiment/chapter. If you've got six tactical squads painted all the same, half in one chapter half in another, then I have an issue.

Well, we just differ on what we find acceptable. I just don't want to play against someone that cant play their Cadia troops the way they function in the codex because they find x rule better. Just like i don't want to play a Black Templar player whos really now Salamanders because they got some good chapter tactics. Personal preference but i don't wanna waste my time playing someone with that mindset

I'm going to explain this real slow. They aren't picking them because they have better rules. They have rules which better fit their fluff. The mindset you keep ascribing to them is literally not the case in a lot of situations. Are you claiming such people don't exist or what?

Its not their fluff. If you have a Cadia army your fluff is represented by the Cadia rule...... its very simple

Asmodios wrote:
Simple that don't have painted them steel legion with all the markings. If you have they are steel legion and the codex says how they fight. No different than saying "this Black Templar crusade was fighting over on this world so they are separate now and fight like salamanders" it would be equally lame and i wouldnt want to play the person who did it

Wait so now we are arguing the "Armageddon" tactics don't apply to every regiment from Armageddon? Just to steel legion? That's not what you said before....

Why though? Cadians are from all across the entire zoggin galaxy, not just from Cadia. Theres literally more Cadians fighting on worlds light years from Cadia, much more than the planet could have ever held.

To me it doesn't seem like you know the IG fluff very well.

TL;DR: "I have no idea how IG fluff works, but let me tell you all about how your fluff is wrong and you're a WAAC TFG powergamer, but don't be offended be proud of being TFG."

Asmodios wrote:
Its not their fluff. If you have a Cadia army your fluff is represented by the Cadia rule...... its very simple

So now Armageddon ork hunters do have to use steel legion rules, despite it obviously not being their fluff, because they are from the same world?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
TL;DR: "I have no idea how IG fluff works, but let me tell you all about how your fluff is wrong and you're a WAAC TFG powergamer, but don't be offended be proud of being TFG."

That's basically what I'm getting. Someone with no idea about another army's fluff trying to tell other players what their fluff is.

 Peregrine wrote:
TL;DR: "I have no idea how IG fluff works, but let me tell you all about how your fluff is wrong and you're a WAAC TFG powergamer, but don't be offended be proud of being TFG."

One of the only times I have agreed 100% with you! Exalted!

Actually I'm more casual than candy crush, and I only play narrative and campaing driven games. But I respect people that want to compete, even people that want to compete with the most OP hotness out there. Is not with people that normally I'll play, at least not with a "narrative" army.

But basically you are insulting them. I can say that you adderence to a sathirical invented universe made from a bunch of British guys in their hobby time is equally absurd than they desire to win in a game of toys. But I don't, because theres nothing bad about that. And I'm not gonna insult you and tell you to not be offended when I do because "Is on point".

Well then why would they be offended? My will to play my army as per fluff is as laughable to them as me thinking this game is any sort of real test of skill. We are diametrically opposed. Becoming all apoplectic and feeling the need to stick up for them is obviously just the opposite end of the spectrum of me sticking up for casual players/fluff players. We are opposite ends of the spectrum. Diversity is our strength and all that.

 Carl wrote:
Well then why would they be offended? My will to play my army as per fluff is as laughable to them as me thinking this game is any sort of real test of skill. We are diametrically opposed. Becoming all apoplectic and feeling the need to stick up for them is obviously just the opposite end of the spectrum of me sticking up for casual players/fluff players. We are opposite ends of the spectrum. Diversity is our strength and all that.

Mostly because you are screwing over casual players far more than the power gamer sort?

I'm personally more of a competitive type person myself, which is why my armies don't follow official paint schemes. Partially for flexibility, which has been very helpful this edition, and partially because I'm more invested in the game side and don't feel the need to get something 100% lord accurate. Hell, I'm considering using multiple color schemes in the future just so I can mix different chapter equivalents as needed. I'm function over form through and through.

Which is why none of these weird stipulations are going to effect me, but that guy who just really liked the vahlallan or cadian models and color scheme? It'll be an issue with him.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Carl wrote:
Well then why would they be offended? My will to play my army as per fluff is as laughable to them as me thinking this game is any sort of real test of skill. We are diametrically opposed. Becoming all apoplectic and feeling the need to stick up for them is obviously just the opposite end of the spectrum of me sticking up for casual players/fluff players. We are opposite ends of the spectrum. Diversity is our strength and all that.

Mostly because you are screwing over casual players far more than the power gamer sort?

I'm personally more of a competitive type person myself, which is why my armies don't follow official paint schemes. Partially for flexibility, which has been very helpful this edition, and partially because I'm more invested in the game side and don't feel the need to get something 100% lord accurate. Hell, I'm considering using multiple color schemes in the future just so I can mix different chapter equivalents as needed. I'm function over form through and through.

Which is why none of these weird stipulations are going to effect me, but that guy who just really liked the vahlallan or cadian models and color scheme? It'll be an issue with him.

Do you think I would have a issue with a player who preferred Valhalla models, chose a snow theme, and then ran uniform cadian regimental rules? Why wouldn't he just run...idk, Valhalla? im not sure how you think the casual player and myself couldn't come to a understanding. The issue isn't casual players, it's. Tfg looking to pub stomp casuals.

Oh oops I got you and the other guy confused my apologies ignore that.

Considering that only Cadians, Catachans, and Militarum Tempestus have plastic models, I will not be offended if someone uses those models for the rest of those armies.

It was real nice of GW to have regiment rules for all of those old factions, but the fact of the matter is that Valhallan, Vostroyan, Steel Legion, Mordian, and Tallarn models are all old, metal, and don't have all of the options available to fill out an IG army. If someone wants to go and collect those, power to them.

The other factor is experimenting. People are going to use what models they have to figure out what works on the table before buying/painting something a certain way. I won't ever fault someone for doing that.

But if I see someone cheeseballing with multiple detachments of different regiments to milk the best out of each one, I might not be too thrilled to participate in that game, just to get my poor Space Sharks slaughtered again and again for the sake of his cheese.

SilverAlien wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Simple that don't have painted them steel legion with all the markings. If you have they are steel legion and the codex says how they fight. No different than saying "this Black Templar crusade was fighting over on this world so they are separate now and fight like salamanders" it would be equally lame and i wouldnt want to play the person who did it

Wait so now we are arguing the "Armageddon" tactics don't apply to every regiment from Armageddon? Just to steel legion? That's not what you said before....

Sorry that's my bad i often interchange "steel Legion" and "Armageddon" as I've never seen a table top Armageddon army that wasn't steel legion. But yes i would expect all of Armageddon forces to use their rules. So quick to attack in your other posts i'm not sure why you guys are freaking out over someone deciding not to play you. Sorry that all the WWAC players speed painted 200 Cadia conscripts and now want to run them as something else. Like i said a million times in this thread its not just IG i would have issue with magically changing space SM too. Just play with what you have painted or dont be surprised when some people dont want to play you

drbored wrote:
Considering that only Cadians, Catachans, and Militarum Tempestus have plastic models, I will not be offended if someone uses those models for the rest of those armies.

It was real nice of GW to have regiment rules for all of those old factions, but the fact of the matter is that Valhallan, Vostroyan, Steel Legion, Mordian, and Tallarn models are all old, metal, and don't have all of the options available to fill out an IG army. If someone wants to go and collect those, power to them.

The other factor is experimenting. People are going to use what models they have to figure out what works on the table before buying/painting something a certain way. I won't ever fault someone for doing that.

But if I see someone cheeseballing with multiple detachments of different regiments to milk the best out of each one, I might not be too thrilled to participate in that game, just to get my poor Space Sharks slaughtered again and again for the sake of his cheese.

Right and I think this is the point being made. It's going to come down to a judgement call on a case by case basis. Just can't blame people for being hesitant against tfg. If it's looks fishy, and smells fishy, it's probably fish.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Carl wrote:
Well then why would they be offended? My will to play my army as per fluff is as laughable to them as me thinking this game is any sort of real test of skill. We are diametrically opposed. Becoming all apoplectic and feeling the need to stick up for them is obviously just the opposite end of the spectrum of me sticking up for casual players/fluff players. We are opposite ends of the spectrum. Diversity is our strength and all that.

Mostly because you are screwing over casual players far more than the power gamer sort?

I'm personally more of a competitive type person myself, which is why my armies don't follow official paint schemes. Partially for flexibility, which has been very helpful this edition, and partially because I'm more invested in the game side and don't feel the need to get something 100% lord accurate. Hell, I'm considering using multiple color schemes in the future just so I can mix different chapter equivalents as needed. I'm function over form through and through.

Which is why none of these weird stipulations are going to effect me, but that guy who just really liked the vahlallan or cadian models and color scheme? It'll be an issue with him.

The issue isnt Casual players aka a casual player would just say "look what my army (insert specific army here lets say blood angels) got cool" Not "wow Salamanders are way better then my Blood angels now looks like these are different Blood Angels now that actually use Salamanders Rules". Im fine with you being competitive and would have no problem you playing your custom theme as whatever.... Id play you no problem just let me know whats what. What i have issue with is people having a specific army and saying its something its not because of a rules change.

I can understand that view. But don't go around throwing blanket statements like the tfg argument at every player who may want to try out some of the new flavors from the codex.

 Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:
I can understand that view. But don't go around throwing blanket statements like the tfg argument at every player who may want to try out some of the new flavors from the codex.

Read my previous post I said i have 0 issue with "hey man I wanna try this out to see if I like it for a game" and yeah this Cadia army is no longer Cadia as of a day ago because this specific rule is slightly better

Asmodios wrote:

 Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:
I can understand that view. But don't go around throwing blanket statements like the tfg argument at every player who may want to try out some of the new flavors from the codex.

Read my previous post I said i have 0 issue with "hey man I wanna try this out to see if I like it for a game" and yeah this Cadia army is no longer Cadia as of a day ago because this specific rule is slightly better

but somehow it's ok as long as they're wealthy enough to buy a whole second army ? Uh huh.

 argonak wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:
I can understand that view. But don't go around throwing blanket statements like the tfg argument at every player who may want to try out some of the new flavors from the codex.

Read my previous post I said i have 0 issue with "hey man I wanna try this out to see if I like it for a game" and yeah this Cadia army is no longer Cadia as of a day ago because this specific rule is slightly better

but somehow it's ok as long as they're wealthy enough to buy a whole second army ? Uh huh.

No need to buy a new army just play the perfectly good one you have thats 2% less effective then the Flavor of the month

If there was plastics and models not OOP or so expensive for maybe we wouldn't have this problem.

As well, there are plenty of Cadian "Armed" regiments.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
If there was plastics and models not OOP or so expensive for maybe we wouldn't have this problem.

As well, there are plenty of Cadian "Armed" regiments.

There's a million of amazing alternative not metal models out there or you can use the original. I use these for Valhalla https://puppetswar.eu/product.php?id_product=336

 Carl wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Carl wrote:
Well then why would they be offended? My will to play my army as per fluff is as laughable to them as me thinking this game is any sort of real test of skill. We are diametrically opposed. Becoming all apoplectic and feeling the need to stick up for them is obviously just the opposite end of the spectrum of me sticking up for casual players/fluff players. We are opposite ends of the spectrum. Diversity is our strength and all that.

Mostly because you are screwing over casual players far more than the power gamer sort?

I'm personally more of a competitive type person myself, which is why my armies don't follow official paint schemes. Partially for flexibility, which has been very helpful this edition, and partially because I'm more invested in the game side and don't feel the need to get something 100% lord accurate. Hell, I'm considering using multiple color schemes in the future just so I can mix different chapter equivalents as needed. I'm function over form through and through.

Which is why none of these weird stipulations are going to effect me, but that guy who just really liked the vahlallan or cadian models and color scheme? It'll be an issue with him.

Do you think I would have a issue with a player who preferred Valhalla models, chose a snow theme, and then ran uniform cadian regimental rules? Why wouldn't he just run...idk, Valhalla? im not sure how you think the casual player and myself couldn't come to a understanding. The issue isn't casual players, it's. Tfg looking to pub stomp casuals.

So a player with Cadian models using Cadian tactics is OK but if the same player has Valhallan models for exactly the same list with Cadian tactics suddenly you're upset? Its the same player with the same list.

How can you have an issue with a player with Imperial Guard models who plays with Imperial Guard rules? Maybe his Valhallan Regiment was trained by a cadre of Cadians? Maybe its his list and not yours. The difference between the Regiments is not going to be the cause of a curb stomp.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Carl wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Carl wrote:
Well then why would they be offended? My will to play my army as per fluff is as laughable to them as me thinking this game is any sort of real test of skill. We are diametrically opposed. Becoming all apoplectic and feeling the need to stick up for them is obviously just the opposite end of the spectrum of me sticking up for casual players/fluff players. We are opposite ends of the spectrum. Diversity is our strength and all that.

Mostly because you are screwing over casual players far more than the power gamer sort?

I'm personally more of a competitive type person myself, which is why my armies don't follow official paint schemes. Partially for flexibility, which has been very helpful this edition, and partially because I'm more invested in the game side and don't feel the need to get something 100% lord accurate. Hell, I'm considering using multiple color schemes in the future just so I can mix different chapter equivalents as needed. I'm function over form through and through.

Which is why none of these weird stipulations are going to effect me, but that guy who just really liked the vahlallan or cadian models and color scheme? It'll be an issue with him.

Do you think I would have a issue with a player who preferred Valhalla models, chose a snow theme, and then ran uniform cadian regimental rules? Why wouldn't he just run...idk, Valhalla? im not sure how you think the casual player and myself couldn't come to a understanding. The issue isn't casual players, it's. Tfg looking to pub stomp casuals.

So a player with Cadian models using Cadian tactics is OK but if the same player has Valhallan models for exactly the same list with Cadian tactics suddenly you're upset? Its the same player with the same list.

How can you have an issue with a player with Imperial Guard models who plays with Imperial Guard rules? Maybe his Valhallan Regiment was trained by a cadre of Cadians? Maybe its his list and not yours. The difference between the Regiments is not going to be the cause of a curb stomp.

Same as why I would have issue with black templars being used as Salamanders. You are using a unit chapter with a specific rul wrong just to min max a board game and increase your chance of winning by 5%. Someone with that mentality is someone I just don't want to play against. If you have Black templars play them as Black templars

There is functionally no difference between an army that is modeled as Cadians but is comprised of several detachments of various regiments, and an army where those regiments are correctly modeled. The rules are the same, the dice are the same, the game is the same. Assuming it's possible to tell what everything is, of course. When it comes time to play, they are exactly the same. Saying that you would play one and not the other is plainly illogical.

If you don't care about losing, why not accept a bit of challenge?

WAAC types and "power gamers" get a lot of flack, but they don't deserve it nearly as much as boundary-policing gatekeepers, in my opinion. Maybe such people also hunger for the win, but are insecure in their ability to do so. Or maybe they just can't be bothered to put in the effort when it comes to building lists and working out strategies. Who knows.

You (edit - Asmodias) are really worried about winning.

Its not your list. As long as its clear what you are facing (all these Black Templars are actually Salamanders) then build a bridge and get over yourself. In a tournament it would be fine to ding him somewhat for his army composition/painting score, and I would fully expect to be scored down if I brought such a list. The difference in Imperial Guard units, though, is nothing at all like that between Space Marines. Who is to say that a Catachan unit was re-supplied on a long campaign with new uniforms? They aren't Space Marines. Worry less about your opponents motives and focus on how he plays the game.

I understand (but don't necessarily agree with) people getting salty about facing mixed forces, but painting/fluff snobbery is just that. Worry about your own paint/model schemes.

 Luciferian wrote:
There is functionally no difference between an army that is modeled as Cadians but is comprised of several detachments of various regiments, and an army where those regiments are correctly modeled. The rules are the same, the dice are the same, the game is the same. Assuming it's possible to tell what everything is, of course. When it comes time to play, they are exactly the same. Saying that you would play one and not the other is plainly illogical.

If you don't care about losing, why not accept a bit of challenge?

WAAC types and "power gamers" get a lot of flack, but they don't deserve it nearly as much as boundary-policing gatekeepers, in my opinion. Maybe such people also hunger for the win, but are insecure in their ability to do so. Or maybe they just can't be bothered to put in the effort when it comes to building lists and working out strategies. Who knows.

There is no functional difference between running empty bases with "unit x" written on each base. Modeling is a large part of the game, simply play what you have and you will never have an issue. If you want to completely change what it is just to gain an advantage don't be surprised when people don't want to play you. Power gamers are fine I have no problem with them but don't expect a fluff player to ruin their time just so you can try to gain an advantage in what should be a fun game

Asmodios wrote:

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
If there was plastics and models not OOP or so expensive for maybe we wouldn't have this problem.

As well, there are plenty of Cadian "Armed" regiments.

There's a million of amazing alternative not metal models out there or you can use the original. I use these for Valhalla https://puppetswar.eu/product.php?id_product=336

So I'd never be able to play at a GW tourney.

The problem is what exactly constitutes a "WAAC" player or "TFG" varies from person to person.

Say Timmy has a Salamanders Army for a long time and has recently bought a ton of Dreadnoughts. He wants to use the Iron Hands rules for them and thinks it's appropriate.

Johnny might agree with Timmy, since it is a good approximation of the Salamander's craftsmanship. Johnny thinks this is a rather clever way of using the rules to represent something that the main rules won't let you. He agrees to play with Timmy

Hunter might not agree with Timmy, as Iron Hands rules benefit Dreadnoughts way more than Salamanders rules. Hunter thinks that Timmy is simply choosing the most optimal rules for his models so that he can win, rather than trying to play the army for the sake of having fun. He thinks Timmy is a WAAC.

Timmy's real reason? It could honestly be either. It could even be that someone told him he "should" use Iron hands rules for Dreadnoughts and have no idea that it's strong.

There are WAAC players and generally when we think of them, they're the kind that argues "it's technically written in the rules" and go on to do something ridiculous, like saying Grey Knight Terminators with Two Falchions in 5th edition gained +3 attacks, since he's wielding 2 weapons (+1 attack) each of which grants +1 attack (+2). Stuff like this, more of a grey area. Someone could have lovingly collected a whole Vostroyan Army, only to realize that due to facing CC all the time (and hence the enhanced range being moot) he's better off using the Mordian rules to utterly obliterate his local meta. Or someone could have a Tallarn tank army that are heavily modified with reactive armor, which he feels the Vahallan rules are a better fit (due to the tanks being less likely to weaken due to damage).

Again, grey area.

Asmodios wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Now if you had a Cadia army painted a unique theme then i would have no issue for them being from x planet and using a doctrine that mirrors y famous regiment.

So let me get this straight:

Using the Cadian models painted in Cadian colors with the Armageddon rules: NOT FUN WAAC TFG.

Using the Cadian models painted purple and green with the Armageddon rules: just fine.

Same exact rules being used for their army, but your enjoyment of the game is ruined by your paranoia about WAAC players. How exactly is this a reasonable position to hold?

My thought process is this

1. If you had any specific model (Cadia, Ultramarine, Black Templar,... ECT) and painted them that specific color then your intent was always to use them as that specific force in the Warhammer universe. You now deciding that the army you spent hundreds of hours painting and hundreds of dolors building like a specific regiment, chapter, ect is no longer that chapter because there is a slight statistical advantage to playing that model that way then you are clearly only using that rule because it is more powerful and thus are a power gamer. There's nothing wrong with this, different people want different things out of a board game. Someone willing to throw away that fluff and time put into an army for a slight statistical just isn't the type of person I want to play
2. If you had spent hundreds of hours painting an army that is uniquely colored (Purple Cadia with Snow bases, Bright orange Marines with a sun on their shoulders, whatever) then you clearly always envisioned that force being different from the standard regiments that the traditional paint scheme represented. If you have done this I have no problem with you saying "this is the doctrine they are using as this most closely represents how they fight on my homebrew planet. Now I would expect this player to be consistent with their choice and not be switching every time we get a new codex or an FAQ.

In my mind, if you were fine having Cadia for years then there is no reason why they now (count as x) purely outside of strictly power gaming and like I said I don't play this game competitively and thus wouldn't want to play you.

Do you try to read the mind and history of your opponent to check if he is truly loyal to his list and has spent years playing it? Do you also refuse to play somebody who suddenly plays a new army? How many years of total loyalty to his list does he have to display before you deem him worthy of a game with you? What are you afraid of? Losing?

Throwing the "power gamer" label around is easy to do, but its not necessarily fair. You are free to play with whomever you want, but maybe hold off on the judgements? Excluding someone based on trying different Regiments seems a little odd. Wouldn't it be more fun if your Guard opponent could come at you every month with a slightly different challenge for you to face without him having to dump hundreds of dollars and hours? Maybe he could spend that cash and time on a completely new force?

Cheers

Dont have to read a mind when you painted an army a specific theme and have now changed it the second a new codex is released to gain a specific statistical advantage. There is no mind reading, no pre conceved notions or anything like that. They simply painted an army to match a specific one in a book and now are switching it purley based on statistics..... its the definition of power gaming.

Total nonsense.

The game play of the army changes with each major update. Necron players didn't become TFG because they were the first to gain a Decurion and started to build their strategies around the rules they have access to.

A player who has built and painted a Cadian force for the last 10 years suddenly gets a codex and it turns out that while for the last decade they have had the full range of models to adjust their play style in a pure list building way now they have these doctrines to help nudge them towards different play styles. Maybe the Valhalans best represent the way he has been playing forever. Maybe it's Armagedon. A player isn't throwing away anything for the sake of statistical advantages and power gaming. They are using the rules to build and play the army they enjoy in the play style they enjoy most.

With all doctrines/chapter tactics/whatever being balanced all any player is doing when picking one over the others is choosing how they enjoy the game most. If they are not balanced then you are picking the powerful ones and calling THEM power gamers. But not if they are "painted correctly". Apparently colors dictates the difference between power gaming or not. Again. Nonsense.

What a total pile of gak

What I find insane is how heated people are getting over running your Cadian models with the Steel Legion or Catachan trait is. Unlike Space Marines who are implanted with the traits of their Primarch, the IG are a bunch of shlubs who are a product of their training, and who it is that is training them.

Just take a look at the real world militaries that the IG is based on for examples of this. The battalion of Paratroopers I was in is a prime example. I was in A Co, and of the companies in our battallion, we were the best at reforming up quickly after a combat jump, nobody could match how quickly we could move out as a unit after being scattered to fhe winds in our parachutes. B Co had the best MG gun crews, if you wanted your gunners to learn from the best, you sent them to B Co for some cross training. HHC had the best mortar men, they were insanely accurate with their mortar tubes. C Co had the best marksmen, and D Co were the best at urban warfare.

We were all members of the 82nd Airborne, and we were all paratroopers, but each company in our battalion specialized in a different aspect of warfare as infantrymen based off of the experiences of our superiors. And a single battalion of Paratroopers in the 82nd is laughably small compared to how the IG hoes to war. The fact that an example as small as what I provided can show how diverse humans can be in their approach to warfare should show how using different traits for your Cadians shouldn't be an issue.

The IG fights on thousands/millions of different worlds, and fight beside an untold number of allies from different worlds, and a large amount of varied enemies, forcing them to adopt different methods of fighting to survive the campaign they are on.

Thank goodness I don't have to play against some of the people raging on about traits in this thread. I would have no problem playing against a "Cadian" mechanized infantry army that uses the Steel Legion traits, come up with something cool to match your army and I am even more game for it.

You could say that your Company Commander was at one time the the leader of an armored company that was destroyed in combat, and after gathering the survivors of the tanks crews in his company, and the routed infantry from another company, they were able to mix their experiences in combat together to come up with a new method of fighting that suited them, and their leadership the best.

There's so many better ways to handle it besides just raging at your opponent or being pissy and saying you won't them because they aren't using the Cadian trait for their models.

I also think it's odd how people keep insisting the only reason you'd ever not want to use your assigned trait is power gaming. That's idiotic. So many people chose traits based on what they think will be fun rather than what they think is competitive.

I keep hearing the constant complaint about BT as salamanders, but what if a salamander player thought his CT was really boring if powerful. Instead, they want to use the white scars tactic and spam melta and flamer weapons and just run up the field screaming with fire, because they think that's a more fun way to play their army.

Is it weaker than an optimized salamander's list using the CT? Oh yeah, white scars is generally considered the weakest CT. But it's what they think will be fun to do.

This is a game, fun is the important bit. Restricting other's fun because you are paranoid someone might be gaining the most minor of advantages, without stopping to even confirm whether or not they are, makes you one of the most obnoxious people I could ever imagine.