Would you be OK if your Tournament opponent showed up with a 100% perfect Codex Ultramarines army, but played it as Chaos Space Marine Renegades?
Assume: * $1,000 cash prize * Tournament Rules require fully WYSIWYG armies, no exceptions * ALL weapons are "correct" * ALL models have "correct" Ultramarines Chapter, 5th Company, Squad and soldier insignia * army composition matches a Codex demi-Company supported by Veterans from 1st Company and auxiliaries * the Marneus Calgar Special Character model is the Chaos Lord * Codex: Chaos Space Marines >>> Codex: Ultramarines * background story is that the Ultramarines 5th Company *just* turned to Chaos, so they haven't had time to repaint their stuff
Throughout the game, you'll have to remember that the entire army is actually Chaos Space Marine Renegades, and that particular squads are actually Berzerkers, Noise Marines, Plague Marines or Marked. But the opponent claims that the army is WYSIWYG, and gave you a copy of their list, so they say you should accept it.
Obviously, the player is playing as Chaos Marines because the army is "better", but would you be cool with that?
If you were the Tournament Organizer, would you allow it?
Honestly, as long as they are upfront with you about all of it, makes sure to be clear about what each unit represents, and this is approved by tournament organizers, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Throughout the game, you'll have to remember that the entire army is actually Chaos Space Marine Renegades, and that particular squads are actually Berzerkers, Noise Marines, Plague Marines or Marked. But the opponent claims that the army is WYSIWYG, and gave you a copy of their list, so they say you should accept it.
Obviously, the player is playing as Chaos Marines because the army is "better", but would you be cool with that?
Marks the appropriate squads easily for me to remember what is what.
and the equipment is WYSIWYG , i do not care how he does it, might aswell pick a red yarn for Khornate berzerkers etc.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: Honestly, as long as they are upfront with you about all of it, makes sure to be clear about what each unit represents, and this is approved by tournament organizers, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Throughout the game, you'll have to remember that the entire army is actually Chaos Space Marine Renegades, and that particular squads are actually Berzerkers, Noise Marines, Plague Marines or Marked. But the opponent claims that the army is WYSIWYG, and gave you a copy of their list, so they say you should accept it.
Marks the appropriate squads easily for me to remember what is what.
and the equipment is WYSIWYG , i do not care how he does it, might aswell pick a red yarn for Khornate berzerkers etc.
No red yard, because that's not part of the official Ultramarines color scheme. You need to remember that the Assault Marines without Jump Packs are actually Khorne Berzerkers, just as you need to remember that the 7th Squad is actually Plague Marines. The squads are numbered on their shoulder pads per Codex.
Throughout the game, you'll have to remember that the entire army is actually Chaos Space Marine Renegades, and that particular squads are actually Berzerkers, Noise Marines, Plague Marines or Marked. But the opponent claims that the army is WYSIWYG, and gave you a copy of their list, so they say you should accept it.
Marks the appropriate squads easily for me to remember what is what.
and the equipment is WYSIWYG , i do not care how he does it, might aswell pick a red yarn for Khornate berzerkers etc.
No red yard, because that's not part of the official Ultramarines color scheme. You need to remember that the Assault Marines without Jump Packs are actually Khorne Berzerkers, just as you need to remember that the 7th Squad is actually Plague Marines. The squads are numbered on their shoulder pads per Codex.
also you seem preety brought up by this as you were in the thread before, frankly so long the list comes down with the correct description of assult marines as khornates, etc yeah why not. Again marking the stuff is the issue, the only one.
If he /she / any other form in existence does the marking right and with a full legend on the list to make it easily understood no absolutely no issue.
Granted he certainly would not be in my book contesting for the best painted army.
I'm not really an advocate of "WYSIWYG or die!", quite the opposite. I don't mind proxxying or if weapon-loadouts are count-as something else. (Not everyone want/knows how to magnetize, and far from everyone got the money to buy 1 of every loadout).
But essentially proxxying an entire army in a tournament, where several units look nothing like what they're acting as (more specifically proxxying the cult-troops with regular Ultramarines) would be confusing as heck, regardless if I had your armylist in hand or not.
I feel like at that point it's against the spirit of the game.
If someone wants to play CSM that bad, just get a CSM-army, or play them as Ultramarines.
I wouldn't mind this at all in a regular friendly game, but at a tournament I'd be quite surprised (and not in a good way) if I ended up facing a list like this.
With that said, I haven't attended a tournament in over 5 years, so maybe my opinion doesn't matter.
As long as it's WYSIWYG it's not an issue and made clear to the opponent so they don't think they are playing against a Space Marine army but it turns out to be a Chaos type army. Personally, as a matter of taste, I would not care for someone running an army actually painted as Ultramarines as Renegades, but it's not a big deal. Hell, I have considered running Alpha Legion as Raven Guard Primaris Vanguard because it fits them better.
My gut says no as it would just be too confusing at times. However... I have seen on my travels on this internet over the years an army of CSM painted in UM 2nd co colours (including a DP). It was such a mindfeth that it was wonderful to look at.
As a TO, I'd probably say no. That's pushing it within the spirt of the game and would be confusing for opponents, regardless. Even if you said "this is all Chaos, etc." and explained it before the game, most players would still default to expecting normal Space Marine behavior/rules, etc.
On a non-TO level it just smacks of lazy rules-chasing.
JohnHwangDD wrote: ...Throughout the game, you'll have to remember that the entire army is actually Chaos Space Marine Renegades, and that particular squads are actually Berzerkers, Noise Marines, Plague Marines or Marked. But the opponent claims that the army is WYSIWYG, and gave you a copy of their list, so they say you should accept it...
How are you proposing to distinguish Berzerkers/Noise Marines/Plague Marines/etc?
Throughout the game, you'll have to remember that the entire army is actually Chaos Space Marine Renegades, and that particular squads are actually Berzerkers, Noise Marines, Plague Marines or Marked. But the opponent claims that the army is WYSIWYG, and gave you a copy of their list, so they say you should accept it.
Marks the appropriate squads easily for me to remember what is what.
and the equipment is WYSIWYG , i do not care how he does it, might aswell pick a red yarn for Khornate berzerkers etc.
No red yard, because that's not part of the official Ultramarines color scheme. You need to remember that the Assault Marines without Jump Packs are actually Khorne Berzerkers, just as you need to remember that the 7th Squad is actually Plague Marines. The squads are numbered on their shoulder pads per Codex.
This is the point where the claim of "this is wysiwyg" becomes false.
A Plague Marine is differentiated from a Rubric Marine is differentiated from a Chaos Marine in more ways than just basic weapon loadout. Even IF (and this is a very skeptical "if") the opponent were perfect about wargear WYSIWYG, i.e. he had created a loyalist version of a blight launcher for his "plague marines" to carry and his "thousand sons" had a librarian with a force staff leading them and his "bezerkers" had loyalist chain axes, then he would still be failing to differentiate the squads in the normal way they would be differentiable in an actual CSM army, and he would be violating wysiwyg.
You can't bring two units that look identical and tell me that they are completely different units while simultaneously saying your whole army is WYSIWYG.
Throughout the game, you'll have to remember that the entire army is actually Chaos Space Marine Renegades, and that particular squads are actually Berzerkers, Noise Marines, Plague Marines or Marked. But the opponent claims that the army is WYSIWYG, and gave you a copy of their list, so they say you should accept it.
Marks the appropriate squads easily for me to remember what is what.
and the equipment is WYSIWYG , i do not care how he does it, might aswell pick a red yarn for Khornate berzerkers etc.
No red yard, because that's not part of the official Ultramarines color scheme. You need to remember that the Assault Marines without Jump Packs are actually Khorne Berzerkers, just as you need to remember that the 7th Squad is actually Plague Marines. The squads are numbered on their shoulder pads per Codex.
Red YARN, you know stuff like that to make it as easy as possible
Again marking the stuff is the issue, the only one.
If he /she / any other form in existence does the marking right and with a full legend on the list to make it easily understood no absolutely no issue.
Granted he certainly would not be in my book contesting for the best painted army.
As above, no red yarn. The "easy" part is that you have the list, and it has 10 Khorne Berzerkers; opponent tells you that they're the Assault Marines without Jump Packs. It's entirely up to you to remember that squad is actually Berzerkers and not something else.
The marking is the squad number on the shoulder pad.
The marking is "right" in the sense that the squad is clearly identifiable by their shoulder pad number. But you're not getting any yarn or other stuff. You simply have to remember that squad of AMs is actually Khorne Berzerkers.
JohnHwangDD wrote: ...Throughout the game, you'll have to remember that the entire army is actually Chaos Space Marine Renegades, and that particular squads are actually Berzerkers, Noise Marines, Plague Marines or Marked. But the opponent claims that the army is WYSIWYG, and gave you a copy of their list, so they say you should accept it...
How are you proposing to distinguish Berzerkers/Noise Marines/Plague Marines/etc?
Squad number only.
As in "Squad #5 is actually Plague Marines"
No caps. No distinguishing bases. None of that. I
It's an Codex Ultramarine army "count as" Chaos Space Marines.
As a player, I'd probably be fine with it. As a TO who put up a significant cash prize that demanded WYSIWYG, I would probably not allow it. Then again, if I was a TO putting up that kind of cash, I'd better be VERY clear in my definition of what WYSIWYG means in my tournament documents to avoid a potential lawsuit from someone rejected. I would expect that definition to require the models be what they're sold as, but overall the answer to this mostly comes down to what WYSIWYG actually means without a clear definition.
I'm not really an advocate of "WYSIWYG or die!", quite the opposite. I don't mind proxxying or if weapon-loadouts are count-as something else. (Not everyone want/knows how to magnetize, and far from everyone got the money to buy 1 of every loadout).
But essentially proxxying an entire army in a tournament, where several units look nothing like what they're acting as (more specifically proxxying the cult-troops with regular Ultramarines) would be confusing as heck, regardless if I had your armylist in hand or not.
I feel like at that point it's against the spirit of the game.
If someone wants to play CSM that bad, just get a CSM-army, or play them as Ultramarines.
I wouldn't mind this at all in a regular friendly game, but at a tournament I'd be quite surprised (and not in a good way) if I ended up facing a list like this.
With that said, I haven't attended a tournament in over 5 years, so maybe my opinion doesn't matter.
It's a Tournament with a $1,000 CASH PRIZE, not a pickup game at your local table.
According to the "paint doesn't matter crowd", Power Armor with the right weapons is WYSIWYG.
They simply want to play the strongest flavor of the month, rather than play what they painted, or build what they play.
-Pawns are Tacs
-Rooks are Devs (Lascannons)
-Knights are ASMs
-Bishops are Rhinos
-Queens are Libbys
-Kings are Chapter Masters
With the proper specials/heavies painted on.
Nobody would call that WYSIWG. Technically, there'd be no difficulty playing against that army. Practically, I'm not interested in playing against that army.
As above, no red yarn. The "easy" part is that you have the list, and it has 10 Khorne Berzerkers; opponent tells you that they're the Assault Marines without Jump Packs. It's entirely up to you to remember that squad is actually Berzerkers and not something else.
JohnHwangDD wrote: ...Throughout the game, you'll have to remember that the entire army is actually Chaos Space Marine Renegades, and that particular squads are actually Berzerkers, Noise Marines, Plague Marines or Marked. But the opponent claims that the army is WYSIWYG, and gave you a copy of their list, so they say you should accept it...
How are you proposing to distinguish Berzerkers/Noise Marines/Plague Marines/etc?
Squad number only.
As in "Squad #5 is actually Plague Marines"
No caps. No distinguishing bases. None of that. I
It's an Codex Ultramarine army "count as" Chaos Space Marines.
So are the weapons actually not correct, or are you just choosing not to use sonic weapons/blight launchers/chainaxes/etc?
I'm really inclined to say "no" here given that you're breaking the cardinal rule of proxies (avoid confusion, ex. don't use the same model to represent two different units).
I'm not really an advocate of "WYSIWYG or die!", quite the opposite. I don't mind proxxying or if weapon-loadouts are count-as something else. (Not everyone want/knows how to magnetize, and far from everyone got the money to buy 1 of every loadout).
But essentially proxxying an entire army in a tournament, where several units look nothing like what they're acting as (more specifically proxxying the cult-troops with regular Ultramarines) would be confusing as heck, regardless if I had your armylist in hand or not.
I feel like at that point it's against the spirit of the game.
If someone wants to play CSM that bad, just get a CSM-army, or play them as Ultramarines.
I wouldn't mind this at all in a regular friendly game, but at a tournament I'd be quite surprised (and not in a good way) if I ended up facing a list like this.
With that said, I haven't attended a tournament in over 5 years, so maybe my opinion doesn't matter.
It's a Tournament with a $1,000 CASH PRIZE, not a pickup game at your local table.
According to the "paint doesn't matter crowd", Power Armor with the right weapons is WYSIWYG.
They simply want to play the strongest flavor of the month, rather than play what they painted, or build what they play.
And you are vastly oversimplifying the position, because for you in that case any non known paint scheme for PA IS NOT CORRECT SUBFACTION.
Wayniac wrote: In light of what you said later, no this is not acceptable at all.
Yeah, either Nathan Poe would like a word or dude really is serious and honestly thinks this is okay.
This is an example of the only way I'd be okay with it (can't find the ones I was thinking of. It sticks so vividly in my mind, that DP painted in ultramarine blue with a yellow trim...) as it is still WYSIWYG yet messes with your opponent's preconceptions about what a CM army should "look" like.
JohnHwangDD wrote: ...Throughout the game, you'll have to remember that the entire army is actually Chaos Space Marine Renegades, and that particular squads are actually Berzerkers, Noise Marines, Plague Marines or Marked. But the opponent claims that the army is WYSIWYG, and gave you a copy of their list, so they say you should accept it...
How are you proposing to distinguish Berzerkers/Noise Marines/Plague Marines/etc?
Squad number only.
As in "Squad #5 is actually Plague Marines"
No caps. No distinguishing bases. None of that. I
It's an Codex Ultramarine army "count as" Chaos Space Marines.
So are the weapons actually not correct, or are you just choosing not to use sonic weapons/blight launchers/chainaxes/etc?
I'm really inclined to say "no" here given that you're breaking the cardinal rule of proxies (avoid confusion, ex. don't use the same model to represent two different units).
To clarify, the models are built entirely with loyalist Space Marine parts, painted to a "perfect" Codex Ultramarines standard. No actual CSM bitz. Everything looks *exactly* like Codex Ultramarines. 'Eavy Metal couldn't do a better job with Ultramarines.
Opponent claims that it's not at all confusing, because each unit is clearly identified, etc. etc. Whether they are telling the truth, you can't say. If you expect SM behavior, despite the list saying CSM, that's your fault for not remembering what's what.
-Pawns are Tacs
-Rooks are Devs (Lascannons)
-Knights are ASMs
-Bishops are Rhinos
-Queens are Libbys
-Kings are Chapter Masters
With the proper specials/heavies painted on.
Nobody would call that WYSIWG. Technically, there'd be no difficulty playing against that army. Practically, I'm not interested in playing against that army.
-Pawns are Tacs
-Rooks are Devs (Lascannons)
-Knights are ASMs
-Bishops are Rhinos
-Queens are Libbys
-Kings are Chapter Masters
With the proper specials/heavies painted on.
Nobody would call that WYSIWG. Technically, there'd be no difficulty playing against that army. Practically, I'm not interested in playing against that army.
JohnHwangDD wrote: ...Throughout the game, you'll have to remember that the entire army is actually Chaos Space Marine Renegades, and that particular squads are actually Berzerkers, Noise Marines, Plague Marines or Marked. But the opponent claims that the army is WYSIWYG, and gave you a copy of their list, so they say you should accept it...
How are you proposing to distinguish Berzerkers/Noise Marines/Plague Marines/etc?
Squad number only.
As in "Squad #5 is actually Plague Marines"
No caps. No distinguishing bases. None of that. I
It's an Codex Ultramarine army "count as" Chaos Space Marines.
So are the weapons actually not correct, or are you just choosing not to use sonic weapons/blight launchers/chainaxes/etc?
I'm really inclined to say "no" here given that you're breaking the cardinal rule of proxies (avoid confusion, ex. don't use the same model to represent two different units).
To clarify, the models are built entirely with loyalist Space Marine parts, painted to a "perfect" Codex Ultramarines standard. No actual CSM bitz. Everything looks *exactly* like Codex Ultramarines. 'Eavy Metal couldn't do a better job with Ultramarines.
Opponent claims that it's not at all confusing, because each unit is clearly identified, etc. etc. Whether they are telling the truth, you can't say. If you expect SM behavior, despite the list saying CSM, that's your fault for not remembering what's what.
Specifically on the "Opponent claims that it's not at all confusing":
How is that any different from "Opponent claims that $icon is a 1 and $otherIcon is a 6 on his dice"?
One player is making a claim. The other disagrees. Go to dispute resolution.
In a tourny, dispute resolution includes calling in a TO.
Wayniac wrote: In light of what you said later, no this is not acceptable at all.
Yeah, either Nathan Poe would like a word or dude really is serious and honestly thinks this is okay.
This is an example of the only way I'd be okay with it (can't find the ones I was thinking of. It sticks so vividly in my mind, that DP painted in ultramarine blue with a yellow trim...) as it is still WYSIWYG yet messes with your opponent's preconceptions about what a CM army should "look" like.
Over half of the voters in the poll think it's OK to do this when $1,000 in hard cash is on the line. From the various threads, they seem to be dead set serious about it.
That's not at all what I'm talking about. That is a conversion with CSM bitz. 'm talking about someone saying that this is a Chaos Space Marine force:
Spoiler:
And for the record, a Khorne Berzerker army using 100% Black Templars models and bitz is totally viable if you paint the armor red instead of black. Just sayin'
I got a sneaking suspicion that the majority who voted "Yes" didn't bother to read the entirety of OPs first post, and especially not his last couple of posts.
The more he posts about this, the firmer my "No" becomes.
When a unit of Tactical Marines with regular marine weaponry, but with a "5" on their shoulder pads are meant to be count-as Plague Marines, we're way past WYSIWYG. Now we're deep into proxxy-territory.
Now apply this to the entire army, and you'll end up having some very confused opponents who probably wonder what the heck kind of tournament they signed up for.
It's a Tournament with a $1,000 CASH PRIZE, not a pickup game at your local table.
I read your OP, and I replied: In a tournament I'd say "No", but in a friendly game I wouldn't mind.
Squad number only.
As in "Squad #5 is actually Plague Marines"
No caps. No distinguishing bases. None of that.
As above, now we're deep into proxxy-territory, and you'll end up with some very confused opponents.
They will probably hear you say "the squad with 2's are Berzerkers, the squad with 4's are Rubricae and the squad with 5's are Plague Marines", but several times during the game they will forget what's what, and make mistakes based solely on the fact that you're proxxying your entire list. Players see those Assault Marines and consider them to be a lesser threat, and then when it's too late they'll remember "Oh sh** right, they where Berzerkers. I just lost the game."
Alot of tactical decisions in this game is made by overlooking the battlefield, specifically what enemy units are where. You're essentially tricking (not necessarily on purpose) your opponent when you proxxy an entire army in this way. Again, fine in friendly games, but if it was a tournament and I was a TO, I wouldn't allow it.
I didn't vote, because it didn't have an appropriate answer.
My answer is "No, because it's not WYSIWYG".
A Plague Marine is more than just a weapon-swapped CSM-same with Berserkers, same with TSons. (And kinda the same with Noise Marines, but they're pretty close.)
So, let me propose an amendment to your OP:
The list is:
Renegade Battalion
HQs Chaos Lord (Bolt Pistol, Chainsword)-Represented by a Space Marine Captain with Bolt Pistol and Chainsword Chaos Sorcerer (Bolt Pistol, Force Sword)-Represented by a Space Marine Librarian with Bolt Pistol and Force Sword
Troops 5 Man Chaos Marine Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marines 5 Man Chaos Marine Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marines 5 Man Chaos Marine Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marines
Elites Helrbute (Multi-Melta and Fist)-Represented by a Dreadnought with Multi-Melta and Fist Helrbute (Multi-Melta and Fist)-Represented by a Dreadnought with Multi-Melta and Fist
Fast Attacks 4 Man Chaos Biker Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marine Bikers 4 Man Chaos Biker Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marine Bikers 3 Man Chaos Biker Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marine Bikers
Dedicated Transports Chaos Rhino (Two Combi-Bolters)-Represented by a Space Marine Rhino with two Combi-Bolters Chaos Rhino (Two Combi-Bolters)-Represented by a Space Marine Rhino with two Combi-Bolters
992 Points
So no Calgar counts-as, no Plague Marines or Khorne Berserker counts-as (which, for a WYSIWYG tournament with cash on the line, is inappropriate) just 100% sensible, WYSIWYG models painted Imperium instead of Chaos.
I would be 100% fine with THAT, because it's WYSIWYG. Your example... Is not.
Edit: Ignore the fact that this list sucks and would never see a victory in a big tournament, let alone top tables. Assume the list is actually decent, but still WYSIWYG.
Playing an official sanctioned paint scheme as something else is already hard enough to swallow but if someone showed up with a completely different model line trying to play it as another model line that would just be a bridge too far. In a tournament environment, it's completely inappropriate to say
"this squad to UM is actually noise marines and this one over here is bezerkers and I know this dreadnaught is actually a lord discordant..... and remember your on the clock because we have to get a full game in so make that shooting phase snappy"
MinscS2 wrote: I got a sneaking suspicion that the majority who voted "Yes" didn't bother to read the entirety of OPs first post, and especially not his last couple of posts.
OP's first post (unless it's been edited later to hide it) seemed to indicate this was basically a "proxy" army where everything was WYSIWYG except they were using Space Marines to represent Chaos Renegades, using Chaos Renegade rules. Which IMHO is acceptable, same like running Alpha Legion as Primaris marines if you use the correct rules and models. Their later posts changed this around to be essentially not WYSIWYG (squad markings to identify cult troops) and added a bunch of additional conditions which push it further towards No, as the first post ended up being incredibly misleading.
- I love Kroot models, I hate Drukhai models.
- I've converted all the appropriate speacial weapons.
- The Kroot Guns count as <insert basic weapon here>
- I've made charcter conversions, so they visibly stand out.
- I've used the other Kroot, converted appropriately other units of similar size from the DE range.
- I've even included a handy sheet for my opponent, with pictures of the units and labels so they have that on hand.
My army is made of all Kroot models, but uses the DE rules.
- I love Kroot models, I hate Drukhai models.
- I've converted all the appropriate speacial weapons.
- The Kroot Guns count as <insert basic weapon here>
- I've made charcter conversions, so they visibly stand out.
- I've used the other Kroot, converted appropriately other units of similar size from the DE range.
- I've even included a handy sheet for my opponent, with pictures of the units and labels so they have that on hand.
My army is made of all Kroot models, but uses the DE rules.
I'd say reasonably different. A Marine is a Marine, but a Kroot is not a Dark Eldar.
Now, with sufficient work and skill, I'd 100% play it, but it'd take more than what Marine to Marine takes.
MinscS2 wrote: I got a sneaking suspicion that the majority who voted "Yes" didn't bother to read the entirety of OPs first post, and especially not his last couple of posts.
OP's first post (unless it's been edited later to hide it) seemed to indicate this was basically a "proxy" army where everything was WYSIWYG except they were using Space Marines to represent Chaos Renegades, using Chaos Renegade rules. Which IMHO is acceptable, same like running Alpha Legion as Primaris marines if you use the correct rules and models. Their later posts changed this around to be essentially not WYSIWYG (squad markings to identify cult troops) and added a bunch of additional conditions which push it further towards No, as the first post ended up being incredibly misleading.
The edits to the first posts were to:
* add the Poll
* clarify it's counting as "Chaos Space Marines" vs "Chaos Renegades"
* request an opinion as TO vs player, for those players who didn't answer the question (they dodge by saying they would defer to the TO)
Nothing to hide.
The gist of it being an army that looks like Codex: Ultramarines, but plays as Codex: Chaos Space Marines has been the intended question the entire time.
I would had voted no but this is a reductio at absurdum, specifically because what people discussed with you in the other thread was about using a paint scheme to represent another subfaction of the same codex not using an army of one codex to represent an army of other codex.
But I had a friend that has a core of Horus Heresy Space Marines painted blue and green that he uses as Alpha Legion or Dark Angels regularly (He also has DA units or Chaos untis like Dark Vengeance Chosen, Hellbrutes, etc... that uses based in what army hes playing, but the rhinos, basic csm/tacticals, devastators/havocs, land raiders, etc... are always the same) and I had 0 problems with that.
Also if somebody is using loyalist models to represent a CSM army but has them modeled, basically instead of Khorne Berzerkers he has a squad of loyalists veterans with decorations and chain axes, etc... I wouldn't have a problem.
A loyalist dreadnought can represent a hellbrute because I wouldn't say a guy with an old Chaos Dreadnought that he can't use it to represent and Hellbrute.
The discussion in the other thread went exceedingly badly for the OP so they created this thread in an attempt to redefine the discussion using moved goalposts.
As long as the player restricts his unit selection to things with a 1:1 correlation, I have no problem with it. Basic power armor guys with bolters/MLs/flamers etc. Librarians as sorcerers, hellbrutes as dreads, it’s all good.
Loyalist marines don’t have cult troops. Squad 7=plague marines is not acceptable, and not WYSWYG. A paint job is not enough to make that leap. On a related, slightly hypocritical point, I’d not have a problem with a tactical marine model with white trim and veteran markings being fielded as a sternguard. But plague marines are more then just gear and a paintjob. YMMV.
That said, if some extra effort was put into it, I might be swayed. Assault marines on foot are not khonre berserkers. Splash then heavily with BftBG, and toss a lot of skulls on their bases I might let it slide. Especially if nobody else in your army got that treatment. But that goes against the premise in the OP of “stock codex painjobs”
I didn’t vote, as my answer would be “Yes, but with some caveats"
The discussion in the other thread went exceedingly badly for the OP so they created this thread in an attempt to redefine the discussion using moved goalposts.
Yeah, and even then, most people is voting agaisnt what he was trying to argue in the other thread. Nearly nobody voted the option for "Only use Ultramarines as Ultramarines"
I'm not really an advocate of "WYSIWYG or die!", quite the opposite. I don't mind proxxying or if weapon-loadouts are count-as something else. (Not everyone want/knows how to magnetize, and far from everyone got the money to buy 1 of every loadout).
But essentially proxxying an entire army in a tournament, where several units look nothing like what they're acting as (more specifically proxxying the cult-troops with regular Ultramarines) would be confusing as heck, regardless if I had your armylist in hand or not.
I feel like at that point it's against the spirit of the game.
If someone wants to play CSM that bad, just get a CSM-army, or play them as Ultramarines.
I wouldn't mind this at all in a regular friendly game, but at a tournament I'd be quite surprised (and not in a good way) if I ended up facing a list like this.
With that said, I haven't attended a tournament in over 5 years, so maybe my opinion doesn't matter.
It's a Tournament with a $1,000 CASH PRIZE, not a pickup game at your local table.
According to the "paint doesn't matter crowd", Power Armor with the right weapons is WYSIWYG.
They simply want to play the strongest flavor of the month, rather than play what they painted, or build what they play.
OHHHHHHHH, this is a bad faith argument thread meant to let you "win" a different argument you're having in another unrelated thread that you want to use as ammunition.
I got it. I was confused at first as to why you were setting up this obvious "straw army" - you're actually trying to justify not allowing a person who's simply painted their army differently to play with the rules they want to use.
Newsflash dawg: Equivocating "paint" with "literally a different model" does not help you win that argument.
the_scotsman wrote: OHHHHHHHH, this is a bad faith argument thread meant to let you "win" a different argument you're having in another unrelated thread that you want to use as ammunition.
Pretty much, especially since the argument is totally different.
You can't use SM models to represent CSM datasheets, RaW, so the answer is obviously no. But this is not the same question he was asking in the other thread. You can use SM models painted any way you want to represent SM datasheets.
the_scotsman wrote: OHHHHHHHH, this is a bad faith argument thread meant to let you "win" a different argument you're having in another unrelated thread that you want to use as ammunition.
Pretty much, especially since the argument is totally different.
You can't use SM models to represent CSM datasheets, RaW, so the answer is obviously no. But this is not the same question he was asking in the other thread.
Yeah I was confused, i thought it was a hypothetical because I've run into jackasses who want to run like unpainted dreadnought torsos as carnifexes and intercessors as genestealers but I was like "this is a very strange and specific scenario RIIIIIIIIGHT on the edge of high effort hobbying and totally zero effort that guy-ery....I don't think this sounds like a thing that would actually occur."
Frankly he also misquoted my counterpoint so he could avoid to actually make an argument.
And most importantly he goes down a very Amusing path,
Namely IF to get a subfaction trait indeed of any faction, you would need to paint accordingly, all not known and unofficial paint shemes for any army would not be able to be used.
Forcing TO players into one specific paint scheme per army they intend to use.
If they have WYSIWYG gear and only use units that have pretty direct equivalents, then that is fine. There is even a fluff justification for it. I mean, certainly this is exactly how a loyalist army that has just switched sides would look like?
"This proxy army is totally WYSIWYG. Also, this squad of tactical marines carrying bolters are actually noise marines carrying sonic blasters, as you can clearly see by the number on their shoulder, which is definitely what WYSIWYG means."
the_scotsman wrote: OHHHHHHHH, this is a bad faith argument thread meant to let you "win" a different argument you're having in another unrelated thread that you want to use as ammunition.
No, it's me trying to find out whether there really is any limit on what players are willing to accept "counts as".
Realistically the whole concept of WYSIWYG in 40k is a fallacy because it relies on our good faith agreement as players that any model represents what we say it represents. Each model is a symbolic representation of a set of rules, but those rules are not actually inherent to the symbols we have agreed to associate them with. In a my 10 man unit of Neophyte Hybrids no two models look identical. They might have some common aesthetic characteristics, but none of them even use identical pieces. This is exactly as they came out of the GW box. The only way you know all ten models in that unit are Neophytes is that I just told you that is what all 10 different looking models represent and you agreed with me.
WYSIWYG might exist in chess, but 40k is not chess... If you are that concerned about representation and rules you are probably playing the wrong game.
the_scotsman wrote: OHHHHHHHH, this is a bad faith argument thread meant to let you "win" a different argument you're having in another unrelated thread that you want to use as ammunition.
No, it's me trying to find out whether there really is any limit on what players are willing to accept "counts as".
Apparently, there isn't.
Oh, well...
Maybe if you worded the poll better, you'd have a better understanding.
As a hobbyist first kinda player I have run an entire army of "counts as" back in the days of GW run GTs. Never had an issue. It was an army entirely made of 2nd ed. Stormboyz with Catachan arms using the IG codex. So it was Orks c/a Guard. Every weapon was an imperial one and every unit matched the other units that were the same. Like all the infantry squads were made of the same models I mean.
If there was something memorable about the different squads besides a different color or numbered pad I'd say it was fine. The exact same models but with different numbers representing both Plague Marines and Rubrics would be kinda confusing though.
I thin the question has changed alot since the first post. It is one thing to field tac marines as CSM or devs as havoc's but when you got squad 7 being cult marines squad 4 as chaos marines with the same load out it is getting to be a bit much. TBH I would rather play vs tokens at this point. The big thing for me is things need to be clear what they are and about the right size. Soda bottle drop pod's or 1 carnifex as guliman? Sure pretty clear what they are and about the same size. But squad markings are just to small of a detail and unless everything is written down somewhere it is bit much to remember for both of you.
the_scotsman wrote: OHHHHHHHH, this is a bad faith argument thread meant to let you "win" a different argument you're having in another unrelated thread that you want to use as ammunition.
No, it's me trying to find out whether there really is any limit on what players are willing to accept "counts as".
Apparently, there isn't.
Oh, well...
I mean, you've got quite a lot of people telling you they won't accept squad markings on two different Tactical squads allowing you to field one as Berzerkers and the other as Noise Marines, by applying a relatively straightforward one-sentence standard ("is this likely to cause confusion to your opponent?"), so I'm not sure where "no limit on what players are willing to accept 'counts as'" is coming from.
the_scotsman wrote: OHHHHHHHH, this is a bad faith argument thread meant to let you "win" a different argument you're having in another unrelated thread that you want to use as ammunition.
No, it's me trying to find out whether there really is any limit on what players are willing to accept "counts as".
Apparently, there isn't.
Oh, well...
Maybe if you worded the poll better, you'd have a better understanding.
I doubt that very much.
It's now clear to me that there exists a sizable number of people who flat out don't care, regardless of the circumstances, and that they are joined by another rather sizable number of people with significantly higher tolerance for "count as" than I do. To that end, the poll and thread have provided the basic information that I was looking for, and I have no particular interest in splitting those hairs any further.
the_scotsman wrote: OHHHHHHHH, this is a bad faith argument thread meant to let you "win" a different argument you're having in another unrelated thread that you want to use as ammunition.
No, it's me trying to find out whether there really is any limit on what players are willing to accept "counts as".
Apparently, there isn't.
Oh, well...
I mean, you've got quite a lot of people telling you they won't accept squad markings on two different Tactical squads allowing you to field one as Berzerkers and the other as Noise Marines, by applying a relatively straightforward one-sentence standard ("is this likely to cause confusion to your opponent?"), so I'm not sure where "no limit on what players are willing to accept 'counts as'" is coming from.
People draw the line differently.
If you look at the poll numbers, quite a few people just don't care.
If you think that there is a better way to ask the question and get the answers, please feel free to start another thread with a better poll.
JohnHwangDD, if one actually wanted to field a chaos army that is recently turned loyalist marines, then how would you expect it to be represented?
I mean, certainly I personally would model some chaos iconography and defiled imperial heraldry on them if I were creating such an force, but they would still mostly be made out of loyalist bits and would even share the colour scheme and some markings with their loyalist version. And I really don't feel it is my place to tell another person what is the appropriate amount of chaosification such an army must have. If they're painted marines with correct gear, then I'm happy to play against them.
the_scotsman wrote: OHHHHHHHH, this is a bad faith argument thread meant to let you "win" a different argument you're having in another unrelated thread that you want to use as ammunition.
No, it's me trying to find out whether there really is any limit on what players are willing to accept "counts as".
Apparently, there isn't.
Oh, well...
Sure, a bad faith argument isn't a bad faith argument if someone SAYS it isn't, I remember now.
Wait, is that how that works? Let's see.
You're on an internet forum with a limited group of people that you don't know are representative of the general playerbase.
You started your poll in the midst of an argument with other players on a similar, but critically unrelated topic (Paint doesn't matter VS paint AND MODELS don't matter)...evidently as an attempt to gain "ammo" in that argument.
You phrase the options of the poll in such a way that attempts to lead the audience - introducing a 1000$ cash prize at stake, rules from a third party requiring strict wysiwyg, and adding a moralistic element by saying that the player is obviously attempting to gain an advantage over you by using these models.
This is very much analogous to getting into an argument with your local homeowner's association about whether it's immoral for someone to paint their house the color they want to, so you print up a newspaper poll the following day asking the citizens of your town
"would you be OK with somebody spraypainting someone else's house with profanity and hate symbols if you knew they were doing it just to lower the property value of the neighborhood?
YES, everyone should be allowed to do anything they want!
For a tournament this really comes down to can a guy use an entirely proxy army in a decent sized tournament. I'd say no, IMO it falls into the 'modeling for advantage' category, you're using deceptive models and (maybe) actively trying to mislead your opponent. Mainly because proxies are confusing as hell when you're on your 3rd or 4th game of the day and it's not fair to your opponent. I'd despise playing that game.
Similarly I wouldn't be in favor of a DE player using wyches as Troupes and Reavers as Skyweavers, just because they're better and he doesn't want to be bothered to actually try to have the correct models
On a more personal level, using an entire army to 'count as' and entire other army, just because it got a new rules release, is just shady and a 'that guy' sort of move. If someone actually liked the faction he'd have at least some models, if someone is just chasing the 'latest and greatest' rules release then they'll try the proxy thing.
If I'm the opponent, I've nothing against a little light proxying, especially if there's a good fluff justification, but an entire army without at least some light conversion would be irksome. According to your parameters though, I don't see how his army could possibly satisfy the WYSIWIG requirement, at least by my interpretation of WYSIWIG. In the scenario you give, I'd have to call a tournament organizer to get their opinion, but I'd be happy with whatever they decide. Their tournament, their rules, their interpretation.
If I was the tournament organizer? No. I would not accept that army as fulfilling the WYSIWIG requirement.
A Plague Marine is more than just a weapon-swapped CSM-same with Berserkers, same with TSons. (And kinda the same with Noise Marines, but they're pretty close.)
So, let me propose an amendment to your OP:
The list is:
Renegade Battalion
HQs Chaos Lord (Bolt Pistol, Chainsword)-Represented by a Space Marine Captain with Bolt Pistol and Chainsword
Chaos Sorcerer (Bolt Pistol, Force Sword)-Represented by a Space Marine Librarian with Bolt Pistol and Force Sword
Troops 5 Man Chaos Marine Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marines
5 Man Chaos Marine Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marines
5 Man Chaos Marine Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marines
Elites Helrbute (Multi-Melta and Fist)-Represented by a Dreadnought with Multi-Melta and Fist
Helrbute (Multi-Melta and Fist)-Represented by a Dreadnought with Multi-Melta and Fist
Fast Attacks 4 Man Chaos Biker Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marine Bikers
4 Man Chaos Biker Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marine Bikers
3 Man Chaos Biker Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marine Bikers
Dedicated Transports Chaos Rhino (Two Combi-Bolters)-Represented by a Space Marine Rhino with two Combi-Bolters
Chaos Rhino (Two Combi-Bolters)-Represented by a Space Marine Rhino with two Combi-Bolters
992 Points
So no Calgar counts-as, no Plague Marines or Khorne Berserker counts-as (which, for a WYSIWYG tournament with cash on the line, is inappropriate) just 100% sensible, WYSIWYG models painted Imperium instead of Chaos.
I would be 100% fine with THAT, because it's WYSIWYG. Your example... Is not.
Edit: Ignore the fact that this list sucks and would never see a victory in a big tournament, let alone top tables. Assume the list is actually decent, but still WYSIWYG.
^I would accept that, because everything is really clear and very analogous to what it represents.
Numbering Tac squad A as Berzerkers and Tac squad B as Noise Marines would be acceptable for a few casual games, but I'd be really against that sort of thing at a tournament.
Rogerio134134 wrote: instead of using the crimson fists rules I run my marines with the Deathwatch codex.
I just use Deathwatch rules as they are better.
I'm also painting up my iron warriors but will be running them as black legion so I can take abbadon (in iron warriors colours of course.
In competition with cash value prizes on the line, I would zero you out for not playing a WYSIWYG army.
If it looks like Crimson Fists, it needs to play as Crimson Fists.
If it looks like Iron Warriors, it needs to play as Iron Warriors.
If you don't like the rules, don't paint an army to match.
A Plague Marine is more than just a weapon-swapped CSM-same with Berserkers, same with TSons. (And kinda the same with Noise Marines, but they're pretty close.)
So, let me propose an amendment to your OP:
The list is:
Renegade Battalion
HQs Chaos Lord (Bolt Pistol, Chainsword)-Represented by a Space Marine Captain with Bolt Pistol and Chainsword
Chaos Sorcerer (Bolt Pistol, Force Sword)-Represented by a Space Marine Librarian with Bolt Pistol and Force Sword
Troops 5 Man Chaos Marine Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marines
5 Man Chaos Marine Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marines
5 Man Chaos Marine Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marines
Elites Helrbute (Multi-Melta and Fist)-Represented by a Dreadnought with Multi-Melta and Fist
Helrbute (Multi-Melta and Fist)-Represented by a Dreadnought with Multi-Melta and Fist
Fast Attacks 4 Man Chaos Biker Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marine Bikers
4 Man Chaos Biker Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marine Bikers
3 Man Chaos Biker Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marine Bikers
Dedicated Transports Chaos Rhino (Two Combi-Bolters)-Represented by a Space Marine Rhino with two Combi-Bolters
Chaos Rhino (Two Combi-Bolters)-Represented by a Space Marine Rhino with two Combi-Bolters
992 Points
So no Calgar counts-as, no Plague Marines or Khorne Berserker counts-as (which, for a WYSIWYG tournament with cash on the line, is inappropriate) just 100% sensible, WYSIWYG models painted Imperium instead of Chaos.
I would be 100% fine with THAT, because it's WYSIWYG. Your example... Is not.
Edit: Ignore the fact that this list sucks and would never see a victory in a big tournament, let alone top tables. Assume the list is actually decent, but still WYSIWYG.
Ginjitzu, would you accept the above list?
I would, because as
Insectum7 wrote:...everything is really clear and very analogous to what it represents.
Also, my interpretation of WYSIWIG is flexible enough to allow for what I see in that list as a very reasonable lore justification; that chapter have turned heretic, and though their gear still appears loyalist, their agenda and behavior certainly aren't. I also believe it's worth stressing that WYSIWIG is not an actual Warhammer rule and thus open to many interpretations, all of which are skub!
If you look at the poll numbers, quite a few people just don't care.
If you think that there is a better way to ask the question and get the answers, please feel free to start another thread with a better poll.
Last time I looked the poll was 42-22 "this is an unacceptable proxy".
The numbers changed as more people voted.
____
Crimson wrote: JohnHwangDD, if one actually wanted to field a chaos army that is recently turned loyalist marines, then how would you expect it to be represented?
Red Corsairs. The first thing that they do is to deface ALL of the loyalist / Imperial iconography, insignia, heraldry and badging. They might still be blue, but there won't be a single intact Ultramarines symbol anywhere to be seen.
____
the_scotsman wrote: OHHHHHHHH, this is a bad faith argument thread meant to let you "win" a different argument you're having in another unrelated thread that you want to use as ammunition.
No, it's me trying to find out whether there really is any limit on what players are willing to accept "counts as".
Apparently, there isn't.
Oh, well...
Sure, a bad faith argument isn't a bad faith argument if someone SAYS it isn't, I remember now.
Wait, is that how that works? Let's see.
You're on an internet forum with a limited group of people that you don't know are representative of the general playerbase.
You started your poll in the midst of an argument
No, I started this thread and poll when I wanted to see to what extent the nonsense in that thread was shared by others on Dakka.
Heck yeah man. It means a game of 40k. Full points for originality. Half points for other csm players using correct models cause well.. think of something new. It’s like necron orks. Use ork models with the necron codex. Extremely fluffy and original. I’m not kidding about any of this either, it’s my honest opinion. Mostly because individuals such as yourself with your extremist mindset irritate me more than players who want to play ultramarines they have painted us as crimson fists, and you flying off the handle that you would give 0’s across the board for it.
* ALL weapons are "correct"
"And then - "particular squads are actually Berzerkers, Noise Marines, Plague Marines "
You contradict yourself here. Cult marines have own weapons and can't be "correct".
Playing UM painted army as CSM (tacticals == csm, devastators == havocs, assault marines == raptors etc) is totally ok, no problem here.
Using regular tactical marines as plague marines? Not cool, but I'll swallow it. Calgar as chaos lord? Totally no, it's gravis armour, he has 2 relic pw, he has different base size, nit acceptable proxy.
Silver144 wrote: Calgar as chaos lord? Totally no, it's gravis armour, he has 2 relic pw, he has different base size, nit acceptable proxy.
Bearing in mind there are four different Calgar models - of which three even have have their own datasheets at present - I wouldn't immediately assume it is the Primaris version being talked about here
Silver144 wrote: Calgar as chaos lord? Totally no, it's gravis armour, he has 2 relic pw, he has different base size, nit acceptable proxy.
Bearing in mind there are four different Calgar models - of which three even have have their own datasheets at present - I wouldn't immediately assume it is the Primaris version being talked about here
You totally right, but all of them equipped with two relic pf, so it's pretty bad proxy. If the base size is correct I'll kek a bit at this "chaos lord", but overall it's not a tournament level)
I would like to register my opinion, but unfortunately the poll has been set up to exclude it.
Add another to the write-in for "No, because the equipment and representation of cult troops are not WYSIWYG."
I would have absolutely no problem with the alternative SM-to-CSM option presented by JNA.
(I would also point out that the poll question is just "Ultramarines "count as" Chaos Marines OK?", and that all the other stuff being described such as use of Cult Troops are only described in the thread itself. So anyone who came into the thread, answered the poll, then started reading may have given an answer which is not representative of their exact position.)
JohnHwangDD wrote: Would you be OK if your Tournament opponent showed up with a 100% perfect Codex Ultramarines army, but played it as Chaos Space Marine Renegades?
Assume:
* $1,000 cash prize * Tournament Rules require fully WYSIWYG armies, no exceptions * ALL weapons are "correct"
* ALL models have "correct" Ultramarines Chapter, 5th Company, Squad and soldier insignia
* army composition matches a Codex demi-Company supported by Veterans from 1st Company and auxiliaries
* the Marneus Calgar Special Character model is the Chaos Lord
* Codex: Chaos Space Marines >>> Codex: Ultramarines
* background story is that the Ultramarines 5th Company *just* turned to Chaos, so they haven't had time to repaint their stuff
Throughout the game, you'll have to remember that the entire army is actually Chaos Space Marine Renegades, and that particular squads are actually Berzerkers, Noise Marines, Plague Marines or Marked. But the opponent claims that the army is WYSIWYG, and gave you a copy of their list, so they say you should accept it.
Obviously, the player is playing as Chaos Marines because the army is "better", but would you be cool with that?
If you were the Tournament Organizer, would you allow it?
No and the bolded parts are the issue for me.
If I have to ensure that all Choppas and Big Choppas are legit (most players don't know he difference), playing Ultramarines as anything other than Ultramarines is not WYSIWYG.
As a TO ? No I'd not allow it without it being more clearly crafted to be so. I think it would be too easy to abuse the other player by forgetting when the visuals are such a key part of your decision making. Wouldn't want hard feelings to emerge if this players goes all the way and then people complain it wasn't wysiwyg, was hard to remember the squads while playing to a time limit, etc, etc. Just would rather it be clear if money is on the line for all parties.
Pick up game ? It's totally fine, I'd give it a shot but I personally don't agree with it, just feels off to me. Even if my book is crap, I play it by the book they were made from. Like when I played my Dark Angels as them despite using the late 4th edition codex for them which was beyond boring and soft. I just couldn't make myself play them as vanilla when the better book came out after for Marines, felt like I was taking the easy way out if I did so. Then I did play the Tempestus as a stand alone force when their solo codex came out and took my rear hammering till I figured out how to make them work then. ( Work being a very loose term as even at their best they were weak as heck ).
Though if I saw someone do that I would have to chuckle inwardly as I remember back when the 5th ed Space wolves book dropped and every chaos player was trying to jump ship to that codex because it " Better represented " chaos marines, khorne most exactly. So how the worm has turned, don't jump ship loyalist comrades, loyal marines will rise again. Trust me, it can't be as bad as when I started with vanilla marines in 3rd edition and my other friend played the 3.5 chaos codex against me, Iron warriors no less, all the time. Now that was fun and I remember him telling me my codex was fine because I could have a cheap HQ, I think it was a strike commander who was like a vet sgt in his stats, that was some sad stuff there. All the while pounding me to nothing with his artillery, felt good.
The disingenuous motive behind starting this thread aside, the original post contradicts itself. How does the army have ALL weapons correct while still representing Cult Troops like Noise Marines, or even have Calgar as a Chaos Lord (unless that Chaos Lord is really armed with a combi-bolter and two PFs)? So the strawman falls apart under the weight of its own abstract and dishonest creation.
Having said that, if the army was just CSM squads, Bikers, Havocs etc and all the weapons actually were correct, so all ML were MLs, flamers were flamers and none of the units were armed with weapons unique to CSM I wouldn't have a problem with it. Once you start having to remember which identical-looking squad is Plague Marines and which are Noise Marines then it's gone too far. With a bit of creativity I think it is possible to have renegade UM with Cult troops in their ranks, but it would require some extra modelling effort from the player to make it work.
WYSIWYG ultimately comes down to a judgement call. It's very difficult to make hard and fast rules that everyone will agree with but I think there's probably general agreement that there's a spectrum from completely stock, official paintjobs and models at one end to random collection of confusing models and toys at the other. The main criteria for me is "is it confusing" but even that requires a judgement call.
JohnHwangDD wrote: ...particular squads are actually Berzerkers, Noise Marines, Plague Marines or Marked.
Poll needs another option to point this bit out. I wouldn't mind if each unique unit is represented by a unique model, but no copies counting as something else. So he is free to have his blue Tac Squad count as a CSMTac squad, or a blue Predator counting as a CSM predator, but not then saying "Tac Squad B" is actually a group of plague marines. Basically, in a tournament setting, I would mostly be concerned with the mechanical element of, "is each unit easily distinguishable as the army list entry." If yes and it is relatively simple to track, then go for it. If I need to refer back to an index every time I look at the table to track a dozen unique units that are not easily followed, then no. Basically if the army units are not easily identified, it messes with the opponent's target priority and time, both of which are important in a tournament setting on the clock.
If it looks like Ultramarines, play it as Ultramarines. Anything else is potentially confusing to your opponent. If your opponent has to constantly remind themselves that your models AREN'T what they look like, and you don't have to remind yourself of that, then you have an unfair advantage.
You're making a choice to make the game more confusing for your opponent so you have a better chance of winning. That's a dick move, and I'd refuse to play.
(Obvious exceptions for mates proxying things to test them and count-as used to represent forces/models without rules. This is neither of those) .
I think it's likely a lot of people answered the question posed without reading the first post, especially coming from the other thread. AS the question is phrased the answer is one way, then when you add a bunch of caveats its the other way for me, and I suspect others. If the rule is a rule in the tournament then I wouldn't be OK with it. If someone is proxying incorrect wargear or using the same models as different units, then I wouldn't be ok with it. And in both cases, I would call a judge.
If someone isn't doing that and is using Tac Marines as Chaos Marines and Assault Marines as Raptors, Bikers as Bikers and Dreadnoughts as HEllbrutes then that is totally fine from y point of view.
Crimson wrote: JohnHwangDD, if one actually wanted to field a chaos army that is recently turned loyalist marines, then how would you expect it to be represented?
Red Corsairs. The first thing that they do is to deface ALL of the loyalist / Imperial iconography, insignia, heraldry and badging. They might still be blue, but there won't be a single intact Ultramarines symbol anywhere to be seen.
But not all renegades destroy their heraldry. They might think that they're in the right and proudly represent their chapter. Also, what if it is Alpha Legion masquerading as Ultramarines?
He said recently turned loyalists, not Chaos Marines
But seriously the key point here is identifiability. Red Corsairs, even if painted in the classic style where they are in their old colors but with red Xs (I think it was Xs) across things and defaced Imperial Symbols, still works.
I don't think there would be an issue if, say, the "Khorne Berserkers" were painted like Ultrmarines with the aquila/symbols gouged out, a red X somewhere and maybe a hastily scribbled red Khorne icon. Same perhaps with Plague Marines if the armor is done differently (coated with Nurgle's Rot, for example, or greenstuff mold over parts). That's identifiable. But "These assault marines are Khorne Berserkers" is just confusing.
Slipspace wrote: The disingenuous motive behind starting this thread aside, the original post contradicts itself. How does the army have ALL weapons correct while still representing Cult Troops like Noise Marines, or even have Calgar as a Chaos Lord (unless that Chaos Lord is really armed with a combi-bolter and two PFs)? So the strawman falls apart under the weight of its own abstract and dishonest creation.
Having said that, if the army was just CSM squads, Bikers, Havocs etc and all the weapons actually were correct, so all ML were MLs, flamers were flamers and none of the units were armed with weapons unique to CSM I wouldn't have a problem with it. Once you start having to remember which identical-looking squad is Plague Marines and which are Noise Marines then it's gone too far. With a bit of creativity I think it is possible to have renegade UM with Cult troops in their ranks, but it would require some extra modelling effort from the player to make it work.
WYSIWYG ultimately comes down to a judgement call. It's very difficult to make hard and fast rules that everyone will agree with but I think there's probably general agreement that there's a spectrum from completely stock, official paintjobs and models at one end to random collection of confusing models and toys at the other. The main criteria for me is "is it confusing" but even that requires a judgement call.
Yeah. You could easily construct a similar scenario designed for a sympathetic response. Take an example from my play group:
Tired of getting endlessly stomped with his grey knights, one of our players decided to run them using Deathwatch rules until an updated book comes out.
-Librarian with force sword in terminator armor is a librarian with a force sword in terminator armor.
-Brother captain with halberd and storm bolter is a watch master with guardian spear.
-Draigo is a terminator captain with relic blade and storm shield.
-Strike squad members are deathwatch vets with storm bolters and either a power sword/power axe/power maul depending on what they're armed with. Demonhammers are regular thunderhammers since they also have storm bolters.
-Terminators are the same: Power Weapon/Storm Bolter or demonhammer/storm bolter.
-Interceptors are vanvets with a WYSIWYG violation of Storm Bolter -> Bolt Pistol, otherwise the same conversion to power weapons.
-Dreadnought is Vendread.
-Rhinos are Rhinos, razorbacks are razorbacks etc.
He only does this in casual games, with his opponent's permission. He politely declines games against folks who he knows have competitive lists and who insist he runs grey knights, because he knows he won't have a good time playing against those lists.
In this scenario, we've asked after the same question, except we've removed:
-the cash prize
-the implication of a violation of established rules
-the heavy unit misrepresentation (you don't have to remember one unit of X is Y, and one unit of X is Z)
We've retained
-the fact that the player is explicitly doing it for better rules
-the fact that the player isn't being perfectly WYSIWYG, just as close as they can get (interceptors not having storm bolters, force weapons becoming power weapons).
Bolter is a bolter, chainsword is a chainsword, alright we're off to a good start. Heavy weapons equal each other? Cool. Bolter as Sonic Blaster? No go. The unit's guns need to be visually identifiable AS its intended weapon, and consistent across the board. If you found a cool 3rd party bit gun which looks suitably unboltery and is CONSISTENTLY used throughout the army then WYSIWYG has been restored, cool.
Would I be happy with the army as OP stated, no not really, but he CAN do it, I personally don't believe paint should affect rules as long as the equipment for the model matches the rules you use. The game is YOUR DUDES and no one can 'tell' you to paint them a certain way whilst using other rules. How you build them however is a constraint.
I could paint all my CSM as Ultramarines (and in fact I have painted a squad as Dark Angels just to annoy my local friendly Deathwing player. This was pre Fallen datasheet) and say I was fielding them as Black Legion/ Alpha or any legion. If my opponent is upset I would say I am sorry, I have painted them as I like and I can clearly mark whilst we're playing or find another solution we're both happy with. No other human being can 'tell' you how to paint your models, unless you wish to enter something THEY are organising where they are absolutely free to slap whatever conditions. Hell TO's are pretty carte blanch to do whatever to the rules at their tournaments technically, he could blanket rule no knights. Not saying people would like it but its a different situation to a casual game.
I don't see the difference between it being OK to paint your models differently but not OK to model your models differently.
What a lot of people are saying is that it's NOT fair for your army to appear to be X (an established and common thing with rules) but actually be played as Y (a different established and common thing with different rules).
If that's the case, then it's the case in the example in the OP (the army looks like Ultramarines but is being played as CSM). It's the case if all your flamers are actually plasma guns. It's also the case if your army looks like Ultramarines but you're using Iron Hands rules.
All of those things are confusing. All of those things force your opponent to do more work than you have to do. All of them are equally unfair.
You can model your models however you want, carrying whatever you want, and you can paint your models however you like. But if they look like X and you're playing them as Y, that's confusing and (IMO) unfair.
ArbitorIan wrote: I don't see the difference between it being OK to paint your models differently but not OK to model your models differently.
What a lot of people are saying is that it's NOT fair for your army to appear to be X (an established and common thing with rules) but actually be played as Y (a different established and common thing with different rules).
If that's the case, then it's the case in the example in the OP (the army looks like Ultramarines but is being played as CSM). It's the case if all your flamers are actually plasma guns. It's also the case if your army looks like Ultramarines but you're using Iron Hands rules.
All of those things are confusing. All of those things force your opponent to do more work than you have to do. All of them are equally unfair.
You can model your models however you want, carrying whatever you want, and you can paint your models however you like. But if they look like X and you're playing them as Y, that's confusing and (IMO) unfair.
Sure, but one should be reasonable when drawing those lines.
If I painted my Ultramarines a slightly different shade of blue than normal, it would be unreasonable for an opponent to claim to be confused as to what he's facing. Likewise, if what looks like my Librarian suddenly cast Doom, it would be very reasonable for them to call BS.
Flamers as plasma guns is a reasonable thing to be confused by. They have very different battlefield profiles, and important decisions could be made based on a mistaken assumption. But an Ultramarines tactical squad and an Iron Hands tactical squad are pretty similar in capabilities if not the details, so you're not likely to mess up your threat assessment based on that.
Now, mixing multiple chapters together that are all painted the same? We're back to BS, because without some obvious indicator I I don't know if or when you're switching up your doctrines to fit the situation.
Anyone's free to draw the line where they like, but fact of the matter is we're in a time-intensive hobby with more rules available than folks have time to paint. So "paint doesn't matter as long as it's same faction / everything is obvious" seems as fine a line as any.
I'm going to go ahead and say that the cognitive load of 'hey, my guys are painted as Ultramarines, but I'm using Raven Guard chapter tactics, otherwise they're WYSIWYG' is considerably lower than 'hey, my guys are painted as Ultramarines, but they're being run as Chaos, so this unit is Berserkers, this unit is Havocs, this unit is Obliterators...'.
I absolutely would not want to face an entire army of proxies, but being painted blue and using the army-wide rules associated with green isn't remotely on the same level and I have no problem with that.
If OP is using this entire-army-of-proxies thought experiment to imply that people should treat paint schemes as locking players into a particular subfaction, then that seems rather dishonest.
My WYSIWYG standards are actually pretty strict, but happen to think that if if two units have identical gear and profiles, then it is fine to use the models for those units interchangeably. What I mean with this is, that the standard CSM and a Tactical Marine are both Space Marines with a power armour and bolter, and have identical profiles. So it is fine to use a loyalist model to represent the chaos equivalent. A lot of people do this, heresy era power armour models are popular in chaos armies.
Of course when it comes to more specialised units that do not have such direct correlation, then some differentiation is needed.
Ultramarines gone chaos sounds like a valid concept to me. It is not something that is ever gonna happen in the official lore, but it is a thing that could happen. I would view it as alt history version of the Ultras. People often do loyalist versions of traitor legions in 40K, and those don't exist in the official lore either.
The situation described in the OP is not at all WYSIWYG - because what you see is NOT what you get in the given scenario. Drawing any "conclusions" from such a faulty premise is just dishonest. This very point has been brought up by others already, so I am baffled why this thread is still running...
I'm going to go ahead and say that the cognitive load of 'hey, my guys are painted as Ultramarines, but I'm using Raven Guard chapter tactics, otherwise they're WYSIWYG' is considerably lower than 'hey, my guys are painted as Ultramarines, but they're being run as Chaos, so this unit is Berserkers, this unit is Havocs, this unit is Obliterators...'.
I absolutely would not want to face an entire army of proxies, but being painted blue and using the army-wide rules associated with green isn't remotely on the same level and I have no problem with that.
If OP is using this entire-army-of-proxies thought experiment to imply that people should treat paint schemes as locking players into a particular subfaction, then that seems rather dishonest.
Ok, fair point. I should have been clearer with that.
Flamers/plasma might only be asking your opponent to do 5% more work, ultramarines/iron hands might be asking them to do 10% more work, and the OP example 30% more work. They’re not equally unfair in the additional work they’re demanding of the opponent.
However, you shouldn’t be asking your opponent to do ANY more work because of your painting and modelling choices (Rule of Cool notwithstanding, and even then it should be the minimum amount of work).
In that respect I agree with the OP. Wrong paint scheme and marines/chaos marines are both unfair for the same reason.
For me, the models come first as a visual representation of what is happening.
However, for casual play, I would be happy with the rationalisation of "these chaos marine statistics 'count as' Ultramarine statistics" (rather than "these Ultramarine models 'count as' chaos marine models). It is functionally the same, but it's a different headspace.
I'm going to go ahead and say that the cognitive load of 'hey, my guys are painted as Ultramarines, but I'm using Raven Guard chapter tactics, otherwise they're WYSIWYG' is considerably lower than 'hey, my guys are painted as Ultramarines, but they're being run as Chaos, so this unit is Berserkers, this unit is Havocs, this unit is Obliterators...'.
I absolutely would not want to face an entire army of proxies, but being painted blue and using the army-wide rules associated with green isn't remotely on the same level and I have no problem with that.
If OP is using this entire-army-of-proxies thought experiment to imply that people should treat paint schemes as locking players into a particular subfaction, then that seems rather dishonest.
Ok, fair point. I should have been clearer with that.
Flamers/plasma might only be asking your opponent to do 5% more work, ultramarines/iron hands might be asking them to do 10% more work, and the OP example 30% more work. They’re not equally unfair in the additional work they’re demanding of the opponent.
However, you shouldn’t be asking your opponent to do ANY more work because of your painting and modelling choices (Rule of Cool notwithstanding, and even then it should be the minimum amount of work).
In that respect I agree with the OP. Wrong paint scheme and marines/chaos marines are both unfair for the same reason.
You're already asking your opponent to do some amount of work to learn the chapter colour schemes. Whilst I think everyone knows Ultramarines I can't tell the difference between most of the others at a glance as I find marines uninteresting. It's much less work for me if my opponent tells me their trait and I don't have to care about colours. I've found playing against people who expect me to recognise their chapters a bit more of a hassle as they don't tend to spell out the rules and capabilities of their army as clearly as someone playing "Orange Marines". This is obviously player dependant though.
Honestly, either as a TO or non-TO I would have a problem with it. You stated in the OP that it's "100% WYSIWIG, no exceptions". I've played small tournaments before where the WYSIWIG was pretty extreme (I lost WYSIWIG points because my grenades were all painted the same with no difference between Frag and Krak), but not as extreme as this where all company markings have to be exact.
Besides the odd level of WYSIWIG, yes it's a bit of a dick move that stinks a bit of rules chasing. Your (not necessarily OP, just "your" in general) will have a harder time of actually keeping track of which units are which, and the general idea just sounds like "Chaos are the flavour of the month, I spent 5 mins making up a crappy backstory so I can use them". If he had painted them up as "Ultramarines who have defaced their armour and turned renegade" fair enough, but "Oh they defected but haven't had time to do it" wouldn't convince me in the slightest.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have an issue with proxying to an extent, if you want to try out a unit before you buy it, but at a tournament that sounds pretty big judging from the prize, it'd be a huge no-no from me.
Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines are different armies. If I'm honest, I don't even like the idea of a chapter that's clearly X chapter with all it's associated iconography pretending to be Y chapter, though I'm a lot more understanding of that position.
The Ultramarines could be proxying as Chaos Space Marines, Necrons or Tyranids for all I care - I still won't play against it, and I won't play in any tournament or event that allows that sort of thing, because it flies in the face of the enjoyment that I get out of the experience personally.
As far as I'm concerned, this isn't a board game, it's nor even just a 'tabletop wargame', it's a 'miniatures' game. If I didn't care what the miniatures looked like when I was playing, I would save myself the time and effort and just play with cardboard standees and tokens. The miniatures and the tabletop experience have to come first, or I'm not interested in playing.
Edit: to be clear, this position is based on this hard-line example. There is obviously a little wiggle room for practicalities in other circumstances, and I would totally be down for playing against an army converted from another range with the intention of using another codex (example: Skaven Ad-Mech, or actual Space Marine Renegades). I have exactly 0 tolerance for "but muh rules aren't top tier for muh models so ima say they're something else."
Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines are different armies. If I'm honest, I don't even like the idea of a chapter that's clearly X chapter with all it's associated iconography pretending to be Y chapter, though I'm a lot more understanding of that position.
The Ultramarines could be proxying as Chaos Space Marines, Necrons or Tyranids for all I care - I still won't play against it, and I won't play in any tournament or event that allows that sort of thing, because it flies in the face of the enjoyment that I get out of the experience personally.
As far as I'm concerned, this isn't a board game, it's nor even just a 'tabletop wargame', it's a 'miniatures' game. If I didn't care what the miniatures looked like when I was playing, I would save myself the time and effort and just play with cardboard standees and tokens. The miniatures and the tabletop experience have to come first, or I'm not interested in playing.
Edit: to be clear, this position is based on this hard-line example. There is obviously a little wiggle room for practicalities in other circumstances, and I would totally be down for playing against an army converted from another range with the intention of using another codex (example: Skaven Ad-Mech, or actual Space Marine Renegades). I have exactly 0 tolerance for "but muh rules aren't top tier for muh models so ima say they're something else."
You can't have it both ways, either it's all ok or none of it is.
Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines are different armies. If I'm honest, I don't even like the idea of a chapter that's clearly X chapter with all it's associated iconography pretending to be Y chapter, though I'm a lot more understanding of that position.
The Ultramarines could be proxying as Chaos Space Marines, Necrons or Tyranids for all I care - I still won't play against it, and I won't play in any tournament or event that allows that sort of thing, because it flies in the face of the enjoyment that I get out of the experience personally.
As far as I'm concerned, this isn't a board game, it's nor even just a 'tabletop wargame', it's a 'miniatures' game. If I didn't care what the miniatures looked like when I was playing, I would save myself the time and effort and just play with cardboard standees and tokens. The miniatures and the tabletop experience have to come first, or I'm not interested in playing.
Edit: to be clear, this position is based on this hard-line example. There is obviously a little wiggle room for practicalities in other circumstances, and I would totally be down for playing against an army converted from another range with the intention of using another codex (example: Skaven Ad-Mech, or actual Space Marine Renegades). I have exactly 0 tolerance for "but muh rules aren't top tier for muh models so ima say they're something else."
You can't have it both ways, either it's all ok or none of it is.
It'd deffo be a nope from me. Confusing, immersion-breaking, and just generally a bit of a pain. Smacks of trying to game the system without being willing to put in the time and effort of using the right models.
How are you proposing to distinguish Berzerkers/Noise Marines/Plague Marines/etc?
Squad number only.
As in "Squad #5 is actually Plague Marines"
No caps. No distinguishing bases. None of that. I
It's an Codex Ultramarine army "count as" Chaos Space Marines.
Sorry, but this is the breaking point. I wouldn't let a CSM player get away with fielding regular chaos marines with regular black/gold armor as zerkers, plague marines and noise marines.
In general, I have no issue with running UM a chaos marines, but when you expect me to tell apart identical units by squad markings - no deal.
Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines are different armies. If I'm honest, I don't even like the idea of a chapter that's clearly X chapter with all it's associated iconography pretending to be Y chapter, though I'm a lot more understanding of that position.
The Ultramarines could be proxying as Chaos Space Marines, Necrons or Tyranids for all I care - I still won't play against it, and I won't play in any tournament or event that allows that sort of thing, because it flies in the face of the enjoyment that I get out of the experience personally.
As far as I'm concerned, this isn't a board game, it's nor even just a 'tabletop wargame', it's a 'miniatures' game. If I didn't care what the miniatures looked like when I was playing, I would save myself the time and effort and just play with cardboard standees and tokens. The miniatures and the tabletop experience have to come first, or I'm not interested in playing.
Edit: to be clear, this position is based on this hard-line example. There is obviously a little wiggle room for practicalities in other circumstances, and I would totally be down for playing against an army converted from another range with the intention of using another codex (example: Skaven Ad-Mech, or actual Space Marine Renegades). I have exactly 0 tolerance for "but muh rules aren't top tier for muh models so ima say they're something else."
You can't have it both ways, either it's all ok or none of it is.
Why?
Just to clarify here, what I'm meaning to say is that I take exception to people trying to use another faction's codex simply because it makes them more likely to win games, despite already have rules of their own. But I am happy to play someone who has picked an existing codex to use with a heavily converted/hobby project army that doesn't have rules of their own - provided it's clearly been built and converted with that codex in mind and not just some army put together without a codex in mind, with units just designated as 'counts as' for whatever codex they feel like on the day. And to be clear, this is only ever acceptable to me in casual play, not tournament.
If someone wants to kit bash an army for the specific purpose of using another army list using parts from other ranges, I'm completely happy to play against it provided that it's clearly purpose-built with that list in mind. I've seen armies with Clanrat bodies and Skitarii Ranger guns, with Warp-Lightning Cannons on Dunecrawler legs - that to me, is fair play, it's a conversion, and it's obvious what it is and it's clearly purpose-built for that function. Similarly, in the past, I have used a number of Loyalist bits and pieces alongside the Chaos kits to make my Renegade Chaos Space Marines - the ratio was maybe 60:40 with Loyalist parts, but the Khorne Berzerkers were converted with Khorne Berzerker and Blood Warrior bits, the Chaos Space Marines had loyalist style missile launchers, Heresy-era heads, and CSM pads, etc and the Heldrake was converted using a Heldrake and a Storm Raven - all of it was obvious what it is, and I built it with the CSM list in mind and never used it as anything but that.
On the other hand, if someone assembles and paints an army out of a set of existing kits and canon colour schemes/iconography but wants to field it as a completely different armies set of rules just because they're better.. that's too immersion breaking for me, and I'm not interested in playing it.
I feel like that's a reasonable distinction to gauge, and I don't think it's an unreasonable position to take.
Edit: clarity, clarity, a couple words, clarity. Sorry for all the edits.
I would say yes (especially if I was a TO) but with the following caveats:
1.) You must have a clear list of what each thing is at all times and this cannot change. Your Chaos Lord cannot be swapping marks or equipment willy nilly (unless magnetized ofc). this is not a requirement of normal Chaos Armies because you're already adding a layer of confusion by using ultramarines, so keeping things consistent goes a long way. This feeds into the second one:
2.) Anything that deviate outside the basic marine or terminator should have appropriate conversions to depict that. A marine with a chainaxe and some shoulder iconography a berserker does not make. he should be decked out in special equipment (maybe bionic legs and arms with drug injectors?). Similarly, a Plague Marine squad should have something representing their enhanced durability (boarding shields and heavier MK3 armor maybe). Basically, at eyeballing distance, my mind should instantly go "waitaminute, that isn't a tactical squad".
I have once played WHFB against an opponent who fielded an undead Blood Dragons army against me using Bretonnia's rules. his damsels were Lahmian vampires, his Grail Knights were Blood Dragons (and this was before Blood Knights existed, which meant each one was converted), and Knights of the Realm were Black Knights. His pegasi were converted from Dark Pegasi and were ridden by vampires as well (not quite sure which ones they were) and war machine crews and militias were skeletons. Aside from the black knights and skeletons, it was pretty clear what everything was suppose to be (given the difficulty of converting it, I gave him a pass on the rank and file). While he could have used it as a normal undead army, I couldn't deny that him using Bretonnia rules were a much better fit (and this was before bretonnia sucked).
tl;dr version: Largely yes, but you gotta put effort into it. Don't hand me a normal marine and tell me it's a berserker.
BaconCatBug wrote: RaW you can't do it because you must use the correct model to represent the correct datasheet.
If you're going to ignore the RaW, you have to allow ignoring EVERYTHING, there is no middle ground.
Actually, RAW is that you must use the datasheet to represent your model, not the model that represents your datasheet. Models without datasheets cannot be used. First paragraph of the core rules.
If you're going to ignore the RaW, you have to allow ignoring EVERYTHING, there is no middle ground.
Citation needed?
Less tongue-in-cheek: many people find it very workable to ignore some rules but not others. The middle ground lacks the technical authority of either extreme, but gains a great deal of flexibility.
BaconCatBug wrote: RaW you can't do it because you must use the correct model to represent the correct datasheet.
If you're going to ignore the RaW, you have to allow ignoring EVERYTHING, there is no middle ground.
Far be it from me to not take every decree you issue as gospel, but I am actually not seeing a correlation between model and datasheet written out anywhere in my rulebook. And given that the rules currently support a multitude of cases where an official model has more than one set of rules it can be played with (A model I purchased from the Cadian Heavy Weapons Squad can be fielded as part of the Infantry Squad datasheet, the Heavy Weapons Team datasheet, the Command Squad datasheet, The Veterans datasheet, the Brood Brothers Infantry Squad datasheet, or the Brood Brothers Heavy Weapons Squad datasheet to give one example) and that the Indexes support many weapon options that have no official model produced by Games Workshop, I have to question this all-or-nothing view.
So, what is the "correct" model to use and what is the "correct" datasheet, as written into the rules? Looking at the designers commentary spreadsheet, it would appear that I follow this sequence when I have a model I want to use:
1) Determine the identity of the model and the wargear it is equipped with.
2) look in the codex to see if that model with that wargear is supported.
3) if the model or wargear is not in the codex, look in the index to see if the wargear/model is supported there.
4) If that model with that wargear is not supported in index or codex, either the model cannot be used or it must be used as something different.
I can find no point in the rules dictating that I am required to use only the bits that come from one particular kit to represent a particular unit or wargear option, and indeed from the way the kits are currently laid out I don't think it's feasible to expect that at all.
If I buy a Space Marine Captain model, and I use the Thunder Hammer bit from the Space Wolves kit, RAW I can use that model as a Space Marine captain with Thunder Hammer out of Codex: Space Marines, OR I can choose to use him as a Wolf Lord with Thunder Hammer from Codex: Space Wolves. The decision of what datasheet to use the model as is not dictated to me by the rules.
the_scotsman wrote: So, what is the "correct" model to use and what is the "correct" datasheet, as written into the rules? Looking at the designers commentary spreadsheet, it would appear that I follow this sequence when I have a model I want to use:
1) Determine the identity of the model and the wargear it is equipped with.
2) look in the codex to see if that model with that wargear is supported.
3) if the model or wargear is not in the codex, look in the index to see if the wargear/model is supported there.
4) If that model with that wargear is not supported in index or codex, either the model cannot be used or it must be used as something different.
While I get what you are saying, technically you need to look for a datasheet for your model first, disregarding the wargear. Afterwards you check if any wargear that is not in the codex can be applied through the index rules.
If I buy a Space Marine Captain model, and I use the Thunder Hammer bit from the Space Wolves kit, RAW I can use that model as a Space Marine captain with Thunder Hammer out of Codex: Space Marines, OR I can choose to use him as a Wolf Lord with Thunder Hammer from Codex: Space Wolves. The decision of what datasheet to use the model as is not dictated to me by the rules.
It kind of is. For example, you cannot use your converted model as an ironclad dreadnought with hammer since that datasheet obviously doesn't represent your model.
There is some black, some white and lots of grey in that regard.
BaconCatBug wrote: RaW you can't do it because you must use the correct model to represent the correct datasheet.
If you're going to ignore the RaW, you have to allow ignoring EVERYTHING, there is no middle ground.
This may come as a surprise to you but you don't have to allow anything. There's a social contract and common sense element to gaming as well as just the rules and this is a perfect example of the situation where such nuance would apply. There are certainly degrees of acceptability for conversions and proxies and they will differ on an individual basis. But there is a middle ground, whether you like it or not.
BaconCatBug wrote: RaW you can't do it because you must use the correct model to represent the correct datasheet.
If you're going to ignore the RaW, you have to allow ignoring EVERYTHING, there is no middle ground.
I'm worried that you think I'm arguing for proxy armies in tournaments, which I am not.
A friendly reminder that I did say the following in my original post:
Edit: to be clear, this position is based on this hard-line example. There is obviously a little wiggle room for practicalities in other circumstances
And the following my clarification/follow-up:
And to be clear, this is only ever acceptable to me in casual play, not tournament.
I only added the proxy army bit after the edit in my original in the first place to explain that while I have a hard line "no thanks" attitude towards proxy armies in both tournaments and casual games, that in casual games I am willing to observe the "most important rule" and play with proxy/converted models if they're in the spirit of the hobby as I see it (i.e. looks cool, not just gaming the rules), provided both parties are aware of it going in. It was not meant to undermine my actual response to the question posed by the thread.
BaconCatBug wrote: RaW you can't do it because you must use the correct model to represent the correct datasheet.
If you're going to ignore the RaW, you have to allow ignoring EVERYTHING, there is no middle ground.
This may come as a surprise to you but you don't have to allow anything. There's a social contract and common sense element to gaming as well as just the rules and this is a perfect example of the situation where such nuance would apply. There are certainly degrees of acceptability for conversions and proxies and they will differ on an individual basis. But there is a middle ground, whether you like it or not.
And I disagree. You can't allow some rulebreaking and prohibit others.
BaconCatBug wrote: RaW you can't do it because you must use the correct model to represent the correct datasheet.
If you're going to ignore the RaW, you have to allow ignoring EVERYTHING, there is no middle ground.
This may come as a surprise to you but you don't have to allow anything. There's a social contract and common sense element to gaming as well as just the rules and this is a perfect example of the situation where such nuance would apply. There are certainly degrees of acceptability for conversions and proxies and they will differ on an individual basis. But there is a middle ground, whether you like it or not.
And I disagree. You can't allow some rulebreaking and prohibit others.
But you can accept some rules and not others.
Cops usually let you travel +1 mph over the posted limit. But there's almost no way they'll ignore you going +30 mph over the posted limit - so, clearly, it is possible to permit some actions and prohibit others.
Similarly, most people have more of a sliding scale as to what they find acceptable with respect to WYSIWYG.
BaconCatBug wrote: RaW you can't do it because you must use the correct model to represent the correct datasheet.
If you're going to ignore the RaW, you have to allow ignoring EVERYTHING, there is no middle ground.
This may come as a surprise to you but you don't have to allow anything. There's a social contract and common sense element to gaming as well as just the rules and this is a perfect example of the situation where such nuance would apply. There are certainly degrees of acceptability for conversions and proxies and they will differ on an individual basis. But there is a middle ground, whether you like it or not.
And I disagree. You can't allow some rulebreaking and prohibit others.
Yes you can. The purpose of playing Warhammer 40,000 is for both players to have an enjoyable couple of hours. If that time is made more enjoyable by ignoring some of the rules but not others (one example that springs to mind is rules for woodland areas - I've used the 4th edition WFB rules for forests in various editions of 40k, Infinity, Warmachine, and some other games you've probably never heard of) then so much the better.
... which is where you no doubt witter on about saying all your models have fifty million Wounds each. Sure, go ahead and say that. However, since I doubt that would result in an enjoyable game for both players, I'd refuse the game and read a book. If you find someone who is happy with that house rule, crack on.
AndrewGPaul wrote: Yes you can. The purpose of playing Warhammer 40,000 is for both players to have an enjoyable couple of hours. If that time is made more enjoyable by ignoring some of the rules but not others (one example that springs to mind is rules for woodland areas - I've used the 4th edition WFB rules for forests in various editions of 40k, Infinity, Warmachine, and some other games you've probably never heard of) then so much the better.
... which is where you no doubt witter on about saying all your models have fifty million Wounds each. Sure, go ahead and say that. However, since I doubt that would result in an enjoyable game for both players, I'd refuse the game and read a book. If you find someone who is happy with that house rule, crack on.
Yeah, I just want to play the game by the rules. I'm such a bad person!
Still waiting on you actually providing a source within the rules that actually says "THOU SHALT USETH ONLY THE MODELS AS THEY ARE SUPPLIED WITHIN THINE PLASTIC KITS."
It is pretty clear to me from an actual reading the rules that, since the current collection of datasheets support many instances of datasheets that fit multiple kits, kits that fit multiple datasheets, and datasheets that correspond to no official kits, this is intended by the rules designers as a subjective system to allow players to determine for themselves which datasheets best fit the models they have.
What is the official model I must use for the commissar with power axe that they reference in the designer's commentary spreadsheet? What is the official datasheet that I must use for a box of MKIII power armor space marines? I can't find a datasheet that corresponds to the Deathwatch Upgrade Sprue that I can purchase from GW, but I seem to have all these datasheets for Deathwatch Vanguard Veterans, Deathwatch Bikers Watch Captains, I'm not sure what to do!
Save me, strict interpretation of the rules as written! Guide me in this troubling time? Shall I be forced into the hideous degeneracy that is gaming as a social activity, ungoverned by the legalistic certainty of definitive rules documentation?
* Tournament Rules require fully WYSIWYG armies, no exceptions
There you have your answer. If some smurfs show up and want to behave all of a sudden like Black Legion, the rules say this:
NOPE, you bandwagon hopping Spike.
Actually WYSIWYG refers to weapon load outs. If you show up, have an entire painted crimson fist army, but you wanna play as black legion and everything is equipped properly and your print out army lists reflect the correct builds, rules, weapons, and the fact it’s black legion, then there is nothing your opponent can say. Even in a tournament setting. For example, I have Ulthwé painted crimson hunters in my ailaitoc Force, but play them as ailaitoc. Guess what? I get to use the as the -1 to hit in tournies. I’ve had an opponent whine, but I was ok’d but the TO’s.
* Tournament Rules require fully WYSIWYG armies, no exceptions
There you have your answer. If some smurfs show up and want to behave all of a sudden like Black Legion, the rules say this:
NOPE, you bandwagon hopping Spike.
Actually WYSIWYG refers to weapon load outs. If you show up, have an entire painted crimson fist army, but you wanna play as black legion and everything is equipped properly and your print out army lists reflect the correct builds, rules, weapons, and the fact it’s black legion, then there is nothing your opponent can say. Even in a tournament setting. For example, I have Ulthwé painted crimson hunters in my ailaitoc Force, but play them as ailaitoc. Guess what? I get to use the as the -1 to hit in tournies. I’ve had an opponent whine, but I was ok’d but the TO’s.
I am not colour blind. WYSIWYG covers the wargear AND the paint job. When I see smurfs they are smurfs and not Black Legion in disguise.
* Tournament Rules require fully WYSIWYG armies, no exceptions
There you have your answer. If some smurfs show up and want to behave all of a sudden like Black Legion, the rules say this:
NOPE, you bandwagon hopping Spike.
Actually WYSIWYG refers to weapon load outs. If you show up, have an entire painted crimson fist army, but you wanna play as black legion and everything is equipped properly and your print out army lists reflect the correct builds, rules, weapons, and the fact it’s black legion, then there is nothing your opponent can say. Even in a tournament setting. For example, I have Ulthwé painted crimson hunters in my ailaitoc Force, but play them as ailaitoc. Guess what? I get to use the as the -1 to hit in tournies. I’ve had an opponent whine, but I was ok’d but the TO’s.
I am not colour blind. WYSIWYG covers the wargear AND the paint job. When I see smurfs they are smurfs and not Black Legion in disguise.
At this point, painting off colour would be a huge advantage. Or I could imagine a TO not being popular if they turned away players not using a GW sanctioned colour scheme.
There are a few craft worlds not represented by rules as well, but even get onto Eldar transfer sheets.
This gets towards a race to the worst of the hobby, when you start to rule out the hobby as well. :(
Renegade ultramarines could be fun as well, particularly if a player regularly has marine opponents running something similar.
* Tournament Rules require fully WYSIWYG armies, no exceptions
There you have your answer. If some smurfs show up and want to behave all of a sudden like Black Legion, the rules say this:
NOPE, you bandwagon hopping Spike.
Actually WYSIWYG refers to weapon load outs. If you show up, have an entire painted crimson fist army, but you wanna play as black legion and everything is equipped properly and your print out army lists reflect the correct builds, rules, weapons, and the fact it’s black legion, then there is nothing your opponent can say. Even in a tournament setting. For example, I have Ulthwé painted crimson hunters in my ailaitoc Force, but play them as ailaitoc. Guess what? I get to use the as the -1 to hit in tournies. I’ve had an opponent whine, but I was ok’d but the TO’s.
Not sure if trolling, but Black & Bone Aspects are not necessarily Uthwe. Aspects are often (usually) not painted in Craftworld colors.
* Tournament Rules require fully WYSIWYG armies, no exceptions
There you have your answer. If some smurfs show up and want to behave all of a sudden like Black Legion, the rules say this:
NOPE, you bandwagon hopping Spike.
Actually WYSIWYG refers to weapon load outs. If you show up, have an entire painted crimson fist army, but you wanna play as black legion and everything is equipped properly and your print out army lists reflect the correct builds, rules, weapons, and the fact it’s black legion, then there is nothing your opponent can say. Even in a tournament setting. For example, I have Ulthwé painted crimson hunters in my ailaitoc Force, but play them as ailaitoc. Guess what? I get to use the as the -1 to hit in tournies. I’ve had an opponent whine, but I was ok’d but the TO’s.
I am not colour blind. WYSIWYG covers the wargear AND the paint job. When I see smurfs they are smurfs and not Black Legion in disguise.
At this point, painting off colour would be a huge advantage. Or I could imagine a TO not being popular if they turned away players not using a GW sanctioned colour scheme.
There are a few craft worlds not represented by rules as well, but even get onto Eldar transfer sheets.
This gets towards a race to the worst of the hobby, when you start to rule out the hobby as well. :(
Renegade ultramarines could be fun as well, particularly if a player regularly has marine opponents running something similar.
There is even more to a colour scheme which is the chapter symbol on the shoulder pad. So any smurf with the appropriate symbol is an Ultramarine. There is absolutely no room for discussion about it. Anybody who refrains from using any kind of chapter insignia just to be able to hop on to the latest bandwagon with glee needs to be told so and barred from participating in said tournament.
Renegade Ultramarines? LOL, give me a break! What a pathetic excuse to abuse the latest shiny rules from GW to get an advantage over anyone who is attending the tourney.
While I have a custom chapter since I didn't want to get locked in by existing back story, do people really expect players to be locked in based on a paint scheme? If someone likes UM colors but wants to use RG rules I don't see why anyone would take issue with that.
* Tournament Rules require fully WYSIWYG armies, no exceptions
There you have your answer. If some smurfs show up and want to behave all of a sudden like Black Legion, the rules say this:
NOPE, you bandwagon hopping Spike.
Actually WYSIWYG refers to weapon load outs. If you show up, have an entire painted crimson fist army, but you wanna play as black legion and everything is equipped properly and your print out army lists reflect the correct builds, rules, weapons, and the fact it’s black legion, then there is nothing your opponent can say. Even in a tournament setting. For example, I have Ulthwé painted crimson hunters in my ailaitoc Force, but play them as ailaitoc. Guess what? I get to use the as the -1 to hit in tournies. I’ve had an opponent whine, but I was ok’d but the TO’s.
I am not colour blind. WYSIWYG covers the wargear AND the paint job. When I see smurfs they are smurfs and not Black Legion in disguise.
At this point, painting off colour would be a huge advantage. Or I could imagine a TO not being popular if they turned away players not using a GW sanctioned colour scheme.
There are a few craft worlds not represented by rules as well, but even get onto Eldar transfer sheets.
This gets towards a race to the worst of the hobby, when you start to rule out the hobby as well. :(
Renegade ultramarines could be fun as well, particularly if a player regularly has marine opponents running something similar.
There is even more to a colour scheme which is the chapter symbol on the shoulder pad. So any smurf with the appropriate symbol is an Ultramarine. There is absolutely no room for discussion about it. Anybody who refrains from using any kind of chapter insignia just to be able to hop on to the latest bandwagon with glee needs to be told so and barred from participating in said tournament.
Renegade Ultramarines? LOL, give me a break! What a pathetic excuse to abuse the latest shiny rules from GW to get an advantage over anyone who is attending the tourney.
That’s nice and all that you want my ultramarine colored models to be ultramarines but today I’m
Playing crimson fist. Show me the rules or tournament rule that prevents this. Citation and references. And last 3 jobs you held. Can’t? Bummer..
* Tournament Rules require fully WYSIWYG armies, no exceptions
There you have your answer. If some smurfs show up and want to behave all of a sudden like Black Legion, the rules say this:
NOPE, you bandwagon hopping Spike.
Actually WYSIWYG refers to weapon load outs. If you show up, have an entire painted crimson fist army, but you wanna play as black legion and everything is equipped properly and your print out army lists reflect the correct builds, rules, weapons, and the fact it’s black legion, then there is nothing your opponent can say. Even in a tournament setting. For example, I have Ulthwé painted crimson hunters in my ailaitoc Force, but play them as ailaitoc. Guess what? I get to use the as the -1 to hit in tournies. I’ve had an opponent whine, but I was ok’d but the TO’s.
I am not colour blind. WYSIWYG covers the wargear AND the paint job. When I see smurfs they are smurfs and not Black Legion in disguise.
At this point, painting off colour would be a huge advantage. Or I could imagine a TO not being popular if they turned away players not using a GW sanctioned colour scheme.
There are a few craft worlds not represented by rules as well, but even get onto Eldar transfer sheets.
This gets towards a race to the worst of the hobby, when you start to rule out the hobby as well. :(
Renegade ultramarines could be fun as well, particularly if a player regularly has marine opponents running something similar.
There is even more to a colour scheme which is the chapter symbol on the shoulder pad. So any smurf with the appropriate symbol is an Ultramarine. There is absolutely no room for discussion about it. Anybody who refrains from using any kind of chapter insignia just to be able to hop on to the latest bandwagon with glee needs to be told so and barred from participating in said tournament.
Renegade Ultramarines? LOL, give me a break! What a pathetic excuse to abuse the latest shiny rules from GW to get an advantage over anyone who is attending the tourney.
That’s nice and all that you want my ultramarine colored models to be ultramarines but today I’m
Playing crimson fist. Show me the rules or tournament rule that prevents this. Citation and references. And last 3 jobs you held. Can’t? Bummer..
First mistake: Painting your power armour dudes in smurf colour.
Second mistake: Hopping the bandwagon.
* Tournament Rules require fully WYSIWYG armies, no exceptions
There you have your answer. If some smurfs show up and want to behave all of a sudden like Black Legion, the rules say this:
NOPE, you bandwagon hopping Spike.
Actually WYSIWYG refers to weapon load outs. If you show up, have an entire painted crimson fist army, but you wanna play as black legion and everything is equipped properly and your print out army lists reflect the correct builds, rules, weapons, and the fact it’s black legion, then there is nothing your opponent can say. Even in a tournament setting. For example, I have Ulthwé painted crimson hunters in my ailaitoc Force, but play them as ailaitoc. Guess what? I get to use the as the -1 to hit in tournies. I’ve had an opponent whine, but I was ok’d but the TO’s.
I am not colour blind. WYSIWYG covers the wargear AND the paint job. When I see smurfs they are smurfs and not Black Legion in disguise.
At this point, painting off colour would be a huge advantage. Or I could imagine a TO not being popular if they turned away players not using a GW sanctioned colour scheme.
There are a few craft worlds not represented by rules as well, but even get onto Eldar transfer sheets.
This gets towards a race to the worst of the hobby, when you start to rule out the hobby as well. :(
Renegade ultramarines could be fun as well, particularly if a player regularly has marine opponents running something similar.
There is even more to a colour scheme which is the chapter symbol on the shoulder pad. So any smurf with the appropriate symbol is an Ultramarine. There is absolutely no room for discussion about it. Anybody who refrains from using any kind of chapter insignia just to be able to hop on to the latest bandwagon with glee needs to be told so and barred from participating in said tournament.
Renegade Ultramarines? LOL, give me a break! What a pathetic excuse to abuse the latest shiny rules from GW to get an advantage over anyone who is attending the tourney.
So no ultramarines have ever gone rogue, renegade or other? Or someone using there own chapter symbles on a classic colour marine?
This is common And basic narratives used.
And what if someone chooses to run a custom chapter. Sorry you painted them wrong, don’t get to play in the tournament. Glad you ignored th context there. There are on Eldar transfer sheets a craftworld or two often depicted with no rules of there own. What do those players do ?
* Tournament Rules require fully WYSIWYG armies, no exceptions
There you have your answer. If some smurfs show up and want to behave all of a sudden like Black Legion, the rules say this:
NOPE, you bandwagon hopping Spike.
Actually WYSIWYG refers to weapon load outs. If you show up, have an entire painted crimson fist army, but you wanna play as black legion and everything is equipped properly and your print out army lists reflect the correct builds, rules, weapons, and the fact it’s black legion, then there is nothing your opponent can say. Even in a tournament setting. For example, I have Ulthwé painted crimson hunters in my ailaitoc Force, but play them as ailaitoc. Guess what? I get to use the as the -1 to hit in tournies. I’ve had an opponent whine, but I was ok’d but the TO’s.
I am not colour blind. WYSIWYG covers the wargear AND the paint job. When I see smurfs they are smurfs and not Black Legion in disguise.
At this point, painting off colour would be a huge advantage. Or I could imagine a TO not being popular if they turned away players not using a GW sanctioned colour scheme.
There are a few craft worlds not represented by rules as well, but even get onto Eldar transfer sheets.
This gets towards a race to the worst of the hobby, when you start to rule out the hobby as well. :(
Renegade ultramarines could be fun as well, particularly if a player regularly has marine opponents running something similar.
There is even more to a colour scheme which is the chapter symbol on the shoulder pad. So any smurf with the appropriate symbol is an Ultramarine. There is absolutely no room for discussion about it. Anybody who refrains from using any kind of chapter insignia just to be able to hop on to the latest bandwagon with glee needs to be told so and barred from participating in said tournament.
Renegade Ultramarines? LOL, give me a break! What a pathetic excuse to abuse the latest shiny rules from GW to get an advantage over anyone who is attending the tourney.
That’s nice and all that you want my ultramarine colored models to be ultramarines but today I’m
Playing crimson fist. Show me the rules or tournament rule that prevents this. Citation and references. And last 3 jobs you held. Can’t? Bummer..
First mistake: Painting your power armour dudes in smurf colour.
Second mistake: Hopping the bandwagon.
Mistake? Why is it a mistake? Cause you can’t tell me I CANT play as crimson fists, or raven gurd or whatever. Show me the rule please as you have been asked to cite it
* Tournament Rules require fully WYSIWYG armies, no exceptions
There you have your answer. If some smurfs show up and want to behave all of a sudden like Black Legion, the rules say this:
NOPE, you bandwagon hopping Spike.
Actually WYSIWYG refers to weapon load outs. If you show up, have an entire painted crimson fist army, but you wanna play as black legion and everything is equipped properly and your print out army lists reflect the correct builds, rules, weapons, and the fact it’s black legion, then there is nothing your opponent can say. Even in a tournament setting. For example, I have Ulthwé painted crimson hunters in my ailaitoc Force, but play them as ailaitoc. Guess what? I get to use the as the -1 to hit in tournies. I’ve had an opponent whine, but I was ok’d but the TO’s.
I am not colour blind. WYSIWYG covers the wargear AND the paint job. When I see smurfs they are smurfs and not Black Legion in disguise.
At this point, painting off colour would be a huge advantage. Or I could imagine a TO not being popular if they turned away players not using a GW sanctioned colour scheme.
There are a few craft worlds not represented by rules as well, but even get onto Eldar transfer sheets.
This gets towards a race to the worst of the hobby, when you start to rule out the hobby as well. :(
Renegade ultramarines could be fun as well, particularly if a player regularly has marine opponents running something similar.
There is even more to a colour scheme which is the chapter symbol on the shoulder pad. So any smurf with the appropriate symbol is an Ultramarine. There is absolutely no room for discussion about it. Anybody who refrains from using any kind of chapter insignia just to be able to hop on to the latest bandwagon with glee needs to be told so and barred from participating in said tournament.
Renegade Ultramarines? LOL, give me a break! What a pathetic excuse to abuse the latest shiny rules from GW to get an advantage over anyone who is attending the tourney.
So no ultramarines have ever gone rogue, renegade or other? Or someone using there own chapter symbles on a classic colour marine?
This is common And basic narratives used.
And what if someone chooses to run a custom chapter. Sorry you painted them wrong, don’t get to play in the tournament. Glad you ignored th context there. There are on Eldar transfer sheets a craftworld or two often depicted with no rules of there own. What do those players do ?
I think the more nuanced view is that Ultramarines that went rogue and turned into chainaxe-swinging blood-crazed berserkers aren't running around with Boltgun/Boltpistol in their shiny perfectly-maintained dress blues.
Ultramarines that went rogue and turned into chainaxe-swinging blood-crazed berserkers should look like blood-crazed berserkers in some way. Not just up-blingged Tac Marines.
Because Chaosified UltraMarines can and have been done well. But vanilla UltraMarines built and painted as traditional Loyalist units aren't Zerkers or Cult Troops or Posessed or such.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For context, reread the OPs posts. He's not talking about "THis tac squad is a CSM troop Marine squad". He's talking about "This boltgun is a BlastMaster, and that one is a chainaxe, and that one is a Demon Prince".
* Tournament Rules require fully WYSIWYG armies, no exceptions
There you have your answer. If some smurfs show up and want to behave all of a sudden like Black Legion, the rules say this:
NOPE, you bandwagon hopping Spike.
Actually WYSIWYG refers to weapon load outs. If you show up, have an entire painted crimson fist army, but you wanna play as black legion and everything is equipped properly and your print out army lists reflect the correct builds, rules, weapons, and the fact it’s black legion, then there is nothing your opponent can say. Even in a tournament setting. For example, I have Ulthwé painted crimson hunters in my ailaitoc Force, but play them as ailaitoc. Guess what? I get to use the as the -1 to hit in tournies. I’ve had an opponent whine, but I was ok’d but the TO’s.
I am not colour blind. WYSIWYG covers the wargear AND the paint job. When I see smurfs they are smurfs and not Black Legion in disguise.
At this point, painting off colour would be a huge advantage. Or I could imagine a TO not being popular if they turned away players not using a GW sanctioned colour scheme.
There are a few craft worlds not represented by rules as well, but even get onto Eldar transfer sheets.
This gets towards a race to the worst of the hobby, when you start to rule out the hobby as well. :(
Renegade ultramarines could be fun as well, particularly if a player regularly has marine opponents running something similar.
There is even more to a colour scheme which is the chapter symbol on the shoulder pad. So any smurf with the appropriate symbol is an Ultramarine. There is absolutely no room for discussion about it. Anybody who refrains from using any kind of chapter insignia just to be able to hop on to the latest bandwagon with glee needs to be told so and barred from participating in said tournament.
Renegade Ultramarines? LOL, give me a break! What a pathetic excuse to abuse the latest shiny rules from GW to get an advantage over anyone who is attending the tourney.
So no ultramarines have ever gone rogue, renegade or other? Or someone using there own chapter symbles on a classic colour marine?
This is common And basic narratives used.
And what if someone chooses to run a custom chapter. Sorry you painted them wrong, don’t get to play in the tournament. Glad you ignored th context there. There are on Eldar transfer sheets a craftworld or two often depicted with no rules of there own. What do those players do ?
I think the more nuanced view is that Ultramarines that went rogue and turned into chainaxe-swinging blood-crazed berserkers aren't running around with Boltgun/Boltpistol in their shiny perfectly-maintained dress blues.
Ultramarines that went rogue and turned into chainaxe-swinging blood-crazed berserkers should look like blood-crazed berserkers in some way. Not just up-blingged Tac Marines.
Because Chaosified UltraMarines can and have been done well. But vanilla UltraMarines built and painted as traditional Loyalist units aren't Zerkers or Cult Troops or Posessed or such.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For context, reread the OPs posts. He's not talking about "THis tac squad is a CSM troop Marine squad". He's talking about "This boltgun is a BlastMaster, and that one is a chainaxe, and that one is a Demon Prince".
Depends entirely on the fel for the player, like other things. It’s used as a fairly basic example. But I could imagine for a group of space marines, getting paint and a skilled enough arrest would not be a issue if they needed to keep up aperances.
And if it’s goung to the point of conversions for none mraine units that is completely different.
Again this is specificaly why I bring up the craftworld as well. You can get transfer sheets from GW that are not related to rules from what I know. Unless forgot world does them :p
I did read the OP post, it’s fairly absurd and seems intent to create disagreement. Since it seems to be trying for two different things. WYSIWYG would mean at least some modifications to get weapons and upgrades for cult troops. But to take it as far as having to paint the correct symbles to even get into the tournament would be crazy as well.
There is no easy awnswer to this as presented. But marines are marine enough in a good deal of cases. I have never got a chaos kit for my chaos marines and run them 100% to WYSIWYG with full conversions where needed. But would run them as normal marines now, with it all falling in line there with doing the work to convert again if I had to.
Also I was replying specifically to the paint being part of WYSIWYG part of discussion.
Apple fox wrote: I did read the OP post, it’s fairly absurd and seems intent to create disagreement.
That's because the notion *is* absurd, at least from my POV.
Of course, it's just the flip side of when CSM players played as Space Woofs, because that Codex was "better".
Fact is, people *do* chase Codices, and it *is* ridiculous when they're doing it with an army that is clearly modeled and painted as some other Codex army. My POV, of course.
Apple fox wrote: I did read the OP post, it’s fairly absurd and seems intent to create disagreement.
That's because the notion *is* absurd, at least from my POV.
Of course, it's just the flip side of when CSM players played as Space Woofs, because that Codex was "better".
Fact is, people *do* chase Codices, and it *is* ridiculous when they're doing it with an army that is clearly modeled and painted as some other Codex army. My POV, of course.
Except that there's a world of difference between "This Space Marine squad with bolters and bolt pistols is actually a CSM squad with bolters and bolt pistols, and this Dreadnought with a Fist and Multi Melta is a Helbrute with a Fist and Multi Melta," and what you presented.
Apple fox wrote: I did read the OP post, it’s fairly absurd and seems intent to create disagreement.
That's because the notion *is* absurd, at least from my POV.
Of course, it's just the flip side of when CSM players played as Space Woofs, because that Codex was "better".
Fact is, people *do* chase Codices, and it *is* ridiculous when they're doing it with an army that is clearly modeled and painted as some other Codex army. My POV, of course.
Except that there's a world of difference between "This Space Marine squad with bolters and bolt pistols is actually a CSM squad with bolters and bolt pistols, and this Dreadnought with a Fist and Multi Melta is a Helbrute with a Fist and Multi Melta," and what you presented.
Apple fox wrote: I did read the OP post, it’s fairly absurd and seems intent to create disagreement.
That's because the notion *is* absurd, at least from my POV.
Of course, it's just the flip side of when CSM players played as Space Woofs, because that Codex was "better".
Fact is, people *do* chase Codices, and it *is* ridiculous when they're doing it with an army that is clearly modeled and painted as some other Codex army. My POV, of course.
Except that there's a world of difference between "This Space Marine squad with bolters and bolt pistols is actually a CSM squad with bolters and bolt pistols, and this Dreadnought with a Fist and Multi Melta is a Helbrute with a Fist and Multi Melta," and what you presented.
So your essentially hobbling anyone that wants to paint their guys as a named chapter (particularly a first founding one) versus someone who paints their models in a custom scheme allowing them to still do what you described aka chase codexes. How a model is painted or if it is painted at all has never had any impact on the game rule wise. How would you treat someone who showed up with a based black army?
Taking this one step forward how would you treat IG players? GW essentially doesn't sell many of the regiments that now have traits.
This entire discussion is based on a contradicting opening statement. It it impossible to have the correct gear for cult marines with LSM only models. A CSM squad in MK4 armor from betrayal at calth is the same model as LSM in MK4 armor though so it is differently possible to have the right gear well just having paint be the difference. Unless you want faction lock mk4 armor I don't think the question is being presented in an honest manor when they very well could even be using the right models.
HoundsofDemos wrote: So your essentially hobbling anyone that wants to paint their guys as a named chapter (particularly a first founding one) versus someone who paints their models in a custom scheme allowing them to still do what you described aka chase codexes. How a model is painted or if it is painted at all has never had any impact on the game rule wise. How would you treat someone who showed up with a based black army?
Taking this one step forward how would you treat IG players? GW essentially doesn't sell many of the regiments that now have traits.
I'd agree but the OP is saying you need to recall all the differences of which the army in question has many. It isn't just a paint job issue in that near a complete none wysiwyg kind of deal.
I doubt anyone would care what you ran your guard as. As they could wear cadian armor yet use steel legion combat tactics, or moridans or talaran, etc etc. The issue comes in more when they don't have the proper set ups at all. Or if it's super hard to tell, like they are all painted the same but represent 2 or 3 different traits, it can get hard to make them out.
I've never had an issue in what tactic I choose to use so long as its known. As well though my paint scheme isn't a traditional one either.
HoundsofDemos wrote: So your essentially hobbling anyone that wants to paint their guys as a named chapter (particularly a first founding one) versus someone who paints their models in a custom scheme allowing them to still do what you described aka chase codexes. How a model is painted or if it is painted at all has never had any impact on the game rule wise. How would you treat someone who showed up with a based black army?
Taking this one step forward how would you treat IG players? GW essentially doesn't sell many of the regiments that now have traits.
I'd agree but the OP is saying you need to recall all the differences of which the army in question has many. It isn't just a paint job issue in that near a complete none wysiwyg kind of deal.
I doubt anyone would care what you ran your guard as. As they could wear cadian armor yet use steel legion combat tactics, or moridans or talaran, etc etc. The issue comes in more when they don't have the proper set ups at all. Or if it's super hard to tell, like they are all painted the same but represent 2 or 3 different traits, it can get hard to make them out.
I've never had an issue in what tactic I choose to use so long as its known. As well though my paint scheme isn't a traditional one either.
The OP has put forward a restriction, if you paint your guys as UM or IH than that's the only chapter trait/rules you should use for your minis. By taking that to it's logical conclusion if you wanted to use talaran tactics then you need to find out of production models.
HoundsofDemos wrote: So your essentially hobbling anyone that wants to paint their guys as a named chapter (particularly a first founding one) versus someone who paints their models in a custom scheme allowing them to still do what you described aka chase codexes.
How a model is painted or if it is painted at all has never had any impact on the game rule wise.
How would you treat someone who showed up with a based black army?
Taking this one step forward how would you treat IG players?
GW essentially doesn't sell many of the regiments that now have traits.
The OP has put forward a restriction, if you paint your guys as UM or IH than that's the only chapter trait/rules you should use for your minis. By taking that to it's logical conclusion if you wanted to use talaran tactics then you need to find out of production models.
If someone paints a named Chapter (Craftworld, Hive Fleet, whatever) and it has specific Codex rules, then I expect it to be played as such. Playing it as anything else is confusing to an opponent who should not have to remember that the Ultramarines are *not* playing under Ultramarines rules.
A custom scheme has no specific rules connotation, so it is perfectly acceptable to play under a variety of rules.
In many tournament environments, armies that are painted as Named forces with specific rules *must* be played as such. GW Official Tournaments, in particular, are like this.
Someone who showed up with a primer black army would fail the 3-color minimum that most tournaments require, so they would not be allowed to play.
If an IG player showed up with Guardsmen modeled and painted as a particular Regiment, but played under different rules, that's creating the same confusion as the Ultramarines playing as CSM.
An IG army using generic models is like a custom Chapter, and can play as any set of traits.
You misunderstand completely:
1. An Ultramarine army painted as such should be played as such.
2. An IG army using Tallarn rules can certainly use generic IG models.
3. An IG army using OOP Tallarn models painted in the "classic" Tallarn scheme and heraldry should be expected to play as Tallarn.
HoundsofDemos wrote: So your essentially hobbling anyone that wants to paint their guys as a named chapter (particularly a first founding one) versus someone who paints their models in a custom scheme allowing them to still do what you described aka chase codexes. How a model is painted or if it is painted at all has never had any impact on the game rule wise. How would you treat someone who showed up with a based black army?
Taking this one step forward how would you treat IG players? GW essentially doesn't sell many of the regiments that now have traits.
Yes. If you paint your models as Ultramarines, it’s confusing for your opponent to use them as Iron Hands. If you paint your models as Amazing Purple Marines, it’s not confusing for your opponent to use them as Iron Hands.
Regarding IG, i’d go further than John does, as there are no ‘generic’ IG models. If you buy Cadian models, and want them to be not-Cadian, you’re gonna have to make them look appropriately not-Cadian. And if you use detachments with different regiments, then those detachments have to be visibly different to a level where your opponent can tell the different from the other side of the table.
Last week I had to play in an event against a three-detachment Tau army where each detachment had a different sept to maximise special abilities. All models were painted exactly the same. It was really confusing, and I wouldn’t play that army again because of it.
HoundsofDemos wrote: So your essentially hobbling anyone that wants to paint their guys as a named chapter (particularly a first founding one) versus someone who paints their models in a custom scheme allowing them to still do what you described aka chase codexes. How a model is painted or if it is painted at all has never had any impact on the game rule wise. How would you treat someone who showed up with a based black army?
Taking this one step forward how would you treat IG players? GW essentially doesn't sell many of the regiments that now have traits.
Yes. If you paint your models as Ultramarines, it’s confusing for your opponent to use them as Iron Hands. If you paint your models as Amazing Purple Marines, it’s not confusing for your opponent to use them as Iron Hands.
Regarding IG, i’d go further than John does, as there are no ‘generic’ IG models. If you buy Cadian models, and want them to be not-Cadian, you’re gonna have to make them look appropriately not-Cadian. And if you use detachments with different regiments, then those detachments have to be visibly different to a level where your opponent can tell the different from the other side of the table.
Last week I had to play in an event against a three-detachment Tau army where each detachment had a different sept to maximise special abilities. All models were painted exactly the same. It was really confusing, and I wouldn’t play that army again because of it.
Edit: ninja’d
Ah see, I get that. Now what if the tau models had three different paint jobs to designate the Sept differences ? Like say Red, Blue and Yellow, for instance ? For me that is where the line is drawn. I don't care if someone has cadian models, with a non standard paint job and they say they are using whatever regiment trait they want so long as it's uniform at least by paint scheme. Though I don't usually split up my regiment it's all either cadian, or whatever else it might be just to not be confusing and honestly it would feel cheese to me otherwise.
Now if I play someone and they have the traditional cadian paint scheme but they say they are steel legion regiment, I'm still fine with that as that isn't confusing to me though I can see where having a unique paint scheme would be easier as it wouldn't lead to thinking one thing over another.
Now I wouldn't usually do that though myself as I like to stick with whoever my dog in the race is. I don't mind being less powerful for a bit if I have to be. I won't be saying my marines are chaos any time too soon. ( I have nurgle for that itch )
Ah see, I get that. Now what if the tau models had three different paint jobs to designate the Sept differences ? Like say Red, Blue and Yellow, for instance ? For me that is where the line is drawn. I don't care if someone has cadian models, with a non standard paint job and they say they are using whatever regiment trait they want so long as it's uniform at least by paint scheme. Though I don't usually split up my regiment it's all either cadian, or whatever else it might be just to not be confusing and honestly it would feel cheese to me otherwise.
Now if I play someone and they have the traditional cadian paint scheme but they say they are steel legion regiment, I'm still fine with that as that isn't confusing to me though I can see where having a unique paint scheme would be easier as it wouldn't lead to thinking one thing over another.
Now I wouldn't usually do that though myself as I like to stick with whoever my dog in the race is. I don't mind being less powerful for a bit if I have to be. I won't be saying my marines are chaos any time too soon. ( I have nurgle for that itch )
Oh me too - if whatever my army are is sub-optimal, I really don’t mind. I’ll just play them like that anyway.
Yeah, if he had painted them in three different sept colours, then I would have been totally fine with it. It was just really hard to remember which leader was the one to remove to get rid of which buffs to which models when they’re all different but painted all the same!
With Cadians, I agree that it’s a bit fuzzier. I guess I’d be more annoyed by someone painting their models green and khaki and then running them as mordians than if they painted them blue and gold, and swapped sergeant heads for caps and THEN ran them as mordians, etc etc.
On a different point (that I don’t think has been mentioned yet):
One of the things I used to dislike about codex-hopping in 7ed was how it really removed/narrowed down the options you saw on the field (because in 7ed chapter traits were much closer tied to individual units). So, in the rules you could build normal marine armies, biker marine armies, armoured marine armies, etc and also run them as ultramarines, iron hands, white scars etc. That’s loads of varied and subtle options - a white scars biker army would function differently to an ultramarine biker army. But with codex-hopping, not only was it more confusing to play against, but you never saw most of those options. Every single biker army used white scars rules. Every single armoured army used Iron Hands rules.
I’d love to see how different a Light Infantry-themed Cadian army and a Light Infantry-themed Tallarn army function, and both are possible to take, but if everyone always uses Tallarn traits for every Light Infantry army, we have less armies to play against!
Ah see, I get that. Now what if the tau models had three different paint jobs to designate the Sept differences ? Like say Red, Blue and Yellow, for instance ? For me that is where the line is drawn. I don't care if someone has cadian models, with a non standard paint job and they say they are using whatever regiment trait they want so long as it's uniform at least by paint scheme. Though I don't usually split up my regiment it's all either cadian, or whatever else it might be just to not be confusing and honestly it would feel cheese to me otherwise.
Now if I play someone and they have the traditional cadian paint scheme but they say they are steel legion regiment, I'm still fine with that as that isn't confusing to me though I can see where having a unique paint scheme would be easier as it wouldn't lead to thinking one thing over another.
Now I wouldn't usually do that though myself as I like to stick with whoever my dog in the race is. I don't mind being less powerful for a bit if I have to be. I won't be saying my marines are chaos any time too soon. ( I have nurgle for that itch )
Oh me too - if whatever my army are is sub-optimal, I really don’t mind. I’ll just play them like that anyway.
Yeah, if he had painted them in three different sept colours, then I would have been totally fine with it. It was just really hard to remember which leader was the one to remove to get rid of which buffs to which models when they’re all different but painted all the same!
With Cadians, I agree that it’s a bit fuzzier. I guess I’d be more annoyed by someone painting their models green and khaki and then running them as mordians than if they painted them blue and gold, and swapped sergeant heads for caps and THEN ran them as mordians, etc etc.
On a different point (that I don’t think has been mentioned yet):
One of the things I used to dislike about codex-hopping in 7ed was how it really removed/narrowed down the options you saw on the field (because in 7ed chapter traits were much closer tied to individual units). So, in the rules you could build normal marine armies, biker marine armies, armoured marine armies, etc and also run them as ultramarines, iron hands, white scars etc. That’s loads of varied and subtle options - a white scars biker army would function differently to an ultramarine biker army. But with codex-hopping, not only was it more confusing to play against, but you never saw most of those options. Every single biker army used white scars rules. Every single armoured army used Iron Hands rules.
I’d love to see how different a Light Infantry-themed Cadian army and a Light Infantry-themed Tallarn army function, and both are possible to take, but if everyone always uses Tallarn traits for every Light Infantry army, we have less armies to play against!
Oh I totally get that feeling. That is the exact reason I mix up the regiments from game to game. It isn't so much a power game move. I just like to try out different tactics and focus on different units. Like I mostly run cadian as I have the character models and I had used them as cadians the whole time. Though I suppose there isn't a reason why you wouldn't field commanders who used cadian gear but focused on blitz tactics or mech assault or close order combat drills etc. Always good to use all of your collection and keep the game fresh for yourself as well as the other guy.
I would have made my guard force steel legion way back if the models didn't cost a mint and were easier to get. Now it's pretty difficult all in all so if I get the itch I just roll heavy mechanized and use the regiment trait, still great coats, gas masks FTW or they would be if I had them. That however ends up a fault of GW in never really touching on any of the other guard lines and leaving just the two dated model selections of catachan and cadian.
Edit: Also you can run those different set ups with other lists as well, like mechanized cadians, mordians, etc, etc. So I do that too, but mixing up regiments and none specific paint scheme gives you the freedom of always trying out the different tactics and keeping it from feeling like the exact same army over and over, which I feel is a good thing usually.
I'd particularly like to see the wording of the WYSIWYG non-rule that imposes restrictions on your paint-job, despite not existing.
It does though, just not in the "written" rules (in this current edition anyway...). There are numerous unwritten rules and gentlemen's agreements in every hobby and sport. WYSIWYG is one of them in 40k. It is generally expected of you to have the correct equipment on the models and in this edition paintjobs also factor into this (unlike most other editions) as they have crucial rules attached to them where this was not exactly the case in the past.
If I see a blue SM army with a load of Roman iconography across the board from me it is a reasonable assumption to make that I am facing Ultramarines. Finding out I am in fact playing against Iron Hands goes against the general expectation of WYSIWYG that the vast majority of gamers have IME. This game is a social contract, if you break one of the rules of the contract then you'll find it hard to get opponents. This is why it is generally adhered to. There are exceptions (such as "rule of cool". (bUt ThAt'S nOt a RuLe In ThE rUlEbOoK! ) ) but IME I see just about every gamer subconsciously adhere to it as they want to continue playing this game.
All this talk about "fuzziness" or "assumptions" is nonsense. Your paint has no bearing on what rules you use. The OP is a strawman that is trying to conflate two different things.
You cannot use Loyalist Marine models as Chaos Marine Datasheets. You can use Loyalist Marine models as Loyalist Marine datasheets with whatever keywords you want, regardless of the paint job. End of discussion. Anything else is house rules.
BaconCatBug wrote: All this talk about "fuzziness" or "assumptions" is nonsense. Your paint has no bearing on what rules you use. The OP is a strawman that is trying to conflate two different things.
You cannot use Loyalist Marine models as Chaos Marine Datasheets. You can use Loyalist Marine models as Loyalist Marine datasheets with whatever keywords you want, regardless of the paint job. End of discussion. Anything else is house rules.
Sums things up perfectly. Paint the models however and use whatever chapter/Sept/craftworld etc you want, or mix them between detatchments freely. Playing involves communication, just ask your opponent if you can't remember something. Next people will be saying warlord traits, relics and psychic powers should be clearly represented on the model somehow to avoid confusion.
However, a loyalist is a loyalist, not a chaos model or an orc.
Grimtuff wrote: If I see a blue SM army with a load of Roman iconography across the board from me it is a reasonable assumption to make that I am facing Ultramarines.
It is also a wrong assumption. You're facing my White Omegas space marines, a Black Templars successor chapter with fully WYSIWYG models.
Also, I have to laugh at this idea that it's difficult to remember what chapter you're playing against if the models don't match your painting expectations. It's not like breaking WYSIWYG with weapons where you have to remember that this flamer is really a plasma gun, but this other flamer is a melta gun and that flamer is a flamer. Your opponent tells you what chapter rule they're using and that's it, it's one static piece of information to remember. And TBH if you can't remember such a simple fact you're probably playing with such a limited understanding and awareness that you're going to lose anyway and it doesn't matter if your inability to keep track of a single rule causes you to make a mistake.
TIL I learned that unwritten rules count the same as written rules and that some people apparently cannot possibly remember "they're blue, but they're Iron Hands" for more than a few seconds without becoming confused and possibly hurt and scared.
How do you recall rules (written or otherwise, obviously) if you can't even remember what Faction you're facing without a visual cue?
Excommunicatus wrote: TIL I learned that unwritten rules count the same as written rules and that some people apparently cannot possibly remember "they're blue, but they're Iron Hands" for more than a few seconds without becoming confused and possibly hurt and scared.
How do you recall rules (written or otherwise, obviously) if you can't even remember what Faction you're facing without a visual cue?
Way to miss the point.
There is nothing stopping you in the rules of the game from doing this. There is, however IME an unwritten "rule" amongst playgroups that prevent you from doing this, lest you be labelled TFG. Sure, you can chase that competitive meta dragon and play your chapter that is established in canon background and has accompanying rules this edition as something else entirely but don't be surprised to get the side eye from other players or possibly even refused a game as you're being given an inch, so we know what comes after that.
What in heaven's name happened to communication? Do people not speak to each other when playing, anymore? Why can't the hypothetical UM player, not just remind his opponent if it looks like the proxy stuff is baiting him into something he'd obviously not do otherwise? Like just say, 'Before you charge those guys, remember, they've got a boatload of attacks back at you.'
Or if playing against the hypothetical UM player, just, you know ask or, if that's too much like actual human contact, you could just pay attention to the game from turn to turn.
Excommunicatus wrote: TIL I learned that unwritten rules count the same as written rules and that some people apparently cannot possibly remember "they're blue, but they're Iron Hands" for more than a few seconds without becoming confused and possibly hurt and scared.
How do you recall rules (written or otherwise, obviously) if you can't even remember what Faction you're facing without a visual cue?
Way to miss the point.
There is nothing stopping you in the rules of the game from doing this. There is, however IME an unwritten "rule" amongst playgroups that prevent you from doing this, lest you be labelled TFG. Sure, you can chase that competitive meta dragon and play your chapter that is established in canon background and has accompanying rules this edition as something else entirely but don't be surprised to get the side eye from other players or possibly even refused a game as you're being given an inch, so we know what comes after that.
So would you say the same thing to, say, an Iron Hands player who got consistently whooped and then decides to try Ravenguard to try and eke out a victory?
I do agree that, for instance, what was presented in the OP is blatant powergaming without even a modicum of effort put forth to make it make sense. But, to quote myself...
A Plague Marine is more than just a weapon-swapped CSM-same with Berserkers, same with TSons. (And kinda the same with Noise Marines, but they're pretty close.)
So, let me propose an amendment to your OP:
The list is:
Renegade Battalion
HQs Chaos Lord (Bolt Pistol, Chainsword)-Represented by a Space Marine Captain with Bolt Pistol and Chainsword
Chaos Sorcerer (Bolt Pistol, Force Sword)-Represented by a Space Marine Librarian with Bolt Pistol and Force Sword
Troops 5 Man Chaos Marine Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marines
5 Man Chaos Marine Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marines
5 Man Chaos Marine Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marines
Elites Helrbute (Multi-Melta and Fist)-Represented by a Dreadnought with Multi-Melta and Fist
Helrbute (Multi-Melta and Fist)-Represented by a Dreadnought with Multi-Melta and Fist
Fast Attacks 4 Man Chaos Biker Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marine Bikers
4 Man Chaos Biker Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marine Bikers
3 Man Chaos Biker Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marine Bikers
Dedicated Transports Chaos Rhino (Two Combi-Bolters)-Represented by a Space Marine Rhino with two Combi-Bolters
Chaos Rhino (Two Combi-Bolters)-Represented by a Space Marine Rhino with two Combi-Bolters
992 Points
So no Calgar counts-as, no Plague Marines or Khorne Berserker counts-as (which, for a WYSIWYG tournament with cash on the line, is inappropriate) just 100% sensible, WYSIWYG models painted Imperium instead of Chaos.
I would be 100% fine with THAT, because it's WYSIWYG. Your example... Is not.
Edit: Ignore the fact that this list sucks and would never see a victory in a big tournament, let alone top tables. Assume the list is actually decent, but still WYSIWYG.
THAT list is, while still powergaming (under the assumption that CSM are better than SM) at least has the decency to make everything actually look like what it's supposed to be.
So would you say the same thing to, say, an Iron Hands player who got consistently whooped and then decides to try Ravenguard to try and eke out a victory?
Depends entirely on the situation. This game is no different to any other social contract and there are shades of grey to it. To a stranger I'd be wary and something like that would be setting off alarm bells as to what else they might be like to play. Most players will choose an established chapter for their background and playstyle so it immediately seems off if they wish to switch for whatever reason. The same cannot be said of made up chapters as that is the entire point of the rules.
If it is a friend I'll let it fly (and other things) as they have earned my trust in knowing it won't be for shenanigans.
Sure, I saw them. I then saw you immediately power past them and again attempt to pass off your opinion as having the force of a rule.
It doesn't and until GW write it down it never will.
I also saw your weasel words. That's not impolite, Moddy Modington. That's what they're called. I personally have never encountered a group or club that even attempts to enforce rules about paint, but then I've never needed to invent such a group as a convenient support for an unsupportable argument.
What is reasonable? This will vary based on the person and context. GW events have a more strict hobby requirement - a Dark Angels army has to be painted/modeled as Dark Angels in accordance with the pictures in the Codex. That is reasonable for that (somewhat unreasonable) context. It's their venue and they are trying to show off their hobby. At a local "game night" or non-GW tourneys I would say that strict painting requirements become unreasonable. I do think that we should respect datasheets as much as possible. So a box of Space Marines should be Space Marines and not Chaos unless you have done some mad-hobby skills. A box of Space Marines painted and modeled as Ultramarines should indeed be able to be played as Ravenguard at a non-GW event. We should not begrudge each other the ability to squeeze a little more variety out of our gaming dollars. To do so strikes me as unreasonable and perhaps even a little mean-spirited.
A reasonable restriction in that context would be that I can easily tell who is who. All the blue Space Marines are Ravenguard. Got it! These blue Space Marines are Ravenguard but those blue Space Marines are Iron Hands. Now I have an issue. I think that its reasonable to have a restriction that detachments with different doctrines/traits etc in the same army be easily distinguishable from each other.
We had the same debate when the V8 Astra Militarum Codex came out. Some folks were insistent that you have the "correct" models to be able to use the various doctrines. I believe that it is unreasonable to demand your opponent have "Catachan" or "Mordian" models to be able to use those doctrines. They have the same datasheets. If an opponent is using a mono-Regiment then he should be able to play whichever doctrine he choses - the book even tells you how to do this when you make up your own regiment. Mixed regiments in the same army? Then you need some way to distinguish. I am lucky enough to be a long-time IG player from 2nd Ed so I have metal Cadians, plastic Cadians, metal Catachans and plastic Catachans. This lets me mix doctrines with greater ease, but simply different colours could do it. I also do not see the issue if an opponent is Cadian one week and Tallaran the next with the same models. Variety is good! Hobby-snobbery is bad.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: What is reasonable? This will vary based on the person and context. GW events have a more strict hobby requirement - a Dark Angels army has to be painted/modeled as Dark Angels in accordance with the pictures in the Codex.
That is not a rule GW has for GW events. GW does require a standard of painting in terms of number of colors. But they do not require anyone to follow the codex images. You could paint your DA models pink and teal and call them DA.
That is reasonable for that (somewhat unreasonable) context. It's their venue and they are trying to show off their hobby. At a local "game night" or non-GW tourneys I would say that strict painting requirements become unreasonable. I do think that we should respect datasheets as much as possible. So a box of Space Marines should be Space Marines and not Chaos unless you have done some mad-hobby skills. A box of Space Marines painted and modeled as Ultramarines should indeed be able to be played as Ravenguard at a non-GW event. We should not begrudge each other the ability to squeeze a little more variety out of our gaming dollars. To do so strikes me as unreasonable and perhaps even a little mean-spirited.
A reasonable restriction in that context would be that I can easily tell who is who. All the blue Space Marines are Ravenguard. Got it! These blue Space Marines are Ravenguard but those blue Space Marines are Iron Hands. Now I have an issue. I think that its reasonable to have a restriction that detachments with different doctrines/traits etc in the same army be easily distinguishable from each other.
We had the same debate when the V8 Astra Militarum Codex came out. Some folks were insistent that you have the "correct" models to be able to use the various doctrines. I believe that it is unreasonable to demand your opponent have "Catachan" or "Mordian" models to be able to use those doctrines. They have the same datasheets. If an opponent is using a mono-Regiment then he should be able to play whichever doctrine he choses - the book even tells you how to do this when you make up your own regiment. Mixed regiments in the same army? Then you need some way to distinguish. I am lucky enough to be a long-time IG player from 2nd Ed so I have metal Cadians, plastic Cadians, metal Catachans and plastic Catachans. This lets me mix doctrines with greater ease, but simply different colours could do it. I also do not see the issue if an opponent is Cadian one week and Tallaran the next with the same models. Variety is good! Hobby-snobbery is bad.
I buy the DA codex to use it. Just because Im using a custom painted succesor Im not gonna lose all my special characters and all my relics with the exception of one sword.
I have paid for those rules, and at least for now nobody had a problem with my custom chapter master with combiplasma and powersword using Azrael rules, or my chapter being a custom one with DA rules.
The same with my Taus, GW isnt gonna stop me from using characters I had in previous editions just because. If I can use all the subfactions rules of my codex to try different army lists and different tactics, so I dont grow bored, Im gonna do it. I have paid for those rules, and many times I know im using weaker rules, but they open new army lists and keeping my gameplay fresh is much more relevant to me. I dont play Tau because omg 5+ to overwatch and if they instead have +6" range they no longer feel tau. Most subfaction bonuses are minor things without flavour or back ground relevance, just little mathematical variations, that can open new tactics.
I dont mix and max subfactions though, so people has no problem remembering my army rules. People thinks SM standards aply to the rest of the game when with the exception of Farsight nearly no one will know what Sept goes with what paintjob.
Even worse with DE, GSC, ADmech, etc...
And Im catholic but for the love of God I cant understand this martyr complex of using the arbitrary bonuses GW has assigned to your paintjob that previously didnt had one, even if those bonuses suck, make your experience misserable, or are just so out of touch with the background that actually work agaisnt how your subfaction works in the fluff.
BaconCatBug wrote: All this talk about "fuzziness" or "assumptions" is nonsense. Your paint has no bearing on what rules you use. The OP is a strawman that is trying to conflate two different things.
You cannot use Loyalist Marine models as Chaos Marine Datasheets. You can use Loyalist Marine models as Loyalist Marine datasheets with whatever keywords you want, regardless of the paint job. End of discussion. Anything else is house rules.
Sums things up perfectly. Paint the models however and use whatever chapter/Sept/craftworld etc you want, or mix them between detatchments freely. Playing involves communication, just ask your opponent if you can't remember something. Next people will be saying warlord traits, relics and psychic powers should be clearly represented on the model somehow to avoid confusion.
Red herring is my favourite food too...
I'm sorry the point was lost on you. Subfactions, psychic powers, relics and warlord traits are all rules that confer bonuses which impact gameplay but have no modelling requirement whatsoever. Some people want to assign modeling requirements to one of those four things lest it be too confusing for them, yet somehow handle the other three just fine.
BaconCatBug wrote: All this talk about "fuzziness" or "assumptions" is nonsense. Your paint has no bearing on what rules you use. The OP is a strawman that is trying to conflate two different things.
You cannot use Loyalist Marine models as Chaos Marine Datasheets. You can use Loyalist Marine models as Loyalist Marine datasheets with whatever keywords you want, regardless of the paint job. End of discussion. Anything else is house rules.
Don’t know what discussion you’re having, but the OP didn’t ask ‘what are the rules?’ Or even ‘what is an overly literal description of the rules?’.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: What is reasonable? This will vary based on the person and context. GW events have a more strict hobby requirement - a Dark Angels army has to be painted/modeled as Dark Angels in accordance with the pictures in the Codex.
That is not a rule GW has for GW events. GW does require a standard of painting in terms of number of colors. But they do not require anyone to follow the codex images. You could paint your DA models pink and teal and call them DA.
That is reasonable for that (somewhat unreasonable) context. It's their venue and they are trying to show off their hobby. At a local "game night" or non-GW tourneys I would say that strict painting requirements become unreasonable. I do think that we should respect datasheets as much as possible. So a box of Space Marines should be Space Marines and not Chaos unless you have done some mad-hobby skills. A box of Space Marines painted and modeled as Ultramarines should indeed be able to be played as Ravenguard at a non-GW event. We should not begrudge each other the ability to squeeze a little more variety out of our gaming dollars. To do so strikes me as unreasonable and perhaps even a little mean-spirited.
A reasonable restriction in that context would be that I can easily tell who is who. All the blue Space Marines are Ravenguard. Got it! These blue Space Marines are Ravenguard but those blue Space Marines are Iron Hands. Now I have an issue. I think that its reasonable to have a restriction that detachments with different doctrines/traits etc in the same army be easily distinguishable from each other.
We had the same debate when the V8 Astra Militarum Codex came out. Some folks were insistent that you have the "correct" models to be able to use the various doctrines. I believe that it is unreasonable to demand your opponent have "Catachan" or "Mordian" models to be able to use those doctrines. They have the same datasheets. If an opponent is using a mono-Regiment then he should be able to play whichever doctrine he choses - the book even tells you how to do this when you make up your own regiment. Mixed regiments in the same army? Then you need some way to distinguish. I am lucky enough to be a long-time IG player from 2nd Ed so I have metal Cadians, plastic Cadians, metal Catachans and plastic Catachans. This lets me mix doctrines with greater ease, but simply different colours could do it. I also do not see the issue if an opponent is Cadian one week and Tallaran the next with the same models. Variety is good! Hobby-snobbery is bad.
Agree with the rest.
The Warhammer World Grand Tournament rules pack say that if you have painted a specific chapter then you are expected to play that chapter (Model Requirements page). I suppose that is not allGW events as each store might have its own thing. Still, the big GW tourney pack makes you stick to your specific paint job while allowing wiggle room for home-brew colours. Home-brew Chapters would not, I think, have access to Chapter-specific Special Characters. A Dark Angels Successor Chapter could have any scheme, but could not take Azrael, Sammael etc. That's my interpretation anyway. Moot point - not going!
Great point. The closest source we have for ‘official’ rules in this regard is the GW event pack, which says the following.
- Each model must completely and accurately represent its entry on your army roster (including all weapons and equipment).
- If you have painted your models in a specific way, we expect you to use the rules relevant to that scheme. For example, if you have painted your models as Salamanders, your army must have the Salamanders keyword. If you have created your own unique colour scheme, then you may give them any keyword that you wish.
- If you have used different keywords between Detachments, there must be a clear visual difference between each Detachment. For example, if you have a Tyranid army with Detachments from both Hive Fleet Kraken and Kronos, the models in each Detachment must be clearly distinguishable from one to another such as a different coloured carapace.
So, there we go. According to GW, in events painting DOES affect which rules you’re allowed to use. Interestingly, this means that running Angels of Vengeance means you cannot use Azrael, since you must use the ‘Angels of Vengeance’ keyword. However, if you invent your own colour scheme you CAN use the ‘Dark Angels’ keyword and Azrael. Weird, but at least it makes sure there’s no confusion by using the wrong paint scheme.
ArbitorIan wrote: Great point. The closest source we have for ‘official’ rules in this regard is the GW event pack, which says the following.
- Each model must completely and accurately represent its entry on your army roster (including all weapons and equipment). - If you have painted your models in a specific way, we expect you to use the rules relevant to that scheme. For example, if you have painted your models as Salamanders, your army must have the Salamanders keyword. If you have created your own unique colour scheme, then you may give them any keyword that you wish. - If you have used different keywords between Detachments, there must be a clear visual difference between each Detachment. For example, if you have a Tyranid army with Detachments from both Hive Fleet Kraken and Kronos, the models in each Detachment must be clearly distinguishable from one to another such as a different coloured carapace.
So, there we go. According to GW, in events painting DOES affect which rules you’re allowed to use.
Warhammer World House Rules are still House Rules. The "official" rules are, ya know, the rulebook.
ArbitorIan wrote: Great point. The closest source we have for ‘official’ rules in this regard is the GW event pack, which says the following.
- Each model must completely and accurately represent its entry on your army roster (including all weapons and equipment).
- If you have painted your models in a specific way, we expect you to use the rules relevant to that scheme. For example, if you have painted your models as Salamanders, your army must have the Salamanders keyword. If you have created your own unique colour scheme, then you may give them any keyword that you wish.
- If you have used different keywords between Detachments, there must be a clear visual difference between each Detachment. For example, if you have a Tyranid
army with Detachments from both Hive Fleet
Kraken and Kronos, the models in each Detachment must be clearly distinguishable from one to another such as a different coloured carapace.
So, there we go. According to GW, in events painting DOES affect which rules you’re allowed to use.
Warhammer World House Rules are still House Rules. The "official" rules are, ya know, the rulebook.
There's one point from there that I agree with 100%-if you're running different subfactions within the same army, MAKE SURE THEY'RE CLEARLY REPRESENTED!
Cadians as Catachans is fine, but should NOT be in the same list with Cadians as Cadians when they're all painted the same.
It doesnt HAVE to be paint. Anything to make them distinct. It could be a different color stripe on the shoulder. Or an extra should bit. Or different bases. I dont care what is done to distinguish detachment from detachment but it should be done.
BaconCatBug wrote: All this talk about "fuzziness" or "assumptions" is nonsense. Your paint has no bearing on what rules you use. The OP is a strawman that is trying to conflate two different things.
You cannot use Loyalist Marine models as Chaos Marine Datasheets.
You can use Loyalist Marine models as Loyalist Marine datasheets with whatever keywords you want, regardless of the paint job. End of discussion. Anything else is house rules.
Except for the CSM players who played as Space Wolfs because that was OK?
And ALL of the CSMs stated as Loyalist SMs - there's no mandate that a CSM must have spikes. If you're going to call strawman and so forth, where is that requirement to only use official CSM models in the rules? Go ahead, show me. And then explain Red Corsairs, which would be perfectly acceptable using Loyalist SM models..
We are talking about what we would consider acceptable. You draw the line differently than I do. I follow the line that GW put for their tournaments, which should be the gold standard for WYSIWYG, and it absolutely does include paint.
BaconCatBug wrote: All this talk about "fuzziness" or "assumptions" is nonsense. Your paint has no bearing on what rules you use. The OP is a strawman that is trying to conflate two different things.
You cannot use Loyalist Marine models as Chaos Marine Datasheets.
You can use Loyalist Marine models as Loyalist Marine datasheets with whatever keywords you want, regardless of the paint job. End of discussion. Anything else is house rules.
Except for the CSM players who played as Space Wolfs because that was OK?
And ALL of the CSMs stated as Loyalist SMs - there's no mandate that a CSM must have spikes. If you're going to call strawman and so forth, where is that requirement to only use official CSM models in the rules? Go ahead, show me. And then explain Red Corsairs, which would be perfectly acceptable using Loyalist SM models..
We are talking about what we would consider acceptable. You draw the line differently than I do. I follow the line that GW put for their tournaments, which should be the gold standard for WYSIWYG, and it absolutely does include paint.
Why does GW get to set community standards?
And, moreover, why is JUST the GW tournament that sets them?
I played in a tournament, at a GW, where models weren't even required to be PAINTED.
BaconCatBug wrote: All this talk about "fuzziness" or "assumptions" is nonsense. Your paint has no bearing on what rules you use. The OP is a strawman that is trying to conflate two different things.
You cannot use Loyalist Marine models as Chaos Marine Datasheets.
You can use Loyalist Marine models as Loyalist Marine datasheets with whatever keywords you want, regardless of the paint job. End of discussion. Anything else is house rules.
Except for the CSM players who played as Space Wolfs because that was OK?
And ALL of the CSMs stated as Loyalist SMs - there's no mandate that a CSM must have spikes. If you're going to call strawman and so forth, where is that requirement to only use official CSM models in the rules? Go ahead, show me. And then explain Red Corsairs, which would be perfectly acceptable using Loyalist SM models..
We are talking about what we would consider acceptable. You draw the line differently than I do. I follow the line that GW put for their tournaments, which should be the gold standard for WYSIWYG, and it absolutely does include paint.
The community sets the standard, and it will vary! Which makes it a somewhat non-standard standard. Its a broad community.
Context is everything. Playing against a friend? Whatever you and your friend find acceptable. Playing at a tourney? Whatever the Tournament Organizer has published/enforced in his tournament pack. TO's are free to set their own standards, and players are free to choose which events to attend (assuming there are spaces). A TO who has a strict tourney pack that the community does not like will have plenty of spaces at his tourneys...The one with a more reasonable event pack might just sell out a venue with 700 spots. Supply and demand. The invisible hand of community standards. Our local TO for 40K engages with the community and makes adjustments. He also mixes it up.
It is a good thing that we have different venues with different standards. Some will be grey-plastic focused on tabletop victory. Others will emphasize being a hobby-hero. Both are great if you know what you are getting into - clear tournament packs are important here.
As an aside, I think that if you want Azrael at a strict-painting requirement event you need to paint and play as Dark Angels and not a Successor Chapter.
BaconCatBug wrote: All this talk about "fuzziness" or "assumptions" is nonsense. Your paint has no bearing on what rules you use. The OP is a strawman that is trying to conflate two different things.
You cannot use Loyalist Marine models as Chaos Marine Datasheets. You can use Loyalist Marine models as Loyalist Marine datasheets with whatever keywords you want, regardless of the paint job. End of discussion. Anything else is house rules.
Sums things up perfectly. Paint the models however and use whatever chapter/Sept/craftworld etc you want, or mix them between detatchments freely. Playing involves communication, just ask your opponent if you can't remember something. Next people will be saying warlord traits, relics and psychic powers should be clearly represented on the model somehow to avoid confusion.
However, a loyalist is a loyalist, not a chaos model or an orc.
Considering that GW has published color patterns for dozens of chapters, several of which are very similar to first founding chapters that are cannonically not their parent chapter, I don't see any reason to forbid blue marines with roman iconography from being played as any of the other loyalist chapters.
Even as a TO in the given scenario I would go so far as to say that blue marines with roman iconography could be played as a renegade chaos chapter so long as it was scrupulous about wysiwyg equipment and only used a single chaos trait and the same marks throughout. Assault marines are Raptors, Dreadnaughts are Hellbrutes, Predators are Predators, there are no Primaris anywhere, etc.
Playing two different chapter traits with models that all have the same paint scheme is right out though.
Excommunicatus wrote: TIL I learned that unwritten rules count the same as written rules and that some people apparently cannot possibly remember "they're blue, but they're Iron Hands" for more than a few seconds without becoming confused and possibly hurt and scared.
How do you recall rules (written or otherwise, obviously) if you can't even remember what Faction you're facing without a visual cue?
Way to miss the point.
There is nothing stopping you in the rules of the game from doing this. There is, however IME an unwritten "rule" amongst playgroups that prevent you from doing this, lest you be labelled TFG. Sure, you can chase that competitive meta dragon and play your chapter that is established in canon background and has accompanying rules this edition as something else entirely but don't be surprised to get the side eye from other players or possibly even refused a game as you're being given an inch, so we know what comes after that.
This sort of behaviour is what screams TFG to me, not switching chapters. People who act le this frequently.find themselves unwelcome to play ime.
Excommunicatus wrote: TIL I learned that unwritten rules count the same as written rules and that some people apparently cannot possibly remember "they're blue, but they're Iron Hands" for more than a few seconds without becoming confused and possibly hurt and scared.
How do you recall rules (written or otherwise, obviously) if you can't even remember what Faction you're facing without a visual cue?
Way to miss the point.
There is nothing stopping you in the rules of the game from doing this. There is, however IME an unwritten "rule" amongst playgroups that prevent you from doing this, lest you be labelled TFG. Sure, you can chase that competitive meta dragon and play your chapter that is established in canon background and has accompanying rules this edition as something else entirely but don't be surprised to get the side eye from other players or possibly even refused a game as you're being given an inch, so we know what comes after that.
This sort of behaviour is what screams TFG to me, not switching chapters. People who act le this frequently.find themselves unwelcome to play ime.
Me? Unless I'm misunderstanding you're saying I'm TFG? I think I might get a hernia if I laugh too much at this. I really guess TFG is in the eye of the beholder.
ArbitorIan wrote: Great point. The closest source we have for ‘official’ rules in this regard is the GW event pack, which says the following.
- Each model must completely and accurately represent its entry on your army roster (including all weapons and equipment).
- If you have painted your models in a specific way, we expect you to use the rules relevant to that scheme. For example, if you have painted your models as Salamanders, your army must have the Salamanders keyword. If you have created your own unique colour scheme, then you may give them any keyword that you wish.
- If you have used different keywords between Detachments, there must be a clear visual difference between each Detachment. For example, if you have a Tyranid
army with Detachments from both Hive Fleet
Kraken and Kronos, the models in each Detachment must be clearly distinguishable from one to another such as a different coloured carapace.
So, there we go. According to GW, in events painting DOES affect which rules you’re allowed to use.
Warhammer World House Rules are still House Rules. The "official" rules are, ya know, the rulebook.
There are no ‘official’ WYSIWYG rules in the rule book. The rule book in no way states that you must build the models to be holding the weapon options you select. In this case, a dogmatic adherence to RAW contributes nothing to the discussion, since no rules are written.
If we want to go into full BCB pointless ‘RAW IS THING ONLY HIG THAT MATTERS’ legalese, then all we have written is guidelines. And the only GW guidelines that state WYSIWYG is a thing ALSO state that painting the correct sub faction is a thing.
But we can't chose and pick what we want to say is the official way to play of that tournament pack. We take it all or nothing. So, if I remember correctly they play at 1850 points, no? Or was it 1750?
Excommunicatus wrote: TIL I learned that unwritten rules count the same as written rules and that some people apparently cannot possibly remember "they're blue, but they're Iron Hands" for more than a few seconds without becoming confused and possibly hurt and scared.
How do you recall rules (written or otherwise, obviously) if you can't even remember what Faction you're facing without a visual cue?
Way to miss the point.
There is nothing stopping you in the rules of the game from doing this. There is, however IME an unwritten "rule" amongst playgroups that prevent you from doing this, lest you be labelled TFG. Sure, you can chase that competitive meta dragon and play your chapter that is established in canon background and has accompanying rules this edition as something else entirely but don't be surprised to get the side eye from other players or possibly even refused a game as you're being given an inch, so we know what comes after that.
This sort of behaviour is what screams TFG to me, not switching chapters. People who act le this frequently.find themselves unwelcome to play ime.
Me? Unless I'm misunderstanding you're saying I'm TFG? I think I might get a hernia if I laugh too much at this. I really guess TFG is in the eye of the beholder.
Not necessarily, I don't know you or your character beyond the above post, but the behaviour you describe above - enforcing paint = rules and trying to create an environment were switching Chapter for better rules is discouraged - is how the most TFG guys I've met behave.
It smacks of telling people they are having fun wrong and it's frankly very rude. It's totally within your rights to refuse a game for any reason, but giving people the side eye, impugning their character (implying they will cheat as you do above) and creating an environment that's hostile to them is the epitome of TFG.
I might have misunderstood your post, but that's how it came across to me.
Jimsolo wrote: If the equipment and upgrades are correct, it should absolutely be allowed.
If I found out the TOs had refused to allow such an army, I would not play in the event.
Then I'd advise not entering the GW Grand Tournament, given this happened to a friend of mine (last year, and not on the day after he checked something would be OK in advance, but still...)
Drager wrote: Not necessarily, I don't know you or your character beyond the above post, but the behaviour you describe above - enforcing paint = rules and trying to create an environment were switching Chapter for better rules is discouraged - is how the most TFG guys I've met behave.
It smacks of telling people they are having fun wrong and it's frankly very rude. It's totally within your rights to refuse a game for any reason, but giving people the side eye, impugning their character (implying they will cheat as you do above) and creating an environment that's hostile to them is the epitome of TFG.
I might have misunderstood your post, but that's how it came across to me.
I think you might have an extremely different idea of the definition of TFG to most people.
Either that or you’re deliberately trying to muddy the waters by ‘redefining’ it from bad/cheating/rules-lawyering player to some sort of too-casual person.
But yeah, definitely not the definition of TFG most people would use.
Put a coloured mark around the side of the bases of each unit and a matching coloured mark beside the unit's army list entry and you're doing more than enough to get my approval.
Drager wrote: Not necessarily, I don't know you or your character beyond the above post, but the behaviour you describe above - enforcing paint = rules and trying to create an environment were switching Chapter for better rules is discouraged - is how the most TFG guys I've met behave.
It smacks of telling people they are having fun wrong and it's frankly very rude. It's totally within your rights to refuse a game for any reason, but giving people the side eye, impugning their character (implying they will cheat as you do above) and creating an environment that's hostile to them is the epitome of TFG.
I might have misunderstood your post, but that's how it came across to me.
I think you might have an extremely different idea of the definition of TFG to most people.
Either that or you’re deliberately trying to muddy the waters by ‘redefining’ it from bad/cheating/rules-lawyering player to some sort of too-casual person.
But yeah, definitely not the definition of TFG most people would use.
To me it includes cheating and bad behaviour as well as misinterpreting or misrepresenting rules on purpose. This includes making a club a toxic atmosphere and trying to force your preferences on everyone. It can be a casual at all costs or win at all costs mentality. Or just a jerk. I think that's a pretty standard definition. It's the person who makes people go "oh that f#@*ing guy".
Drager wrote: Not necessarily, I don't know you or your character beyond the above post, but the behaviour you describe above - enforcing paint = rules and trying to create an environment were switching Chapter for better rules is discouraged - is how the most TFG guys I've met behave.
It smacks of telling people they are having fun wrong and it's frankly very rude. It's totally within your rights to refuse a game for any reason, but giving people the side eye, impugning their character (implying they will cheat as you do above) and creating an environment that's hostile to them is the epitome of TFG.
I might have misunderstood your post, but that's how it came across to me.
I think you might have an extremely different idea of the definition of TFG to most people.
Either that or you’re deliberately trying to muddy the waters by ‘redefining’ it from bad/cheating/rules-lawyering player to some sort of too-casual person.
But yeah, definitely not the definition of TFG most people would use.
It comes pretty close to the definition of TFG that most people I know hold. Anyone has the right to refuse a game fir whatever reason, but that dismissive, passive aggressive stuff can make clubs very toxic. From sneering at people's painting to looking down on 3rd party sculpts to questioning stuff like Forge World etc etc It all detracts from people's enjoyment and establishes one person's preferences as moral authority.
These 2 words have come up before, but I want to throw them up again...
SUCCESSOR CHAPTER
There are multiple LGS full of wysiwyg-paint 'people' in my area, and I've become adept at dealing with them. Funnily enough, these attitudes drive everyone to the local GW, due to the managers "How would you like to hobby today?" mentality.
I gota wonder how some of these people would ever deal with a pure MK 4 armor army that was painted pure red with gold trim with green visors and black bolt guns to meet the 3 color min. Since at that point they could be WEWBBA or a bunch of LSM successors all with the correct color's and models.
mew28 wrote: I gota wonder how some of these people would ever deal with a pure MK 4 armor army that was painted pure red with gold trim with green visors and black bolt guns to meet the 3 color min. Since at that point they could be WEWBBA or a bunch of LSM successors all with the correct color's and models.
Yep. They can be any of those things.
We’re literally only saying ‘Play them as something they look like so it isn’t confusing for your opponent’. This is also the position GW take.
Playing generic Mk4 red marines as BA or WB isn’t confusing. Taking those marines, covering then in BA symbols, special models and iconography and then playing them as WB is confusing.
Cue standard responses:
- I don’t find it confusing so nobody else should
- But but but I’ve found a torturous fluff exception where that doesn’t apply so none of that could possibly work at all.
- I’ve missed the point and only care about RAW and this isn’t RAW, but I still support WYSIWYG
Drager wrote: Not necessarily, I don't know you or your character beyond the above post, but the behaviour you describe above - enforcing paint = rules and trying to create an environment were switching Chapter for better rules is discouraged - is how the most TFG guys I've met behave.
It smacks of telling people they are having fun wrong and it's frankly very rude. It's totally within your rights to refuse a game for any reason, but giving people the side eye, impugning their character (implying they will cheat as you do above) and creating an environment that's hostile to them is the epitome of TFG.
I might have misunderstood your post, but that's how it came across to me.
I think you might have an extremely different idea of the definition of TFG to most people.
Either that or you’re deliberately trying to muddy the waters by ‘redefining’ it from bad/cheating/rules-lawyering player to some sort of too-casual person.
But yeah, definitely not the definition of TFG most people would use.
Yup, I'm as far from TFG as possible, it takes some fine mental gymnastics to get there.
I don't get why so many people ITT are... offended(?) by the idea of social conventions in this (or any) hobby. Do they literally do nothing else in life where there are also unspoken rules in place, be it on the street or in the workplace? Maybe these rules of etiquette are so subtle they don't even know they're abiding by them and it's a bit of a culture shock to them when pointed out.
Drager wrote: Not necessarily, I don't know you or your character beyond the above post, but the behaviour you describe above - enforcing paint = rules and trying to create an environment were switching Chapter for better rules is discouraged - is how the most TFG guys I've met behave.
It smacks of telling people they are having fun wrong and it's frankly very rude. It's totally within your rights to refuse a game for any reason, but giving people the side eye, impugning their character (implying they will cheat as you do above) and creating an environment that's hostile to them is the epitome of TFG.
I might have misunderstood your post, but that's how it came across to me.
I think you might have an extremely different idea of the definition of TFG to most people.
Either that or you’re deliberately trying to muddy the waters by ‘redefining’ it from bad/cheating/rules-lawyering player to some sort of too-casual person.
But yeah, definitely not the definition of TFG most people would use.
Yup, I'm as far from TFG as possible, it takes some fine mental gymnastics to get there.
I don't get why so many people ITT are... offended(?) by the idea of social conventions in this (or any) hobby. Do they literally do nothing else in life where there are also unspoken rules in place, be it on the street or in the workplace? Maybe these rules of etiquette are so subtle they don't even know they're abiding by them and it's a bit of a culture shock to them when pointed out.
I'm totally on board with social conventions. I just live with different (and I think more reasonable and fair) ones than you describe. Did you spend any time reflecting on what I said above and wondering if you are mistaken in your behaviour? I did the other way round. As I said I don't know anything of your character, but what I've seen in this thread doesn't show that you aren't TFG, nor that you are, simply that you have one trait in common with all the TFG people I've met; an evident desire to control other people's leisure time. I am well aware of unspoken rules and social contacts, my point is that the attitude you describe is a breach of good behaviour and etiquette in my social circles. We pride ourselves on being welcoming and respecting others over having things the way we like them. This isn't true everywhere and isn't even 'right' in any large sense, but is where my disagreement with your statement stems from.
So what if i get my Salamanders, put a green sticker over the chapter badge so you cant see it anymore on all my models. I then say they are a successor chapter of the Ultramarines called the green spots. How does that work. At what point does it become a custom chapter? Is the just the chapter badge that defines them?
I couldn't even tell you what colour Hive Fleet Kraken should be, or the Borkan Sept for Tau. As far as I'm concerned, as long as you're consistent and following WYSIWYG the colour of your army isn't relevant. Yes, this means I don't consider colour scheme to be part of WYSIWYG. As Peregrine pointed out a few pages back, this game is already operating at a sufficient level of complexity and required knowledge that if you're somehow confused by someone saying "these blue marines are Raven Guard" I'm not sure how you manage to get through a normal game without your brain melting.
How far are we supposed to go with this anyway? Blood Angels used to have a different official paint scheme. In fact, between 2-4th edition I think the official base colour for BA changed at least 3 times (it was Terracotta, then Blood Angels Red, then Blood Red) and they changed the shoulder pad trim from black to red at some point too. So do I now have to update my BA every time GW changes their official paint colour or scheme? If my UM are actually painted in the old blue from the previous paint range then surely they're no longer officially painted as UM at all, so what's the problem with them now using Raven Guard rules?
Ultimately this all comes down to whether or not your army is confusing. A simple "everyone is Salamanders" to cover your army is not confusing to any reasonable person. Saying "these blue guys are Salamanders, but these blue guys are Raven Guard" is confusing unless there's some sort of obvious difference between them (they all have cloaks modelled over their armour, for example). As has already been pointed out, the OP's original statement was made in bad faith and is internally contradictory anyway. In the real world there are usually shades of grey we have to work around as a community but one thing I've learned after playing this game for a long time is that common sense in some areas is actually a lot more common than some people would have you believe. I have literally never encountered a single person who's had a problem with an army counting as something it's not technically accurately painted to represent.
ArbitorIan wrote:
Cue standard responses:
- I don’t find it confusing so nobody else should
- But but but I’ve found a torturous fluff exception where that doesn’t apply so none of that could possibly work at all. - I’ve missed the point and only care about RAW and this isn’t RAW, but I still support WYSIWYG
Wildkarrde wrote:So what if i get my Salamanders, put a green sticker over the chapter badge so you cant see it anymore on all my models. I then say they are a successor chapter of the Ultramarines called the green spots. How does that work. At what point does it become a custom chapter? Is the just the chapter badge that defines them?
Slipspace wrote:So do I now have to update my BA every time GW changes their official paint colour or scheme? If my UM are actually painted in the old blue from the previous paint range then surely they're no longer officially painted as UM at all, so what's the problem with them now using Raven Guard rules?
- If they look like Salamanders, play them as Salamanders. If they look like green not-Salamanders, play them as whatever your want.
- If they look like Blood Angels, play them as Blood Angels. If they look like orangey-red not-Blood Angels, play them as whatever you want.
I think the most reasonable, and most commonly played, solution to the exaggerated scenario in the OP is that it's fine to have an army of Crimson Fists and play them as Salamanders. That's fine.
It gets confusing, though when someone says, 'This Crimson Fists Tactical Squad is actually a Raven Guard Tactical Squad but this identical Crimson Fists Tactical Squad is actually a Blood Angels Tactical Squad.'
I still wouldn't refuse the game or consider the player TFG but I would expect a modicum of decency from the guy in that he'd throw the odd reminder in if it looked like any resulting confusion was giving him an unfair advantage.
ArbitorIan wrote:
Cue standard responses:
- I don’t find it confusing so nobody else should
- But but but I’ve found a torturous fluff exception where that doesn’t apply so none of that could possibly work at all. - I’ve missed the point and only care about RAW and this isn’t RAW, but I still support WYSIWYG
Wildkarrde wrote:So what if i get my Salamanders, put a green sticker over the chapter badge so you cant see it anymore on all my models. I then say they are a successor chapter of the Ultramarines called the green spots. How does that work. At what point does it become a custom chapter? Is the just the chapter badge that defines them?
Slipspace wrote:So do I now have to update my BA every time GW changes their official paint colour or scheme? If my UM are actually painted in the old blue from the previous paint range then surely they're no longer officially painted as UM at all, so what's the problem with them now using Raven Guard rules?
- If they look like Salamanders, play them as Salamanders. If they look like green not-Salamanders, play them as whatever your want.
- If they look like Blood Angels, play them as Blood Angels. If they look like orangey-red not-Blood Angels, play them as whatever you want.
So can you tell me exactly how much not-like Salamanders my army needs to look? What if I'm not actually that knowledgeable about the lore and don't even know that Salamanders are a thing (much like I couldn't tell you what each Hive Fleet's colours are)? I'm all for avoiding confusion but I've yet to see a reason why a simple statement of "my army uses Raven Guard chapter tactics" is confusing in any way, regardless of how the army is painted. It's all very well you laughing at people using your "standard responses" but if large numbers of people find those responses reasonable (minus the biased language used in your explanations) they are reasonable for most practical purposes regardless of your attitude towards them.
So can you tell me exactly how much not-like Salamanders my army needs to look? What if I'm not actually that knowledgeable about the lore and don't even know that Salamanders are a thing (much like I couldn't tell you what each Hive Fleet's colours are)? I'm all for avoiding confusion but I've yet to see a reason why a simple statement of "my army uses Raven Guard chapter tactics" is confusing in any way, regardless of how the army is painted. It's all very well you laughing at people using your "standard responses" but if large numbers of people find those responses reasonable (minus the biased language used in your explanations) they are reasonable for most practical purposes regardless of your attitude towards them.
Nope. It's a grey area. (Despite the posters on here who insist there is no such thing). If there's a reasonable chance that your models could be confusing then it's probably best to check with the event, as per GW guidelines suggest.
Realistically, I don't actually think this happens very often. If you've got green marines, with their skin all coal-black, and dragon scale cloaks, and loads of flamers, you're probably playing them as Salamanders, and if you have green marines without any of that and with different pads and a different symbol, you're probably not.
What I see on this thread is a ton of people arguing with false equivalence, where people WITH the first sort of army are insisting that they simply can't see the why it would be confusing to run them as Ultramarines because other green chapters exist.
So can you tell me exactly how much not-like Salamanders my army needs to look? What if I'm not actually that knowledgeable about the lore and don't even know that Salamanders are a thing (much like I couldn't tell you what each Hive Fleet's colours are)? I'm all for avoiding confusion but I've yet to see a reason why a simple statement of "my army uses Raven Guard chapter tactics" is confusing in any way, regardless of how the army is painted. It's all very well you laughing at people using your "standard responses" but if large numbers of people find those responses reasonable (minus the biased language used in your explanations) they are reasonable for most practical purposes regardless of your attitude towards them.
Nope. It's a grey area. (Despite the posters on here who insist there is no such thing). If there's a reasonable chance that your models could be confusing then it's probably best to check with the event, as per GW guidelines suggest.
Realistically, I don't actually think this happens very often. If you've got green marines, with their skin all coal-black, and dragon scale cloaks, and loads of flamers, you're probably playing them as Salamanders, and if you have green marines without any of that and with different pads and a different symbol, you're probably not.
What I see on this thread is a ton of people arguing with false equivalence, where people WITH the first sort of army are insisting that they simply can't see the why it would be confusing to run them as Ultramarines because other green chapters exist.
I can see why it would be confusing at first glance, but not after someone says "these are using the UM tactic". Then it isn't, or if it is I can't imagine such a person having the capacity to play the game at all.
The paint = rule attitude forces others into 4 choices if they don't like the rules their any now has.
1) Repaint all their miniatures
2) Buy and paint a new army
3) dont play
4) Play with reasonable people
Wildkarrde wrote: So what if i get my Salamanders, put a green sticker over the chapter badge so you cant see it anymore on all my models. I then say they are a successor chapter of the Ultramarines called the green spots. How does that work. At what point does it become a custom chapter? Is the just the chapter badge that defines them?
I think for some people it does. Reading through some of the posts here, it would seem some people here take iconography to be very important, to the extent that for them, the wrong chapter badge is not WYSIWIG. I'm not sure I've seen anyone suggest that an Ultramarine army can't be green though. Is anyone here actually suggesting that?
Wildkarrde wrote: So what if i get my Salamanders, put a green sticker over the chapter badge so you cant see it anymore on all my models. I then say they are a successor chapter of the Ultramarines called the green spots. How does that work. At what point does it become a custom chapter? Is the just the chapter badge that defines them?
I think for some people it does. Reading through some of the posts here, it would seem some people here take iconography to be very important, to the extent that for them, the wrong chapter badge is not WYSIWIG. I'm not sure I've seen anyone suggest that an Ultramarine army can't be green though. Is anyone here actually suggesting that?
Nope, nobody is suggesting an UM army with the UM trait can't be a green chapter.
What we're suggesting is that running an obviously Salamanders army with the UM trait would be confusing.
I guess this is where I get to sit back, relax, and enjoy not having that Space Marine Paint Scheme Recognition Privilege.
Ain't noooooooobody but nooooooobody gonna demand my codex and to see if my Rusted Claw genestealer Cultists are correctly displaying the official canon vomit-inducing star wars rebel pilot jumpsuits, because outside space marines, chaos marines, orks, guard regiments with different models, and maybe eldar I would challenge anyone but the beardiest fluff-monkeys to actually know and memorize any faction's "official" color schemes.
Quick, without googling it, how do you tell the difference between a Pauper Princes and a Bladed Cog GSC neophyte?
How about Coven of Twelve/The Dark Creed haemonculus coven?
Nephrekh, Novokh and Nihilakh dynasty necrons, no this is not a trick question those are actually different things!
Now ask yourself, if you don't know what any of these fething things are, how could you possibly be confused by them, and if it wouldn't confuse you if I showed up to the game and had my models painted as Forgeworld Lucius but I was actually using the rules for Metalica then why is it fair to hold space marine players to a different standard?
the_scotsman wrote: I guess this is where I get to sit back, relax, and enjoy not having that Space Marine Paint Scheme Recognition Privilege.
Ain't noooooooobody but nooooooobody gonna demand my codex and to see if my Rusted Claw genestealer Cultists are correctly displaying the official canon vomit-inducing star wars rebel pilot jumpsuits, because outside space marines, chaos marines, orks, guard regiments with different models, and maybe eldar I would challenge anyone but the beardiest fluff-monkeys to actually know and memorize any faction's "official" color schemes.
Quick, without googling it, how do you tell the difference between a Pauper Princes and a Bladed Cog GSC neophyte?
How about Coven of Twelve/The Dark Creed haemonculus coven?
Nephrekh, Novokh and Nihilakh dynasty necrons, no this is not a trick question those are actually different things!
Now ask yourself, if you don't know what any of these fething things are, how could you possibly be confused by them, and if it wouldn't confuse you if I showed up to the game and had my models painted as Forgeworld Lucius but I was actually using the rules for Metalica then why is it fair to hold space marine players to a different standard?
This could be a good argument that there is way to much Special Snowflake rules in the game, Rather than more standard battle tactics or army construction incentives. Or that the Game is way to bloated Rules wise if there is so much for the Oponant to remember based on what color lore you choose D:
the_scotsman wrote: I guess this is where I get to sit back, relax, and enjoy not having that Space Marine Paint Scheme Recognition Privilege.
Ain't noooooooobody but nooooooobody gonna demand my codex and to see if my Rusted Claw genestealer Cultists are correctly displaying the official canon vomit-inducing star wars rebel pilot jumpsuits, because outside space marines, chaos marines, orks, guard regiments with different models, and maybe eldar I would challenge anyone but the beardiest fluff-monkeys to actually know and memorize any faction's "official" color schemes.
Quick, without googling it, how do you tell the difference between a Pauper Princes and a Bladed Cog GSC neophyte?
How about Coven of Twelve/The Dark Creed haemonculus coven?
Nephrekh, Novokh and Nihilakh dynasty necrons, no this is not a trick question those are actually different things!
Now ask yourself, if you don't know what any of these fething things are, how could you possibly be confused by them, and if it wouldn't confuse you if I showed up to the game and had my models painted as Forgeworld Lucius but I was actually using the rules for Metalica then why is it fair to hold space marine players to a different standard?
This could be a good argument that there is way to much Special Snowflake rules in the game, Rather than more standard battle tactics or army construction incentives. Or that the Game is way to bloated Rules wise if there is so much for the Oponant to remember based on what color lore you choose D:
Tbat's kind of the point though. You don't need to remember the colours, your opponent will tell you there rules.
the_scotsman wrote: I guess this is where I get to sit back, relax, and enjoy not having that Space Marine Paint Scheme Recognition Privilege.
Ain't noooooooobody but nooooooobody gonna demand my codex and to see if my Rusted Claw genestealer Cultists are correctly displaying the official canon vomit-inducing star wars rebel pilot jumpsuits, because outside space marines, chaos marines, orks, guard regiments with different models, and maybe eldar I would challenge anyone but the beardiest fluff-monkeys to actually know and memorize any faction's "official" color schemes.
Quick, without googling it, how do you tell the difference between a Pauper Princes and a Bladed Cog GSC neophyte?
How about Coven of Twelve/The Dark Creed haemonculus coven?
Nephrekh, Novokh and Nihilakh dynasty necrons, no this is not a trick question those are actually different things!
Now ask yourself, if you don't know what any of these fething things are, how could you possibly be confused by them, and if it wouldn't confuse you if I showed up to the game and had my models painted as Forgeworld Lucius but I was actually using the rules for Metalica then why is it fair to hold space marine players to a different standard?
Exactly. The inverse is also true. Just because I happen to know the colour scheme for Hive Fleet Kraken, should I then be holding all Tyranid players to that Hive Fleet if they happen to have painted their models in Kraken colours? Is that reasonable, considering 90% of players likely don't know what those colours should be? I might even have accidentally painted my Kabal or Coven units in the colours of a different Kabal/Coven, for all I know. That's an army I play, and I still couldn't tell you what all the sub-faction colours are. I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why saying "these models that are painted as Ultramarines are using Raven Guard rules" is so confusing we need to disallow it. But only for Space Marines apparently.
the_scotsman wrote: I guess this is where I get to sit back, relax, and enjoy not having that Space Marine Paint Scheme Recognition Privilege.
Ain't noooooooobody but nooooooobody gonna demand my codex and to see if my Rusted Claw genestealer Cultists are correctly displaying the official canon vomit-inducing star wars rebel pilot jumpsuits, because outside space marines, chaos marines, orks, guard regiments with different models, and maybe eldar I would challenge anyone but the beardiest fluff-monkeys to actually know and memorize any faction's "official" color schemes.
Quick, without googling it, how do you tell the difference between a Pauper Princes and a Bladed Cog GSC neophyte?
How about Coven of Twelve/The Dark Creed haemonculus coven?
Nephrekh, Novokh and Nihilakh dynasty necrons, no this is not a trick question those are actually different things!
Now ask yourself, if you don't know what any of these fething things are, how could you possibly be confused by them, and if it wouldn't confuse you if I showed up to the game and had my models painted as Forgeworld Lucius but I was actually using the rules for Metalica then why is it fair to hold space marine players to a different standard?
This could be a good argument that there is way to much Special Snowflake rules in the game, Rather than more standard battle tactics or army construction incentives. Or that the Game is way to bloated Rules wise if there is so much for the Oponant to remember based on what color lore you choose D:
Tbat's kind of the point though. You don't need to remember the colours, your opponent will tell you there rules.
well yes, they can. But it may still mean there is too many. Considering the scale of the game. Or even just poor design causes more issues than there would be. I have never even seen this sort of argument come up before outside of 40k as pointed out, the difernt dyanasty are efectvly worthless, and could be summed up as something like battle tactics that players swap around and explore with.
the_scotsman wrote: I guess this is where I get to sit back, relax, and enjoy not having that Space Marine Paint Scheme Recognition Privilege.
Ain't noooooooobody but nooooooobody gonna demand my codex and to see if my Rusted Claw genestealer Cultists are correctly displaying the official canon vomit-inducing star wars rebel pilot jumpsuits, because outside space marines, chaos marines, orks, guard regiments with different models, and maybe eldar I would challenge anyone but the beardiest fluff-monkeys to actually know and memorize any faction's "official" color schemes.
Quick, without googling it, how do you tell the difference between a Pauper Princes and a Bladed Cog GSC neophyte?
How about Coven of Twelve/The Dark Creed haemonculus coven?
Nephrekh, Novokh and Nihilakh dynasty necrons, no this is not a trick question those are actually different things!
Now ask yourself, if you don't know what any of these fething things are, how could you possibly be confused by them, and if it wouldn't confuse you if I showed up to the game and had my models painted as Forgeworld Lucius but I was actually using the rules for Metalica then why is it fair to hold space marine players to a different standard?
Exactly. The inverse is also true. Just because I happen to know the colour scheme for Hive Fleet Kraken, should I then be holding all Tyranid players to that Hive Fleet if they happen to have painted their models in Kraken colours? Is that reasonable, considering 90% of players likely don't know what those colours should be? I might even have accidentally painted my Kabal or Coven units in the colours of a different Kabal/Coven, for all I know. That's an army I play, and I still couldn't tell you what all the sub-faction colours are. I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why saying "these models that are painted as Ultramarines are using Raven Guard rules" is so confusing we need to disallow it. But only for Space Marines apparently.
Yup, I'm in that boat - sub-factions didn't really exist for the genestealer cult until the codex came out, and as it turned out because I didn't paint my cultists in neon fething green or orange, and instead in a scheme that's relatively close to Cult of the Four-Armed Emperor, i'm required to always run them as that instead of the cult I want?
That's wack. And then there's my ork army - my favorite unit in the army is Flash Gitz, I own 15 of them plus Badrukk, all painted up in my red+yellow flames color scheme. Now, Freebootas are their own subfaction and flash gitz MUST be freebootas.
So I can either force my opponent to differentiate between which identically painted orks are Freebootas and which are (the correct paint scheme) Evil Sunz, or I can run them all as freebootas, which is less competitive but I like it more because I don't like having two different tactics on the field.
So guess what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna run them as freakin' freebootas. And CAAC internet finger-waggers can't do anything to stop me!
Which is good, too, because I feel like the sight of my Harlequin army where each model is painted completely different colors might cause them to have an aneurysm and die from all the horrible confusion it causes when I choose what masque tactics I want to use.
Throughout the game, you'll have to remember that the entire army is actually Chaos Space Marine Renegades, and that particular squads are actually Berzerkers, Noise Marines, Plague Marines or Marked. But the opponent claims that the army is WYSIWYG, and gave you a copy of their list, so they say you should accept it.
This part is a total deal-breaker for me. That is a proxy army. No way I would accept that and if my opponent tried to push it I would call a judge. If the judge started waffling about "we agreed it in an email" I would demand my money back for the tickets being sold under false pretence.
Now if every marine squad is a CSM squad with the weapons exactly as shown then I would give it a try - after all tactical marines proxied for CSM is not a big stretch and at no point am I likely to mis-remember which unit type is which and get sucker-punched.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Would you be OK if your Tournament opponent showed up with a 100% perfect Codex Ultramarines army, but played it as Chaos Space Marine Renegades?
Assume:
* $1,000 cash prize * Tournament Rules require fully WYSIWYG armies, no exceptions
* ALL weapons are "correct"
* ALL models have "correct" Ultramarines Chapter, 5th Company, Squad and soldier insignia
* army composition matches a Codex demi-Company supported by Veterans from 1st Company and auxiliaries
* the Marneus Calgar Special Character model is the Chaos Lord
* Codex: Chaos Space Marines >>> Codex: Ultramarines
* background story is that the Ultramarines 5th Company *just* turned to Chaos, so they haven't had time to repaint their stuff
Throughout the game, you'll have to remember that the entire army is actually Chaos Space Marine Renegades, and that particular squads are actually Berzerkers, Noise Marines, Plague Marines or Marked. But the opponent claims that the army is WYSIWYG, and gave you a copy of their list, so they say you should accept it.
Obviously, the player is playing as Chaos Marines because the army is "better", but would you be cool with that?
If you were the Tournament Organizer, would you allow it?
First of all, there's a lot of worthless information in this post. Why do I give a gak what company they are? The feth does it matter if it's a khador dummi-company or w/e?
The part I care about is: Is it WYSIWYG? If the noise marines have sonic blasters and the bezerkers have chain axes, then we're fine.
Now if he had different chaos marks with no visual differentiation, that would be an issue. Also if he had different legion abilities with no visual way to tell what's what, that would be an issue too.
ERJAK wrote: If the noise marines have sonic blasters and the bezerkers have chain axes, then we're fine.
If you read more of the thread than the OP, by "correct" weapons, he means they don't have the correct weapons - Noise Marines don't have Sonic Blasters or anything that looks like them.
Wildkarrde wrote: So what if i get my Salamanders, put a green sticker over the chapter badge so you cant see it anymore on all my models. I then say they are a successor chapter of the Ultramarines called the green spots. How does that work. At what point does it become a custom chapter? Is the just the chapter badge that defines them?
I think for some people it does. Reading through some of the posts here, it would seem some people here take iconography to be very important, to the extent that for them, the wrong chapter badge is not WYSIWIG. I'm not sure I've seen anyone suggest that an Ultramarine army can't be green though. Is anyone here actually suggesting that?
Nope, nobody is suggesting an UM army with the UM trait can't be a green chapter
What we're suggesting is that running an obviously Salamanders army with the UM trait would be confusing.
Why? What's a Salamanders army? Aren't those the little lizard lookin things that can regrow their tails?
I'm guessing from the context that those are some sort of special snowflake space marine army. Okay...sooo...what does their chapter tactic do? Because I(and MOST other people) have no idea. Which is why 99% of everyone just asks you what your chapter tactics do. Marine players think that just because there are a lot of you that everyone has an encyclopedic knowledge of your codex.
Without looking it up, what color scheme is the Ardent Rose Order of the Sisters of Battle? Is that even an actual Order?
ERJAK wrote: If the noise marines have sonic blasters and the bezerkers have chain axes, then we're fine.
If you read more of the thread than the OP, by "correct" weapons, he means they don't have the correct weapons - Noise Marines don't have Sonic Blasters or anything that looks like them.
Then the thread was written poorly, because it says CORRECT WEAPONS right there at the top.
Noise marines use sonic blasters. If you equip a marine squad with melta guns and CALL them sonic blasters, that's NOT the correct weapon and NOT WYSIWYG and the discussion is over right there. I'm not gonna let a guard player use basilisks as wyverns either.
For the sake of continuing the discussion beyond 'it's not WYSIWYG, duh' I fixed the OPs flawed premise to something that might actually be worth discussing. That way he and by extension you don't waste everyones time with silly nonsense. Which is what almost everyone has been doing for several pages BTW.
Wildkarrde wrote: So what if i get my Salamanders, put a green sticker over the chapter badge so you cant see it anymore on all my models. I then say they are a successor chapter of the Ultramarines called the green spots. How does that work. At what point does it become a custom chapter? Is the just the chapter badge that defines them?
I think for some people it does. Reading through some of the posts here, it would seem some people here take iconography to be very important, to the extent that for them, the wrong chapter badge is not WYSIWIG. I'm not sure I've seen anyone suggest that an Ultramarine army can't be green though. Is anyone here actually suggesting that?
Nope, nobody is suggesting an UM army with the UM trait can't be a green chapter
What we're suggesting is that running an obviously Salamanders army with the UM trait would be confusing.
Why? What's a Salamanders army? Aren't those the little lizard lookin things that can regrow their tails?
I'm guessing from the context that those are some sort of special snowflake space marine army. Okay...sooo...what does their chapter tactic do? Because I(and MOST other people) have no idea. Which is why 99% of everyone just asks you what your chapter tactics do. Marine players think that just because there are a lot of you that everyone has an encyclopedic knowledge of your codex.
Which is sad, because they have probably the most interesting trait (inb4 - by "interesting" I mean "most potential to change things" not "powerful"). One reroll per squad, once per turn. Which means if you run "fluffy" Tac squads, you have a reroll for that single Heavy or Special you're trying to leverage. Which would mean they can perform without camping inside the HQs bubble - allowing for a more distributed/interesting battle plan. Unfortunately, you never see them, because deathstar-bubbles are simply better.
ERJAK wrote: If the noise marines have sonic blasters and the bezerkers have chain axes, then we're fine.
If you read more of the thread than the OP, by "correct" weapons, he means they don't have the correct weapons - Noise Marines don't have Sonic Blasters or anything that looks like them.
Then the thread was written poorly, because it says CORRECT WEAPONS right there at the top.
Noise marines use sonic blasters. If you equip a marine squad with melta guns and CALL them sonic blasters, that's NOT the correct weapon and NOT WYSIWYG and the discussion is over right there. I'm not gonna let a guard player use basilisks as wyverns either.
For the sake of continuing the discussion beyond 'it's not WYSIWYG, duh' I fixed the OPs flawed premise to something that might actually be worth discussing. That way he and by extension you don't waste everyones time with silly nonsense.
\
That's what half this thread has been; the bait & switch between the OP's first post, and the clarifications of what the OP meant
Drager wrote: Not necessarily, I don't know you or your character beyond the above post, but the behaviour you describe above - enforcing paint = rules and trying to create an environment were switching Chapter for better rules is discouraged - is how the most TFG guys I've met behave.
It smacks of telling people they are having fun wrong and it's frankly very rude. It's totally within your rights to refuse a game for any reason, but giving people the side eye, impugning their character (implying they will cheat as you do above) and creating an environment that's hostile to them is the epitome of TFG.
I might have misunderstood your post, but that's how it came across to me.
I think you might have an extremely different idea of the definition of TFG to most people.
Either that or you’re deliberately trying to muddy the waters by ‘redefining’ it from bad/cheating/rules-lawyering player to some sort of too-casual person.
But yeah, definitely not the definition of TFG most people would use.
But you yourself have claimed that the rules don't matter, so by your own logic his definition of TFG is perfectly valid and by rejecting it, YOU are in the wrong.
ArbitorIan wrote: - If they look like Salamanders, play them as Salamanders. If they look like green not-Salamanders, play them as whatever your want.
- If they look like Blood Angels, play them as Blood Angels. If they look like orangey-red not-Blood Angels, play them as whatever you want.
I think most people generally agree on who's TFG and who's not, but there's bound to be variance.
More like "every man's TFG is one guy's saint".
I've yet to meet a TFG that doesn't have justification for how they act in their own head, and doesn't feel that their reputation isn't unfairly placed upon them. As I've been involved in the leadership of a large gaming club for several years, I've had to have "the talk" with a lot of people garnering TFG reputations, let them know that people are consistently having negative experiences playing with them, and ask them to change their behavior or leave the group. The most common categories I find are:
"My faction/model collection is Underpowered, I am just giving them the things they should have, it's not my fault GW is incompetent/hates my faction/people play powergame armies" (most common response from people who repeatedly get complained about for cheating)
"I just play by the rules as they are written, if you can show me in the rules where what I'm doing is wrong I will change what I'm doing." (most common response from people with...very interesting interpretations of what rules "definitely" mean, who are extremely blatant about following the rules exactly to what they see as "the letter of the law" and do things like egregious modeling for advantage, list-building loopholes, weird intentionally confusing proxies etc.)
The reason these discussions come up and get so heated on the internet is that both parties have an extremely common TFG-type they're tilting against. Type 1 TFG who can't handle losing so he "misremembers' the stats and abilities of his models, "accidentally" shows up to the table with extra points, and ignores most of the rules of the game in favor of trying to get the high of a win is the kind of TFG I imagine the "Rules As Written" crowd on the forum are tilting against. Type 2 TFG who combs through the rulebook looking for anything he can arguably exploit like telescoping antennas on his tanks to draw line of sight, models blatantly proxied as other models like unpainted Space Marines as Genestealer Cultists that are more competitive to intentionally confuse and gain advantage in game, and claiming he can draw line of sight through a mirror is the kind of person OP is imagining and tilting against.
1. The "Everyone's a hero in their own story" discussion - even most TFGs think they're the "good guy".
2. Variations in what's acceptable/reasonable between people. I was surprised to see some people suggest list-tailoring for tactical advantage was part of the game in another thread - that seems like a big not-OK to me, but apparently not to everyone. On the other hand, you have people who think it's cheating to not have written your list in stone before you even show up, long before you know who you're facing/what board/what narrative you're playing.
I also agree on the "two different TFG" types you're laying out. BCB for example (I hope @BCB agrees with this, not picking on him) would probably love to play a mirror of himself - and there are other people suitable technical. Other people would hate to play someone as technical as BCB (note: "technical" and "rules-lawyery" are synonyms, after all).
More people would hate the "misremembering" player, but there have been a couple posters here, from time to time, who have defended that "playstyle", so even that is not TFG to everybody (which is hard for me to accept, but clearly true).
BaconCatBug wrote: Playing by the rules cannot, by definition, be TFG behaviour.
Not heard of the ol' lawful evil? You can play exactly by the letter of the rules (which even I suspect you do not do) and be an utter bellend about it.
The advent of lack of WYSIWYG in 8th is one of these things. "bUT iT's NoT iN tHe RuLeS!"
BaconCatBug wrote: Playing by the rules cannot, by definition, be TFG behaviour.
Think about it, if it was, then asking your opponent to roll to hit for his shooting is TFG behaviour.
Um, no. "playing by the rules" is a defense of particular types of TFG behavior and absolutely 100% falls under the heading.
You always do this, posit some bizarre reductio ad absurdum argument whereby ANYTHING you can argue as "Rules As Written" is perfectly admissable because "that's the game you're playing" while simultaneously curating a little list in your signatures of rules interactions that make enormous swathes of the game completely impossible to play.
I have no doubt at all that you sincerely believe that the game is in fact impossible to play, and that everyone who does believe they are playing the game is in fact playing an elaborate construct of "house rules". And, by your own reductio ad absurdem arguments, you'd be right.
But then you also have to accept that following the rules as written, requiring your opponent to have 93 (or whatever you're up to) printed documents to play the game, disallowing your opponent from ever using an assault weapon after advancing because they're not allowed to be selected to shoot, setting up mirrors around the board to allow your models to always draw line of sight to every other model on the board, standing your tanks up on end to draw line of sight and then putting them back down on the board to get out of LOS....literally makes what everyone but you calls "playing the game" impossible.
There is no definition of "TFG behavior" that does not include "Making the game impossible to play".
Add in to that the fact that despite your attitude of "everything I say is the word of god and once I've said it there is no dispute on the matter" there actually IS plenty of argument to be had regarding the rules.
As far as I can tell, you're using the following line in the rules as the basis of your argument in this thread:
"The rules and characteristics of all models, and some terrain features, are presented on datasheets, which you will need in order to use the models in battle."
To you, this appears to be a sentence that indicates beyond any shadow of the doubt that each possible model produced by Games Workshop must have one single possible datasheet corresponding to its playable rules. Someone else might not see that rule as providing any rules content whatsoever beyond "you must assign datasheets to your models" and make the argument that any model can correspond to any datasheet you like. Both of those can encompass TFG behavior. You could take your interpretation and refuse to play with somebody's minorly converted model because it is not the exact model that must correspond to that datasheet. You can take his interpretation and model a baneblade with a 3-foot tall extendable antenna that allows it to draw line of sight to everything on the board (I use that example because I've seen that).
But if someone with that attitude played someone else with that attitude, would they be TFG? Or would it be two players mutually enjoying a technical game?
Bharring wrote: But if someone with that attitude played someone else with that attitude, would they be TFG? Or would it be two players mutually enjoying a technical game?
You'd need two players with identical opinions on what the various vague rules mean, and then it'd be pretty much impossible to play the game because the game just isn't designed in a perfectly technical way. You'd get bogged down trying to figure out how much you're legally allowed/required to "stoop down" to draw line of sight, whether you can "stoop down" if you're already seated in a chair, what angle is required to make with your back in order to be "stooping" and then they'd have to wait a few months for a FAQ answer to that question in order to finish the first shooting phase.
the_scotsman wrote: But then you also have to accept that following the rules as written, requiring your opponent to have 93 (or whatever you're up to) printed documents to play the game, disallowing your opponent from ever using an assault weapon after advancing because they're not allowed to be selected to shoot, setting up mirrors around the board to allow your models to always draw line of sight to every other model on the board, standing your tanks up on end to draw line of sight and then putting them back down on the board to get out of LOS....literally makes what everyone but you calls "playing the game" impossible.
You complain about stawmen and then build up two yourself. How to draw LOS is defined clearly in the rules and via FAQ, and you can't move your tanks after you shoot (unless you charge in the Charge Phase), so while you can stand your tanks up on their ends, you'll end up being a beacon for return fire unless you charge.
But yes, I don't allow my opponent to use assault weapons after advancing because the rules don't allow you to do so.
the_scotsman wrote: But then you also have to accept that following the rules as written, requiring your opponent to have 93 (or whatever you're up to) printed documents to play the game, disallowing your opponent from ever using an assault weapon after advancing because they're not allowed to be selected to shoot, setting up mirrors around the board to allow your models to always draw line of sight to every other model on the board, standing your tanks up on end to draw line of sight and then putting them back down on the board to get out of LOS....literally makes what everyone but you calls "playing the game" impossible.
You complain about stawmen and then build up two yourself. How to draw LOS is defined clearly in the rules and via FAQ, and you can't move your tanks after you shoot (unless you charge in the Charge Phase), so while you can stand your tanks up on their ends, you'll end up being a beacon for return fire unless you charge.
The fact that you accept the fact that you can stand a tank up on end to draw line of sight and don't allow your opponent to fire assault weapons after advancing but also do not recognize that that would very clearly be viewed as TFG behavior I think says more than I could ever really reply with, so I'm just going to leave it there.
the_scotsman wrote: The fact that you accept the fact that you can stand a tank up on end to draw line of sight but also do not recognize that that would very clearly be viewed as TFG behavior I think says more than I could ever really reply with, so I'm just going to leave it there.
So, again, by your logic asking your opponent to only have 1 shot with their meltagun instead of 200 is also TFG behaviour. I don't view following the rules as TFG behaviour in any circumstances because following the rules is the entire point of having a rules system.
Here is a challenge for you, let's have a game on TTS but I get to follow your own logic and get to ignore any rules I find inconvenient. My 200" range LOS ignoring Railguns that are heavy 200 will have lots of fun!
No; by his logic, asking your opponent to have 0 shots with their melta gun instead of 1 after advancing is a problem, as RAI is clear to him and his opponent.
Alternatively, by your logic, asking to get 1 shot instead of 0 with the same advancing meltagun is a problem, as RAW is clear to you and your opponent.
Outside clearly and cleannly defined systems, it's quite possible - and with enough chaos, probable - that there would be 2 or more entirely valid but mutually exclusive understandings.
Bharring wrote: No; by his logic, asking your opponent to have 0 shots with their melta gun instead of 1 after advancing is a problem, as RAI is clear to him and his opponent.
Alternatively, by your logic, asking to get 1 shot instead of 0 with the same advancing meltagun is a problem, as RAW is clear to you and your opponent.
Um, there's a two and zero before that last zero...
the_scotsman wrote: The fact that you accept the fact that you can stand a tank up on end to draw line of sight but also do not recognize that that would very clearly be viewed as TFG behavior I think says more than I could ever really reply with, so I'm just going to leave it there.
So, again, by your logic asking your opponent to only have 1 shot with their meltagun instead of 200 is also TFG behaviour. I don't view following the rules as TFG behaviour in any circumstances because following the rules is the entire point of having a rules system.
Here is a challenge for you, let's have a game on TTS but I get to follow your own logic and get to ignore any rules I find inconvenient. My 200" range LOS ignoring Railguns that are heavy 200 will have lots of fun!
Here is a challenge for you: Travel, in person, to any Games Workshop store with a large group of people playing. Play against an actual human opponent, stand up your tank on end to draw line of sight, and refuse to allow your opponent to fire an Assault weapon after advancing.
Call the owner of the store over and explain that what you've done is allowed in the rules, and your opponent is cheating, and demand that they be kicked out of the store.
the_scotsman wrote: The fact that you accept the fact that you can stand a tank up on end to draw line of sight but also do not recognize that that would very clearly be viewed as TFG behavior I think says more than I could ever really reply with, so I'm just going to leave it there.
So, again, by your logic asking your opponent to only have 1 shot with their meltagun instead of 200 is also TFG behaviour. I don't view following the rules as TFG behaviour in any circumstances because following the rules is the entire point of having a rules system.
Here is a challenge for you, let's have a game on TTS but I get to follow your own logic and get to ignore any rules I find inconvenient. My 200" range LOS ignoring Railguns that are heavy 200 will have lots of fun!
Here is a challenge for you: Travel, in person, to any Games Workshop store with a large group of people playing. Play against an actual human opponent, stand up your tank on end to draw line of sight, and refuse to allow your opponent to fire an Assault weapon after advancing.
Call the owner of the store over and explain that what you've done is allowed in the rules, and your opponent is cheating, and demand that they be kicked out of the store.
House Rules are House Rules. And I would never call someone a cheater unless they are intentionally ignoring the rules for an unfair advantage. Someone not realising you can't shoot after advancing because of GW's crappy rules isn't a cheater. Likewise, I would never play in a club or store that had such extreme House Rules as to ignore clear RaW.
Also TIL that people on the other end of a Tabletop Simulator game are actually goats and/or robots. Robot-goats. Rowboat. Alpharius confirmed for Goat Robot.
the_scotsman wrote: The fact that you accept the fact that you can stand a tank up on end to draw line of sight but also do not recognize that that would very clearly be viewed as TFG behavior I think says more than I could ever really reply with, so I'm just going to leave it there.
So, again, by your logic asking your opponent to only have 1 shot with their meltagun instead of 200 is also TFG behaviour. I don't view following the rules as TFG behaviour in any circumstances because following the rules is the entire point of having a rules system.
Here is a challenge for you, let's have a game on TTS but I get to follow your own logic and get to ignore any rules I find inconvenient. My 200" range LOS ignoring Railguns that are heavy 200 will have lots of fun!
Here is a challenge for you: Travel, in person, to any Games Workshop store with a large group of people playing. Play against an actual human opponent, stand up your tank on end to draw line of sight, and refuse to allow your opponent to fire an Assault weapon after advancing.
Call the owner of the store over and explain that what you've done is allowed in the rules, and your opponent is cheating, and demand that they be kicked out of the store.
House Rules are House Rules.
IOW "I've already been banned from my local GW for being a knob so cannot do this as everyone in the local area won't play me".
Grimtuff wrote: IOW "I've already been banned from my local GW for being a knob so cannot do this as everyone in the local area won't play me".
Have you even played a game IRL?
Funnily enough I helped run the local club back when it was still around about 10 or so years ago. It closed since there were only 5 people showing up regularly of which 4 were secondary school students and couldn't afford the rents even when charging for table time. Sadly I live in the middle of nowhere with the nearest GW 2 hours away.
Bharring wrote: No; by his logic, asking your opponent to have 0 shots with their melta gun instead of 1 after advancing is a problem, as RAI is clear to him and his opponent.
Alternatively, by your logic, asking to get 1 shot instead of 0 with the same advancing meltagun is a problem, as RAW is clear to you and your opponent.
Um, there's a two and zero before that last zero...
So that's not what he's saying at all.
That's because Scotsman BCB were using two different examples for their arguments; I attempted to project both onto the same basic premise, to try to more fairly contrast them. So there *isn't* supposed to be a `20` before that last 0.
Grimtuff wrote: IOW "I've already been banned from my local GW for being a knob so cannot do this as everyone in the local area won't play me".
Have you even played a game IRL?
Funnily enough I helped run the local club back when it was still around about 10 or so years ago. It closed since there were only 5 people of which 4 were secondary school students and couldn't afford the rents even when charging for table rent. Sadly I live in the middle of nowhere with the nearest GW 2 hours away.
So basically you've never put any of your blathering about 8th's broken rules into practice with a real person?
the_scotsman wrote: The fact that you accept the fact that you can stand a tank up on end to draw line of sight but also do not recognize that that would very clearly be viewed as TFG behavior I think says more than I could ever really reply with, so I'm just going to leave it there.
So, again, by your logic asking your opponent to only have 1 shot with their meltagun instead of 200 is also TFG behaviour. I don't view following the rules as TFG behaviour in any circumstances because following the rules is the entire point of having a rules system.
Here is a challenge for you, let's have a game on TTS but I get to follow your own logic and get to ignore any rules I find inconvenient. My 200" range LOS ignoring Railguns that are heavy 200 will have lots of fun!
Making false equivalences doesn't win arguments. Almost everytime I've seen you say "by your logic" you don't use their logic but instead make a false equivalence. It's just poor argumentation.
I don't think you are arguing in bad faith, I do think you have a pretty poor grasp of logic and argument.
When playing in an environment were it is commonly accepted that one cannot stand a tank on end it is TFG behaviour to do so without previously discussing the possibility with an opponent. Claiming to have a 200 shot Meltagun is the same sort of behaviour and also TFG. The fact that one is RAW (arguably) and the other is not is immaterial as what is making you TFG is a social failing not a legalistic one. If you do not know which things you are going to do will cause a problem watch some games, read and talk to others. If you still can't understand you may need more help than dakka can offer.
the_scotsman wrote: The fact that you accept the fact that you can stand a tank up on end to draw line of sight but also do not recognize that that would very clearly be viewed as TFG behavior I think says more than I could ever really reply with, so I'm just going to leave it there.
So, again, by your logic asking your opponent to only have 1 shot with their meltagun instead of 200 is also TFG behaviour. I don't view following the rules as TFG behaviour in any circumstances because following the rules is the entire point of having a rules system.
Here is a challenge for you, let's have a game on TTS but I get to follow your own logic and get to ignore any rules I find inconvenient. My 200" range LOS ignoring Railguns that are heavy 200 will have lots of fun!
Here is a challenge for you: Travel, in person, to any Games Workshop store with a large group of people playing. Play against an actual human opponent, stand up your tank on end to draw line of sight, and refuse to allow your opponent to fire an Assault weapon after advancing.
Call the owner of the store over and explain that what you've done is allowed in the rules, and your opponent is cheating, and demand that they be kicked out of the store.
Likewise, I would never play in a club or store.
I promise you, pinky swear, there is no club or store in existence that plays by your version of rules as written, and no in-person gathering of more than two people that you would not consider "extreme house rules". You are to the internet what a wonderfully colorful kind of fish that can only live in one species of coral is to the wider ocean.
Drager wrote: When playing in an environment were it is commonly accepted that one cannot stand a tank on end it is TFG behaviour to do so without previously discussing the possibility with an opponent. Claiming to have a 200 shot Meltagun is the same sort of behaviour and also TFG. The fact that one is RAW (arguably) and the other is not is immaterial as what is making you TFG is a social failing not a legalistic one. If you do not know which things you are going to do will cause a problem watch some games, read and talk to others. If you still can't understand you may need more help than dakka can offer.
The one that is RaW is not TFG behaviour because following the rules cannot be TFG behaviour.
Drager wrote: When playing in an environment were it is commonly accepted that one cannot stand a tank on end it is TFG behaviour to do so without previously discussing the possibility with an opponent. Claiming to have a 200 shot Meltagun is the same sort of behaviour and also TFG. The fact that one is RAW (arguably) and the other is not is immaterial as what is making you TFG is a social failing not a legalistic one. If you do not know which things you are going to do will cause a problem watch some games, read and talk to others. If you still can't understand you may need more help than dakka can offer.
The one that is RaW is not TFG behaviour because following the rules cannot be TFG behaviour.
It's like you're a broken record. Are you a Sith? Do you only deal in absolutes? Do all of your tanks suddenly look like the anti aircraft tanks from Mega Force?
Drager wrote: When playing in an environment were it is commonly accepted that one cannot stand a tank on end it is TFG behaviour to do so without previously discussing the possibility with an opponent. Claiming to have a 200 shot Meltagun is the same sort of behaviour and also TFG. The fact that one is RAW (arguably) and the other is not is immaterial as what is making you TFG is a social failing not a legalistic one. If you do not know which things you are going to do will cause a problem watch some games, read and talk to others. If you still can't understand you may need more help than dakka can offer.
The one that is RaW is not TFG behaviour because following the rules cannot be TFG behaviour.
When your sibling snuck out of their room at nap-time, would it have been TFG behavior to tell your parents right away?
There is very little that cannot be TFG behavior. TFG is about soft skills, not technical skills.
Drager wrote: When playing in an environment were it is commonly accepted that one cannot stand a tank on end it is TFG behaviour to do so without previously discussing the possibility with an opponent. Claiming to have a 200 shot Meltagun is the same sort of behaviour and also TFG. The fact that one is RAW (arguably) and the other is not is immaterial as what is making you TFG is a social failing not a legalistic one. If you do not know which things you are going to do will cause a problem watch some games, read and talk to others. If you still can't understand you may need more help than dakka can offer.
The one that is RaW is not TFG behaviour because following the rules cannot be TFG behaviour.
When your sibling snuck out of their room at nap-time, would it have been TFG behavior to tell your parents right away?
There is very little that cannot be TFG behavior. TFG is about soft skills, not technical skills.
It depends, was it explicitly given as a rule that my sibling may not sneak out at nap-tip? If so, then it isn't. I agree that TFG behavior might be based on "soft" skills, but following the rules of a game cannot be considered TFG behaviour, because if that is the case than ALL rule following is TFG behaviour.
BaconCatBug wrote: Playing by the rules cannot, by definition, be TFG behaviour.
Not heard of the ol' lawful evil? You can play exactly by the letter of the rules (which even I suspect you do not do) and be an utter bellend about it.
The advent of lack of WYSIWYG in 8th is one of these things. "bUT iT's NoT iN tHe RuLeS!"
8th isnt the advent. 7th also does not have a rule requiring wysiwyg.
Drager wrote: When playing in an environment were it is commonly accepted that one cannot stand a tank on end it is TFG behaviour to do so without previously discussing the possibility with an opponent. Claiming to have a 200 shot Meltagun is the same sort of behaviour and also TFG. The fact that one is RAW (arguably) and the other is not is immaterial as what is making you TFG is a social failing not a legalistic one. If you do not know which things you are going to do will cause a problem watch some games, read and talk to others. If you still can't understand you may need more help than dakka can offer.
The one that is RaW is not TFG behaviour because following the rules cannot be TFG behaviour.
This is an assertion, please demonstrate it is true. It also completely ignores the points I presented and simply restates an earlier assertion, which is poor form.
So, purely in the interests of piling another train on the wreckage, was it impossible to disembark troops from a Valk in previous editions, as the base was too high?
BaconCatBug wrote: Playing by the rules cannot, by definition, be TFG behaviour.
Not heard of the ol' lawful evil? You can play exactly by the letter of the rules (which even I suspect you do not do) and be an utter bellend about it.
The advent of lack of WYSIWYG in 8th is one of these things. "bUT iT's NoT iN tHe RuLeS!"
8th isnt the advent. 7th also does not have a rule requiring wysiwyg.
Did it not? Another reason I'm glad I sat that edition out then as they really doubled down on the stupid there...
Moriarty wrote: So, purely in the interests of piling another train on the wreckage, was it impossible to disembark troops from a Valk in previous editions, as the base was too high?
....the base for a valkyrie is on the ground....otherwise the model would fall down, my dude.
Moriarty wrote: So, purely in the interests of piling another train on the wreckage, was it impossible to disembark troops from a Valk in previous editions, as the base was too high?
Did Terminators ever wear Terminator armour in 4th? I guess we'll never know.
Moriarty wrote: So, purely in the interests of piling another train on the wreckage, was it impossible to disembark troops from a Valk in previous editions, as the base was too high?
I seem to remember that was indeed the case, but my memory might be a bit fuzzy on that regard (never been a big fan of flyers or guard). I do remember a time when disembarking was measured from the disembarking doors on the hull of the vehicle, regardless of whether it had a base or not.
Drager wrote: When playing in an environment were it is commonly accepted that one cannot stand a tank on end it is TFG behaviour to do so without previously discussing the possibility with an opponent. Claiming to have a 200 shot Meltagun is the same sort of behaviour and also TFG. The fact that one is RAW (arguably) and the other is not is immaterial as what is making you TFG is a social failing not a legalistic one. If you do not know which things you are going to do will cause a problem watch some games, read and talk to others. If you still can't understand you may need more help than dakka can offer.
The one that is RaW is not TFG behaviour because following the rules cannot be TFG behaviour.
When your sibling snuck out of their room at nap-time, would it have been TFG behavior to tell your parents right away?
There is very little that cannot be TFG behavior. TFG is about soft skills, not technical skills.
It depends, was it explicitly given as a rule that my sibling may not sneak out at nap-tip? If so, then it isn't. I agree that TFG behavior might be based on "soft" skills, but following the rules of a game cannot be considered TFG behaviour, because if that is the case than ALL rule following is TFG behaviour.
Here's another one of my favorite moderation stories:
We had a dude show up with a WYSIWYGDKOK army covered in freehanded swastikas on every banner, on freehanded red armbands on every trooper, and a large contingent of bane wolf tanks because...well, obvious gak taste joke is obvious.
Obviously, he never got a chance to get past taking his models out and showing them to everyone, but assuming he had played perfect RAW, showing up with a 1000$+ joke in the worst possible taste is TFG behavior.
This all just comes back to my original post on this subject: Every single TFG in existence has a definition of that term in his head that is constructed to exclude himself. I just highlighted the two most common constructions of that definition: "I'm just playing by the rules" (whether or not they actually are, they will argue that they are) and "I'm just giving my army what it deserves to have/needs to compete"
ArbitorIan wrote: - If they look like Salamanders, play them as Salamanders. If they look like green not-Salamanders, play them as whatever your want.
- If they look like Blood Angels, play them as Blood Angels. If they look like orangey-red not-Blood Angels, play them as whatever you want.
Exactly!
This standard is silly though. Lets say my guys are painted as ultramarines but I want to try ravenguard tactics. I tell you at the beginning of the game I'm using RG tactics. That's not hard to remember during a game.
I do agree running multiple detachments with the same paint scheme but different tactics is BS but that's a separate issue
We had a dude show up with a WYSIWYGDKOK army covered in freehanded swastikas on every banner, on freehanded red armbands on every trooper, and a large contingent of bane wolf tanks because...well, obvious gak taste joke is obvious.
Obviously, he never got a chance to get past taking his models out and showing them to everyone, but assuming he had played perfect RAW, showing up with a 1000$+ joke in the worst possible taste is TFG behavior.
This all just comes back to my original post on this subject: Every single TFG in existence has a definition of that term in his head that is constructed to exclude himself. I just highlighted the two most common constructions of that definition: "I'm just playing by the rules" (whether or not they actually are, they will argue that they are) and "I'm just giving my army what it deserves to have/needs to compete"
And who gets to define "poor taste"? If I define "poor taste" as "making me roll to hit for my shots", would you allow it?
If I say that your, I dunno, Space Wolves are offensive to me because Vikings once ravaged my homeland, would you accept being banned and/or prohibited from playing?
We had a dude show up with a WYSIWYGDKOK army covered in freehanded swastikas on every banner, on freehanded red armbands on every trooper, and a large contingent of bane wolf tanks because...well, obvious gak taste joke is obvious.
Obviously, he never got a chance to get past taking his models out and showing them to everyone, but assuming he had played perfect RAW, showing up with a 1000$+ joke in the worst possible taste is TFG behavior.
This all just comes back to my original post on this subject: Every single TFG in existence has a definition of that term in his head that is constructed to exclude himself. I just highlighted the two most common constructions of that definition: "I'm just playing by the rules" (whether or not they actually are, they will argue that they are) and "I'm just giving my army what it deserves to have/needs to compete"
And who gets to define "poor taste"? If I define "poor taste" as "making me roll to hit for my shots", would you allow it?
If I say that your, I dunno, Space Wolves are offensive to me because Vikings once ravaged my homeland, would you accept being banned and/or prohibited from player.
This is the most strawest man of strawmen I've ever seen.
If you're honestly comparing as to why an army of SS troopers that is very real and there are parents, grandparents and great grandparents still alive that lived through this and is still a raw topic and Vikings? Then I literally have no words. You're simply impossible.
Grimtuff wrote: This is the most strawest man of strawmen I've ever seen.
If you're honestly comparing as to why an army of SS troopers that is very real and there are parents, grandparents and great grandparents still alive that lived through this and is still a raw topic and Vikings? Then I literally have no words. You're simply impossible.
My Great Grandmother fled the Bolsheviks due to being Jewish during the October Revolutions. She died when I was 13, insisting she was Catholic to her deathbed. If someone pulled out a WW1 Russian inspired DKOK army I'd shake their hand and call it an amazing army because I respect free speech and am not a snowflake.
Grimtuff wrote: This is the most strawest man of strawmen I've ever seen.
If you're honestly comparing as to why an army of SS troopers that is very real and there are parents, grandparents and great grandparents still alive that lived through this and is still a raw topic and Vikings? Then I literally have no words. You're simply impossible.
My Great Grandmother fled the Bolsheviks due to being Jewish during the October Revolutions. She died when I was 13. If someone pulled out a WW1 Russian inspired DKOK army I'd shake their hand and call it an amazing army because I respect free speech and am not a snowflake.
LPT- free speech only protects you from persecution from the government. You can't rock up to a store with an army covered in swastikas and claim "mUh FrEe SpEeCh!". That's not how it works.
Grimtuff wrote: This is the most strawest man of strawmen I've ever seen.
If you're honestly comparing as to why an army of SS troopers that is very real and there are parents, grandparents and great grandparents still alive that lived through this and is still a raw topic and Vikings? Then I literally have no words. You're simply impossible.
My Great Grandmother fled the Bolsheviks due to being Jewish during the October Revolutions. She died when I was 13. If someone pulled out a WW1 Russian inspired DKOK army I'd shake their hand and call it an amazing army because I respect free speech and am not a snowflake.
LPT- free speech only protects you from persecution from the government. You can't rock up to a store with an army covered in swastikas and claim "mUh FrEe SpEeCh!". That's not how it works.
Marsh v. Alabama disagrees with you there bud. At least in the US. Here in the UK we have no such right to freedom of speech, much to our detriment.
So by the first amendment I'm obligated to play agaisn't a nazi Imperial Guard or a My Little Pony Space Marine army? USA is surely very silly sometimes.
Slightly off topic but Marsh v. Alabama wouldn't really apply in this situation. There is a massive difference to handing out pamphlets on a public sidewalk and entering the inside of a private business and engaging in activities that the owner and other patrons find offensive.
Galas wrote: So by the first amendment I'm obligated to play agaisn't a nazi Imperial Guard or a My Little Pony Space Marine army? USA is surely very silly sometimes.
No, you're not. Horizontal effect has been pooh-poohed by the SCotUS and in any event there is no right to a game of 40K to be violated and form a cause of action.
But a store might be forced to let swastikas on to their tables in England, or Canada, or many other places.
I have no idea what Marsh v. Alabama is. I got my degree in England and all my practical experience is in Ontario. My knowledge of U.S. law is little better than a layperson's.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Slightly off topic but Marsh v. Alabama wouldn't really apply in this situation. There is a massive difference to handing out pamphlets on a public sidewalk and entering the inside of a private business and engaging in activities that the owner and other patrons find offensive.
Now now, you can't be applying "technicalities" or "intent of the law" here, that's TFG behaviour!
HoundsofDemos wrote: Slightly off topic but Marsh v. Alabama wouldn't really apply in this situation. There is a massive difference to handing out pamphlets on a public sidewalk and entering the inside of a private business and engaging in activities that the owner and other patrons find offensive.
Now now, you can't be applying "technicalities" or "intent of the law" here, that's TFG behaviour!
This is actually a great example; it's not what you're doing, but how and why.
Applying "technicalities" or "intent of the law" to force an emotionally distraught descendant of a Concentration Camp "guest" to play against the Third Reich army listed above is certainly TFG behavior.
Applying "technicalities" or "intent of the law" to stop someone from forcing an emotionally distraught descendant of a Concentration Camp "guest" to play against the Third Reich army listed above is certainly not behavior.
Similarly, consider someone giving a candybar to their opponent; probably not TFG behavior. But if the guy's doing it because they know their opponent is dieting/diabetic/allergic/fasting/whatever, it's probably TFG behavior.
Galas wrote: BaconCatBug, the next Warhammer game you play, could you stream it? I really want to see how you 100% RAW, no items, SM only warhammer looks like.
As he’s said in this thread, he doesn’t actually play games in real life
He just hangs around a forum entitled, essentially, ‘how would you play it?’ yelling ‘by the absolute letter of the RAW, according to my definition, which makes the game impossible, but that’s still how I’d play it’ again and again, pointlessly into the void, not actually helping in any way.
A speed bump in any thread, yelling without helping anyone, asserting he’s right without really contributing to the point. A series of posts you have gloss over or avoid if you want a workable, sensible answer to your question.
Like GWAR before him, and Stelek before that. Eventually, they all get bored of asserting themselves to nobody and go away.
A RAW argument is not very helpful in this case. GW used to try to mandate how everybody played in terms of WYSIWYG, but I think they realized that they do not control what happens out in the wild. Now they leave it up to us, as it always was.
Playing a miniatures games requires a certain amount of "give and take" with your opponent, the rules, the miniatures and the board. Its not an exact science and its not for everybody. I have read some "reductio ad absurdum" arguments in this thread that are also not helpful. I've played around 100 real game of 40K since 8th dropped - by real I mean against a real opponent on a real table with real miniatures. We get plenty of folks from out of town at our local tournaments since we are roughly two hours from three major cities with four-lane highway access, four cities if you include the USA. I cannot recall a real rules dispute from the Core rules after we had digested the 8th edition ruleset. There have been a few over Stratagems and unit rules when a Codex comes out. Otherwise we seem to have consensus on the core rules (and we shoot Assault Weapons after advancing every time).
There are differences over WYSIWYG and painting requirements. These are resolved through interpersonal skills in pick-up games and by the tourney pack for tournaments. The point is that there is a variety of standards world-wide regarding WYSIWYG. They are all valid, and its up to each community and TO to set and enforce those standards. Its not up to GW to set those standards, although they can certainly influence the community standard with what they do at WHW.
This thread got really rule breaking, really quickly and is now locked. Please bear in mind in the future that being polite and staying on topic are not optional extras but are in fact the rules.
Thanks,
ingtaer.
These blue Space Marines are Ravenguard but those blue Space Marines are Iron Hands. 
Now I have an issue. I think that its reasonable to have a restriction that detachments with different doctrines/traits etc in the same army be easily distinguishable from each other.
At least in the US. Here in the 