At what point is it ok to whip out WYSWYG rules, in a pick up game environment. Again, not tournament, but repeatedly getting people throwing these SM soup lists at me where all the models are blue, but THESE 5 are IF and THESE 5 are Ravenguard, and THESE 10 are.....Enough. Stop, you are hurting my soul here with your nonsense.
I'm all for the new life being breathed into SMs, but I'm sick of seeing all smurf lists being played as every other chapter, and I feel it's being used as a competitive advantage now, to trip up opponents. If I call it out I'm "that guy" for expecting my opponent to re-paint all his models now, or somehow alter them. Which makes me feel like a jerk, because some of these are REALLY well done.
How do you play WYSWYG in non-competitive games with the new codexes dropping everywhere? Do you hold a standard or ask your opponent to somehow mark them? Also, if they are playing this way, do you expect them to have the physical rules? Because that came up a few times, and I usually trust BScribe, but now it's just one more straw etc...
Nah that's bs. If you cannot easily distinguish between chapters it's on them to make that possible. I don't care if they're the wrong colors, but if they're a different chapter they need to be a different color from other models.
If they want to paint the bases different colors or w/e that's fine for normal games.
Argh, yeah I'd absolutely hate this. Play guys as what they're painted and stop trying to game the system to your advantage.
Caveat: *obviously* people can do whatever they like with their models, but if someone's trying to use different CTs with guys all painted the same, that indicates to me they're more interested in squeezing whatever advantage they can out of the rules, rather than in having an immersive, enjoyable game, so I personally have no interest in playing with them.
I think that paint is unimportant. Heck outside of space marine armies and the VERY generic colour blocks they work with, most people cannot even ID the different official paint schemes within their own army block let alone others.
GW sort of bungled the rules for 40K by creating different niche armies and then giving them themed stats and then letting you take "soup" armies with different subfactions at the same time. The problem being that some subfaction blocks are great at close combat; others at ranged. So if you've built a close combat segment of the army it kind of pressures you into making a soup force for those additional bonuses.
So I'd never force them to repaint their entire army or collect a half dozen different armies all the same models jsut in different colours. Esp since next edition GW might change all this and make soups near impossible etc...
Instead forget about different marine regiments and simply focus on the most basic and key element of WYSIWYG - that of can you tell one unit from the other.
IF they have 3 tack marine units infront of you, each with different stats, then they should be identifiable from each other.
This could be different backpack colours; a different rim colour on the base; different basing (one might be grass the other stone etc..). Basically some feature that lets you tell one squad from the other. The stats that they then have are easily recoreded on a clearly written army list that can mark which unit is which with their unique marker.
That way you can tell which is a different unit and you can quickly check which is a different "army" (even though with soup its mostly just jumping for the specific special rules - most likely pairing with the weapons - a ranged team having the force that gives better ranged attack values etc...).
I don't think you are being a jerk, since at this point it is really a kind of advantage for them when you as opponent have trouble identifying what is what.
The easy solution I would expect from someone claiming that he does not want to repaint all his models would be to come with a bunch of different coloured little stickers. This way he could slap a little black sticker on all his "counts as Raven guard" minis, a white one on the White Scars etc. (or on the bases if he is afraid of damaging his paint job)
BaconCatBug wrote: WYSIWYG is not a rule. As long as they are using the correct Citadel™ Miniature for the datasheet it doesn't matter what wargear is represented.
It might not be in the current rules; but its been in there for years; is in most other wargames and is a socially generally expected element within the majority of wargames. Ergo yes you can argue it on a technicality but you're really just beating your head against a brick wall for the most part. Esp when talking about any situation where the game is being played "seriously" and not just a super casual or kids game.
I ended up buying colored sticky dots after the last game, and now if anyone tries it, their models are getting dotted. I was more trying to see if anyone else here is seeing a massive up tick in not getting what you see in front of you. Of my 4 games this weekend, 3 were SM soup. Which I get, new release, everyone wants to try it out. But have some common understanding.
BaconCatBug wrote: WYSIWYG is not a rule. As long as they are using the correct Citadel™ Miniature for the datasheet it doesn't matter what wargear is represented.
It might not be in the current rules; but its been in there for years; is in most other wargames and is a socially generally expected element within the majority of wargames. Ergo yes you can argue it on a technicality but you're really just beating your head against a brick wall for the most part. Esp when talking about any situation where the game is being played "seriously" and not just a super casual or kids game.
The closest thing we had to a rule was in 3rd ed, and it wasn't an actual rule but expected etiquette.
I would say that it would be kind of a jerk move to strongly enforce colors and bits in a pick up game and casual environment. HOWEVER I would also strongly not agree with the other person making no effort to distinguish models when they are multiple chapters (I hate that). I would insist that they leave dice on their bases or have some other way to distinguish what the models are for ease of play. Dictating how people paint is not going to make a lot of friends. And few people are like me and play what its painted as because its House Terryn rules or no house at all even on Castellans
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I ended up buying colored sticky dots after the last game, and now if anyone tries it, their models are getting dotted. I was more trying to see if anyone else here is seeing a massive up tick in not getting what you see in front of you. Of my 4 games this weekend, 3 were SM soup. Which I get, new release, everyone wants to try it out. But have some common understanding.
Am not sure about other places, but if you would glue anything at someone else model, you would probably be kicked out of the store, specially if it was hard to remove.
What I don't get is why people do it. If they take IF and RG in the same list they lose doctrins, and those are like the reason to play space marines. Very strange.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I ended up buying colored sticky dots after the last game, and now if anyone tries it, their models are getting dotted. I was more trying to see if anyone else here is seeing a massive up tick in not getting what you see in front of you. Of my 4 games this weekend, 3 were SM soup. Which I get, new release, everyone wants to try it out. But have some common understanding.
Am not sure about other places, but if you would glue anything at someone else model, you would probably be kicked out of the store, specially if it was hard to remove.
What I don't get is why people do it. If they take IF and RG in the same list they lose doctrins, and those are like the reason to play space marines. Very strange.
Because pre-2019 Codex, there was literally zero downside to souping. Even in the new SM codex, the Combat Doctrine extension doesn't outweigh the ability to give your shooty units and choppy units different traits.
BaconCatBug wrote: WYSIWYG is not a rule. As long as they are using the correct Citadel™ Miniature for the datasheet it doesn't matter what wargear is represented.
There you go again with your binary approach. It may not be a literal rule in the holy of holies rulebook that you seem to think every word in it is some kind of edict from on high; but it IS a rule insofar right now as a form of gentlemen's agreement. In the same vein as counts-as, rule of cool and several others.
if they are all painted the same they imo need to be the same chapter. my marines are a custom color with background, a darker blue than ultramarines with a blue-green color transition paint over it and rose gold/ gunmetal accents. I usually run them as iron hands but might try other tactics if i bring them. as they all match though they are always the same chapter. maybe ravenguard successor or ultramarines successor but none of this these guys looking the same are ravenguard while these other ones are ultramarines and the others are iron hands.
If i wanted to do that I would probably paint some red-purple transition paint marines and that would be the other chapter.
Often i find the same people who want to run the same models as 3 chapters will conveniently use whatever chapter tactic benefits the unit at the time like... oh they are mius 1 to hit due to being 12 inches away... then after wounds... ignoreing on 6 for iron hands. After that they get mad when you call them out on the horsegak of claiming the unit is both "oh honest mistake i was confused" "like motherf@(#er how do you think i feel having to track all your s#(*t"
BaconCatBug wrote: WYSIWYG is not a rule. As long as they are using the correct Citadel™ Miniature for the datasheet it doesn't matter what wargear is represented.
There you go again with your binary approach. It may not be a literal rule in the holy of holies rulebook that you seem to think every word in it is some kind of edict from on high; but it IS a rule insofar right now as a form of gentlemen's agreement. In the same vein as counts-as, rule of cool and several others.
But you knew this already and just wanted to be a knob.
He's not being binary...
The OP asks for opinion on the enforceability of WYSIWYG, and certain member voiced their opinion that not following WYSIWYG is essentially cheating.
BCB is merely stating the fact that because WYSIWYG is not an actual written rule, and therefore cannot be "broken", and there's no actual way of "enforcing" it other than mutual agreement.
G00fySmiley wrote: if they are all painted the same they imo need to be the same chapter. my marines are a custom color with background, a darker blue than ultramarines with a blue-green color transition paint over it and rose gold/ gunmetal accents. I usually run them as iron hands but might try other tactics if i bring them. as they all match though they are always the same chapter. maybe ravenguard successor or ultramarines successor but none of this these guys looking the same are ravenguard while these other ones are ultramarines and the others are iron hands.
If i wanted to do that I would probably paint some red-purple transition paint marines and that would be the other chapter.
Often i find the same people who want to run the same models as 3 chapters will conveniently use whatever chapter tactic benefits the unit at the time like... oh they are mius 1 to hit due to being 12 inches away... then after wounds... ignoreing on 6 for iron hands. After that they get mad when you call them out on the horsegak of claiming the unit is both "oh honest mistake i was confused" "like motherf@(#er how do you think i feel having to track all your s#(*t"
Yeah, I always draw the line at stuff needs to have some kind of easy to identify differentiator. Usually, this is some kind of ring of color on the base. Occasionally I am OK with a very easily differentiable detachment - say, "All the tanks are in one detachment and they're this" - but usually if they're all the same color I'd like them to be all the same tactic.
"I don't like the rules GW gave me for X and I think Y better fits how I think the subfaction should play" I will always be sympathetic towards. My Evil Sunz painted orks are almost always freebootas, simply because I love the mad max "Witness me!" feeling of the freeboota klan kultur.
Often i find the same people who want to run the same models as 3 chapters will conveniently use whatever chapter tactic benefits the unit at the time like... oh they are mius 1 to hit due to being 12 inches away... then after wounds... ignoreing on 6 for iron hands. After that they get mad when you call them out on the horsegak of claiming the unit is both "oh honest mistake i was confused" "like motherf@(#er how do you think i feel having to track all your s#(*t"
I would prefer my opponents keep it down to three things that are not WYSWYG, and make sure they are broad categories and consistent. All my bikes are WS, all flamers are plasma. Stuff like that. Once I start needing to ask what everything thing is every turn, the fun goes away quickly.
BaconCatBug wrote: WYSIWYG is not a rule. As long as they are using the correct Citadel™ Miniature for the datasheet it doesn't matter what wargear is represented.
There you go again with your binary approach. It may not be a literal rule in the holy of holies rulebook that you seem to think every word in it is some kind of edict from on high; but it IS a rule insofar right now as a form of gentlemen's agreement. In the same vein as counts-as, rule of cool and several others.
But you knew this already and just wanted to be a knob.
He's not being binary...
The OP asks for opinion on the enforceability of WYSIWYG, and certain member voiced their opinion that not following WYSIWYG is essentially cheating.
BCB is merely stating the fact that because WYSIWYG is not an actual written rule, and therefore cannot be "broken", and there's no actual way of "enforcing" it other than mutual agreement.
Bingo. If someone wants to use their Crimson Fists or Salamanders as something more functional, why should I stop them? It's GWs fault their rules suck, and it's the least I can do to help out an opponent
Worst case scenario, I would ask my opponent to write a note on a piece of paper and slip it under the models/units in question so that neither of us can get confused.
We're all capable of using markers/notes to aid us in the game.
I do ask that the benefit of the doubt to fall on me always, because my opponent should be the one that's liable for bringing potential confusion.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I ended up buying colored sticky dots after the last game, and now if anyone tries it, their models are getting dotted. I was more trying to see if anyone else here is seeing a massive up tick in not getting what you see in front of you. Of my 4 games this weekend, 3 were SM soup. Which I get, new release, everyone wants to try it out. But have some common understanding.
Am not sure about other places, but if you would glue anything at someone else model, you would probably be kicked out of the store, specially if it was hard to remove.
What I don't get is why people do it. If they take IF and RG in the same list they lose doctrins, and those are like the reason to play space marines. Very strange.
Because pre-2019 Codex, there was literally zero downside to souping. Even in the new SM codex, the Combat Doctrine extension doesn't outweigh the ability to give your shooty units and choppy units different traits.
okey, but this makes sense for an old books army soup then. And it doesn't have to be bad. I don't play AoS, but I know a guy here had really nice free people army, and his units were everything elfes, dwarfs, resculpted stormcasts and even chaos models he used as "pokutnicy"(no idea the name in english), dudes that whip themselfs.
Still, one can ask, in tournaments they have to be easily to idenify, outsideof them it is more free for all, but still asking if your now shoting the 2 man or 7 man auto bolter unit with your hellblasters, should not be killing the game. I do agree that it does give a window to cheat. Or wierd stuff. Like I seen to guys almost come to blows over whose drones specific models were, both of them were tau, and both had black undercoated models and they kind of a meshed in to each other on an objective. Store owner had to interveen.
"I don't like the rules GW gave me for X and I think Y better fits how I think the subfaction should play" I will always be sympathetic towards.
yeah I don't think something like faction loyality and rules really exists in w40k. And I really wouldn't want a WB player have to play with WB rules, just because he likes WB in the lore. Specially when their rules are nothing like the lore, from books.
Karol wrote: What I don't get is why people do it. If they take IF and RG in the same list they lose doctrins, and those are like the reason to play space marines. Very strange.
If they're mixing Imperial Fists and Raven Guard, then all the units will have the standard Combat Doctrine rules. Not sure if they lose the RG special bit, though.
From what I understand about doctrines, even if you have codex marines, but one is IF while the other is RG, you get no doctrines at all. Same as droping an assasin turn 2, or taking BA marines with your dudes.
Polonius wrote: All rules are only enforced through mutual agreement.
But not all mutual agreements are rules.
But not all rules are RAW.
If rules isn't RAW, then it aint a rule. Then it is some sort of interpretation social thingy, where it works better for the person who can force the other one to fold. With RAW you fold only to the rule, not the other player and his social skills or status.
Nazrak wrote: Argh, yeah I'd absolutely hate this. Play guys as what they're painted and stop trying to game the system to your advantage.
What if my guys aren't painted in the colours of any particular subfaction?
Then play them as whatever subfaction you like, but my preference would be that someone be consistent, rather than mixing and matching to gain the most benefit.
Karol wrote: What I don't get is why people do it. If they take IF and RG in the same list they lose doctrins, and those are like the reason to play space marines. Very strange.
If they're mixing Imperial Fists and Raven Guard, then all the units will have the standard Combat Doctrine rules. Not sure if they lose the RG special bit, though.
Basically SM work on varying levels of purity now.
Pure Single Chapter Space Marines w/ Single Chapter Detachments: Chapter Trait, Combat Doctrines and Combat Doctrine Extension (for UM and WS right now).
Pure Space Marines w/ Single Chapter Detachments: Chapter Trait, Combat Doctrines
Pure Space Marines w/ Mixed Chapter Detachments: Combat Doctrines
Soup w/ Single Chapter Detachments: Chapter Trait.
Soup w/ Mixed Chapter Detachments: Nothing.
Often i find the same people who want to run the same models as 3 chapters will conveniently use whatever chapter tactic benefits the unit at the time like... oh they are mius 1 to hit due to being 12 inches away... then after wounds... ignoreing on 6 for iron hands. After that they get mad when you call them out on the horsegak of claiming the unit is both "oh honest mistake i was confused" "like motherf@(#er how do you think i feel having to track all your s#(*t"
Yeah that didn't happen.
can confirm had a player try and pull the both strats and get upset at me for pointing it out like "its an honest mistake" after pulling that gak all game (though usually it was not as brash as using the strats in the same phase on the same unit)
its like people who get annoyed when you ask them what unit is in which transport and then call them out later for deciding a wave serpant with dire avengers declared on drop is the wave serpant now that has fire dragons because its closer to one of my battle wagons. and the other one is near an objective with grots so the dire avengers can take it easy.
Polonius wrote: All rules are only enforced through mutual agreement.
But not all mutual agreements are rules.
Yeah, but at that point who cares what the difference is?
I bet more people understand "rules" like the "rule of three," or ITC scoring, than really understanding the rules for piling in/consolidating in close combat.
The OP wasn't asking some sort of pseudo--legal question, which always reaches a predictable dead end due to the lack of third party arbiter. Instead, they were asking a question about norms, which is if it's okay to demand that an opponent more clearly mark different subfactions when they have different rules. The answer to that will be a solid, but not unanimous, "yes."
A sort of related question for all the people saying "oh it's fine as long as they stick something on them to distinguish units, or paint all the bases differently" or whatever – does it not bug you how terrible that would look?
Karol wrote: If rules isn't RAW, then it aint a rule. Then it is some sort of interpretation social thingy, where it works better for the person who can force the other one to fold. With RAW you fold only to the rule, not the other player and his social skills or status.
This is true only if you define "rule" in such a narrow way as to basically reach a tautology. Why yes, only the rules written in the core manual are core manual rules. Hurray for such insight! A truly is A!
40k requires a lot more material than that. We need missions, codices, FAQs, bonus datasheets, terrain guidelines, etc. You can hem and haw over what is actually the "rules," but they're part of the rules in any practical sense.
Polonius wrote: All rules are only enforced through mutual agreement.
But not all mutual agreements are rules.
Yeah, but at that point who cares what the difference is?
I bet more people understand "rules" like the "rule of three," or ITC scoring, than really understanding the rules for piling in/consolidating in close combat.
The OP wasn't asking some sort of pseudo--legal question, which always reaches a predictable dead end due to the lack of third party arbiter. Instead, they were asking a question about norms, which is if it's okay to demand that an opponent more clearly mark different subfactions when they have different rules. The answer to that will be a solid, but not unanimous, "yes."
We are expected to follow all the rules of the game (You can only move the unit up to its Movement characteristics; you can only declare a charge if youre wihin 12" of your target, etc). Expected standards and etiquettes are not essentially "rules" per se, though "house rules" or any of that sort would undoubtedly fall within the subset of what a "rule" encompasses.
However, because these 'local laws' are not readily available to the general public without prior knowledge, anything that is outside of written rule that is available to the general public should be agreed upon by both parties prior to the game.
'My army is painted as Ultramarines, but I'm running them exclusively as Raven Guard.'
Perfectly reasonable.
'My army is painted as Ultramarines, but one detachment is Ultramarines, one is Raven Guard, one is Salamanders, and they don't actually have flamers, they're plasma, and...'
Not reasonable at all.
The golden rule should be 'Is this confusing to my opponent?'. Needing to remember a laundry list of caveats and distinctions is definitely confusing, but I don't think running an entire army under a different Chapter's rules is unreasonable, and expecting people to always use the 'correct' rules is excessive.
Nazrak wrote: A sort of related question for all the people saying "oh it's fine as long as they stick something on them to distinguish units, or paint all the bases differently" or whatever – does it not bug you how terrible that would look?
I would guess these armies already look pretty terrible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skchsan wrote: We are expected to follow all the rules of the game (You can only move the unit up to its Movement characteristics; you can only declare a charge if youre wihin 12" of your target, etc). Expected standards and etiquettes are not essentially "rules" per se, though "house rules" or any of that sort would undoubtedly fall within the subset of what a "rule" encompasses.
However, because these 'local laws' are not readily available to the general public without prior knowledge, anything that is outside of written rule that is available to the general public should be agreed upon by both parties prior to the game.
Again, you fail to articulate a difference in what makes a rule a rule, other than notice or source. If you're expected to follow the RAW, and expected to follow standards and etiquette, and there is similar enforcement or lack there of, in what way is there a meaningful difference?
catbarf wrote:'My army is painted as Ultramarines, but I'm running them exclusively as Raven Guard.'
Perfectly reasonable.
Oddly, this is a recent change. there was serious drama in prior editions over whether this was even permissible!
'My army is painted as Ultramarines, but one detachment is Ultramarines, one is Raven Guard, one is Salamanders, and they don't actually have flamers, they're plasma, and...'
Not reasonable at all.
The golden rule should be 'Is this confusing to my opponent?'. Needing to remember a laundry list of caveats and distinctions is definitely confusing, but I don't think running an entire army under a different Chapter's rules is unreasonable, and expecting people to always use the 'correct' rules is excessive.
A lot of events, especially more casual ones, will say something like "it's okay to say that all flamers are plasmas. It's not okay to say that some flamers are flamers, and some are plasmas."
It's kinda getting hard every pick up game to be like :
Hello, this is my army. I play by Ro3, points not power level, WYSIWYG, no counts as, updated to most recent faq/book, I don't touch models until I am 100% going to move them, please don't touch my models, and no I won't play your themed army made up of Chaos Knights and GSC soup, please don't ask.
It's getting harder and harder to say "I play by the commonly accepted rules, and I didn't come to play a game that isn't 40k.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: At what point is it ok to whip out WYSWYG rules, in a pick up game environment. Again, not tournament, but repeatedly getting people throwing these SM soup lists at me where all the models are blue, but THESE 5 are IF and THESE 5 are Ravenguard, and THESE 10 are.....Enough. Stop, you are hurting my soul here with your nonsense.
I'm all for the new life being breathed into SMs, but I'm sick of seeing all smurf lists being played as every other chapter, and I feel it's being used as a competitive advantage now, to trip up opponents. If I call it out I'm "that guy" for expecting my opponent to re-paint all his models now, or somehow alter them. Which makes me feel like a jerk, because some of these are REALLY well done.
How do you play WYSWYG in non-competitive games with the new codexes dropping everywhere? Do you hold a standard or ask your opponent to somehow mark them? Also, if they are playing this way, do you expect them to have the physical rules? Because that came up a few times, and I usually trust BScribe, but now it's just one more straw etc...
Yes, you're being a jerk.
As long as they're not trying to pull a fast one, and the 5 that are X abide by the rules for X and the 5 that are Y abide by the rules for Y, then it's legal.
It helps to have the definitions abide by general rules, or be visibly different.
Hello, this is my army. I play by Ro3, points not power level, WYSIWYG, no counts as, updated to most recent faq/book, I don't touch models until I am 100% going to move them, please don't touch my models, and no I won't play your themed army made up of Chaos Knights and GSC soup, please don't ask.
It's getting harder and harder to say "I play by the commonly accepted rules, and I didn't come to play a game that isn't 40k.
What do you mean by this? It's pretty easy to get a pick up game as long as everybody is playing with the same standardized rules, such as Ro3, 2k points, all FAQ's, abiding by detachment keyword restrictions, etc.
Hello, this is my army. I play by Ro3, points not power level, WYSIWYG, no counts as, updated to most recent faq/book, I don't touch models until I am 100% going to move them, please don't touch my models, and no I won't play your themed army made up of Chaos Knights and GSC soup, please don't ask.
It's getting harder and harder to say "I play by the commonly accepted rules, and I didn't come to play a game that isn't 40k.
This is why I play only competitive games and stay in the tourney scene. Better people, More fun, Better Experience.
Hello, this is my army. I play by Ro3, points not power level, WYSIWYG, no counts as, updated to most recent faq/book, I don't touch models until I am 100% going to move them, please don't touch my models, and no I won't play your themed army made up of Chaos Knights and GSC soup, please don't ask.
It's getting harder and harder to say "I play by the commonly accepted rules, and I didn't come to play a game that isn't 40k.
What do you mean by this? It's pretty easy to get a pick up game as long as everybody is playing with the same standardized rules, such as Ro3, 2k points, all FAQ's, abiding by detachment keyword restrictions, etc.
Everything I mentioned is not a rule anywhere. So it's my personal play style, or if you will, my expectation. Ro3 isn't a rule, nor is touching of models, when to move a model, which FAQ to play by, themed lists, WYSIWYG, or power level over points. And literally what my post is describing, at the very least, is that the majority of casuals DON'T play by a set standard.
So, you say I'm being a jerk for setting a standard, and then tell me it's easy to play by a standard, just play by a standard?
Often i find the same people who want to run the same models as 3 chapters will conveniently use whatever chapter tactic benefits the unit at the time like... oh they are mius 1 to hit due to being 12 inches away... then after wounds... ignoreing on 6 for iron hands. After that they get mad when you call them out on the horsegak of claiming the unit is both "oh honest mistake i was confused" "like motherf@(#er how do you think i feel having to track all your s#(*t"
Yeah that didn't happen.
can confirm had a player try and pull the both strats and get upset at me for pointing it out like "its an honest mistake" after pulling that gak all game (though usually it was not as brash as using the strats in the same phase on the same unit)
Gotta be honest, I made that mistake myself the last time I played Crimson Fists and Salamanders at the same time, trying to re-roll hits and wounds for the Crimson Fists. Yes, both chapters are painted in THEIR colours - I'm just that used to playing Salamanders. At least I caught myself trying to pull that most of the time.
If your doing a behavior that causes arguments you are being the problem.
But who's causing the argument - the one that plays 10 tactical marines as Salamanders and 10 other tactical marines as Iron Hands, while all 20 are painted the same white-and-blue colour scheme, or the person that doesn't want to play against someone like that?
Often i find the same people who want to run the same models as 3 chapters will conveniently use whatever chapter tactic benefits the unit at the time like... oh they are mius 1 to hit due to being 12 inches away... then after wounds... ignoreing on 6 for iron hands. After that they get mad when you call them out on the horsegak of claiming the unit is both "oh honest mistake i was confused" "like motherf@(#er how do you think i feel having to track all your s#(*t"
Yeah that didn't happen.
can confirm had a player try and pull the both strats and get upset at me for pointing it out like "its an honest mistake" after pulling that gak all game (though usually it was not as brash as using the strats in the same phase on the same unit)
its like people who get annoyed when you ask them what unit is in which transport and then call them out later for deciding a wave serpant with dire avengers declared on drop is the wave serpant now that has fire dragons because its closer to one of my battle wagons. and the other one is near an objective with grots so the dire avengers can take it easy.
Almost all games I have played versus people actually, actively cheating, it has been this blatant. Because if people who cheat were smart, they could win without cheating.
Willful cheating is almost always:
-Saying a dice result was something other than it was and quickly picking it up
-Blatantly fabricating rules or saying a model's stats are different from what they are.
-Cheating at the list-building step (Taking way more points than the other player has, or list-tailoring and taking wargear options based on what is in the opponent's army)
It's never some creative thing. I can absolutely see someone doing the -1 to hit and the 6+ fnp.
For those of you who don't own the codex or didn't read the part of the codex that's relevant to this 'conversation'...
GW has now clarified, in writing, as rules, that your paint job + iconography now 100% makes the decision of what chapter you are.
If you're color scheme and chapter symbol match Ultramatines... You are an Ultramarine and can only use the applicable Ultramarines rules.
If your color scheme and chapter symbol match that of a known successor chapter... You are that successor chapter and must use all applicable rules.
If your color scheme does not match Imperial Fists than you are not Imperial Fists and therefore cannot use the Imperial Fists rules.
There are of course mechanics in place (i.e. stratagems and other written rules) that provide a manner of flexibility, but overall GW has put their foot down; drawn a line in the sand... No more picking and choosing the best rules for game advantage. Your paint job + chapter symbol now 100% matters.
I expect and sincerely hope this carries over to other factions when their codex's are re-released.
Hello, this is my army. I play by Ro3, points not power level, WYSIWYG, no counts as, updated to most recent faq/book, I don't touch models until I am 100% going to move them, please don't touch my models, and no I won't play your themed army made up of Chaos Knights and GSC soup, please don't ask.
It's getting harder and harder to say "I play by the commonly accepted rules, and I didn't come to play a game that isn't 40k.
What do you mean by this? It's pretty easy to get a pick up game as long as everybody is playing with the same standardized rules, such as Ro3, 2k points, all FAQ's, abiding by detachment keyword restrictions, etc.
Everything I mentioned is not a rule anywhere. So it's my personal play style, or if you will, my expectation. Ro3 isn't a rule, nor is touching of models, when to move a model, which FAQ to play by, themed lists, WYSIWYG, or power level over points. And literally what my post is describing, at the very least, is that the majority of casuals DON'T play by a set standard.
So, you say I'm being a jerk for setting a standard, and then tell me it's easy to play by a standard, just play by a standard?
*eyeroll*
The Rule of Three is published on page 15 of the Warhammer 40k core rulebook FAQ under "Organized Event Guidelines." It's listed as the standard GW-issued recommendation for matched play events, with the caveat that an event organizer could see fit to modify it. While it is not technically a universally applicable rule neither is using the force organization chart or even being battle forged. It isn't a rule, yes, but it is a guideline that says that in a specific scenario, it becomes a rule. And because we play under the condition "as if this were an organized event as per the rules and guidelines accepted by the ITC," [if we aren't already playing in an organized event], the guideline is approved by the "event coordinator" and becomes a rule.
You can be deliberately obtuse about it, but I will have a pick-up game with my tournament-compliant army without any further discussion, but you will at least have to confirm with you opponent that they are willing to play a narrative game with your Chaos Knights + GSC.
oni wrote: For those of you who don't own the codex or didn't read the part of the codex that's relevant to this 'conversation'...
GW has now clarified, in writing, as rules, that your paint job + iconography now 100% makes the decision of what chapter you are.
If you're color scheme and chapter symbol match Ultramatines... You are an Ultramarine and can only use the applicable Ultramarines rules.
If your color scheme and chapter symbol match that of a known successor chapter... You are that successor chapter and must use all applicable rules.
If your color scheme does not match Imperial Fists than you are not Imperial Fists and therefore cannot use the Imperial Fists rules.
There are of course mechanics in place (i.e. stratagems and other written rules) that provide a manner of flexibility, but overall GW has put their foot down; drawn a line in the sand... No more picking and choosing the best rules for game advantage. Your paint job + chapter symbol now 100% matters.
I expect and sincerely hope this carries over to other factions when their codex's are re-released.
Could you please provide the page with that 'relevant' part of the codex then, for all of us uneducated Space Marine players?
oni wrote: For those of you who don't own the codex or didn't read the part of the codex that's relevant to this 'conversation'...
GW has now clarified, in writing, as rules, that your paint job + iconography now 100% makes the decision of what chapter you are.
If you're color scheme and chapter symbol match Ultramatines... You are an Ultramarine and can only use the applicable Ultramarines rules.
If your color scheme and chapter symbol match that of a known successor chapter... You are that successor chapter and must use all applicable rules.
If your color scheme does not match Imperial Fists than you are not Imperial Fists and therefore cannot use the Imperial Fists rules.
There are of course mechanics in place (i.e. stratagems and other written rules) that provide a manner of flexibility, but overall GW has put their foot down; drawn a line in the sand... No more picking and choosing the best rules for game advantage. Your paint job + chapter symbol now 100% matters.
I expect and sincerely hope this carries over to other factions when their codex's are re-released.
And I hope not because its silly on several fronts
1) Barring Marines, who get unique models for all of their special divisions, the other races don't. The difference between a Behemoth and Kracken Tyranid is NOTHING save for a handful of special rules that effect the army. That's it nothing else is different - same models, same equipment, same appearance. There's really no reason to "force" everyone to play by the same rules as marines when no one else gets the same kind of support.
2) It means that anyone who paints their own scheme is free to pick whatever they want. Considering that newbies are more likely to follow a studio suggested scheme this means new players are more likely to fall into the trap of getting "faction locked" whilst an experienced player might just use their own scheme to avoid it. It creates a situation where an attempt to enforce painting rules results in unfair bias within the painted model community.
3) GW has made most other factions have different subfaction groups which basically play to a single theme. So one hive fleet might have stat bonuses for ranged combat; another for close combat. I resent the idea that the colour of the model means that you must always stick to the single fleet. That even if you build an entirely close combat army you have to have the ranged bonuses because of the colour of the paint you've chosen to use.
Honestly much of this issue could be resolved by simply doing away with a lot of the soup problems that 40K has and which AoS has managed to thankfully avoid.
oni wrote: For those of you who don't own the codex or didn't read the part of the codex that's relevant to this 'conversation'...
GW has now clarified, in writing, as rules, that your paint job + iconography now 100% makes the decision of what chapter you are.
If you're color scheme and chapter symbol match Ultramatines... You are an Ultramarine and can only use the applicable Ultramarines rules.
If your color scheme and chapter symbol match that of a known successor chapter... You are that successor chapter and must use all applicable rules.
If your color scheme does not match Imperial Fists than you are not Imperial Fists and therefore cannot use the Imperial Fists rules.
There are of course mechanics in place (i.e. stratagems and other written rules) that provide a manner of flexibility, but overall GW has put their foot down; drawn a line in the sand... No more picking and choosing the best rules for game advantage. Your paint job + chapter symbol now 100% matters.
I expect and sincerely hope this carries over to other factions when their codex's are re-released.
Could you please provide the page with that 'relevant' part of the codex then, for all of us uneducated Space Marine players?
Last time I recall reading this rule it was in the GW tournament organising pack. Ergo it was aimed at being a rule for tournaments.
Last time I recall reading this rule it was in the GW tournament organising pack. Ergo it was aimed at being a rule for tournaments.
oni claimed it's in the codex. I am unable to find that in the codex I have with me, and I highly doubt that it was lost when they translated it to the German language. p108 doesn't talk about paint colour, nor do pages 174 and 176. Page 108 at some point even says that you CHOOSE to assign a chapter to a model.
Often i find the same people who want to run the same models as 3 chapters will conveniently use whatever chapter tactic benefits the unit at the time like... oh they are mius 1 to hit due to being 12 inches away... then after wounds... ignoreing on 6 for iron hands. After that they get mad when you call them out on the horsegak of claiming the unit is both "oh honest mistake i was confused" "like motherf@(#er how do you think i feel having to track all your s#(*t"
Yeah that didn't happen.
can confirm had a player try and pull the both strats and get upset at me for pointing it out like "its an honest mistake" after pulling that gak all game (though usually it was not as brash as using the strats in the same phase on the same unit)
Gotta be honest, I made that mistake myself the last time I played Crimson Fists and Salamanders at the same time, trying to re-roll hits and wounds for the Crimson Fists. Yes, both chapters are painted in THEIR colours - I'm just that used to playing Salamanders. At least I caught myself trying to pull that most of the time.
If your doing a behavior that causes arguments you are being the problem.
But who's causing the argument - the one that plays 10 tactical marines as Salamanders and 10 other tactical marines as Iron Hands, while all 20 are painted the same white-and-blue colour scheme, or the person that doesn't want to play against someone like that?
Sorry but y'all play with some slow ass people and might need to to focus yourselves.
Nevelon wrote: I would prefer my opponents keep it down to three things that are not WYSWYG, and make sure they are broad categories and consistent. All my bikes are WS, all flamers are plasma. Stuff like that. Once I start needing to ask what everything thing is every turn, the fun goes away quickly.
Last time I recall reading this rule it was in the GW tournament organising pack. Ergo it was aimed at being a rule for tournaments.
oni claimed it's in the codex. I am unable to find that in the codex I have with me, and I highly doubt that it was lost when they translated it to the German language. p108 doesn't talk about paint colour, nor do pages 174 and 176. Page 108 at some point even says that you CHOOSE to assign a chapter to a model.
Last time I recall reading this rule it was in the GW tournament organising pack. Ergo it was aimed at being a rule for tournaments.
oni claimed it's in the codex. I am unable to find that in the codex I have with me, and I highly doubt that it was lost when they translated it to the German language. p108 doesn't talk about paint colour, nor do pages 174 and 176. Page 108 at some point even says that you CHOOSE to assign a chapter to a model.
This is what they are referencing.
How does that affect anyone that's choosing to make their Chapter SALAMANDERS though? They're not using those pages, nor that successor trait. All it says is that IF you chose to play as e.g. STORM LORDS, and then only IF you chose to pick that specific Successor Tactic, you are then limited to the known First Founding Chapter tactic.
You can't run STORM LORDS and use the Imperial Fists CT, but you can run the same models as IRON LADIES , and you're free to do whatever then. It's not the paint, it's the chapter you chose to assign to your models.
edited: Just to add my opinion on why that is: This prevents people from picking a successor chapter that has actual rules, e.g. datasheets, that are meant to work with a specific Chapter Tactic, and match them up with a completely unintended Chapter Tactic - just like it's not allowed to take Tigurius with the Black Templar Chapter Tactic.
I can see where this is coming from. My friend will do this with his Tau.
"all these guys are borkan, all these guys are farsight, etc"
So I'll say no you're not being "that guy" about it. Don't even get me started on my DE friend and his combat drugs, which is another invisible rule. I think I'm gonna have to pick up squad markers for them
fraser1191 wrote: I can see where this is coming from. My friend will do this with his Tau.
"all these guys are borkan, all these guys are farsight, etc"
So I'll say no you're not being "that guy" about it. Don't even get me started on my DE friend and his combat drugs, which is another invisible rule. I think I'm gonna have to pick up squad markers for them
Yeah - and with Tau that's actually pretty legit since their paint scheme is literally just "the camo scheme most common to the planet that sept represents". My Tau army is painted entirely in a city camo, but I've used two different colors for the sept markings - so some are Sa'cea and some are Bork'an
If your doing a behavior that causes arguments you are being the problem.
But who's causing the argument - the one that plays 10 tactical marines as Salamanders and 10 other tactical marines as Iron Hands, while all 20 are painted the same white-and-blue colour scheme, or the person that doesn't want to play against someone like that?
Voss wrote: Yeah, that may be what oni was referencing, but it doesn't even vaguely say what he claimed.
For the record, I don't own the SM dex, but I recall that image from a similar discussion on Reddit a couple weeks back. No idea if there is anything else similar such as what is in the tournament rules for Warhammer World.
I think it’s perfectly fine to play models with whichever sub-faction rules you feel like playing that day. If my opponent wants to play a 2000 point game and has a different sub-faction for each of their three detachments it doesn’t bother me at all, regardless of how each detachment is painted. If I’m ever unsure about what’s what I can just ask.
oni wrote: For those of you who don't own the codex or didn't read the part of the codex that's relevant to this 'conversation'...
GW has now clarified, in writing, as rules, that your paint job + iconography now 100% makes the decision of what chapter you are.
If you're color scheme and chapter symbol match Ultramatines... You are an Ultramarine and can only use the applicable Ultramarines rules.
If your color scheme and chapter symbol match that of a known successor chapter... You are that successor chapter and must use all applicable rules.
If your color scheme does not match Imperial Fists than you are not Imperial Fists and therefore cannot use the Imperial Fists rules.
There are of course mechanics in place (i.e. stratagems and other written rules) that provide a manner of flexibility, but overall GW has put their foot down; drawn a line in the sand... No more picking and choosing the best rules for game advantage. Your paint job + chapter symbol now 100% matters.
I expect and sincerely hope this carries over to other factions when their codex's are re-released.
I have a very easy rule, if they're painted the same they're from the same chapter. Which chapter that is I don't give a feth about. If you want to play yellow UM or green RG go straight ahead. And if your yellow dudes are UM the first game and a week later they're Salamanders, that's perfectly fine as well. Just make it clear pre-game.
It’s all about having a fun game. If it’s no fun because your opponent is playing three ‘Chapters’ with the same paint scheme and you’ve had to make an AITA thread about it, it’s entirely your prerogative to ask them to not play that way should you play again. If there’s an easy delineator fine, if not it’s not my job to keep track of your three intermixed detachments mid-game. Make it fun for both players or it isn't worth playing.
Last time I recall reading this rule it was in the GW tournament organising pack. Ergo it was aimed at being a rule for tournaments.
oni claimed it's in the codex. I am unable to find that in the codex I have with me, and I highly doubt that it was lost when they translated it to the German language. p108 doesn't talk about paint colour, nor do pages 174 and 176. Page 108 at some point even says that you CHOOSE to assign a chapter to a model.
The reality is that everyone gets something different out of playing 40K. There's the oft touted "we're all one community" garbage...and it's just that; garbage.
There are people who would play 40K using tokens and soda cans as terrain. Then there are people who would not.
There are people who play with unpainted/incorrect minis, where the game 'rules' are the main thing, and aesthetics/terrain/etc. are literally a hindrance to that goal. To others, it is not.
There are mathhammer/tournament players who don't have any interest in fluff/lore/theme/narrative, etc. There are other people who are the opposite.
There are some people who are interested in narrative, thematic, beautifully painted games/armies/terrain. There are others who couldn't give a damn.
There are people who consider wargaming a lightweight hobby, one of many. Others view it as a passionate life-long hobby.
There are a lot of people who want to "game at all costs", "win at all costs", "bitch at all costs", etc.
There are people who view any expectation of effort as gatekeeping or (insert any generic internet hype word). There are other people who are fine expecting a modicum of effort from other players.
There are people who read the rules and pretend to play them verbatim and are happy to condemn any common sense or interpretation of them. Other people are normal, sane, human beings.
There are some people who are 100% by-the-rules in order to practice competitive gaming. There are other people who are flexible, enjoy creating narrative and house-rules to get the most enjoyment out of their games.
Some people will only enjoy a bone-crushing competitive game. Others will only enjoy a narrative, fun, fluffy game filled with 'poor' but thematic choices. _______________________________________________________________
What's my point? Simple. Pick-up games are an absolute crap shoot. There is not one 40K community, nor is there one wargaming community. It's 2019 and the internet is awash with "race to the bottom" apologists who are terrified of having a strong opinion on anything. If you disagree with them you're a 'hater', 'troll', _____ist, warmonger, fiend, criminal, etc. You're not a bad person for having an opinion.
It's your army, your game. Unless you're attending a tournament (a private event/product you've actively chosen to attend of your own free will) you're free to choose who you play your games with/against. There are plenty of polite ways to refuse a game, and if the person involved is insulted...good, they can just be insulted. Never let anyone tell you how you should enjoy your game. Find your niche. Find some opponents to have a similar mindset, and go from there. Will you diminish your pool of possible opponents? Sure. But I can tell you, a joyless 2-3 hour game against someone you're not enjoying playing....is wasted time.
If someone cannot accept a polite refusal to play, they're a child and should be treated as such.
oni wrote: For those of you who don't own the codex or didn't read the part of the codex that's relevant to this 'conversation'...
GW has now clarified, in writing, as rules, that your paint job + iconography now 100% makes the decision of what chapter you are.
If you're color scheme and chapter symbol match Ultramatines... You are an Ultramarine and can only use the applicable Ultramarines rules.
If your color scheme and chapter symbol match that of a known successor chapter... You are that successor chapter and must use all applicable rules.
If your color scheme does not match Imperial Fists than you are not Imperial Fists and therefore cannot use the Imperial Fists rules.
There are of course mechanics in place (i.e. stratagems and other written rules) that provide a manner of flexibility, but overall GW has put their foot down; drawn a line in the sand... No more picking and choosing the best rules for game advantage. Your paint job + chapter symbol now 100% matters.
I expect and sincerely hope this carries over to other factions when their codex's are re-released.
Could you please provide the page with that 'relevant' part of the codex then, for all of us uneducated Space Marine players?
I'm not at home to give an exact page number, but if I recall correctly a large part of it precedes the new custom (i.e. create your own) chapter tactics and there's more in the Ultramarines and White Scars supplements.
I have the SM codex and the Ultramarines supplement and was quite pleased when I read this as I've always thought it was crappy to pick & choose optimal rules; that just because the model has power armor it can be whatever chapter has the best rules for the current meta. Glad GW finally stepped up to the plate about the issue.
Jimbobbyish wrote: For clarification from OP, is the concern that your opponent might change a units gear or traits mid game?
To be honest, cheating is not my concern. It's the fact that I have to play at a hyper attentive style whereby I have to memorize multiple rule sets that call my moves into question for various circumstances, while all of them look alike. It's multiplicative effect on my ability to play the game presents a challenge at best, a second job at worst. It's making it less fun for me, but I've been allowing it because people (usually younger than me and just as inexperienced) are trying to find an army that they enjoy. My point is, all the SMs tend to play the same. One might be slightly stronger at melee, another at shooting, but it's not like an entirely different army.
So I either want to ask:
1. Please make your army mono-dex until you properly signify on your models which are different
2. Please paint your models to represent what they are.
Jimbobbyish wrote: For clarification from OP, is the concern that your opponent might change a units gear or traits mid game?
I think it can be more than that. What if Jumbobbyish:
Traveled to Las Vegas ($500)
Went to LVO (200)
Stayed at a hotel (300)
Brought his army all painted and collected for 2 years painted as Carlsons Goatropers (priceless)
Played 6 games to make it to the final table (3 days of vegas time man)
Was on the Stream (Huge Epeen!)
And then loses the game cause that model with a Storm bolter is actually a Multimelta SUCKER!
Now that is a stupid out of the far left can't happen anology, but how about:
I take an evening away from the Family, I negotiated a kitchen pass, I painted here and there for hours, and I get to the store, and I'm proud I spent hours of late night time memorizing the rules, and its the final decisive moment of the game.. AND ITS A MULTIMELTA SUCKER! And I told you 2 hours ago at Set up so that makes it better.
I take an evening away from the Family, I negotiated a kitchen pass, I painted here and there for hours, and I get to the store, and I'm proud I spent hours of late night time memorizing the rules, and its the final decisive moment of the game.. AND ITS A MULTIMELTA SUCKER! And I told you 2 hours ago at Set up so that makes it better.
Thats called losing a game to a player who clearly communicated what his models and rules were, in a setting where you, the opposing player understood and agreed to those rules, then threw a hissy fit when you lost.
But the non-wysiwyg player is *clearly* the problem in this scenario
Seems kinda extreme there, buddy. Maybe you've had experiences where every opponent you've come across has been gaming the system to eke out more victories, but my experience is just that sometimes (just sometimes) me, or someone else, might wanna just TRY out something new without either buying, building, and painting new models or repainting the ones we got every time we wanna test out something. If it's a chronic thing, I can see being irked about it (cuz if you've spent the last 5 games using the same units, you've had time to make adjustments), but the other 99% of the time? Not a big deal.
I take an evening away from the Family, I negotiated a kitchen pass, I painted here and there for hours, and I get to the store, and I'm proud I spent hours of late night time memorizing the rules, and its the final decisive moment of the game.. AND ITS A MULTIMELTA SUCKER! And I told you 2 hours ago at Set up so that makes it better.
Thats called losing a game to a player who clearly communicated what his models and rules were, in a setting where you, the opposing player understood and agreed to those rules, then threw a hissy fit when you lost.
But the non-wysiwyg player is *clearly* the problem in this scenario
But go back to the OP... he doesn't want to play you to avoid this situation... so why is he being the jerk?
And realistically, it just created a bad experience for both, and now maybe neither ones is playing 40K anymore. How was this good for the hobby?
Last time I recall reading this rule it was in the GW tournament organising pack. Ergo it was aimed at being a rule for tournaments.
oni claimed it's in the codex. I am unable to find that in the codex I have with me, and I highly doubt that it was lost when they translated it to the German language. p108 doesn't talk about paint colour, nor do pages 174 and 176. Page 108 at some point even says that you CHOOSE to assign a chapter to a model.
This is what they are referencing.
That still doesn't say anything about paint jobs.
Yes it does. How else would your army be Storm Lords if not for a paint job? Learn to infer.
Last time I recall reading this rule it was in the GW tournament organising pack. Ergo it was aimed at being a rule for tournaments.
oni claimed it's in the codex. I am unable to find that in the codex I have with me, and I highly doubt that it was lost when they translated it to the German language. p108 doesn't talk about paint colour, nor do pages 174 and 176. Page 108 at some point even says that you CHOOSE to assign a chapter to a model.
This is what they are referencing.
That still doesn't say anything about paint jobs.
Yes it does. How else would your army be Storm Lords if not for a paint job? Learn to infer.
I guess that means if you're color blind and can't paint corresponding chapter colors you cant play 40k. That really sucks.
Grimtuff wrote: Yes it does. How else would your army be Storm Lords if not for a paint job? Learn to infer.
You picked STORM LORDS to replace <CHAPTER>
You know exactly what GW mean by this, especially considering it is in line with the WHW tournament rules. Don’t be so obtuse.
Do you have to use Utramarine blue to represent ultramarines? What if you wanted the blue to be less primary and bit more desaturated?
What if you thought Caliban Green was a bit too dark for your tastes and decided to paint it closer to Salamanders green. Am I forced to play my dark angels army as salamanders?
flandarz wrote: Seems kinda extreme there, buddy. Maybe you've had experiences where every opponent you've come across has been gaming the system to eke out more victories, but my experience is just that sometimes (just sometimes) me, or someone else, might wanna just TRY out something new without either buying, building, and painting new models or repainting the ones we got every time we wanna test out something. If it's a chronic thing, I can see being irked about it (cuz if you've spent the last 5 games using the same units, you've had time to make adjustments), but the other 99% of the time? Not a big deal.
Yeah see that isnt the premise. The OP talked about a pick up game. Not me and my good buddy jim tossed some stuff on the table to try the new release.
Gaming should be fun. If your fun is ruining someone's play and feeling great you won cause they forgot it was a multimelta, I don't want to play you.
Facebook was the best thing for this game. Now I can dial in to the people I want to play. Competitive ITC rules, 2K points, with a chess clock and tournament rules. No more getting to the store and finding out the only player available is that dude that suddenly only has 40 flamers that look like stormbolters cause your playing a grot horde army.
I went with a DIY chapter just for this. I change rules on the fly based on my moods, and I never soup between chapters.
Still, I would get pissed off too if someone played with a non easily distinguiseable army, with a heavy mix. Thankfully it's not the case. Most play with half unpainted, never souping, just 1 chapter ahahah.
Grimtuff wrote: Yes it does. How else would your army be Storm Lords if not for a paint job? Learn to infer.
You picked STORM LORDS to replace <CHAPTER>
You know exactly what GW mean by this, especially considering it is in line with the WHW tournament rules. Don’t be so obtuse.
Again, as I explained earlier: The rules literally tell you to pick a chapter, eg BLOOD RAVENS, for your models.
There is no need to infer anything, we have clear instructions, and they do not take the paint on your model into account.
That being said it's of course your right to refuse to play versus e.g Green Dragon themed Iron Hands. But that's your decision and not forced onto you by the rules of this game.
If you're playing with multiple sub-factions as part of a larger army from one book - be it SM, CSM, or whatever - it needs to be simple and clear to your opponent that these models are from different sub-factions.
I don't think it's an issue if they have to check which is which, but that they are different is what's important.
One of the earlier discussions about this I've seen used a phrase about "not increasing the cognitive load for your opponent", which I quite like.
Dysartes wrote: If you're playing with multiple sub-factions as part of a larger army from one book - be it SM, CSM, or whatever - it needs to be simple and clear to your opponent that these models are from different sub-factions.
I don't think it's an issue if they have to check which is which, but that they are different is what's important.
One of the earlier discussions about this I've seen used a phrase about "not increasing the cognitive load for your opponent", which I quite like.
I have it on the sheet of paper I give them with my list, and announce it to them when I stage my models before putting them on the board. That said, it'll probably be an obsolete problem when Legends and our full codex drops.
oni wrote: I'm not at home to give an exact page number, but if I recall correctly a large part of it precedes the new custom (i.e. create your own) chapter tactics and there's more in the Ultramarines and White Scars supplements.
I have the SM codex and the Ultramarines supplement and was quite pleased when I read this as I've always thought it was crappy to pick & choose optimal rules; that just because the model has power armor it can be whatever chapter has the best rules for the current meta. Glad GW finally stepped up to the plate about the issue.
I only have the codex, and it doesn't contain anything that tells us that paint dictates chapter, at all. I've checked the pages you're referring to (it's 176 and 174 I believe) and they just don't state what you remember them stating. Now, granted, I don't have any of the supplements since all three chapters I own aren't out yet (and I personally don't run my marines as chapters other than what they're painted as anymore), but I highly doubt that they contain anything like that either.
Dysartes wrote: If you're playing with multiple sub-factions as part of a larger army from one book - be it SM, CSM, or whatever - it needs to be simple and clear to your opponent that these models are from different sub-factions.
I don't think it's an issue if they have to check which is which, but that they are different is what's important.
One of the earlier discussions about this I've seen used a phrase about "not increasing the cognitive load for your opponent", which I quite like.
In some cases just the models make it clear. For example, all my Mk3 dudes are for the Raptors, and meanwhile my Minotaurs don't even have Power Armor present. They're all part of the same force but my HQ dudes are doing different jobs and know how to do their jobs.
I definitely plan on using my crimson fist army as other chapters, I've spent nearly a year painting a large force with loads of different options to try out and Jim not going to re do a while other army just to try some rules out.
No one calls out eldar players or guard or anything else for having different painted armies and using different rules. As long as everything is WYSIWYG then I don't see the problem running your stuff with different rules.
I empathize with the issue of an opponent running multiple subfactions of the same faction within the same with no discernible indicators. I would probably play them, but ask if it would be possible for them next time to mark which unit is which subfaction. At the same time, I am probably is the bottom percentile of people here that cares about winning games. That said, I can't say I like the idea of mixing subfactions within an army. I know it is entirely probable that it would happen in 42nd millennium, I just think it would be a rare enough thing that it feels like more of a narrative place. In matched play it just feels like the bad wrong/munchkin way of min/maxing ones army to me.
As to the larger play them as they are painted idea. I don't mind any player playing their army as a different subfaction. I mean it can feel a little off with space marines since each chapter's 'thing' is so well known that it seems strange to paint them like said chapter then play them like a totally different chapter. I don't really like the idea of a sudden influx of Iron Hand armies with every kind chapter of emblem and color but the hand and black/white. Again, that just feels like the player is being a fair weather fan in a hobby that takes most a fair amount of time to get models looking nice for game built more on the quality of lore than the rules. But that is just me.
Even then, I can understand not wanting to play the subfaction rules the models are painted as. There are a bunch of reasons beyond, 'they aren't the strongest.' Which really is the only reason I am sort of bothered by it. For me, I have a good number of Kill Team factions I painted up well before Elites. I chose the sneakier subfaction (Stygies VIII and Jormungandr) mostly because I like the color scheme, sneaky subfactions seem like a good fit for Kill Team and are all that common. I never really thought about traits getting added to Kill Team. Now that they are there, I can't say like the sneaky subfaction one mostly because it really doesn't do anything in the games I play. Models are already in cover 90% of time anyways so nothing happens. It is not that my teams are less powerful, it is that I don't feel like I have any interesting options open up with stealthy traits. Compared to my Bad Moons where I load up on Shoota Boys to roll even more dice that don't hit. Still, I will probably run them as painted so at least it helps my group.
In concern with what Oni is stating. I thinking tying paint job to chapter tactic is a hazardous road to travel. I mean my Primaris army is painted very, very, VERY closely to the Raptors chapter. Mostly because when they were just a kill team they were Raptors. However, as I made a Primaris only chapter it felt off to me to go with an existing chapter. So I created the Avenging Eagles. Just the same, every player that knows enough background of 40k to know what the Second Founding is recognizes my army as Raptors. So am I bound to making use of the Raven Guard/Raptors rules, which honestly make my army stronger, or can I the use successor chapter tactics (Rapid Assault for sure and Stealthy unless I try one that fits my army better) which probably makes it a weaker army? It gets very gray very quick.
If nothing else, I think we see that subfaction is the level of rules that is most on the border between needing designation or not.
There are options that must be clear, such as weapons and war gear.
There are options nobody thinks need modeling, such as warlord traits, relics, psychic powers, or chaplain prayers.
There are also options that could easily be modeled but I’ve never seen called out: reiver grav chutes or grapples, spirit stones, or grenades.
I just realized that while I play 100% wysiwyg, to the extent that I use different models for different regiments, I run multiple astropaths painted identically with different powers. It’s just interesting what we object to.
I personally would not enjoy that game.. Having same units have different rules but look exactly the same is just a recipie for a very awkward game defining moment along the lines of.. ohh yeah I wasn't allowed to re-roll those 1s etc..
As an Eldar player I have a homebrew scheme. I on occasion mix craft worlds but it will never have identical looking units duplicated across different detachments with different traits. That would confuse me let alone my opponent .
When I have, its always been a case of: All the guardians, rangers, warlock and Eldrad are Ulthwe so you don't get a -1 to hit these dudes... (that's my core battalion CP battery I base my lists around ) everything else is alitoic so will get a -1 to hit against them. But to be honest best is mono sub faction as it just makes the admin so much less stressful personally.
TheFleshIsWeak wrote: I don't think they necessarily need to be painted completely differently but there should be some way to differentiate otherwise identical models.
Nazrak wrote: Argh, yeah I'd absolutely hate this. Play guys as what they're painted and stop trying to game the system to your advantage.
What if my guys aren't painted in the colours of any particular subfaction?
My buddy played his finely painted Salamanders army, everything was WYSIWYG but I still managed to get surprised when I got smacked by a random thunderhammer in a Tac Squad. Who puts thunderhammers in Tac Squads? Who takes TAC Squads? I think my opponent just said everything was WYSIWYG and then I asked a couple of follow up questions, so that's maybe also something to look out for even if you are playing WYSIWYG, are you notifying your opponent of Relics, WL Traits and such properly before the game begins and maybe mentioning the upgrades your unit has even if they are clearly visible.
For me colour identity is not a big issue but it's something I need to be more aware of I think because I like to play my two-Dynasty army and the two Dynasties are not visually different. The only thing I can say is that my regular Destroyers and all my Scarabs are speedy boys and the Heavy Destroyers and the rest of my army are gunny boys.
I find that a lot of people forget to do their re-rolls or FNP than anything like malicious cheating occurs, I don't think I remember that happening ever actually. Certainly nothing as brash as adding two Tactics to a single unit. I know back in a gaming club I attended when I first started wargaming the old grogs running the kids day every week would encourage us to cheat and one of them constantly came up with house rules from who knows where, it's hilarious in retrospect. My buddy would create woods that were exactly wide enough to shoot through for his cannons and stuff like that, we thought that was part of it, we were all a bunch of little munchkins.
As far as being a jerk, you can make whatever demands from your opponent you want, if you want them to paint one of your miniatures before they get the privilege to play then that's your prerogative and your opponent is free to not indulge your painting requirements and not play you. If you can find a middle ground where you put stickers on models that might be confused as being from a different chapter then all the more power to you. Alternatively putting a coloured dice, token or piece of paper might work as well. You wouldn't call someone who only wanted to play competitive or only wanted to play narrative a jerk either.
But to add to that, if you didn't do that compromise with the stickers, I might just pick out my strong mono-Dynasty army instead of my weak dual-Dynasty army. Not to be a git but because the mono-Dynasty army I enjoy the most is also strong. Especially with the new SM rules I think that's going to be the case. "Oh you won't let me play my Vanguard Veterans as Ravenguard in my Iron Hands list? I guess I'll have to go full gunline with my Iron Hands."
It is ultimately a game played between 2 living human beings. I am sure both parties can work things out. If you do not enjoy doing said book keeping, just let your opponent know and if it makes you more comfortable to have him mark the units with dice or tokens, let him know. I personally wouldn't mind placing a token or 2 if I am going to do something like that just to make life easy for everyone.
That said I do play my stuff WYSIWYG but never expect the same from anyone else. To each their own it is a game after all.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I ended up buying colored sticky dots after the last game, and now if anyone tries it, their models are getting dotted.
Ouch man, GOLDEN RULE- DO NOT TOUCH MODELS WITHOUT PERMISSION, I can't vouch for anyone elses area but in my local that is a fantastic way to get black listed if you made any alterations to someones models, no matter how tiny without strict permission, glue on the dots aside.
Onto the main subject however - In a pick up game I don't mind as long as my opponent has attempted to make it clear! I'm fine if its all painted Ultramarine, but every squad equipped with X is actually Y Chapter - That's fine, I will write out a piece of paper at the start confirming it with my opponent and I will refer to it when I am unsure, by turn 2 hopefully its memorised.
I'm a little more annoyed if the army is rampant with non WYSIWYG models, The worst I do is proxy 2 converted Soul Grinders into Defilers but I have come across 'oh that guys bolter is a plasma gun!'... His squad has 4 other bolters damn it man
I don’t think it unreasonable to expect an opponent to make it clear which figures represent what on the table. Same colour scheme for different Chapters does not do this. At the very least, the guy/gal shows a lack of foresight.
My Orks are RT vintage, so ‘counts as’ can apply to the whole army, and wysiwyg went out the window a long time ago. All the Boyz are armed with different weapons - so I make sure my opponent knows that ‘all Boyz are Shootas’ or ‘all Boyz are Sluggas’. The Mob Boss has a back banner. Easier for me, easier for them. If I run big shootas/whatever, then they -are- wysiwyg, and easily identifiable.
At 1000 points all the carapace weapons on my War Dog army are heavy stubbers. At 1500 points they're WYSIWYG (some are actually meltas). Other than that, I play my Ultramarines as WYSIWYG Ultramarines, but due to the recent points drop I'm currently including an unpainted miniature to try out a few alternatives before committing to buying and painting.
So that's me. As for opponent's, I'd expect similar - I'd prefer them to have the correct models, but changing a couple of loadouts or running a single counts-as unit is fine too. Running a painted chapter as another does seem like an attempt to access rules for another army to gain an advantage, unless you're including a few additional units painted differently in an existing army.
Of course other factions have it easier - Tyranid players seem to be able to choose their hive fleet without too much opposition because Tyranids lack such a well recognised colour scheme.
Nazrak wrote: A sort of related question for all the people saying "oh it's fine as long as they stick something on them to distinguish units, or paint all the bases differently" or whatever – does it not bug you how terrible that would look?
If by painting the bases differently we're talking about just colour coding the rim of the base, not the bit on top, then not at all as it won't look terrible.
I understand it gets confusing easily and if I were you, I'd be upset as well if this occurred repeatedly.
As an Imperial Guard player, I usually run all my infantry as Vostroyans (I have a custom regiment so... no space cossacks), and all vehicles usually as Tallarn. If I take artillery, I take it as Catachan and the mandatory HQ slot is usually a Primaris Psyker or Lord Commissar, there the regiment does not matter anyway.
Is it a footslogger? Vostroya
Is it a vehicle? Tallarn
Does it have a bit gun pointing upwards or a few missiles on it? Catachan
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I ended up buying colored sticky dots after the last game, and now if anyone tries it, their models are getting dotted.
Ouch man, GOLDEN RULE- DO NOT TOUCH MODELS WITHOUT PERMISSION, I can't vouch for anyone elses area but in my local that is a fantastic way to get black listed if you made any alterations to someones models, no matter how tiny without strict permission, glue on the dots aside.
I'm quite sure the OP is well aware of that. His intention was probably "Either stick those dots on your miniatures or find a different opponent."
I think it is okay to ask your opponent to make units clearly distinguishable. Though I also think it is okay to ask someone if you can try out a list with proxies or incorrect colours because you want to test out some ideas before committing.
Nazrak wrote: A sort of related question for all the people saying "oh it's fine as long as they stick something on them to distinguish units, or paint all the bases differently" or whatever – does it not bug you how terrible that would look?
Nope. Not one bit. As long as I know visually at a glance what unit is what & wich models belong to it? Then I don't care how you accomplish that.
I'm on the same page as most. If I need pen&paper to track your army, you'll get a hard no.
I once forced an eldar player to write paper slips with his psychic powers on them because he kept losing track of what units had what buffs applied to them and which psykers had attempted, failed or succeeded what. It doesn't matter whether he was trying something shady or not, but if you try to use a fortune re-roll on a unit which was not targeted with that power, you are going to do the paperwork for me.
Same for mixing and matching sub-faction traits. Unless I can distinguish those factions at first glance (all vehicles are X, all infantry are Y is sufficient), I'll either force you to label your army, or we will not have a game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nazrak wrote: A sort of related question for all the people saying "oh it's fine as long as they stick something on them to distinguish units, or paint all the bases differently" or whatever – does it not bug you how terrible that would look?
Against people trying to mix&match sub-factions a force which was painted as one coherent force, immersion tends to not be a thing anyways.
People who just want to have a not-sucking army trait usually just replace their original army trait with a different one (for example CF for ravenguard, iyanden for allaitoc or blood axes for deffskulls) - then you don't need labels anyways.
Last time I recall reading this rule it was in the GW tournament organising pack. Ergo it was aimed at being a rule for tournaments.
oni claimed it's in the codex. I am unable to find that in the codex I have with me, and I highly doubt that it was lost when they translated it to the German language. p108 doesn't talk about paint colour, nor do pages 174 and 176. Page 108 at some point even says that you CHOOSE to assign a chapter to a model.
This is what they are referencing.
That still doesn't say anything about paint jobs.
Yes it does. How else would your army be Storm Lords if not for a paint job? Learn to infer.
I guess that means if you're color blind and can't paint corresponding chapter colors you cant play 40k. That really sucks.
Or what if your army is a 2e era BA force. Blood Angel Orange hasn't been a color longer than 1/2 the players have been alive. and if you see it, it aint the modern red. Do you get told, "No, sorry. You're not a BA anymore."?
Jidmah wrote: I'm on the same page as most. If I need pen&paper to track your army, you'll get a hard no.
I once forced an eldar player to write paper slips with his psychic powers on them because he kept losing track of what units had what buffs applied to them and which psykers had attempted, failed or succeeded what. It doesn't matter whether he was trying something shady or not, but if you try to use a fortune re-roll on a unit which was not targeted with that power, you are going to do the paperwork for me.
Same for mixing and matching sub-faction traits. Unless I can distinguish those factions at first glance (all vehicles are X, all infantry are Y is sufficient), I'll either force you to label your army, or we will not have a game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nazrak wrote: A sort of related question for all the people saying "oh it's fine as long as they stick something on them to distinguish units, or paint all the bases differently" or whatever – does it not bug you how terrible that would look?
Against people trying to mix&match sub-factions a force which was painted as one coherent force, immersion tends to not be a thing anyways.
People who just want to have a not-sucking army trait usually just replace their original army trait with a different one (for example CF for ravenguard, iyanden for allaitoc or blood axes for deffskulls) - then you don't need labels anyways.
So much this if you want a subfaction trait that doesn't match your paint job fine.
If your playing 3 sub factions in 1 army with 1 paint scheme, yeah nope. They have to be easily distinguishable, if they arn't histort says they will magically move back and forth between the rules.
Like my Tau is 1 paint scheme but the different subfactions have different base materials, Martian Dust is Tau ash/sulphur wastes is borkan is something most people can track. But yeah I wouldn't have the balls to try and pull that with them all based the same.
Things like different painted rims on bases or markers on the models are helpful even if you're fielding an army all from the same faction. If you've got 3 units of termagaunts, each 30 strong and you're charging them into the enemy in a huge block then it REALLY helps if you've got some unique markers for each squad. Even if they are all equipped the same, it still helps greatly in avoiding confusion on which gaunt goes with which squad.
So even if you're not going to mix match sub-forces within a single army; then having a view toward unique identification on models really helps. The only downside is it might push you to buying more models to have complete squads rather than mix matching them, but overall it makes your game a lot easier to play.
Heck you can even get creative - that's Red Squad - they've won every single close combat they go into over the last 5 games! Ergo letting you write some story to your army not just play with it in a tactical sense. Little things like this can seem silly or unimportant, but they can sometimes just add to the overall fun and creative, story, imagination side of the game.
I built a list with 6 deff dreads, with a view to trying out some combos and seeing what worked. Due to time constraints, I couldn't mod my dreads in time and instead changed the list to be all identical twin-KMB dreads. This was to avoid confusion.
I've no issues with a bit of unWYSIWYGness, providing it is clear and easy to understand. Some people like to try things out before they commit to ripping a model apart or repainting it. I would find it difficult if they had 3 identical squads with different chapters - it is easy to just have a slightly different model in each unit to distinguish it ("the guy brandishing his chainsword above his head is in the ravenguard squad", for example).
i'd be happy with a bit of stuff to remember, but not a whole army of it. I'd fail to keep track of that on my own army, let alone an unfamiliar one!
I have recently become a lot more hardline in regards to WYSIWYG. Too many people are cutting corners to chase the meta and my sympathy has expired. Make no mistake, it's only ever done so people can use better rules.
I don't allow my opponent to use proxies. Also, if they have painted their models in the colour of a popular, established chapter they shouldn't be playing them as anything else. Custom Chapters are an exception of course, they could be anything. But if your army is very much an Ultramarine force right down to unit markings they shouldn't be using the rules of Raven Guard/Iron Hands, etc
Weapon and model proxies are a definite no. High quality conversions can be ok on a case by case basis, some can be truly amazing and enrich the experience.
You want to have the best stuff? That's perfectly fine. Go out, buy it, and paint it accordingly.
BaconCatBug wrote: WYSIWYG is not a rule. As long as they are using the correct Citadel™ Miniature for the datasheet it doesn't matter what wargear is represented.
There you go again with your binary approach. It may not be a literal rule in the holy of holies rulebook that you seem to think every word in it is some kind of edict from on high; but it IS a rule insofar right now as a form of gentlemen's agreement. In the same vein as counts-as, rule of cool and several others.
But you knew this already and just wanted to be a knob.
He's not being binary...
The OP asks for opinion on the enforceability of WYSIWYG, and certain member voiced their opinion that not following WYSIWYG is essentially cheating.
BCB is merely stating the fact that because WYSIWYG is not an actual written rule, and therefore cannot be "broken", and there's no actual way of "enforcing" it other than mutual agreement.
Bingo. If someone wants to use their Crimson Fists or Salamanders as something more functional, why should I stop them? It's GWs fault their rules suck, and it's the least I can do to help out an opponent
Maybe they should put a little foresight into it before committing to a Chapter, then. Or possibly make up a Successor Chapter specifically so they aren't tied to a specific trait.
Often i find the same people who want to run the same models as 3 chapters will conveniently use whatever chapter tactic benefits the unit at the time like... oh they are mius 1 to hit due to being 12 inches away... then after wounds... ignoreing on 6 for iron hands. After that they get mad when you call them out on the horsegak of claiming the unit is both "oh honest mistake i was confused" "like motherf@(#er how do you think i feel having to track all your s#(*t"
Yeah that didn't happen.
can confirm had a player try and pull the both strats and get upset at me for pointing it out like "its an honest mistake" after pulling that gak all game (though usually it was not as brash as using the strats in the same phase on the same unit)
its like people who get annoyed when you ask them what unit is in which transport and then call them out later for deciding a wave serpant with dire avengers declared on drop is the wave serpant now that has fire dragons because its closer to one of my battle wagons. and the other one is near an objective with grots so the dire avengers can take it easy.
Almost all games I have played versus people actually, actively cheating, it has been this blatant. Because if people who cheat were smart, they could win without cheating.
Willful cheating is almost always:
-Saying a dice result was something other than it was and quickly picking it up
-Blatantly fabricating rules or saying a model's stats are different from what they are.
-Cheating at the list-building step (Taking way more points than the other player has, or list-tailoring and taking wargear options based on what is in the opponent's army)
It's never some creative thing. I can absolutely see someone doing the -1 to hit and the 6+ fnp.
oni wrote:For those of you who don't own the codex or didn't read the part of the codex that's relevant to this 'conversation'...
GW has now clarified, in writing, as rules, that your paint job + iconography now 100% makes the decision of what chapter you are.
If you're color scheme and chapter symbol match Ultramatines... You are an Ultramarine and can only use the applicable Ultramarines rules.
If your color scheme and chapter symbol match that of a known successor chapter... You are that successor chapter and must use all applicable rules.
If your color scheme does not match Imperial Fists than you are not Imperial Fists and therefore cannot use the Imperial Fists rules.
There are of course mechanics in place (i.e. stratagems and other written rules) that provide a manner of flexibility, but overall GW has put their foot down; drawn a line in the sand... No more picking and choosing the best rules for game advantage. Your paint job + chapter symbol now 100% matters.
I expect and sincerely hope this carries over to other factions when their codex's are re-released.
List tailoring isn't cheating. At all. Knowing you're facing a variety of Eldar and running as many Heavy Bolters as possible is smart resource management. REAL militaries do it all the time.
I guess I'm far too much of a stickler for WYSIWYG, I like to know EXACTLY what I'm facing at all times.
Maybe they should put a little foresight into it before committing to a Chapter, then. Or possibly make up a Successor Chapter specifically so they aren't tied to a specific trait.
How could you foresee multiple codices and game editions into the future that the army you chose to build would end up crap?
Maybe they should put a little foresight into it before committing to a Chapter, then. Or possibly make up a Successor Chapter specifically so they aren't tied to a specific trait.
How could you foresee multiple codices and game editions into the future that the army you chose to build would end up crap?
I think it should be generally accepted when somebody comes with an army of Ultramarines and play them all as Iron Hands, for example. Outside of tournaments...
Nazrak wrote: A sort of related question for all the people saying "oh it's fine as long as they stick something on them to distinguish units, or paint all the bases differently" or whatever – does it not bug you how terrible that would look?
IT depends on how it is done marines for example have various types of squad markings, company markings etc, so if it is "all my 10th company guys are x chapter, and 4th company guys are y chapter" it could look perfectly fine.
I would just like to say I have only ever seen this with Space Marines. Both the spikey style, and the loyalists. I'm just sick of playing soup meta in non-competitive local games. Those are not Rubrics, and those Pink Horrors are not blue horrors, and I need you to differentiate for me which of your 3 daemon princes are which faction.
Just Tony wrote: Maybe they should put a little foresight into it before committing to a Chapter, then. Or possibly make up a Successor Chapter specifically so they aren't tied to a specific trait.
Two of my regular Marine opponents picked their Chapter twenty-five years ago. Enlighten us, what will the chapter tactics of Ultramarine be in 2044?
Actually, I played all the games, and didn't say anything before or after the game, because I was unsure if it was me being in the wrong, and this is acceptable. Whether I won or lost is irrespective of my concern.
And this is also not relevant, but the only person I have ever declined to play was based on their list being a flat out thematic list that included GSC w/ Baneblades. I did it respectfully, and stated I feel that would not be fun for me to play against, declined. The end.
Just Tony wrote: Maybe they should put a little foresight into it before committing to a Chapter, then. Or possibly make up a Successor Chapter specifically so they aren't tied to a specific trait.
Two of my regular Marine opponents picked their Chapter twenty-five years ago. Enlighten us, what will the chapter tactics of Ultramarine be in 2044?
My view of this is "Who cares? Play them as Ultramarines no matter what."
Jidmah wrote: I once forced an eldar player to write paper slips with his psychic powers on them because he kept losing track of what units had what buffs applied to them and which psykers had attempted, failed or succeeded what. It doesn't matter whether he was trying something shady or not, but if you try to use a fortune re-roll on a unit which was not targeted with that power, you are going to do the paperwork for me.
Maybe it's the Warmachine player in me (though likely that game just cemented what had become best practice) but the idea of *not* having a clear visual representation of in-game effects via tokens, putting the psychic card next to the unit, etc. seems nigh inconceivable to present-day me.
WYSIWYG-wise, I don't care if you play your ultramarine-colored space marines as whatever chapter, as long as you say that up front and clearly. And like many have said, different chapters within the same army MUST be painted distinctively. Cherrypicking the optimal traits for different detachments is fun and all but different chapters need to be clear to the opponent as well.
Also, if you have special weapons in squads (like plasma/melta/powerfist/whatever) they MUST be represented on the models.
Proxying is also fine as long as the models look the part even remotely and again, it's clearly announced. If the same guy is running the same proxies game after game I might strongly encourage them to buy the proper minis already...
I think all of these are valid requirements even if an "official" WYSIWYG rule might not exist. Certainly not something that could mandate any "that guy" claims.
I just want to say I have over 400$ of DW Killteam squads because of the changes to the weapons, costs, and rules. I didn't proxy, I didn't freeze, snap off, and re-do, I just bought a new box. Honestly, given how much of a part modeling plays in this hobby, the fact that people hate to do it confuse me. But to each their own.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I just want to say I have over 400$ of DW Killteam squads because of the changes to the weapons, costs, and rules. I didn't proxy, I didn't freeze, snap off, and re-do, I just bought a new box. Honestly, given how much of a part modeling plays in this hobby, the fact that people hate to do it confuse me. But to each their own.
Money?
Not everyone wants to reinvest all the time?
Just Tony wrote: Maybe they should put a little foresight into it before committing to a Chapter, then. Or possibly make up a Successor Chapter specifically so they aren't tied to a specific trait.
Two of my regular Marine opponents picked their Chapter twenty-five years ago. Enlighten us, what will the chapter tactics of Ultramarine be in 2044?
My view of this is "Who cares? Play them as Ultramarines no matter what."
Their approach was laughing maniacally like a cartoon villain whenever the IF trait denied a cover save
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Weazel wrote: Also, if you have special weapons in squads (like plasma/melta/powerfist/whatever) they MUST be represented on the models.
Proxying is also fine as long as the models look the part even remotely and again, it's clearly announced. If the same guy is running the same proxies game after game I might strongly encourage them to buy the proper minis already...
I agree in general, but what if there is no model with that load-out? For example, there is no Plague Marine champion without a power fist, though you usually wouldn't give one to him.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I just want to say I have over 400$ of DW Killteam squads because of the changes to the weapons, costs, and rules. I didn't proxy, I didn't freeze, snap off, and re-do, I just bought a new box. Honestly, given how much of a part modeling plays in this hobby, the fact that people hate to do it confuse me. But to each their own.
Some people hate modeling.
Some people hate painting.
Some people hate playing.
Some people hate reading the lore.
Some people just hate all the time.
Which is fine if that is how you feel, others like playing competitively and as such would like to have good rules if possible. Or maybe they like a certain playstyle that is represented better by another chapter.
Great for you that you don't care about the rules. Poor sportsmanship in looking down on anyone who feels differently.
Breng77 wrote: Or maybe they like a certain playstyle that is represented better by another chapter.
This is a big one. Rules can change a lot over time, and the current rules don't necessarily match what used to be fluffy for a particular sub-faction.
I have a friend with a Nidzilla army painted up in Hydra colors, because he started with Space Hulk and liked the color scheme of the Genestealers in it. Hydra gives you bonuses when you outnumber the enemy. It is completely worthless for his army. I see no good reason to force him to run his army under a useless hive fleet just because of how he painted it.
How about Astra Militarum regiments, where it's not just colors, but actual sculpts? Should every player who has Cadian models and happens to be using one of the dozens of canonical Cadian color schemes be forced to play them as Cadians? Am I not allowed to use my Death Korps models as regular Astra Militarum?
Yup, or painted their army when there were no special rules for factions (almost every non-marine army prior to 8th) and now their models are not aided by the rules much like you point out.
Personally to me paint scheme should be chosen based on what a player likes aesthetically (or fluff if they want), and not be tied to the rules, especially when the rules change.
Ishagu wrote: I have recently become a lot more hardline in regards to WYSIWYG. Too many people are cutting corner to chase the meta and my sympathy has expired.
I don't allow my opponent to use proxies. Also, if they have painted their models in the colour of a popular, established chapter they shouldn't be playing them as anything else. Custom Chapters are an exception of course, they could be anything. But if your army is very much a Ultramarine force right down to unit markings they shouldn't be using the rules of Raven Guard/Iron Hands, etc
You want to have the best stuff? That's perfectly fine. Go out, buy it, and paint it accordingly.
I have to step in and say that forcing people to play a chapter because, back when they didn't matter, the player painted their models blue, isn't a great ethic.
If someone has a beautifully painted ultrasmurf army, but wants to use ravenguard on all of them, that's fine by me.
If someone has a beautifully painted ultrasmurf army and wants to play it as 3-4 other chapters depending on what the unit in question is doing this game, no, sorry, that's too much taking the mickey.
I'd never expect them to repaint a force, but I would want some visual cue to know what I'm playing, and some consistency in the cue. If the paint doesn't change, I'd like to see something else. Bring back Banners!
Breng77 wrote: Yup, or painted their army when there were no special rules for factions (almost every non-marine army prior to 8th) and now their models are not aided by the rules much like you point out.
Personally to me paint scheme should be chosen based on what a player likes aesthetically (or fluff if they want), and not be tied to the rules, especially when the rules change.
That's not really a thing. Every chapter can use any generic unit, and they get bonuses that are all perfectly thematic to their own lore.
What could they have built hat can be a problem? A 5 Repulsor White Scar army?
Ishagu wrote: I have recently become a lot more hardline in regards to WYSIWYG. Too many people are cutting corner to chase the meta and my sympathy has expired.
I don't allow my opponent to use proxies. Also, if they have painted their models in the colour of a popular, established chapter they shouldn't be playing them as anything else. Custom Chapters are an exception of course, they could be anything. But if your army is very much a Ultramarine force right down to unit markings they shouldn't be using the rules of Raven Guard/Iron Hands, etc
You want to have the best stuff? That's perfectly fine. Go out, buy it, and paint it accordingly.
I have to step in and say that forcing people to play a chapter because, back when they didn't matter, the player painted their models blue, isn't a great ethic.
If someone has a beautifully painted ultrasmurf army, but wants to use ravenguard on all of them, that's fine by me.
If someone has a beautifully painted ultrasmurf army and wants to play it as 3-4 other chapters depending on what the unit in question is doing this game, no, sorry, that's too much taking the mickey.
I'd never expect them to repaint a force, but I would want some visual cue to know what I'm playing, and some consistency in the cue. If the paint doesn't change, I'd like to see something else. Bring back Banners!
I don't come across many truly spectacular looking armies painted as one thing and used as another. I'm sure they are out there, of course. Here's the thing: Some people don't really have any affection for the Chapter they've chosen. I'm sure there are thousands of Ultramarines armies out there right now that were only painted as such because they were the best Astartes at the start of 8th edition. These are typically the people who jump to other chapter rules - and make no mistake, they only do so for a game advantage if they feel something is better. If you wanna be a Meta chaser go right ahead, but don't expect me to be accepting of your army for taking shortcuts.
Consistency is key. I had some Fire Warriors that were modeled with pulse carbines, some with breacher helmets and carbines, most with pulse rifles and regular helmets. Never had a problem when I went "every fire warrior is ____ Sept and every weapon is a pulse rifle." Same goes with "All the firesight Marksmen and the ethereal are Sac'cea." Before I tracked down some CIBs, I would use plasma rifles to represent them, but as long as I never took actual plasma rifles it wasn't a problem. It helps to have a copy of your list with the color coding or any differences. If your opponent can't tell units apart strictly from looking at your written list with color/bit coding and looking at your models WITHOUT YOU TALKING then it probably isn't clear enough. 3 Different flavors of marine that are all the same color? Nah you aren't a jerk.
Ishagu wrote: Or you actually paint a chapter you like instead of just chasing rules?
If you only care about the rules you will get burned eventually. Power rises and falls often in 40k.
Yeah, this is cute and all (in a judgemental 'other people should be punished for wanting fun' sort of way) But fluff changes too. The 'chapters I liked' back in 1st and 2nd aren't recognisable anymore. They don't have the same background and don't even have the same colors.
I have to step in and say that forcing people to play a chapter because, back when they didn't matter, the player painted their models blue, isn't a great ethic.
If someone has a beautifully painted ultrasmurf army, but wants to use ravenguard on all of them, that's fine by me.
If someone has a beautifully painted ultrasmurf army and wants to play it as 3-4 other chapters depending on what the unit in question is doing this game, no, sorry, that's too much taking the mickey.
I'd never expect them to repaint a force, but I would want some visual cue to know what I'm playing, and some consistency in the cue. If the paint doesn't change, I'd like to see something else. Bring back Banners!
That is also a very good way to make people not paint their models ever. Not painted=can use any chapter rule. And if someone is an A hole about 5 colours, then it is going to be green base, red eyes, silver on the bolters, black undercoat and bags/holster in grey or white. 5 colours, but my army is still being "painted" am totaly going for the X chapter, and yes I do have painted models fully.... at home.
But this wasn't that. The example I provided was a player with a Ultramarines army. Perhaps more detail is needed. It was mostly all Primaris squads, aggressors, some scouts, a couple Contempters, and a Repulsor.
Breng77 wrote: Yup, or painted their army when there were no special rules for factions (almost every non-marine army prior to 8th) and now their models are not aided by the rules much like you point out.
Personally to me paint scheme should be chosen based on what a player likes aesthetically (or fluff if they want), and not be tied to the rules, especially when the rules change.
That's not really a thing. Every chapter can use any generic unit, and they get bonuses that are all perfectly thematic to their own lore.
What could they have built hat can be a problem? A 5 Repulsor White Scar army?
.
I had an ultramarine Bike army from 5th edition which I painted largely because I liked painting blue better than white, at the time it largely did not matter beyond special characters what marine force you chose from the standard marine codex. I also like the ability to choose to fail morale and fall back that basic marines had (vs say a ravenwing army which I also ran). So ultramarines could still work for this to some extent, however the White Scars rules better suited my more aggressive play style with their stratagem to advance shoot and assault, and to be able to fall back and charge.
You are making a large assumption that every person that paints a particular chapter does so because they wanted to play an army that fit that lore rather than that they like a paint scheme and at some point that did not matter, and as long as you don't choose an existing chapter it still doesn't
These days I always avoid chapter paint schemes just for the attitude you have here that how you paint something should effect its abilities on the table top.
Or as pointed out by a previous poster who had a friend with a Nidzilla army using tactics that gave no benefit.
SO if your argument is "you can always use the models, so being effective is not important, or having wasted rules on the table top is not important." That is your choice, but not one I agree with.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: But this wasn't that. The example I provided was a player with a Ultramarines army. Perhaps more detail is needed. It was mostly all Primaris squads, aggressors, some scouts, a couple Contempters, and a Repulsor.
Oh I agree with you that players should make everything to not make their army confusing, and making in confusing on purpose is IMO, same tier as cheating. What I can't accept though is someone being forced to play army X, just because they use a specific shade of green on their models. what if someone has a DA army, it is clearly DA as they say it is DA, but for what ever reason they are more light green then dark green? Am I to assume that such a person should be stoped from using Azrael or a RW master, by Ishagus standards of marine models, because the army has to be DA successor as the "real" DAs are a different colour. I don't think it is fun, or helps people like the game. I understand that there maybe people who are going to buy a full army of marines and paint them 4th BA company, and then make another army with exact units, and paint it 3ed company . Kudos to them, and their income, but people should not be punished because of a fringe part of the hobby or because GW wants to sell people over costed paints.
Plus why don't the rule effect other armies. I haven't see people whine how they have to repaint all their stealers to be Kraken, or scour the internet 2ed hand market to get real catachans or worse tallarans.
skchsan wrote: Or... you can just stop bandwagoning and be loyal to the army that made you fall into the game.
I still rock my DA army despite being one of the bottom tier armies. I just choose my fights wisely.
Imperial Guard made me fall into the game. I have changed from using Catachans to using green-and-brown Cadians to using white-and-grey Cadians since I started playing [all these evolution instigated by "this looks better"]. I wouldn't say I'm disloyal to Imperial Guard.
More importantly, my Sisters of Battle are painted silver and white and red because I like that scheme, but I want to play the army the way the Bloody Rose trait lets me play, getting up in melee with them and having S8 Repentia and S4 A2 BSS, while the Argent Shroud trait literally does nothing.
I will always pick the rules that correspond to the way I want my army to play. I also don't see how it would be "disloyal army" to use the rules that synchronize with the way you want your army to play.
skchsan wrote: Or... you can just stop bandwagoning and be loyal to the army that made you fall into the game.
And if the army that made you fall into the game is not the one that the rules/fluff currently describe, what then?
I'll go back to my previous example: My friend built and painted a Tyranid nidzilla army in the Hydra scheme long before Hydra even had a name. Is he 'bandwagoning' if he doesn't want to use their current rules, which do literally nothing for his army, being geared towards swarms?
Really a shame that 'Your Guys' apparently no longer means that you can paint your army how you like, and then play it with the rules that fit the playstyle you like most.
Ishagu wrote: I have recently become a lot more hardline in regards to WYSIWYG. Too many people are cutting corners to chase the meta and my sympathy has expired. Make no mistake, it's only ever done so people can use better rules.
I don't allow my opponent to use proxies. Also, if they have painted their models in the colour of a popular, established chapter they shouldn't be playing them as anything else. Custom Chapters are an exception of course, they could be anything. But if your army is very much an Ultramarine force right down to unit markings they shouldn't be using the rules of Raven Guard/Iron Hands, etc
Weapon and model proxies are a definite no. High quality conversions can be ok on a case by case basis, some can be truly amazing and enrich the experience.
You want to have the best stuff? That's perfectly fine. Go out, buy it, and paint it accordingly.
What if I love...Kroot models, let's say, but hate their playstyle and feel like the Drukhari rules fit them best?
So I build my army converted, or painted to show differences as needed. Units are distinct and well marked.
Is there an issue with this?
Apologies for my poorly timed conjecture. It was meant to deride the people who were cherry picking multiple "best in slot" CT's for their singularly painted army.
Ishagu wrote: Or you actually paint a chapter you like instead of just chasing rules?
If you only care about the rules you will get burned eventually. Power rises and falls often in 40k.
I'm doing a custom Chapter and all my HQ stand-ins have appropriately represented equipment.
OR are you saying I can only use the OFFICIAL models for HQ units?
What if your 100% legal primaris WS army, with full legal pain scheem, scenic based, no old marines, has 6 veteran intercessors sgts, with Thunder Hammers from Kromlech In the trash it goes?
I still say it's modeling for advantage. Because I can't easily identify them as what they are. I will in my myriad of calculations I am trying to do during a game, somehow forget those aren't kroot, but Drukari. Or vice versa. Also, there are significant modeling differences, between say a Space Marine and a Guardsman. It could affect LOS, # of troops able to fit into terrain, etc.
It's better to just play with what you are playing with, or just don't call it 40k. Call it my personal space war hobby game. Because it's not 40k.
Ishagu wrote: Or you actually paint a chapter you like instead of just chasing rules?
If you only care about the rules you will get burned eventually. Power rises and falls often in 40k.
I'm doing a custom Chapter and all my HQ stand-ins have appropriately represented equipment.
OR are you saying I can only use the OFFICIAL models for HQ units?
What if your 100% legal primaris WS army, with full legal pain scheem, scenic based, no old marines, has 6 veteran intercessors sgts, with Thunder Hammers from Kromlech In the trash it goes?
Oh don't be such a BCB. If anything just the 6 veteran intercessors need to go in the trash
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I still say it's modeling for advantage. Because I can't easily identify them as what they are. I will in my myriad of calculations I am trying to do during a game, somehow forget those aren't kroot, but Drukari. Or vice versa. Also, there are significant modeling differences, between say a Space Marine and a Guardsman. It could affect LOS, # of troops able to fit into terrain, etc.
It's better to just play with what you are playing with, or just don't call it 40k. Call it my personal space war hobby game. Because it's not 40k.
What if I love...Kroot models, let's say, but hate their playstyle and feel like the Drukhari rules fit them best?
So I build my army converted, or painted to show differences as needed. Units are distinct and well marked.
Is there an issue with this?
If your army is a quality conversion with models that represent the rules you're using effectively, it can be considered on a case by case basis.
Your army could just as easily be a rubbish set of proxies. 40k is a visual game.
What if I love...Kroot models, let's say, but hate their playstyle and feel like the Drukhari rules fit them best?
So I build my army converted, or painted to show differences as needed. Units are distinct and well marked.
Is there an issue with this?
If your army is a quality conversion with models that represent the rules you're using effectively, it can be considered on a case by case basis.
Your army could just as easily be a rubbish set of proxies. 40k is a visual game.
You can't just be giving special exceptions whenever you feel like it. Either you're for true WYSIWYG or not.
OR are you saying I can only use the OFFICIAL models for HQ units?
Custom chapters using converted HQ models are perfectly fine.
What you said above is truly stupid. There is a massive difference between a proxy and a conversion.
A model can be a true WYSIWYG that has been converted from other kits.
For every great conversion there are dozens of lazy proxies. In my original comment I specifically said that conversions can be considered on a case by case basis. What I am categorically against are specific Lazy proxies by Meta Chasers who want all the rules advantages without putting in any efforts.
OR are you saying I can only use the OFFICIAL models for HQ units?
Custom chapters using converted HQ models are perfectly fine.
What you said above is truly stupid. There is a massive difference between a proxy and a conversion.
A model can be a true WYSIWYG that has been converted.
For every great conversion there are dozens of lazy proxies. In my original comment I specifically said that conversions can be considered on a case by case basis.
It isn't stupid because Power Fists =/= Fists of Ultramar, especially when the model I'm planning to work on will only have the Bolter part attached to one fist. Or what if I decide to go a different route and decide I want to put double barrels in a Thunder Hammer for my Calgar stand-in?
You are being pedantic, but you know what? That's perfectly fine.
I will not agree to play your proxy filled army. It doesn't deserve to be on the same tabletop as mine.
Is that what you want to hear?
Edit:
Hold up, you're actually not using the correct wargear? I actually would not be happy to play that because those are proxies and not conversions, so to speak.
This is why I am against these sub-faction traits. They are horribly unbalanced so often you end up with a decade of painted models in a scheme that might not be viable if you are playing Matched games.
The funny thing the only winner in this is Games Workshop which will get the color obsessive individuals to buy as well as force others to buy more models just to satisfy the color obsessive ones. Have 4 Wave Serpents in Saim-hann? Sucks to be you, now buy 4 more to paint them Alaitoc* otherwise you'll lose every game until the sun goes out. People need to remember that this is a new problem and people have spent thousands of bucks before encountering this problem that GW created.
What GW should have done is to make sub-faction traits so generic that you will never have a reason to pick a specific chapter. That way most people win. Otherwise sub-faction traits should be left out of this game altogether.
*I sincerely hope Alaitoc gets thrown to the wolves next codex around btw.
You have to understand that factions rise and fall, it is always the way - as it should be. The meta should NOT be static, and in fairness there isn't a massive gap between Codex chapters from what we've seen thus far - we've not seen the full RG rules. WS can definitely hold their own against Ultras with their outflanking Repulsors and what not lol.
It's why it's important to focus on ones you like beyond just tabletop performance, or to accept that if that's your biggest focus you'll have to buy a lot more models more regularly.
Ishagu wrote: You have to understand that factions rise and fall, it is always the way - as it should be. The meta should NOT be static, and in fairness there isn't a massive gap between Codex chapters from what we've seen thus far - we've not seen the full RG rules. WS can definitely hold their own against Ultras with their outflanking Repulsors and what not lol.
It's why it's important to focus on ones you like beyond just tabletop performance, or to accept that if that's your biggest focus you'll have to buy a lot more models more regularly.
NO that is what you feel like should be the case. Some people like to chase the rules and if you don't want to play them fine, but they are also not in the wrong from any rule standpoint. Especially if they have a generic paint job. For me if I would be ok playing a generic paint job using the best rules, why should I care about a specific paint job using those same rules? What you are arguing for is for people who do want to chase the meta actually having worse looking armies as they figure they shouldn't spend time because they will just need to toss those models soon to get new ones. Better to be happy to play against whichever rules and appreciate a good paint job.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarsif wrote: This is why I am against these sub-faction traits. They are horribly unbalanced so often you end up with a decade of painted models in a scheme that might not be viable if you are playing Matched games.
The funny thing the only winner in this is Games Workshop which will get the color obsessive individuals to buy as well as force others to buy more models just to satisfy the color obsessive ones. Have 4 Wave Serpents in Saim-hann? Sucks to be you, now buy 4 more to paint them Alaitoc* otherwise you'll lose every game until the sun goes out. People need to remember that this is a new problem and people have spent thousands of bucks before encountering this problem that GW created.
What GW should have done is to make sub-faction traits so generic that you will never have a reason to pick a specific chapter. That way most people win. Otherwise sub-faction traits should be left out of this game altogether.
*I sincerely hope Alaitoc gets thrown to the wolves next codex around btw.
I would have liked to have seen those traits be generic but favor different units, maybe making some cheaper or what not. Rather than be across the board bonuses.
It's more than ok. As long as you recognise that 40k is visual game and you respect your opponent by using the correct models that are pained appropriately.
A generic paint job is 100% fine. When did I say otherwise? Don't put words in my mouth.
For the tournament I am currently on a train to attend, I have a lovelying homemade Inquisitor using the rules for Colonel Iron Hand Straken, I also have a Sister Hospitiler proxing as an Imperial Guard Medic.
I also have the Colonel Iron Hand Straken Model, and an Imperial Guard Medic spare in my case, so on a player by player basis, I can use whatever models my opponent is happy with.
What if I love...Kroot models, let's say, but hate their playstyle and feel like the Drukhari rules fit them best?
So I build my army converted, or painted to show differences as needed. Units are distinct and well marked.
Is there an issue with this?
If your army is a quality conversion with models that represent the rules you're using effectively, it can be considered on a case by case basis.
Your army could just as easily be a rubbish set of proxies. 40k is a visual game.
Who determines what a "rubbish set of proxies" is?
I'm mostly blind, my conversion and painting skills aren't horrible, but not really that advanced.
I convert my models so that I can play better with them, that means in many cases they're converted for tactile purposes. I don't base my models and I paint clear bases black so I don't lose models.
Ishagu wrote: When have I said it's not ok to chase the rules?
It's more than ok. As long as you recognise that 40k is visual game and you respect your opponent by using the correct models that are pained appropriately.
A generic paint job is 100% fine. When did I say otherwise? Don't put words in my mouth.
The issue is the double standard that generic paint is ok but specific is not. Your opponent playing their Ultra Marines using the White Scars tactics is in no way visually appalling. The problem is the attitude that if you want to use better rules you must either buy new models or repaint because you chose a specific color scheme. The issue is it comes across as you saying "chasing rules is bad, and if I can stop you I will because you should play the way I do."
Ishagu wrote: When have I said it's not ok to chase the rules?
It's more than ok. As long as you recognise that 40k is visual game and you respect your opponent by using the correct models that are pained appropriately.
A generic paint job is 100% fine. When did I say otherwise? Don't put words in my mouth.
The issue is the double standard that generic paint is ok but specific is not. Your opponent playing their Ultra Marines using the White Scars tactics is in no way visually appalling. The problem is the attitude that if you want to use better rules you must either buy new models or repaint because you chose a specific color scheme. The issue is it comes across as you saying "chasing rules is bad, and if I can stop you I will because you should play the way I do."
How do you know that what you assume is someones Ultramarines army being played with the Iron Hands rules isn't actually an Iron Hands army who were devilishly covered in blue paint by a rogue inquisitor on their way to the battle?
"My army is Alpha Legion in an Ultramarine disguise using Iron Hand battle tactics in order to confuse the enemy and Horus did nothing wrong and Guilliman is Alpharius (and so is Malcador)."
BaconCatBug wrote: "My army is Alpha Legion in an Ultramarine disguise using Iron Hand battle tactics in order to confuse the enemy and Horus did nothing wrong and Guilliman is Alpharius (and so is Malcador)."
But I'm using Eldar models because I've not brought the SpaceMarines yet. Is that okay? The Guardians with no arms are the lascannon devestators, and the ones with the arms are primaris. And the Wraithlord is the Landrader, and the pink wrathlord is the Dreadnought.
But I'm using Eldar models because I've not brought the SpaceMarines yet. Is that okay? The Guardians with no arms are the lascannon devestators, and the ones with the arms are primaris. And the Wraithlord is the Landrader, and the pink wrathlord is the Dreadnought.
Are you consistent with your proxy play? Then bring it the feth on and roll them dice.
Poorhammer is just as valid of a way to play the game.
Stormonu wrote: Side question - who here has run across opponents who are using multiple marine chapters in a single army?
I haven’t even tried a soup list, much less different chapters in the same army, so the whole affair boggles me a bit.
The most common scenario these days is a Codex Marine detachment complementing a non-Codex Marine detachment with units and abilities the latter cant access. As an example, I'm pretty routinely running a Scout and Eliminator battalion alongside my Deathwatch.
Seeing multiple Codex Marine detachments is a rarity, but I've seen it a time or two with mixed custom chapters.
Stormonu wrote: Side question - who here has run across opponents who are using multiple marine chapters in a single army?
I haven’t even tried a soup list, much less different chapters in the same army, so the whole affair boggles me a bit.
I suspect the way Doctrines have an on/off switch may lead this to become more of a thing. Unless the rules already shut it off mixing chapters (which I am initially fer as well). Mostly because I think this had to do with optimized power (read: competitive) play far more than someone just wanting a bunch of chapters working together. Props to anyone going Black Templar and Salamanders if fighting Orks and similar though.
As Ishagu's stance, I agree with a lot of elements of it. I just don't have nearly as hard of a stance on it. I would like to think that the subfaction trait rules that exist for the way you painting your army work well enough that a player could work with them rather than jumping to what they think is best or fits them. Marines in particular have been codified for sometime on how they operate that even most non-marine players have a rough idea what they are good at. For those who painting blue White Scars, great; call them a successor chapter and pretty much make use of their rules sans Characters is better than completely ignoring what has been established. As for the Tyranid big bug player, well I understand that predates subfaction traits. Fortunately, Tyranids live in a space where no one really knows what Hivefleet gets what (or all the named Hivefleets anyways). Easy enough to call it a custom Hivefleet or say it is natural camoflague or something. And I am not against using different traits than how the models are painted. My Primaris chapter are dead ringers for Raptors, but they are not Raptors.
I think the big issue is that I ain't never seen no Alpha Legion army played as Word Bearers. I might be a little old fashioned here, but I do like the idea of supporting the home team thick or thin. I don't think anyone much cares for a 90's era Mariners' fan switching to the baseball team doing well every so often and is currently a Dodgers' fan. As Ishagu mentioned, the rules power spikes and drops among factions frequently that I feel chasing any meta isn't really worth it. It reeks of being happy tomorrow when you could be happy today just playing a nicely painted army you must have liked at some point. If that army gets so weak it is crushed week after week, maybe talk with the group on adding some house rules (which could be as much as playing favoring mission types and terrain-ed tables) to get it up having a fighting chance. I think a true competitor wants a game that has competition to it. Conversely, if your army is riding high on the power level, you can always self regulate. But I understand this is no good for tournament players or those players that play perfect strangers all the time. I also know these issues shouldn't be as extreme if GW rules worked better, but coulda, woulda,shoulda; they are what they are. Curse the dark or work to find some kind of light.
I want to reinforce that I am fine with players counting their army/team as what ever subfaction they want. I just think it diminishes the hobby some in doing so much like not making any effort not to paint you models or going to the trouble of putting a nice table together. It is do-able, but so much of the hobby is lost with it missing. I have a couple of kill teams that I find the subfaction rules subpar (Stygies VIII and Jorgmandgandr). I don't think I will playing them with different traits as they do fit the theme of the subfaction, and I think keeping them aligned with the rules is more important than going than switching to something I find more interesting to use. However, I am not going to hold anyone else to that. Which is fine, I value different elements from the next player.
My Salamanders have always been Salamanders and they always will be. No other chapter even remotely interested me so I chose the 18th in RT and dont understand why you would paint an army one scheme then want to run them as an entirely different chapter. I've spent a fair amount of time painting my army to the level I want, it just kinda seems like a waste to change/flipflop for what's the current "best" whatever. How do you expect to learn your army if you're switching constantly playing different ones.
Ishagu wrote: My opinion is shared by Games Workshop itself, the creators of this hobby.
Oh yeah, thats the elitist gatekeeping we're looking for.
(It's also 100% bs, but we knew that already).
As much as it pains me to agree with said individual, he is actually correct. GW's own tournament rules for Warhammer World specify that if your chapter is painted as a recognised one with rules, eg. Dark Angels then you must use the DA rules.
Now, that is a house rule for WHW tournaments but it IS clear that is the way GW wants the wind to blow given the designer's notes in the image I posted earlier ITT.
Rules do not and should not affect paint schemes and vice versa. The painting part of the hobby should be free of in-game constraints (esp considering how much time it takes to paint, do we really want to punish/restrict painted armies while giving grey/black primed armies a pass?).
GW made a mistake (imo) with specifying that certain factions must take certain traits. Not all players of said faction will like the chosen playstyle, and freedom of choice is greatly impeded. Besides rules change all the time, so it's not like the current rules are integral to the theme of your army anyway. By the next codex they'll be different, so I don't have any attachment to the rule/bonus even if I'm really invested in the faction itself.
As much as it pains me to agree with said individual, he is actually correct. GW's own tournament rules for Warhammer World specify that if your chapter is painted as a recognised one with rules, eg. Dark Angels then you must use the DA rules.
I'm highly disappointed it took six pages for someone to bring this up. You lot are usually better about trying to twist broadcast tournament rules into a blanket "do what we say or you're playing Warhammer wrong" argument.
Now, that is a house rule for WHW tournaments but it IS clear that is the way GW wants the wind to blow given the designer's notes in the image I posted earlier ITT.
Yeah...no. But good job contributing to the kind of environment that allows this kind of toxic elitism to exist. You're making GW proud.
Until I get new codexes my BA/DA/SW/DW will be whatever marine chapter I decide to buy the splat book for. The difference in power levels between those armies and the non-codex marines makes playing them unfun for both me and whoever my opponent is unless we are playing a narrative game and then who cares as I've used soda cans as levi dreads with close friends.
But at tournaments, either they will be red, green, grey and black mono-chapter or the red ones will be CF and the black ones will be IH and the grey ones will be ?? All of one chapter will be the same color and different chapters will be different colors and squads will have unique markings as those seem to be the important visual cues (equipment will be WYSIWYG).
But I will not be using my DeathWing knights to rep aggressors or my wulfen as eliminators or my land raiders to be repulsors. Ignoring the paint job or hand waving a special crusade paint job (that's a thing) for the chapter is reasonable but calling a land raider a repulsor seems a bridge too far.
Wow. I’m a GW hater and a “toxic elitist” backing GW to the bitter end at the same time.
I’m a man of many hats apparently...
You’re free to do whatever you want in your games (and I’m free to refuse to play someone who is chasing that metagame dragon. ) but be aware ultimately that appears to not be what GW themselves want in their game.
Maybe they should put a little foresight into it before committing to a Chapter, then. Or possibly make up a Successor Chapter specifically so they aren't tied to a specific trait.
How could you foresee multiple codices and game editions into the future that the army you chose to build would end up crap?
Paint what you want it to look like and don't chase the meta, or make it ubiquitous. It's not hard.
Jidmah wrote:
Just Tony wrote: Maybe they should put a little foresight into it before committing to a Chapter, then. Or possibly make up a Successor Chapter specifically so they aren't tied to a specific trait.
Two of my regular Marine opponents picked their Chapter twenty-five years ago. Enlighten us, what will the chapter tactics of Ultramarine be in 2044?
Gee, it's like if you know you're going to chase the meta because that's how you game, you paint your army to represent ANYTHING. It's not that damn hard, unless you're being combative just to be combative.
Nazrak wrote:
Ishagu wrote: Or you actually paint a chapter you like instead of just chasing rules?
Yepppppp 100% this. Glad to see it's not just me who feels like this.
Just Tony wrote: Maybe they should put a little foresight into it before committing to a Chapter, then. Or possibly make up a Successor Chapter specifically so they aren't tied to a specific trait.
Two of my regular Marine opponents picked their Chapter twenty-five years ago. Enlighten us, what will the chapter tactics of Ultramarine be in 2044?
My view of this is "Who cares? Play them as Ultramarines no matter what."
skchsan wrote:Or... you can just stop bandwagoning and be loyal to the army that made you fall into the game.
I still rock my DA army despite being one of the bottom tier armies. I just choose my fights wisely.
These folks get it.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Ishagu wrote: Or you actually paint a chapter you like instead of just chasing rules?
If you only care about the rules you will get burned eventually. Power rises and falls often in 40k.
I'm doing a custom Chapter and all my HQ stand-ins have appropriately represented equipment.
OR are you saying I can only use the OFFICIAL models for HQ units?
So far you're the only person that had to be moderated in this discussion, and you're flinging Strawmen like a discus hurler. At this point I'll assume the obtuseness is a simple troll tactic.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I just want to say I have over 400$ of DW Killteam squads because of the changes to the weapons, costs, and rules. I didn't proxy, I didn't freeze, snap off, and re-do, I just bought a new box. Honestly, given how much of a part modeling plays in this hobby, the fact that people hate to do it confuse me. But to each their own.
Seems like a waste of $ when tiny magnets are a thing....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormonu wrote: Side question - who here has run across opponents who are using multiple marine chapters in a single army?
Raises hand & admits to being that opponent.
My all dreadnought force has a few Space Wolves, some Blood Angels, a couple painted as Howling Griffons, and a bunch that I refer to as Salamanders as they're assorted greens.
Oh, and my Deredo is some sort of camo white - I've no idea what its former owner had in mind, but it's nicely painted & won't be changing.
Grimtuff wrote: Wow. I’m a GW hater and a “toxic elitist” backing GW to the bitter end at the same time.
I’m a man of many hats apparently...
You’re free to do whatever you want in your games (and I’m free to refuse to play someone who is chasing that metagame dragon. ) but be aware ultimately that appears to not be what GW themselves want in their game.
GW rules writters are also the same people who said many many clearly broken rules were fine untill results proved inarguably they weren't.
Said it's clear what we ment then FAQ'd the same situation 2 different ways because a consistent approach to FAQ's would be too useful and it was so clear even they didn't know what they ment.
These are also the same people who have repeatedly hidden behind "player's need to forge the narative and stop being so literal with the rules." Instead of saying sorry that's not supposed to be that broken.
Grimtuff wrote: Wow. I’m a GW hater and a “toxic elitist” backing GW to the bitter end at the same time.
I’m a man of many hats apparently...
You’re free to do whatever you want in your games (and I’m free to refuse to play someone who is chasing that metagame dragon. ) but be aware ultimately that appears to not be what GW themselves want in their game.
GW rules writters are also the same people who said many many clearly broken rules were fine untill results proved inarguably they weren't.
Said it's clear what we ment then FAQ'd the same situation 2 different ways because a consistent approach to FAQ's would be too useful and it was so clear even they didn't know what they ment.
These are also the same people who have repeatedly hidden behind "player's need to forge the narative and stop being so literal with the rules." Instead of saying sorry that's not supposed to be that broken.
Apply common sense, one faq stated.
Now I dunno but psy i have no idea how it works and you gave me 4 diffrent lore depictions of the power....
How the feth am I supposed to decide i can dodge this one and not that one?
Grimtuff wrote: Wow. I’m a GW hater and a “toxic elitist” backing GW to the bitter end at the same time.
I’m a man of many hats apparently...
You’re free to do whatever you want in your games (and I’m free to refuse to play someone who is chasing that metagame dragon. ) but be aware ultimately that appears to not be what GW themselves want in their game.
GW rules writters are also the same people who said many many clearly broken rules were fine untill results proved inarguably they weren't.
Said it's clear what we ment then FAQ'd the same situation 2 different ways because a consistent approach to FAQ's would be too useful and it was so clear even they didn't know what they ment.
These are also the same people who have repeatedly hidden behind "player's need to forge the narative and stop being so literal with the rules." Instead of saying sorry that's not supposed to be that broken.
Apply common sense, one faq stated.
Now I dunno but psy i have no idea how it works and you gave me 4 diffrent lore depictions of the power....
How the feth am I supposed to decide i can dodge this one and not that one?
*Please note common sense not sold in GW stores.
Commons sense is a registered trademark of GW and citidel industries.
** common sense if found please send to RulesWritersHonestWeKnowWhatWeAreDoing@GW.com
Reading fezziks post about buying more boxes just to have a veriant hurt my inner cheapskate Why didn't you get some magnets dawg!!!!
I've magnetised my wraith guard.. Yeh it was a pain in the ass and very fiddly... I did it partly so they can always be WYSIWYG, partly so that I can change their poses and mostly so that rather than having to buy, paint and model 30 wraithguard/blades I can get away with 15 and being able to field pretty much whatever I need. Coz I'm a cheapo
Are that many people divving up SM armies that share a paint scheme? I used to run a split marine force, but keeping them separate was easily. Over the black gloss armor, the Iron Hands got a silver stripe (applied via metallic sharpie) straight down their middle and the Dark Angel ones got a reed stripe. It was easy and since the stripe was on both sides, I could easily seem which models were going to get which bonus. I won't lie - I often wished an Iron Hands squad could have gotten the DA chapter benefit, but the stripes kept me honest.
I've always tried to build my models as modular as possible. For Space marines, I would try to find obscure chapters to do, for more flexibility.
Right now I'm building a dual Imperial/Chaos Knight army, using a few magnetic face plate swaps and different Heraldry.
I follow WYSIWYG myself, to the point of obsession. Many nights were spent building specific Character builds searching the Bitz box, just to have a solid representation of a specific Relic.
But someone switching Chapter Tactics all the time wouldn't bother me, painted or not. Just use the rules correctly.
My standard has been always been one set of sub rules (which I'm more and more convinced should not be a thing) per paint job.
I don't care what paint job that is, as being locked into a set of sub rules based on something you might have painted 20 plus years ago is absurd but I draw the line at carving off a sub selection of your army to get the best rules for said units. Chapters fight as one, pick one and if you need some help the IOM factions are not exactly hurting for units.
I know some of you get upset and tetchy with some of my opinions on the matter, but remember this:
I'm not the one who made this topic. These blasé attitudes towards how an army is modelled or painted are causing issues. Of course not everyone is guilty, but when some of you say: "I don't care how it's painted or how it's modelled" you end up with the crappy situation that TC outlined, because people think it's OK.
It's not how GW intends the game to be played, it does take away from the experience for many dedicated hobbyists, and it's only ever done to give yourself an edge by jumping to better rules for factions/wargear/whatever. For these reasons I don't have much sympathy, and I'm personally OK with telling a potential opponent I'm not happy with their army, how it's presented or modelled. It's a visual game, and when two players have made an effort with their armies it's a lot of fun to look back as the battle progresses. And, remember, this is not an issue of painting quality in armies, or quality conversions - it's about lazy proxies and counts as models.
I care about WYSIWYG a lot and I care about the models being painted and the game looking good. But as long as the army is painted, I really don't care what subfaction rules are used with it. A convention which encourages you to not paint your models is frankly insane. Now running several subfaction in one army with an uniform paintjob seems kinda tryhard move to me, but it's not really that big of a deal either.
Voss wrote: 'How GW intends' doesn't mean squat. It changes from year to year based on sales figures, and has no impact outside GWHQ.
It means a lot more than that - it's a base point for what the creators of the game actually wish for the game.
Are you one of these players who has 3 factions in a list all painted the same way, all equipped with one type of gun being proxied as another? If not then you shouldn't be getting so upset about a difference of opinion.
Crimson wrote: I care about WYSIWYG a lot and I care about the models being painted and the game looking good. But as long as the army is painted, I really don't care what subfaction rules are used with it. A convention which encourages you to not paint your models is frankly insane. Now running several subfaction in one army with an uniform paintjob seems kinda tryhard move to me, but it's not really that big of a deal either.
This, the double standard of allowing someone who picked a random smattering of colors to pick any rules they want vs deciding to pin in anyone who picked a canon chapter (something they potentially did almost 30 years ago) is nuts.
Voss wrote: 'How GW intends' doesn't mean squat. It changes from year to year based on sales figures, and has no impact outside GWHQ.
It means a lot more than that - it's a base point for what the creators of the game actually wish for the game.
Are you one of these players who has 3 factions in a list all painted the same way, all equipped with one type of gun being proxied as another? If not then you shouldn't be getting so upset about a difference of opinion.
Sure, do you use any third party bases? Gotta rip those models off the bases and redo them if you do. Non-GW conversion bits? Those gotta go too.
Grimtuff wrote: Wow. I’m a GW hater and a “toxic elitist” backing GW to the bitter end at the same time.
I’m a man of many hats apparently...
You’re free to do whatever you want in your games (and I’m free to refuse to play someone who is chasing that metagame dragon. ) but be aware ultimately that appears to not be what GW themselves want in their game.
I tend to agree with you. On this I think you are correct but I think its less GW taking a stand on whats right and more GW making this decision because they'd rather sell you more kits so you can paint them all as the exact chapters you may want to use.
I mean, why not buy every major chapter in the vanilla marine dex and pain them up, then no matter which chapter ends up the best, you're always good to go, no worries. It only makes sense and is the only way to chose that meta dragon the GW way.
whilst it's less regimented that space marines, I painted my orks to be Bludaxe, and I tend to use whichever klan works best with my list - it does say that you can pick the one which most accurately reflects your chosen clan.
For clarity, I will almost always run my army with one klan across the board - if I run anything differently, I would make certain to have different units or models (EG I have a lot of boys with red helmets, so would say "helmets = evil suns, non-helmets = deffskulls) or I would have shoota boys as one klan and sluggas as the other. I wouldn't have 2 identical looking units running 2 different klans - I'd forget which one was which myself!
Ishagu wrote: It's a visual game, and when two players have made an effort with their armies...
Which brings me again to the original issue which is sub-factions. Sub-factions, because of this approach as you mentioned, were a mistake. They might have been a nice bone to the narrative players, but they really screwed up the competitive side as many people suddenly saw a great deal of their army nerfed in comparison to their sub-faction siblings who got large buffs.
I'd personally be happy if faction specific sub-faction traits were removed altogether as they are now.
I also see some proxy discussion here. For clarification I am only talking about color schemes.
Voss wrote: 'How GW intends' doesn't mean squat. It changes from year to year based on sales figures, and has no impact outside GWHQ.
It means a lot more than that - it's a base point for what the creators of the game actually wish for the game.
Are you one of these players who has 3 factions in a list all painted the same way, all equipped with one type of gun being proxied as another? If not then you shouldn't be getting so upset about a difference of opinion.
Sure, do you use any third party bases? Gotta rip those models off the bases and redo them if you do. Non-GW conversion bits? Those gotta go too.
Where did I say a third party conversion piece like a base is not OK? What a strange conclusion you've reached.
Ishagu wrote: It's a visual game, and when two players have made an effort with their armies...
Which brings me again to the original issue which is sub-factions. Sub-factions, because of this approach as you mentioned, were a mistake. They might have been a nice bone to the narrative players, but they really screwed up the competitive side as many people suddenly saw a great deal of their army nerfed in comparison to their sub-faction siblings who got large buffs.
I'd personally be happy if faction specific sub-faction traits were removed altogether as they are now.
I also see some proxy discussion here. For clarification I am only talking about color schemes.
I would prefer to have specific chapter etc have their own codexes, but this will only happen if they go down the digital-only approach and can update all of them at once, so no marines get left behind with old rules.
The way they have their books and books of how the previous books were wrong shows me they badly need to go over to a digital route. buy a digi-dex, and it will be updated until a new 'dex is made, which you'll have to buy again.
Ishagu wrote: It's a visual game, and when two players have made an effort with their armies...
Which brings me again to the original issue which is sub-factions. Sub-factions, because of this approach as you mentioned, were a mistake. They might have been a nice bone to the narrative players, but they really screwed up the competitive side as many people suddenly saw a great deal of their army nerfed in comparison to their sub-faction siblings who got large buffs.
I'd personally be happy if faction specific sub-faction traits were removed altogether as they are now.
I also see some proxy discussion here. For clarification I am only talking about color schemes.
I would prefer to have specific chapter etc have their own codexes, but this will only happen if they go down the digital-only approach and can update all of them at once, so no marines get left behind with old rules.
The way they have their books and books of how the previous books were wrong shows me they badly need to go over to a digital route. buy a digi-dex, and it will be updated until a new 'dex is made, which you'll have to buy again.
Yep, I think the generalized way they are trying to approach depth in the game is a haphazard one. With how many of the faction traits and how their usability varies I would argue that each sub-faction needs its own point cost table at this point. Alaitoc Asuryani are for example better than their Saim-hann counterparts overall and therefore Saim-hann should either be cheaper or Alaitoc more expensive.
Balance-wise I think the sub-faction traits has opened up a can of worm they need to find a better solution for.
I'm very happy to see all the chapters getting rules too. I'm also not concerned in the slightest if one is better than another. This isn't going to be the status quo forever.
Voss wrote: 'How GW intends' doesn't mean squat. It changes from year to year based on sales figures, and has no impact outside GWHQ.
It means a lot more than that - it's a base point for what the creators of the game actually wish for the game.
Are you one of these players who has 3 factions in a list all painted the same way, all equipped with one type of gun being proxied as another? If not then you shouldn't be getting so upset about a difference of opinion.
Sure, do you use any third party bases? Gotta rip those models off the bases and redo them if you do. Non-GW conversion bits? Those gotta go too.
Where did I say a third party conversion piece like a base is not OK? What a strange conclusion you've reached.
Not my conclusion. It's GW's. If you are going to follow some of their ridiculous painting rules you have to follow all of them. While I cannot find where it is explicitly listed in their painting requirements, I do have a link to the facebook posts where they are specifically telling someone that their gorgeous third party ice bases are a "no-go." This happened Sept 2018 and I have heard of this happening multiple times, especially when the game is going to be streamed.
Here you go:
GW don't permit 3rd party bits at their events because a business cannot and should not advertise a competitive product on their premises for free. If that person ends up on Warhammer TV then GW are inadvertently advertising his models to everyone watching.
Maybe they should put a little foresight into it before committing to a Chapter, then. Or possibly make up a Successor Chapter specifically so they aren't tied to a specific trait.
How could you foresee multiple codices and game editions into the future that the army you chose to build would end up crap?
Paint what you want it to look like and don't chase the meta, or make it ubiquitous. It's not hard.
Jidmah wrote:
Just Tony wrote: Maybe they should put a little foresight into it before committing to a Chapter, then. Or possibly make up a Successor Chapter specifically so they aren't tied to a specific trait.
Two of my regular Marine opponents picked their Chapter twenty-five years ago. Enlighten us, what will the chapter tactics of Ultramarine be in 2044?
Gee, it's like if you know you're going to chase the meta because that's how you game, you paint your army to represent ANYTHING. It's not that damn hard, unless you're being combative just to be combative.
Nazrak wrote:
Ishagu wrote: Or you actually paint a chapter you like instead of just chasing rules?
Yepppppp 100% this. Glad to see it's not just me who feels like this.
Just Tony wrote: Maybe they should put a little foresight into it before committing to a Chapter, then. Or possibly make up a Successor Chapter specifically so they aren't tied to a specific trait.
Two of my regular Marine opponents picked their Chapter twenty-five years ago. Enlighten us, what will the chapter tactics of Ultramarine be in 2044?
My view of this is "Who cares? Play them as Ultramarines no matter what."
skchsan wrote:Or... you can just stop bandwagoning and be loyal to the army that made you fall into the game.
I still rock my DA army despite being one of the bottom tier armies. I just choose my fights wisely.
These folks get it.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Ishagu wrote: Or you actually paint a chapter you like instead of just chasing rules?
If you only care about the rules you will get burned eventually. Power rises and falls often in 40k.
I'm doing a custom Chapter and all my HQ stand-ins have appropriately represented equipment.
OR are you saying I can only use the OFFICIAL models for HQ units?
So far you're the only person that had to be moderated in this discussion, and you're flinging Strawmen like a discus hurler. At this point I'll assume the obtuseness is a simple troll tactic.
Use spoiler tags for large quotes please - BrookM
The only one being obtuse is you and those expressing similarly snobish views. I have 5000pts of a Craftworld Iyanden Wraith army, yet if fielding a full army the only trait I'll never use for it is the Iyanden trait. It's not because it's weak per se, if you build around it with massed Guardian blobs and vehicles you could come up with a strong list, it's just neither useful or thematic for a Wraith army to the point where I might as well not have one. Instead I use Ulthwe because it suits them much better (and isn't as obnoxious as Alaitoc, the best trait).
Apparently though, matching the rules your going to use to your army and it's playstyle is a foreign concept.
Ishagu wrote: GW don't permit 3rd party bits at their events because a business cannot and should not advertise a competitive product on their premises for free. If that person ends up on Warhammer TV then GW are inadvertently advertising his models to everyone watching.
Removed - BrookM
You are probably the biggest delusional dakkanaut ever.
GW has a monopoly on the franchise and is in the market position an Oligopol.
They virtually have neither competition in 40k nor has the competition in the market itself any chance to flourish without beeing dependant on GW or GW's policies.
Secondly:
You realize that you validate their no model no rules policy indirectly.
You know what that also did? Cut into their own bottomline, because i rekon 90% of the modles that got produced for these were kitbashed and modelled out of other GW parts.
Thirdly: Here:
"Piracy is not a consummer problem, piracy is almost always a service problem" Gabe Newell.
let's take a look at GW's service: F.e. Chaos Terminators. Base equipment combi bolters and chainaxes. You could rightfully expect a full basic equipment loadout right? WRONG, feth you give us money and buy 4 more Terminator kits.
Or another exemple, Reaper chaincannons.
They don't provide a decently priced alternative, in order for their greedy restrictive policies to shine through, and since they have no real competitions people turn to recasters and alternatives.
In my case, i would like to buy FW renegades, i can't the service is not provided. (doubly so if we take the rules in but alas)
Rules btw are a prime exemple here aswell. there are 106 doccuments, of which about 50% (probably more) are hidden behind a pricetag? Piecemeal spread around ?
Fourth: Telling someone to go out of the internet.
Buddy, Free speech is a thing, and most certainly i won't go away just because your delusional self tells me too
I'm relatively certain (no book in front of me) that the first line in the BRB also says something along the lines of "These rules are designed for use with your Citadel miniatures". So even if you consider the FB post to be "only for GW tournaments" the rulebook itself gives you GW's opinion on using 3rd party and kitbashed models.
Ishagu wrote: GW don't permit 3rd party bits at their events because a business cannot and should not advertise a competitive product on their premises for free. If that person ends up on Warhammer TV then GW are inadvertently advertising his models to everyone watching.
Removed - BrookM
So for clarity, you justify your stance that a paintjob locks you into a specific army trait based on the warhammer world rules posted by GW and want to apply the same rule to games outside of warhammer world. However, after calling "no third party bases" a strange conclusion, you have retracted that statement after being contradicted by factual evidence of GW enforcing that at Warhammer Citadel. Your new stance is that "GW would be a fool to advertise third party products for free." Correct me if I am wrong in assuming you don't want to apply this rule outside of official GW events at Warhammer Citadel if the sole reason is "no advertising competitors." Sounds like picking and choosing if both of those rules normally aren't applied outside of warhammer world events.
flandarz wrote: I'm relatively certain (no book in front of me) that the first line in the BRB also says something along the lines of "These rules are designed for use with your Citadel miniatures". So even if you consider the FB post to be "only for GW tournaments" the rulebook itself gives you GW's opinion on using 3rd party and kitbashed models.
How dareth thou kitbashing a Archon on a Jetbike by using regular drukhari jetbikes! OR warbosses on BIKES
GW needs to enforce their 25CHF /charachter model policy.
and 60+ for ABBADON.
At the store I got started at, the manager would allow any kitbash of GW parts. As long as it was either greenstuff, or parts of GW models pieced together, it was allowed, and Greenstuff in reason. Anything NOT made by GW or FW was not allowed in the store.
I always thought this was silly, but it makes financial sense to me now.
Not Online!!! wrote: Rules btw are a prime exemple here aswell. there are 106 doccuments, of which about 50% (probably more) are hidden behind a pricetag? Piecemeal spread around ?
Not Online!!! wrote: Rules btw are a prime exemple here aswell. there are 106 doccuments, of which about 50% (probably more) are hidden behind a pricetag? Piecemeal spread around ?
108 now actually, with 4 more soon to follow.
He got the list.
Can you do me a favour bacon, please make a seperate entry for those that you need to pay for.
Voss wrote: 'How GW intends' doesn't mean squat. It changes from year to year based on sales figures, and has no impact outside GWHQ.
It means a lot more than that - it's a base point for what the creators of the game actually wish for the game.
Are you one of these players who has 3 factions in a list all painted the same way, all equipped with one type of gun being proxied as another? If not then you shouldn't be getting so upset about a difference of opinion.
Sure, do you use any third party bases? Gotta rip those models off the bases and redo them if you do. Non-GW conversion bits? Those gotta go too.
Where did I say a third party conversion piece like a base is not OK? What a strange conclusion you've reached.
Not my conclusion. It's GW's. If you are going to follow some of their ridiculous painting rules you have to follow all of them. While I cannot find where it is explicitly listed in their painting requirements, I do have a link to the facebook posts where they are specifically telling someone that their gorgeous third party ice bases are a "no-go." This happened Sept 2018 and I have heard of this happening multiple times, especially when the game is going to be streamed.
Here you go:
Spoiler:
To be fair WRT that example, GW have always operated on a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy with 3rd party bits and bases (bases are not disallowed at Warhammer World as they realise it is unenforceable) plus said manager at the Citadel is a bit of a knob apparently. Had he known that, the guy asking put his foot in it when he should not have advertised the fact.
My previous chapter was a custom chapter, not because I wanted to switch rules, but because I like creating my own thing. They were Imperial Fists successors and always used those rules, whether it was optimal or not. However, with my new Primaris chapter I decided to be less strict with this. they're a custom chapter as well, again because that's what I like for lore and modelling reasons. However, I'm not gonna tie them to some arbitrary set of rules. I have played them as Raven Guard, Iron Hands and Salamanders at least. Not because what is optimal, but because I want to try different playstyles. Which rules GW decides to assign which subfaction seem to be pretty random anyway. If you want to create a fast hit and run marine army, the Ultramarine supplement is probably better choice than the White Scars.
You know, I don't think I've ever had this problem with people's personally devised armies with invented lore. I've only had this problem lately, with the new codexes, with already established armies trying to be another chapter.
It's one thing if you build "The long lost tiedyed fluff lords of Argon" who look crazy but play identically to white scars. I can respect you went in your own direction, and applaud your ability to put in that work to make it extra special.
What I take issue with is the soup lists of clearly identified armies that are proxing as something that is not them. Ultra Marines proxying as IF, or IF proxing as BT. I'm willing you play you, but you might as well be playing with poker chips, coke cans, and gummy bears. I respect you want to try new things, but you don't get the same respect as the Tiedyeguy.
Stormonu wrote: Side question - who here has run across opponents who are using multiple marine chapters in a single army?
I haven’t even tried a soup list, much less different chapters in the same army, so the whole affair boggles me a bit.
I don't usually see it because there's typically not more than 1 detachment of marines, or if there are they're the same to maintain bubble integrity.
At the very least, I use different ORDER keywords for my army and for my faith enabler character[s], because Faith kind of only works if you're one specific Order but I want to use the +1A +1S trait because I really like that playstyle and the general implications for the way I play my army.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ArbitorIan wrote: So many rules are intended for tournaments but end up getting used as a 'standard rule set' for pickup games. Rule of 3, for example.
Conveniently, while WYSIWYG is no longer in the rulebook, it IS a standard rule seen in pretty much every tournament pack.
If you're happy that the standard way to play pickup games is 'tournament rules' then you should be fine with WYSIWYG too.
WYSIWYG applied to wargear and units. Paint is a sacred method of artistic expression and the core element of personalizing your force to the way you like it, and should not be penalized.
WYSIWYG applied to wargear and units. Paint is a sacred method of artistic expression and the core element of personalizing your force to the way you like it, and should not be penalized.
What you see is what you get.
If I see Ultramarines, I expect to get Ultramarines.
"Paint your Marines rainbow and play them as any Chapter you want, but decide to choose a color and you're stuck for life" is all I'm getting out of this.
As I said before, as long as I can easily determine which unit is which, I don't really care what colors you use. I feel like being so strict about it is what will really decrease your enjoyment of the game, not someone using blue Marines to stand-in for yellow ones. Because how much enjoyment are you getting out of NOT playing 40k, because you refused to play a guy with the "wrong" colors?
Imateria wrote: The only one being obtuse is you and those expressing similarly snobish views.).
Snobbish.
Expecting to know what one is up against isn't snobbish, it's reasonable in a hobby where the players spout sportsmanship. Unless you're a CAAC, in which case no craps given.
Imateria wrote: I have 5000pts of a Craftworld Iyanden Wraith army, yet if fielding a full army the only trait I'll never use for it is the Iyanden trait. It's not because it's weak per se, if you build around it with massed Guardian blobs and vehicles you could come up with a strong list, it's just neither useful or thematic for a Wraith army to the point where I might as well not have one. Instead I use Ulthwe because it suits them much better (and isn't as obnoxious as Alaitoc, the best trait).
Either/or, neither/nor.
Good for you, I guess? I'm trying to figure out if you just like yellow and Ulthwe rules or have an army mostly consisting of Wraiths and simply run Ultwhe for better perks. End result is the same. Not sure what you're trying to say other than "It's not poor form because I choose to do it." Let me ask you a question, is it still modeling for an advantage if YOU do it? Yep.
Here's the real question: do you mix three or more Craftworld traits in the same army without differentiating the models? If so, TFG.
Imateria wrote: Apparently, though, matching the rules your going to use to your army and it's playstyle is a foreign concept.
You're. Contracted form of "you are", not to be confused with the possessive form of "you", which is "your".
Its. This is the correct possessive form. The contracted form of "it is" is "it's".
If you're going to insult someone's comprehension skills like you did in your last sentence, you better make sure the body of your message is beyond reproach.
What I got from this thread's bulk is that some people expect some form of decorum when it comes to lists, or at least consistency, and the CAACs are all about shaming those people with shouts of "gatekeeping" and the like. This falls back on the whole "social contract" aspect, it would seem, so the correct answer from ANYONE on either side of this debate is "establish it up front or don't play the game at all".
flandarz wrote: "Paint your Marines rainbow and play them as any Chapter you want, but decide to choose a color and you're stuck for life" is all I'm getting out of this.
As I said before, as long as I can easily determine which unit is which, I don't really care what colors you use. I feel like being so strict about it is what will really decrease your enjoyment of the game, not someone using blue Marines to stand-in for yellow ones. Because how much enjoyment are you getting out of NOT playing 40k, because you refused to play a guy with the "wrong" colors?
Rainbow marines will be the new ultra successor. (not UM) they are made out of scraps of all marines, and resemble all tactics.
Not Online!!! wrote: Rules btw are a prime exemple here aswell. there are 106 doccuments, of which about 50% (probably more) are hidden behind a pricetag? Piecemeal spread around ?
108 now actually, with 4 more soon to follow.
He got the list.
Can you do me a favour bacon, please make a seperate entry for those that you need to pay for.
Now that's funny.
Not Online!!! wrote:
flandarz wrote: "Paint your Marines rainbow and play them as any Chapter you want, but decide to choose a color and you're stuck for life" is all I'm getting out of this.
As I said before, as long as I can easily determine which unit is which, I don't really care what colors you use. I feel like being so strict about it is what will really decrease your enjoyment of the game, not someone using blue Marines to stand-in for yellow ones. Because how much enjoyment are you getting out of NOT playing 40k, because you refused to play a guy with the "wrong" colors?
Rainbow marines will be the new ultra successor. (not UM) they are made out of scraps of all marines, and resemble all tactics.
Umm, no. Rainbow Warriors have been their own thing since RT.
I picked my colors loonnnnnngggggg ago and they could suck but my colors dont change for any reason. If you liked the chapter enough to spend time painting it to look right, why would you change it? its like all that work was for nought. Chasing the dragon never ends well.....
Contrary to popular belief, WYSIWYG was never a published rule. The phrase is mentioned in passing in 3rd ed rulebook only.
Contrary to popular belief, blowing really hard on your opponents models while then are on tall ruins isn't actually forbidden in the play book! Neither is spitting on them, or shoving your booger hooks up your fourth point of contact, and wiping your re fried beans all over their Guilliman model!
But we don't do it, because we're not animals. We live in a society. It has been pointed out numerous times in this thread how it is easily known that GW intended this to be the case.
@Racerguy: Again, I ain't talking about the guy who changes Chapters whenever one outmetas the other. I'm talking about the vast majority who just wanna try something out without purchasing and painting a brand new army to do so. Maybe they got a limited budget (both money and time) and would like to see how another Chapter plays before committing to it? Generally, the folks "chasing the dragon" are the same people who are fine with just buying a new army and doing it up right. It's your casual to semi-casual players who proxy.
@Fezzik: Wow. So, apparently not having the right colors for your sub-faction makes you an animal. Some real passive-aggressive insulting going on. I honestly considered not even engaging with this, because you don't seem very receptive to compromise or other opinions, but I do wanna mention that "intent" and "the rules", particularly in 40k, are often at odds with each other. Now, you're free to refuse a match for whatever reason you want. Wrong colors. Some real stank. Don't like the cut of their jib. Whatever. But I feel like you're doing yourself (and the hobby) a disservice with such arbitrary refusals as "Your models are yellow when they should be blue!"
Contrary to popular belief, blowing really hard on your opponents models while then are on tall ruins isn't actually forbidden in the play book! Neither is spitting on them, or shoving your booger hooks up your fourth point of contact, and wiping your re fried beans all over their Guilliman model!
But we don't do it, because we're not animals. We live in a society. It has been pointed out numerous times in this thread how it is easily known that GW intended this to be the case.
You know, I'm beginning to think I understand the problem in this particular equation. And it isnt your opponent.
There are savages who play with unpainted models. If my opponent has a painted army, I'm not gonna complain about them painting it in a 'wrong' colour.
Contrary to popular belief, blowing really hard on your opponents models while then are on tall ruins isn't actually forbidden in the play book! Neither is spitting on them, or shoving your booger hooks up your fourth point of contact, and wiping your re fried beans all over their Guilliman model!
But we don't do it, because we're not animals. We live in a society. It has been pointed out numerous times in this thread how it is easily known that GW intended this to be the case.
You know, I'm beginning to think I understand the problem in this particular equation. And it isnt your opponent.
Hey, passive aggressive snarky internet tough guy act aside, I clearly stated in the premise that I didn't make a issue of it at all, during any of the games. I merely asked the forum if they would accept this, or if I am wrong and need to adjust to the way things are. The overwhelming majority here support the fact that WYSIWYG with multi-faction lists, but with mono-dex lists it's ok to represent other than what you paint. Which is fine.
Again, the specific complaint here was lazy hobbyists multi-dexing and having all their units be painted other than the dexes they were listing. Which again, most people here state is a problem and shouldn't be allowed.
Hey, passive aggressive snarky internet tough guy act aside, I clearly stated in the premise that I didn't make a issue of it at all, during any of the games.
And yet here you are, throwing out your usual hyperbolic reaction to anyone disagreeing with your stance that everyone should do exactly what you want them to do.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: The overwhelming majority here support the fact that WYSIWYG with multi-faction lists, but with mono-dex lists it's ok to represent other than what you paint. Which is fine.
Again, the specific complaint here was lazy hobbyists multi-dexing and having all their units be painted other than the dexes they were listing. Which again, most people here state is a problem and shouldn't be allowed.
Yeah...no. Good on you for trying to rationalize yourself back to your original position though. Excellent effort.
As I see it:
If I see Ultramarines, I'm going to expect to be playing against Ultramarines.
If I'm told "hey, they're not Ultramarines, they're *insert Chapter here*" that's cool (again, provided that they're not doing the whole multiple Chapters with no visual difference thing), and I don't inherently have a problem with that.
Depending on other contexts, I may or may not enjoy the game as much as I would if they were just playing how they're painted (if they're just trialling out a different playstyle vs if they're chasing the meta/most powerful/optimised option*), but the inherent act of changing out your Chapter isn't the issue.
I would always rather play a painted list than an unpainted one. However, I'd rather play a painted Iron Hands list than an Ultramarine army proxying as Iron Hands. And I'd also rather play a guy who has painted Ultramarines proxying as Iron Hands because they want to trial the new rules over someone who has Iron Hands proxied as Ultramarines because they're chasing the hypothetical meta.
It's the attitude I'd take objection with, more than anything else. And attitude's not something any rule can dictate or govern.
*if not obvious, I'm not exactly a competitive player, and would rather just play a relaxed game where the fluff and narrative are the main contributors. That's not to say that I think people who play in other ways are wrong or inferior, but that it's simply not my style, and I prefer to not play that way.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: As I see it:
If I see Ultramarines, I'm going to expect to be playing against Ultramarines.
If I'm told "hey, they're not Ultramarines, they're *insert Chapter here*" that's cool (again, provided that they're not doing the whole multiple Chapters with no visual difference thing), and I don't inherently have a problem with that.
Depending on other contexts, I may or may not enjoy the game as much as I would if they were just playing how they're painted (if they're just trialling out a different playstyle vs if they're chasing the meta/most powerful/optimised option*), but the inherent act of changing out your Chapter isn't the issue.
I would always rather play a painted list than an unpainted one. However, I'd rather play a painted Iron Hands list than an Ultramarine army proxying as Iron Hands. And I'd also rather play a guy who has painted Ultramarines proxying as Iron Hands because they want to trial the new rules over someone who has Iron Hands proxied as Ultramarines because they're chasing the hypothetical meta.
It's the attitude I'd take objection with, more than anything else. And attitude's not something any rule can dictate or govern.
*if not obvious, I'm not exactly a competitive player, and would rather just play a relaxed game where the fluff and narrative are the main contributors. That's not to say that I think people who play in other ways are wrong or inferior, but that it's simply not my style, and I prefer to not play that way.
Thank you for putting this post on the thread. Excellently said. It's not a rule, we can't mandate, but we have more enjoyment from games where our opponents paint their armies according to what they are playing. But se la vie.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Thank you for putting this post on the thread. Excellently said. It's not a rule, we can't mandate, but we have more enjoyment from games where our opponents paint their armies according to what they are playing. But se la vie.
I'm not going to turn around to someone and say "um actually, you can't do that because...", but I reserve any right to judge someone for doing it, in the same way I would if someone was moving my models, or had an unpainted list, or proxied coke cans, or any other thing - it's not that doing those things is inherently a problem, because I am cool with those things depending on the circumstances. It's the context that matters.
Playing with a different Chapter's rules because we're just trying out some different playstyles? Cool. Playing with a different Chapter's rules because we're both playing to win hard? Fair game. Playing with a different Chapter's rules because you want to win easier in a casual/fluffy game? No thanks.
And no, I don't expect these to be universal rules, only that people respect my preference of playing as much as I respect theirs.
flandarz wrote:@Racerguy: Again, I ain't talking about the guy who changes Chapters whenever one outmetas the other. I'm talking about the vast majority who just wanna try something out without purchasing and painting a brand new army to do so. Maybe they got a limited budget (both money and time) and would like to see how another Chapter plays before committing to it? Generally, the folks "chasing the dragon" are the same people who are fine with just buying a new army and doing it up right. It's your casual to semi-casual players who proxy.
If you have a limited budget that's fine, but changing which chapter you have every...single...game and then changing it again when than one is no longer "viable" or "best".
I have never proxy'd and pretty much everyone in our group that is narrative focused is the same.
I have backgrounds for most of my models that I don't plan on changing the background on them to suit the rules I like best. A couple of them are custom backgrounds where I have to get the rules to be a sort of best fit, but most of my factions were based on existing lore. Only my Tau are still somewhat in the air as my background fits better with Bork' An as a science team, but their colors are part way between Vior'La and Farsight. So I haven't quite decided yet.
Spoiler:
[
The Spoiler is a picture of a sample model for each faction I currently have painted up.
Again, I don't like the idea of switching factions just because one set of rules suits the player over another. I am not going to hold anyone else to it, just like I won't for painted models. At the same time, I think a player should play the subfaction they painted their models. At least in general. They don't have to stick with those rules to the end of time, but I would like some consistency. Having the right colors to the right faction or even just sticking with the same faction week after week helps create the illusion that these fictional battles with plastic spacemen are more real with stories and heroics worthy of the future history books. As I said, to do otherwise diminishes the hobby making it a pale shadow of what it can be.
So, I painted my orks in a way where every unit was painted like the clan it would most likely come from. You know, because that's what the fluff in my codex used to say how it worked.
My choppa boyz are black/white, my shoota boyz and tank bustas are yellow, my bikes, trukk boyz and trukks are red, my lootaz are blue, gretchin and weird boyz are brown, nob squads had mixed colors and a good chunk is just painted shoulder pads/pants/helmets in a random color because I need to tell squads appart.
So, to those "you should paint what you are running" guys, what culture should my army have? Should I repaint everything because GW suddenly decided to change the rules? Do I need to repaint 2000 points of models from blue to black if I want to run Ghazghkull Thrakka instead of Mad Doc Grotznik who both used to be in one formation just last edition? Is my Thrakka painted in Bloodaxe colors an illegal model?
Jidmah wrote: So, I painted my orks in a way where every unit was painted like the clan it would most likely come from. You know, because that's what the fluff in my codex used to say how it worked.
My choppa boyz are black/white, my shoota boyz and tank bustas are yellow, my bikes, trukk boyz and trukks are red, my lootaz are blue, gretchin and weird boyz are brown, nob squads had mixed colors and a good chunk is just painted shoulder pads/pants/helmets in a random color because I need to tell squads appart.
So, to those "you should paint what you are running" guys, what culture should my army have? Should I repaint everything because GW suddenly decided to change the rules? Do I need to repaint 2000 points of models from blue to black if I want to run Ghazghkull Thrakka instead of Mad Doc Grotznik who both used to be in one formation just last edition? Is my Thrakka painted in Bloodaxe colors an illegal model?
I thik the vast majority of people would not begrudge your ork squads having different Kultures (love ork spell ) as they are all differently painted and their squads are all clearly distinguishable... I think the issue at hand is least relevant to orks as they are generaly pretty mish mash models.. no offence meant to ork lads !!! Also...they all be green skins . From reading peoples comments I don't think anyone says in this scenario it would be a problem.
So, reading this thread a lot of people have made sweeping hyperbole statements about what people allegedly mean when clearly they don't... Its dakka through and through.
So let me do this also:
Vast majority, if not all people have said (myself included) would not have a problem with the entire army with a specific colour scheme being played as another sub factions E.g. Ultramarines being played as iron fists... Different rules and all that can allow for different playstyles so everyone seems to understand the rationale. Heck it would be boring if you always played your army the same way..
Most people have said (myself included) wouldn't even mind if some specific units, although painted like the rest of the army would be a different subfaction - As long as those units are different to other units... I.E. Everything painted as pink marines. But all these vehicles and tech marine in this spearhead are Iron fists, everything else is pink marines rules. Its obvious that t rule chasing/power gaming but I don't think its the crux of the problem.. Do what you wanna do.
But it seems a lot of people (myself included) struggle with identically loaded out and painted units that have different rules. E.g. All of these intercessors across two battalions look identical and are painted as red marines. However, these ones here are raven guard and these ones here are ultramarines.
The consensus seems to be that this is/can be difficult to track on the table top. Especially if all these different squads get blobbed up in CC/tight formations. The controlling player will inevitably remove the wrong model by accident or apply the specific tactic to the wrong combat squad or the opponent will pick wrong target priority or whatever? I say this because I've done it and made mistakes to my detriment! and its soured the game.. And don't do it anymore. But could quite easily see this being done for advantage..
The counter argument seems to be: "Ahh but I explained this at the start of the game so its on you to remember.. too bad you forgot. Your problem. Your burden.. Also I don't make mistakes and will never misplay my unit"
And to that people say.. no its on you to represent your miniatures properly and that the burden is on you. Because they are your miniatures. And everybody makes mistakes... but why create a situation where the likely hood increases purposefully?
I don't think anyone, despite what people seems to have suggested, have been unreasonable(yes some outlier opinions..looking at you ishagu but unreasonable?) and there has been a lot of putting words in peoples mouths talking about double standards or what have you. Its clear what people are trying to say. I don't think the discussion is about weather someone's meta chasing/power gaming and discussing the merits of competitive vs casual (because when does a conversation on dakka ever not degenerate into this) that's a different conversation all together..
My issue is: Why create an environment where you purposefully Increase the likely hood of either player making an error, seems baffling.. Aren't our games supposed to be fun enjoyable and fair ?
I usually run my entire army as one clan, unless I'm running two named characters which have different clans, then some gretchin and weirdboy have a different kulture which do nothing for either. So the confusion for my opponent should be zero.
However multiple people have voiced the opinion that people should only ever play what they have painted, with no exceptions whatsoever. I'd like their opinion on the clan thing.
Every single codex in 3rd ed had "All weapons and wargear must be represented on the model" in the wargear section.
And that is what most people understand WYSIWYG to mean. No mention of paintjob there.
Well, there's one example where it would be require WYSIWYG and paint to coincide - I'm pretty sure 3rd ed Ork vehicles could take "Red Paint Job" as an upgrade, which made them go slightly quicker.
Jidmah wrote: I usually run my entire army as one clan, unless I'm running two named characters which have different clans, then some gretchin and weirdboy have a different kulture which do nothing for either. So the confusion for my opponent should be zero.
However multiple people have voiced the opinion that people should only ever play what they have painted, with no exceptions whatsoever. I'd like their opinion on the clan thing.
If it were my army, I'd go with whichever Clan the Warboss is. Or whichever Clan the leader of the particular detachment is.
Jidmah wrote: I usually run my entire army as one clan, unless I'm running two named characters which have different clans, then some gretchin and weirdboy have a different kulture which do nothing for either. So the confusion for my opponent should be zero.
However multiple people have voiced the opinion that people should only ever play what they have painted, with no exceptions whatsoever. I'd like their opinion on the clan thing.
If it were my army, I'd go with whichever Clan the Warboss is. Or whichever Clan the leader of the particular detachment is.
Almost every big mek and warboss has a different clan, as they were supposed to be the warband leaders that the big boss unified to stat the Waaagh! represented by my army. That's how it works in the fluff - most of Thrakkas inner circle generals (Nazdregg, Orkimedes, Grotznik) are not goff, in DoW Grogutz bullies or kills leaders of other clans to make their warband join them and in IA:7 a goff mek is in charge of an evil suns, a deff skulls and a goff warboss.
Jidmah wrote:So, I painted my orks in a way where every unit was painted like the clan it would most likely come from. You know, because that's what the fluff in my codex used to say how it worked.
My choppa boyz are black/white, my shoota boyz and tank bustas are yellow, my bikes, trukk boyz and trukks are red, my lootaz are blue, gretchin and weird boyz are brown, nob squads had mixed colors and a good chunk is just painted shoulder pads/pants/helmets in a random color because I need to tell squads appart.
So, to those "you should paint what you are running" guys, what culture should my army have?
Should I repaint everything because GW suddenly decided to change the rules?
Do I need to repaint 2000 points of models from blue to black if I want to run Ghazghkull Thrakka instead of Mad Doc Grotznik who both used to be in one formation just last edition?
Is my Thrakka painted in Bloodaxe colors an illegal model?
Personally, I'd play them as whatever klan the Warlord is. If you played your Thraka as Thraka, then I'd expect Goffs (because that's what's on his datasheet), if he was a normal Warboss, then I'd expect Blood Axe.
However, if I were you, based on how you've said you have Warbosses for each subgroup of your army (which is super fluffy and I love it), I'd actually be dividing the army into a bunch of detachments and playing each Klan as their own detachment. So, for me personally, I'd be playing what they're painted as, and your Blood Axe Thraka either as a Blood Axe if generic, or Goff if as Thraka himself.
As far as it goes, I don't think I'd have a problem if your army used a variety of rules, so long as they were obvious, and I'd be pretty open to using different Klan rules. However, if I knew you were only using XYZ Klan rules because they were the "best rules", then I'd be more apprehensive about playing. Say, if you'd been playing Blood Axes for months because that's how you'd painted them, but then if, say, Bad Moon rules become super brokenly good, and you start using them regularly without retooling your lore or repainting or what have you, I'd enjoy playing you less.
Orkz are one of those factions where color is basically meaningless. Got Goffs in red armor? "Dey wuz in da Evil Sunz, but da Goffz knowz wut a gud foight iz, so dey joined up wiv dem." Evil Sunz Warboss in blue? "I knicked it from sum git wot looked at me funny, aftah I knokt 'im round a bit."
Having a hodgepodge aesthetic IS the Ork aesthetic.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: However, if I were you, based on how you've said you have Warbosses for each subgroup of your army (which is super fluffy and I love it), I'd actually be dividing the army into a bunch of detachments and playing each Klan as their own detachment. So, for me personally, I'd be playing what they're painted as, and your Blood Axe Thraka either as a Blood Axe if generic, or Goff if as Thraka himself.
Yeah, that would be awesome, but as none of my clans can field 3 troops+2HQ I would be just playing with a maximum of 6 CP. Which means an automatic loss for orks - and not even a close one, but as in the game is a waste of time for both players.
As far as it goes, I don't think I'd have a problem if your army used a variety of rules, so long as they were obvious, and I'd be pretty open to using different Klan rules. However, if I knew you were only using XYZ Klan rules because they were the "best rules", then I'd be more apprehensive about playing. Say, if you'd been playing Blood Axes for months because that's how you'd painted them, but then if, say, Bad Moon rules become super brokenly good, and you start using them regularly without retooling your lore or repainting or what have you, I'd enjoy playing you less.
Is that the kind of answer you were after?
In this context, what do you mean by "repainting what I have to"? Just picking a properly painted warlord?
I personally would be fine having you use what ever Kultur the unit is painted as.
Part of me thinks Ork should just get to add Kulturs on a per unit basis anyways. Maybe I am not seeing the right games, but I don't think that would make them over powered and it fits their lore. I would even throw in a marine doctrine like power that rewards going mono Kultur.
The only confusing thing would be if players didn't paint their army like yours. Even then, I think most Ork units are fairly obvious which Kultur they want. So long the mono-Kultur was decent enough I could see player sticking to that too.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: However, if I were you, based on how you've said you have Warbosses for each subgroup of your army (which is super fluffy and I love it), I'd actually be dividing the army into a bunch of detachments and playing each Klan as their own detachment. So, for me personally, I'd be playing what they're painted as, and your Blood Axe Thraka either as a Blood Axe if generic, or Goff if as Thraka himself.
Yeah, that would be awesome, but as none of my clans can field 3 troops+2HQ I would be just playing with a maximum of 6 CP. Which means an automatic loss for orks - and not even a close one, but as in the game is a waste of time for both players.
You don't need to make every detachment a Battalion. Spearheads, Patrols, Vanguards, Outriders, and suchlike are all perfect for this kind of structure. And I don't think I'd have a massive problem with giving you extra CP if you did organise your detachments accordingly above.
But then I do ignore the whole "you can only have 3 detachments per X many points" rule, so maybe that's not viable on your end.
As far as it goes, I don't think I'd have a problem if your army used a variety of rules, so long as they were obvious, and I'd be pretty open to using different Klan rules. However, if I knew you were only using XYZ Klan rules because they were the "best rules", then I'd be more apprehensive about playing. Say, if you'd been playing Blood Axes for months because that's how you'd painted them, but then if, say, Bad Moon rules become super brokenly good, and you start using them regularly without retooling your lore or repainting or what have you, I'd enjoy playing you less.
Is that the kind of answer you were after?
In this context, what do you mean by "repainting what I have to"? Just picking a properly painted warlord?
"what have you", not "what I have to", but yes, if we were assuming that you take the Klan trait of the Warlord instead of splitting down into smaller detachments, then yes, just selecting the appropriate coloured Warboss who's Klan you want to be dominant to be the Warlord would be fine.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:@Jidmah
I personally would be fine having you use what ever Kultur the unit is painted as.
This too. I think Orks should be one of, if not the only, faction to have a unit by unit Kultur breakdown.
.
Why didn't you get some magnets dawg!!!!
