Over the past few years I have seen a lot of "variant" paint schemes for 40k and to a lesser extent HH.

I have seen homages to movies/anime/comics as I've seen "UN SPACY"/Macross Tau, Avengers Knights, and Space Marines painted as different incarnations of Iron Man.

I've also seen Pastels and Neon Tyranids and every other eye shearing color used in models.

None of which are recommended by GW and their Grimdark esthetic.

Do you think it's cool to play with, or against, armies that have made their Cadians dress like they are extras in Starship Troopers? Or do you prefer armies select from the more "historically pleasing" 40k universe?

Yes.

It is cool and adds variety to the game. Color schemes should be entirely up to the player.

Also there is literally nothing in the lore against pastel and neon Tyranids, which BTW are amazing.

As long as it’s in good taste, I’m good with anything.

I've seen some posts online where nontraditional paint schemes haven't been well received in HH, but I've yet to see that in "real life."

Have you ever witnessed someone refusing to play due to someone's paint scheme?

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Have you ever witnessed someone refusing to play due to someone's paint scheme?

No, but the local bar was set quite low. Coke cans were acceptable stand-ins for dreadnoughts, base-coat was painted, limbs were optional for non-special weapon carrying models.

To this day in oldhammer games a pair of space crusade dreadnoughts crudely painted with the legio astorum scheme see frequent use.

We do also have properly painted models but don't limit our games to our collections.

I want a fluff/lore reason for it. Gimme that, and I'll play anyone.

-STS

There are only two things that would keep me from playing your army when it comes to color schemes:

A fully black basecoated army that prevents me from seeing what the heck anything is from less than a foot away.

A color scheme so hideous that it hurts my eyes to look at it.

I play 40K to have fun, not to torture myself.

slade the sniper wrote:
I want a fluff/lore reason for it. Gimme that, and I'll play anyone.

-STS

So a hard "no" to the Robotech/Gundam Tau armies (and the like) ?

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Over the past few years I have seen a lot of "variant" paint schemes for 40k and to a lesser extent HH.

I have seen homages to movies/anime/comics as I've seen "UN SPACY"/Macross Tau, Avengers Knights, and Space Marines painted as different incarnations of Iron Man.

I've also seen Pastels and Neon Tyranids and every other eye shearing color used in models.

None of which are recommended by GW and their Grimdark esthetic.

Do you think it's cool to play with, or against, armies that have made their Cadians dress like they are extras in Starship Troopers? Or do you prefer armies select from the more "historically pleasing" 40k universe?

It's absolutely fine. Really, the only exceptions I can think of is if your paintjob endorses hatespeech, like with Nazi imagery or something.

Short of that, the only caring I do is to say stuff like "Dude, your minis look cool!"

Yes, of course.

It's just painting, not modeling for advantage. I can think of only a few cases where it would pose a very mild and seldom deliberate WYSIWYG issue, such as making different unit types harder to tell apart in an army that fights as a ragtag coalition (e.g. CSM).

Aside from SM chapters and other subfactions (some of which no longer have their own rules anyway), I view the color scheme of GW's demo models as a suggestion, not the baseline. I've even seen Orks that had red skin instead of green, which can be explained by mutation and the general weirdness of their race. I thought it was a bold and interesting choice. There are color schemes that wouldn't make much sense, like Catachans wearing orange, but I hardly see how it would actively bother an opponent. At most, it makes the army harder to resell, which is really only the problem of the one who painted them this way.

Most of my armies have a nontraditional scheme. Dark blue and grey Cadians. Black, pink and blue Drukhari. Sisters of Battle in bone-colored armor. Grey and purple Custodians. Only my long-sold White Scars had the traditional white scheme, and that was because they were fluffed as explicitly the White Scars (who also had their own subfaction rules at the time) and not just a counts-as chapter with similar tactics.

.

Show me anywhere, in any codex, supplement, novel, etc. where any faction/army is depicted as sprue grey. Because 80% of all armies I've ever played against are this color.

I have no care in the world what color your army is if its painted. Playing against a fully painted army is a rare opportunity.

 Jayden63 wrote:
Show me anywhere, in any codex, supplement, novel, etc. where any faction/army is depicted as sprue grey. Because 80% of all armies I've ever played against are this color.

I have no care in the world what color your army is if its painted. Playing against a fully painted army is a rare opportunity.

So if I were to paint my army "Spue Grey" no problem.
But if I just left it as it came, ie Spue Grey, & saved myself the effort/$, then you'd suddenly have an issue?

My memories of Rogue Trader schemes, including Space Marine camo are too fond for me to object.

Painting your models is a form of art. And so a form of artistic expression. Even if I don’t like the end result, that doesn’t change.

It’s only when you get to your Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin modern art guff that I’d beg to differ.

But your models, your scheme. Go for it.

So long as you're not being deliberately offensive and/or "edgelord-y" about it (i.e. swastikas outside of a historical WW2 German army, anatomically correct naked people, etc.), I say paint your army however you like. I myself have a couple of slow-grow armies based on things outside the 40k/AoS universes (Leagues of Votann painted to look like the Grineer from Warframe, Lumineth Realm-Lords painted to look like the nations from Avatar: The Last Airbender), so I kind of expect others to do the same occasionally. Ultimately, they're your models, do what makes you happy.

Especially in 7th some players would dual use their 40K SM for HH, at least online some people disliked seeing 40K armies directly ported to 30K, especially in cases were the Legions had changed their scheme between the two.

I don't care how, or even if, you paint your stuff. That's your business.
And you'd have try extremely hard to offend me.
And no, putting Swatika's on your space Nazis won't do it. Because 1) if you intend them to be Space Nazis I'll already know what you intend with or without the symbol. 2) I'm always down for a game of blowing up Nazis.

I care even less about your views concerning my own unpainted/merely base coated stuff. Things will get painted at my own pace & nothing is going to change that.
But if you have an issue with the fact that something of mine isn't painted/finished? Then here, you do it. Go ahead, I'll let you paint my stuff. I'm not going to pay you anything to do so though....
I've never had anyone take me up on that offer.

I'd rather see original colour schemes and conversions.

Honestly, the generic studio schemes are the last thing I go for on my own minis.


But...

I don't like crossover or joke armies, I like the immersion that comes from models and terrain belonging to the setting.

"None of which are recommended by GW and their Grimdark esthetic."

The strongest I've seen has been "this is OUR version"... I like different and original.. necron flowers were brilliant!

Cyel wrote:
I'd rather see original colour schemes and conversions.

I agree with this. A well painted custom scheme is my favorite thing to see.

Personally, anything goes in 40k. It is a wacky, open ended setting where everything is possible.

For HH I would expect both sides to show up with a theme that has been mentioned somewhere in a book, being more of a historical setting.

ccs wrote:
And no, putting Swatika's on your space Nazis won't do it.

I think it says something about someone being willing to take the time to paint swastikas on models. And unless they're historically-accurate literal Nazis, what it says isn't very good. If you show up to a game of 40k and I see a swastika, I'm out.

As for nudity, etc... I'm gonna say it's situational.

Other than that, go crazy with your scheme.

At the risk of potentially derailing the topic, Nazis are in the stage of leaving living memory and going from the vilest evil to just another genocidal group of donkey-caves, not fundamentally different from the many other historical genocidal groups of donkey-caves.

And that's just on the western culture, in eastern culture they were never really such a big deal so a Japanese player with a swastika army probably doesn't say much.

On objectionable symbols?

Just remember that a legitimate response can include a tu’penny one up the bracket.

Be careful where you place your edge, or someone may blunt it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On objectionable symbols?

Just remember that a legitimate response can include a tu’penny one up the bracket.

Be careful where you place your edge, or someone may blunt it.

I had to Google that, but I agree. And sadly, Nazis aren't nearly as far in the rear-view mirror as some would like to think.

Well, Swastikas would be forbidden to paint on your fantasy models over here, but if you showed up with a whole Ork army of the awesome Wehrmacht style Kromlech Orks I wouldn't complain.

I've got a very small Guard army painted up as late 19th century French - i.e. blue jackets, red trousers.

Tbh I think my preference is variety. "Grim Dark" feels cool - if you are used to seeing various shades of Bright Blue Space Marines. But if everyone embraces Grim Dark, it can be nice to see some classic Red Era style Marines, over everything being various shades of drybrushed black/brown/grey etc.

I love people enjoying their own models. If that involves them sticking closely to the lore great, if they want to do their own spin and do neon pink Dark Angels more power to them.

I for one welcome new color schemes.

But then I'm brand new to 40k. I'm currently painting Tyranids. The colors in the book are way too "My Little Pony" for me. So I'm going more "space cockroach."



My first batch are all in a green scheme. But Tyranids adapt quickly. My wife said why not silver and gray for Nids that adapted to Urban combat. So that will be one color scheme. I'll also doa big batch probably in "jaundice yellows." So I'll end up with 1/3 green, 1/3 yellow and 1/3 silver.

I am enjoying the game but the "grimdark" fluff is just too silly for me to really pay attention to.

 a_typical_hero wrote:

For HH I would expect both sides to show up with a theme that has been mentioned somewhere in a book, being more of a historical setting.

It's people like you who inspire me to do things like:
Paint a small American Bolt Action force up as green plastic army men.
500 pts, fully painted, highlighted, based, etc. A couple are even converted to the various poses - the mine sweeper, the bayonet guy, etc.
Just done as close as I can to replicate the classic toys. Including a few in a lighter/faded pallet - you know, surviving veterans of being left out in the sandbox too long on hot summer days.

Or paint a Flames of War: Team Yankee, USA force up as G.I.Joe Tiger Force.

If you were one of my HH opponents? I'd do whatever I pleased & tell you "Well this is the XI Legion".
Go ahead, prove I'm doing it wrong.

ccs wrote:

So if I were to paint my army "Spue Grey" no problem.
But if I just left it as it came, ie Spue Grey, & saved myself the effort/$, then you'd suddenly have an issue?

Unironically, it would be better. Perhaps Sprue Grey is your favourite colour and brings your vision to life, although it would be a little silly if the end result of the process was the exact same look as before it started.

It's the same for your army men example, really. If love and commitment shines through it becomes good. If it's done out of spite it becomes bad.

I'd be very surprised if there weren't events and such where only accurately loreful depictions are wanted, which would make the topic of right/wrong more black/white.

ccs wrote:

If you were one of my HH opponents? I'd do whatever I pleased & tell you "Well this is the XI Legion".
Go ahead, prove I'm doing it wrong.

You are free to do what you want with your models. Converting and painting them purposely in a way that breaks immersion for me won't change my expectations or preferences, though.

As long as it's not SS Division Wiking: The Chapter, I'm fine.

 a_typical_hero wrote:

You are free to do what you want with your models. Converting and painting them purposely in a way that breaks immersion for me won't change my expectations or preferences, though.

Yeah. HH may be changing from what it was years ago - but while I've never had the time/patience/money - but I can appreciate people who've got beautifully painted up "historical" armies that even by the standards of GW cost a fortune.
If they run into someone who's army is some sprue-grey models and a few coke cans, the obvious reaction is that they just aren't actually in the same hobby. And maybe don't want to play together as a result.

 alextroy wrote:
There are only two things that would keep me from playing your army when it comes to color schemes:

A fully black basecoated army that prevents me from seeing what the heck anything is from less than a foot away.

A color scheme so hideous that it hurts my eyes to look at it.

I play 40K to have fun, not to torture myself.

This is where I stand as well.

I'll find it tiresome if your army is a shapeless, black blob or if (for reasons known only to you) you've painted all your models to look like a magic-eye picture. Beyond that, I really don't care. They're your models so paint them however you want.

I'll note that I've never seen the fabled 'army covered in Nazi symbols', though I can't say it would bother me all that much if I did.

I mean sure, go nuts. There is no point to tabletop gaming if you cant play with "your army", whatever that might be. Enemies will either cope with the colour scheme or appreciate it for what it is.

Personally however, if we talking established faction brands, I'd appreciate some reference to the ofc colourscheme.. you can always come up with a custom subsect of your faction de jeur which covers for every other case

This already means that the models are painted, which is awesome. And people are free to paint their models however they want.

Personally I almost never use "official" colour schemes, as coming up with my own is a big part of the fun for me, and I really like seeing what other people have invented.

What it looks like to me is that 40k allows you to beas open or as jokey as you want. My Mechanicus Knight House: Mine! would work in a 40k game, but would not be appreciated in a Horus Heresy game due to its lack of seriousness.

The same would be said for players who paint their armies up like characters/units from other sci-fi media.

Or am I off base with this line of reasoning?

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
What it looks like to me is that 40k allows you to beas open or as jokey as you want. My Mechanicus Knight House: Mine! would work in a 40k game, but would not be appreciated in a Horus Heresy game due to its lack of seriousness.

The same would be said for players who paint their armies up like characters/units from other sci-fi media.

Or am I off base with this line of reasoning?

Some 40k players would be salty about it and refuse to play you.
Some 30k players would chuckle and have a grand ol' time playing you.

Me personally? I'm fine playing against unpainted minis, so any paint is just a bonus. I'd be happy to play!

Cebalrai wrote:

ccs wrote:

So if I were to paint my army "Spue Grey" no problem.
But if I just left it as it came, ie Spue Grey, & saved myself the effort/$, then you'd suddenly have an issue?

Unironically, it would be better. Perhaps Sprue Grey is your favourite colour and brings your vision to life, although it would be a little silly if the end result of the process was the exact same look as before it started.

It's the same for your army men example, really. If love and commitment shines through it becomes good. If it's done out of spite it becomes bad.

Oh, the Green Army men BA force was 100% done to grind the gears of a way-too-serious player some years back.
Everyone else I play with doesn't mind/care/admires the creative effort. Afterall, we're just a group of adult guys getting together Sunday afternoons to keep playing with army men toys....

I care as much about my opponent's paint scheme as I do about their homebrew fluff: Not one tiny bit. I just have one line: Don't do it to be deliberately offensive

Orange ultramarines? Go for it.

Day-glo neon Tyranids who are an escaped Cawl experiment? Don't care, as long as the rules are the same you can have whatever story behind your army as you want.

Pride flag colours? Sure, go for it, they make for some interesting pastel schemes

Facist iconography? well if we're playing Flames of War and you have an appropriate force then that's fine. Otherwise you're doing it to be a dick. It's not the iconography or colour scheme that offends me, it's what it says about you as a person that I do not want to spend my time around you, and I don't want to contribute to you having fun.

Painting your army sprue grey? sure man, your models, ruin them however you want

Aesthetics don't matter, the character of the people involved matters

Charax wrote:
Facist iconography? well if we're playing Flames of War and you have an appropriate force then that's fine. Otherwise you're doing it to be a dick. It's not the iconography or colour scheme that offends me, it's what it says about you as a person that I do not want to spend my time around you, and I don't want to contribute to you having fun.

Is this a common thing outside of WW2 settings?

ccs wrote:

 Jayden63 wrote:
Show me anywhere, in any codex, supplement, novel, etc. where any faction/army is depicted as sprue grey. Because 80% of all armies I've ever played against are this color.

I have no care in the world what color your army is if its painted. Playing against a fully painted army is a rare opportunity.

So if I were to paint my army "Spue Grey" no problem.
But if I just left it as it came, ie Spue Grey, & saved myself the effort/$, then you'd suddenly have an issue?

LOL, my Grey Knights army is quite literally painted sprue grey with yellow trim and the occasional red, blue, black, white, or silver. It made for the lightest layer of basecoat I've ever sprayed, and that was nice. I found out just how many variations in sprue grey there is, and it sways HARD from light grey to medium dark.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cyel wrote:



But...

I don't like crossover or joke armies, I like the immersion that comes from models and terrain belonging to the setting.

One joke army I actually liked was a Catachan Hippy army. All the tank-top dudes were painted to have blue jeans and tie-died shirts, and when he put one particular squad in a circle it quite literally formed a smoking circle, complete with one guy smoking a blunt and another guy reaching for the next pass. Also, instead of a Taurox, he converted up a VW Microbus mini to be an armored car, complete with "Piece Symbol" decal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charax wrote:


Orange ultramarines? Go for it.

I have several marine and chaos marine armies. White, grey, black, blue, rust red, silver, green. If I ever start another chapter, Orange with black and silver trim is high on my list of color schemes. My biggest obstacle is finding color-matching flat aerosol spray and brush-on paint that color matches in orange.

Why do you think that the Horus Heresy crowd is typically seen as stricter on what color schemes are allowed on the battlefield?

...

And as for Nazis on the tabletop, I had a Jewish buddy who played SS for Flames of War.

He would always laugh and say, "It's the only army that makes me happy to have them all get killed in a game."

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Why do you think that the Horus Heresy crowd is typically seen as stricter on what color schemes are allowed on the battlefield?

Because the HH is often described as a pseudo-historical game in which people play the actual Heresy.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

slade the sniper wrote:
I want a fluff/lore reason for it. Gimme that, and I'll play anyone.

-STS

So a hard "no" to the Robotech/Gundam Tau armies (and the like) ?

Not at all.
Gue'vesa that developed mecha tech before allying with the Tau.. or they just chose that paint scheme because it looks cool.
Gimme something.
Actual Robotech armies show up via Protoculture space fold shenanigans that "count as" Tau.
Granted, I want to know some lore about any army, even bog standard Space Marines... the lore is a bigger part of my enjoyment than the actual battles.

My wife's ork army is painted pink, as Ork Grrls... why? Because they fought Sisters of Battle in an epic battle, discovered those are "Grrls" and thought they could get some of those Mirkels if they were also Grrls, and Grrls like Pink, so if they are Pink, they are Grrls, and they get Mirkels and thus are more Killy, which is Orky.

-STS

I paint my armies mostly in standard in codex faction colors. If fact, a good chunk of them are in the 'poster boy' colors of said faction. I mostly don't want to have to say anything about my 'totally original character, don't steal' army. Instead, fielding a faction, even the barely initiated in the setting have a vague idea about them. When an opponent sees my Black Legion, they have a real good idea what my army is about fluff-wise without me saying a word. If they want to craft a story of what our game is about, it's real easy.

For my opponent, when it comes to 40k, basically anything can be explained in universe. 'Hello Kitty' space marines? Their recruitment world is a planet that found some Hello Kitty merch. Because it is old and from Terra, and the Emperor is old and from Terra; obviously they are gifts from the Emperor to said planet and their images are venerated in all things. Including the space marine chapter of said planet.

When it comes to Horus Heresy and actual historical miniatures games, I rather players stay within the range bands of the faction/nation/army they intend. Though, this does still mean a range of differencing shades of the color sometimes bleeding into other colors. There is almost never only a set few colors for anything.

My Sons of Horus are a bit on the darker and drab shade green from the GW color for them (I read in the lore SoH armor started to darker from the influence of Chaos), but if a player goes for a bright sea foam green, that's still SoH. But if they go full royal blue or something, I'd be a bit disappointed. Not enough to say anything, they are the other players models. But to me, it feels like missing the point of the spectacle of recreating the setting on the tabletop. But I'm sure they are getting something out of being unique.

And even non-standard colors are a sight better than bare plastic models.

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:


When it comes to Horus Heresy and actual historical miniatures games, I rather players stay within the range bands of the faction/nation/army they intend.

I'm still waiting for one of you HH "historical" purists to tell me what scheme my XI Legion should be painted in.

ccs wrote:

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:


When it comes to Horus Heresy and actual historical miniatures games, I rather players stay within the range bands of the faction/nation/army they intend.

I'm still waiting for one of you HH "historical" purists to tell me what scheme my XI Legion should be painted in.

None. Like Necrons, Eldar and Orks they are not a meaningful part of the Horus Heresy. The closest you get is Blackshields. And you can probably make a fair guess as to what their scheme is. Otherwise, you are probably going to have to pick a legion (probably the Ultramarines) to absorb the II and XI legions' marines and material many years prior to the beginning of the Heresy.

You might as well ask what are the paint schemes of the Tau during the Horus Heresy. Because I know there are players that absolutely get their kicks by being oh, so unique and quirky. Trying to get a rise out of people who just want to build something well establish in a setting they like. So to me, trying to parade the idea you have one of the lost legions is more or less trying to play Tau that got pulled back in time to 30k. I could happen lorewise (and probably did happen somewhere in the Warhammer galaxy), but would be such a blip on the overall scale of the Heresy.

More power to you if you want to paint up for HH marines in what you think the II or XI legion colors were. But if I sensed the vibe you are giving off here of 'I'm entitled to a game of HH no matter what.' I wouldn't interact with you, let alone agree to a game. Your attitude has demonstrated you are there to take the piss out of more traditional HH players. It would be a couple of hours of pure tedium on my end.

And before you get even more indigent, I have played HH vs. people with Eldar and Ork armies 'during the crusade'. Just like, I've probably played as many games set during the great scouring with HH as within the years of Horus Heresy. But they were very respectful to what it means want it means to play with more of a narrative/story focused game.

You're taking the idea that hey I like sushi with rice and nori and going, 'Well I want sushi with a flour tortilla and lettuce and cold cuts. What do you have to say about that?' It not really sushi, but it's still food and can work for lunch. But I don't want to eat at the same table as you while you needle me about your 'sushi roll'.

Has anyone here personally refused to play against someone due to their army's paint scheme? Or had someone refuse to play you, foe tge way your army was painted?

(Lack of paint is not what I'm talking about.)

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Has anyone here personally refused to play against someone due to their army's paint scheme? Or had someone refuse to play you, foe tge way your army was painted?

(Lack of paint is not what I'm talking about.)

No. But if someone came up to me and told me that they collected, painted and converted an army over weeks or months just to annoy me with the result, I would probably decline the game. Not because of how the army looks, though.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Has anyone here personally refused to play against someone due to their army's paint scheme? Or had someone refuse to play you, foe tge way your army was painted?

(Lack of paint is not what I'm talking about.)

This is one of those hypothetical edge cases where 95% of the time it’s a non issue. If you have an army which might qualify, and you are playing someone who cares, it can be an issue.

I’ve never seen it, or met anyone IRL who has. But I can think of some edge cases that would bother me, and acknowledge that there are others out there. You cast a wide enough net, you will find cases where it has come up.

Most people will let a lot of stuff slide to get a game in, as long as you are not a jerk. There are lines out there though, which very from person to person, so be respectful.

 a_typical_hero wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Has anyone here personally refused to play against someone due to their army's paint scheme? Or had someone refuse to play you, foe tge way your army was painted?

(Lack of paint is not what I'm talking about.)

No. But if someone came up to me and told me that they collected, painted and converted an army over weeks or months just to annoy me with the result, I would probably decline the game. Not because of how the army looks, though.

I think I would be honored if someone wasted a lot of cash and time just to annoy me.

ccs wrote:
I'm still waiting for one of you HH "historical" purists to tell me what scheme my XI Legion should be painted in.

What are you on about? There is no XIth Legion. Let's not be silly with made up Legions with made up numbers.

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

ccs wrote:

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:


When it comes to Horus Heresy and actual historical miniatures games, I rather players stay within the range bands of the faction/nation/army they intend.

I'm still waiting for one of you HH "historical" purists to tell me what scheme my XI Legion should be painted in.

None. Like Necrons, Eldar and Orks they are not a meaningful part of the Horus Heresy.

With all their records redacted/expunged/etc, how do you know they played no meaningful role? Because GWs not written a novel about them?
It must really rankle you guys that - despite all the vague snippets about the II/XI being long gone before the HH (despite that possibly contradicting 2e lore) - GWs always left room for player creativity.

I have an actual case here:
Back in 9th edition 40k I got a lot of heresy marine stuff because I just prefer the look of the tanks. I play Dark Angels in 40k so I painted the tanks green, and started painting the Marines in green as well to go with the tanks.

So 10th edition puts all those tanks into legends and a lot of the weapon options available on the sprue haven't translated to those legends rules. Quite demotivating and the painting is put on hold. With the launch of 3rd Edition heresy there might be some interest locally in playing HH and I would have an army more or less ready to go - in a 40k theme. Would anyone object to playing a HH force painted in a 40k color scheme?

For anyone more interested: My original lore for the army was a post Siege-of-Terra Dark Angels company on the hunt for fallen during the scouring. But I must admit I am not aware if the Codex Astartes was already in effect and the Dark Angels already in green colors during that time period...

ccs wrote:


I'm still waiting for one of you HH "historical" purists to tell me what scheme my XI Legion should be painted in.

As one of the resident Lost Legion junkies, the closest thing we've ever had to an official paint scheme for them is red/yellow. This is from an internal GW Campaign played by a bunch of Black Library writers, one of whom played the XI Legion. The reason some people consider this as unconfirmed cannon, is that some things that happened during that campaign (Raven Guard having cloning tech for one) would later be written into cannon by those same writers.

For me, I have a custom paint scheme that I play for my marines in both 40K and 30. Their lore is that they are loyalist Alpha Legion and they took on the paint scheme of the II Legion for their force to intimidate their opponents, making them think that they were still around and fighting against them.

As for the primary discussion, I'm of the mind of not caring what your army looks like at all. If you are there to play a strict tactical no-nonsense game, then the paint schemes shouldn't matter, if you are there for a fluffy lore game, then you should have enough imagination that the paint schemes shouldn't matter.

I was at an event once where someone got kicked out for having a full Nazi painted Krieg Army. Other than that, I've never seen in person anyone decline to play someone based on army painting or style, though I have heard a fair few self entitled people on the internet say they refuse to play people who haven't 100% painted their army. Just never met them in the wild.

Brickfix wrote:
I have an actual case here:
Back in 9th edition 40k I got a lot of heresy marine stuff because I just prefer the look of the tanks. I play Dark Angels in 40k so I painted the tanks green, and started painting the Marines in green as well to go with the tanks.

So 10th edition puts all those tanks into legends and a lot of the weapon options available on the sprue haven't translated to those legends rules. Quite demotivating and the painting is put on hold. With the launch of 3rd Edition heresy there might be some interest locally in playing HH and I would have an army more or less ready to go - in a 40k theme. Would anyone object to playing a HH force painted in a 40k color scheme?

For anyone more interested: My original lore for the army was a post Siege-of-Terra Dark Angels company on the hunt for fallen during the scouring. But I must admit I am not aware if the Codex Astartes was already in effect and the Dark Angels already in green colors during that time period...

CMIAW - I thought the green came from "remember Caliban," after the planet was destroyed.

I see no reason why someone would have a problem with that.

No one's had a problem with my blue Taranis Knights.

Knights aren't equivalent to Legions in terms of scheme adherence. People don't know Knight Houses like they know the Legions.

The first Dark Angels to use green as an accent colour were Calabanite reinforcements to the Legion determined to make their own mark.
It was a thing in the Legion, just as a secondary rather than a primary.
With HH armour marks in the majority, I'd be surprised at anything more than a slight "hmpf" as response.
The Legion symbol and general theme is still close enough to the Legions colours that it's not outlandish like polka dot Sons of Horus or gold Raven Guard (ironically both schemes together is post-Isstvan Emperor's Children).

As a side note, how important is the armour marks for the Legions in Horus Heresy?

Do players care that your force is using the right version of armour?

Don't use Primaris Marines, and don't use too much Mk7/8.

If Mk7 is being used, mix it up with other patterns to make it non-production Mk5. Back in't day, we didn't have fancy plastic kits for the Heresy patterns and made do with what we had which was Mk7 with shaved chest aquilas, Death Company Mk3+4 heads, Armour Through The Ages and the odd Mk6. If you were more flush with cash, you might have some of the proper FW models.
For example, a chunk of my Iron Warriors and Iron Hands use Mk7 bodies but I've mixed in Mk3/4/5/6 heads, shoulder pads, arms, and backpacks.
Hell, some even have OG 3rd Edition Marine backpacks and 2nd Edition Bolters.
I have a Flamer and Missile squad each of the 3rd Ed Marines, because they have the Heresy weaponry and are relentlessly adorable models (they are so short it makes one of my group twitch a bit).

What people don't get is that it isn't about rivet counting (for some people it may be but I've yet to meet one IRL), it's about matching the vibe. I have more respect for someone who has a lot of conversions or customs in their army and a "that'll do pig" paint scheme than I do for someone with a perfect paint scheme but stock models.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
As a side note, how important is the armour marks for the Legions in Horus Heresy?

Do players care that your force is using the right version of armour?

The impression that I get is that Marks are less important, since all the Legions were pressing all sorts of armor into service due to stupidly-high attrition. Some Legions may show preference for certain styles, but I think you can get away with pretty much anything on that front.

It's very strange when someone complains about colour scheme if it not historical miniature or things lice HH where colours represent legion. Or if it offensive by itself like nazy for example. I seen two guys playing big game like 4k points of ultramarines each, with GW "recommend" colours. Iirc in turn 3 they start miss if it their or opponents miniatures. It's modelling and painting hobby in grim dark power fantasy. It's ok to follow some guidance from gw. But complaining some one not follow them is stupid. It's Not scale modeling where you trying reproduce a copy.

I mean if you're painting your Space Marines with Nazi iconography it tells me all I need to know about you as a person.

Allowing that sort of casual acceptance of Nazism is why Warhammer has its bad social rep. Combating it at every turn is important.

I always wondered if FLGS or Warhammer shops police offensive paint schemes.

I can't imagine someone showing up to a shop with a nazi 40k army and thinking that it's okay to play.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I always wondered if FLGS or Warhammer shops police offensive paint schemes.

I can't imagine someone showing up to a shop with a nazi 40k army and thinking that it's okay to play.

It would depend on the individual stores. I don't think GW have any explicit written policies about it but the store manager's word is law, and I doubt they'd want to deal with the reputational damage. Hell, I've been to GWs where they didn't want you playing with the Juan Diaz daemonettes because boobies

FLGS though? Depends on the owner.

As far as other weird colour schemes go, Salamanders canonically have a yellow and black striped camo scheme. You can justify pretty much anything

When I was a youngling I hated any sort of homebrew Space Marine theme. As i got older I realized I thought that way because the small circle of similar aged kids I was around that made up homebrew chapters always had lore to the effect of "these space marines are, like, totally the best space marines ever. they never lose a battle and better/stronger/faster/bigger even than other space marines and no, you cant win when we play because that wouldn't happen because they never lose."

As I got older and got away from the thought process that homebrew always = childish nonsense I really came to appreciate it. As I got better at painting and learned how hard it is to paint *really well* I gained a lot of appreciation for painted armies painted to almost any standard.

I guess now i still have a bias, but my new bias is - if you have a problem with homebrew paint schemes, thats a "brand" of rules lawyering and is just kind of silly.

Marvel Multiversal Crossovers?

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Marvel Multiversal Crossovers?

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Marvel Multiversal Crossovers?

When you mention that Callidus, it got me thinking about the reverse of that, something that was not intended to be a reference, but something comes out later that makes it seem like one.

For example, my Callidus Assasin is painted up with purple hair, and looks very similar to Rumi from the recently released K-POP Demon Hunters in her black leather hunter outfit. I painted that model years ago, but now that's all I can see when I look at my Callidus.

My Eyes!

This is what I was talking about when I mentioned eye searing models...

Rumor has it that Robin Williams used to own an Ork army that was flower themed. I've never seen it but that's what I heard.

 vipoid wrote:


Is this a common thing outside of WW2 settings?

i saw a nazi space marine army on this website's (dakkadakka) photo gallery thing years ago along with made up fluff for why they were nazis, maybe during 6th or 7th. besides the fact he ruined his models with offensive symbols, what i couldnt believe were the comments complimenting him on a job well done

edit: paint doesnt really matter to me unless its real world like america marines, breaks immersion. i would play a HH camo army, not a pink one though, id just say im too tired for a game. play for narrative, not for gw's gameplay - better games out there to spend my time on. doesnt matter though i only play with friends

all long as not mk vii or primaris, any period armor mark is fine by me for HH

IMMORTAN_AL wrote:

 vipoid wrote:


Is this a common thing outside of WW2 settings?

i saw a nazi space marine army on this website's (dakkadakka) photo gallery thing years ago along with made up fluff for why they were nazis, maybe during 6th or 7th. besides the fact he ruined his models with offensive symbols, what i couldnt believe were the comments complimenting him on a job well done

Not to excuse it, but I think there's a generation where the idea of Nazis was taken less seriously by many because they mostly showed up as cartoon villains in media, such as Raiders of the Lost Ark. They were, to many, just a thing of the past with little connection to modern society, and more easily dismissable.

Times have changed.

 Gert wrote:
I mean if you're painting your Space Marines with Nazi iconography it tells me all I need to know about you as a person.

Allowing that sort of casual acceptance of Nazism is why Warhammer has its bad social rep. Combating it at every turn is important.

I have been in this hobby since 1992 and have never seen an actual model with Nazi symbology. I have seen a few Space Wolves with some Black Sun-esque designs on some of the armor, and one guy with some pointy blue kinda SS-ish lightning bolts (so it was really just paired lightning bolts), but in 33 years, that is it.

I don't know where this pro-Nazi meme stuff comes from... I guess from the interwebz?

-STS

slade the sniper wrote:

 Gert wrote:
I mean if you're painting your Space Marines with Nazi iconography it tells me all I need to know about you as a person.

Allowing that sort of casual acceptance of Nazism is why Warhammer has its bad social rep. Combating it at every turn is important.

I have been in this hobby since 1992 and have never seen an actual model with Nazi symbology. I have seen a few Space Wolves with some Black Sun-esque designs on some of the armor, and one guy with some pointy blue kinda SS-ish lightning bolts (so it was really just paired lightning bolts), but in 33 years, that is it.

I don't know where this pro-Nazi meme stuff comes from... I guess from the interwebz?

-STS

I've seen an Iron Skies(a crappy B movie) themed Guard army.
So yeah, Guard with Swastikas, German WWII esque tanks, and several 3d printed flying saucers straight from the movie.

The most I've seen is a Chaos army from way back in the day using some Panzer IVs as Predators. No symbols or anything, just a cool looking tank.

I remember a bunch of people unsure if we should buy Steel Legion since they had a very "German" look.

The closest I've ever had to an army based on any real unit from our world was that I painted my armoured company up like U.N. Peacekeepers: White tanks, khaki fatigues and lightblue helmets/armour for the troops.

slade the sniper wrote:
I don't know where this pro-Nazi meme stuff comes from... I guess from the interwebz?

-STS

From the guy who showed up at a tournament in Spain (I think) a couple of years ago with Nazi Orks, and a small handful of other would-be edgelords who have done it.

 BorderCountess wrote:

slade the sniper wrote:
I don't know where this pro-Nazi meme stuff comes from... I guess from the interwebz?

-STS

From the guy who showed up at a tournament in Spain (I think) a couple of years ago with Nazi Orks, and a small handful of other would-be edgelords who have done it.

Nazi Orks? Doesn't seem like the first choice for a fascist theme...

Hopefully the TOs sent him packing.

When I started this thread, I had no idea that the edge-lords had created nazi paintjobs on 40k models and tried bringing them to stores and tournaments.

My faith in humanity has taken another unpleasant kick to the crotch.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Not to excuse it, but I think there's a generation where the idea of Nazis was taken less seriously by many because they mostly showed up as cartoon villains in media, such as Raiders of the Lost Ark. They were, to many, just a thing of the past with little connection to modern society, and more easily dismissable.

Times have changed.

the Views on "Nazis" are and were not the same all across the world. Like with all things. For example GW , I think, finds communists goblin revolutionary army funny. And it is their right, as they are set in a specific culture in a specific time and space. But not everyone finds soviet/communists as fun. And it is so across all the world. There is a historical game played on a scale similar to imperials, but historical. I never go in to it, besides watching it being played, but it is rather popular at my dorm. See one day, one of the guys from my floor almost came to blows with another one, after a 10min lecture on how Turkish culture, esthethics,etc is the best. What we didn't know at the time that the guy who got a "bit" upset was a Kurd from Iraq, whose half family got executed in 2015, so for him "turkish" and "good" wasn't an acceptable combo.

In the end like with all things taste and culture based. It depends. As long as the army is clear in what is what, and which unit is which, a lot of people won't care how or even if stuff is painted. Just don't bring stuff covered with Truzubz or Hammer&Sickles, if you want to play me. Real world stuff is also why I avoid real world games.

 BorderCountess wrote:

slade the sniper wrote:
I don't know where this pro-Nazi meme stuff comes from... I guess from the interwebz?

-STS

From the guy who showed up at a tournament in Spain (I think) a couple of years ago with Nazi Orks, and a small handful of other would-be edgelords who have done it.

There was a guy at the recent Gamescon tournament that got kicked out for having a Nazi Krieg army. I didn't see him or the army personally, but I was at the event and everyone was talking about it at the end of day one.

With the important caveat that I'm almost certainly not refsuing a game because of a paint scheme, I do have a pretty strong opinion on this.

Generally, I think that any paint scheme that is meant to be a person's view of their army within the 40k/30k universe is fine. It's a big creative sandbox with plenty of blank space. I don't care how garish or weird or even controversial your stuff is, if it doesn't break immersion, I'm into it. Classic example: https://fightingtigersofveda.com/ Some eye watering paint schemes, dodgy female conversions, and and buckets of lore, but it's clearly something that could exist in 40k.

What I don't like is directly looking like something from out of the universe. This can be historical or from another property, but either way I'm out. I don't mean influenced by an outside property, so like the deadpool painted callidus is still clealry a callidus in a specific color scheme. But when you start to look more like the outside thing, I don't enjoy it.

This is really tough with historical, because so many design choices in 40k are based on real world history,. Krieg's adrian helmets are a classic example, but so are the Death Gaurd Puckelhelms, tthe Mongol aspects of White Scars or Attilans, the templar aspects of templars, or the heraldry of Knights. There are also pop culture easter eggs in the game (sly marbo most famously,) but still, all of these have been reconstituted and remade into the universe.

Synthwave Necrons or Pastel Tau are still necrons or tau, while MLP marines to are poneys and that's not what I'm into.

Karol wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Not to excuse it, but I think there's a generation where the idea of Nazis was taken less seriously by many because they mostly showed up as cartoon villains in media, such as Raiders of the Lost Ark. They were, to many, just a thing of the past with little connection to modern society, and more easily dismissable.

Times have changed.

the Views on "Nazis" are and were not the same all across the world. Like with all things. For example GW , I think, finds communists goblin revolutionary army funny. And it is their right, as they are set in a specific culture in a specific time and space. But not everyone finds soviet/communists as fun. And it is so across all the world. There is a historical game played on a scale similar to imperials, but historical. I never go in to it, besides watching it being played, but it is rather popular at my dorm. See one day, one of the guys from my floor almost came to blows with another one, after a 10min lecture on how Turkish culture, esthethics,etc is the best. What we didn't know at the time that the guy who got a "bit" upset was a Kurd from Iraq, whose half family got executed in 2015, so for him "turkish" and "good" wasn't an acceptable combo.

In the end like with all things taste and culture based. It depends. As long as the army is clear in what is what, and which unit is which, a lot of people won't care how or even if stuff is painted. Just don't bring stuff covered with Truzubz or Hammer&Sickles, if you want to play me. Real world stuff is also why I avoid real world games.

^Spot on post. Yes, different subjects take on different "weights" depending on locale and context. Growing up my media landscape had them typically as silly villains or the butt of Monty Python jokes.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

Nazi Orks? Doesn't seem like the first choice for a fascist theme...

Hah! Have you seen the original Stormboyz models?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Grimdank/comments/eyx463/2nd_edition_stormboyz_are_umm_interesting/

Their 2nd ed fluff, btw, is that during Ork adolescence they become less wild and crazy like normal orks, and instead become "smart and well disciplined". The other Orks find all their "parading and boot polishing" silly. I think there's something about how they're inclined to copy the humans they see too. As in, the Stormboyz look like nazis because the humans they see are like nazis. . . a.k.a the Imperium.

In that thread btw, someone links to a chart of Ork glyphs, and the one for "Orky/good" looks a lot like a blocky swastika. I just checked my 2nd ed book and that's not the glyph in there, although what is in there could be seen as a more abstracted version. It's sort of a pinwheel framed in a larger square. I'm curious as to what's in the earlier publications such as 'Ere We Go.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I've seen some posts online where nontraditional paint schemes haven't been well received in HH, but I've yet to see that in "real life."

Honestly I've never really seen that in any wargame anywhere online.
Does it happen - sure - but its something you'd likely have to go looking for to find. By and large wargamers are INSANELY self supporting and positive about other people painting their models.



Now sure if you go "Here's my Loyalist Ultramarines in official scheme how did I do" and they are bright pink with green highlights- yeah - that's going to get people calling them out as getting it wrong. Because the OP outlined them as being a force with an officially designed and designated scheme and then went way off the rocks.
But if that same army were "Here's my Loyalist Space Marine Army" 100% fine.


So yeah it happens; its bonkers rare and by and large wargamers are insanely supportive.





the ONLY time this kind of broke a bit was when GW were all in on having allied detachments and people were fielding single scheme armies with multiple sub-army detachments at the same time. So you'd have a whole army of blue Ultramarines with the same scheme, but one group would be White Scars because they have a bonus to something those units do really well. So that did happen for a bit and GW tried to make it so that "your paint scheme defines your rules"; but that was basically one edition of the game and people did it kind of for a clear communication aspect, but it was never really popular as a policy.
Thankfully that is long gone now.

 Overread wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I've seen some posts online where nontraditional paint schemes haven't been well received in HH, but I've yet to see that in "real life."

Honestly I've never really seen that in any wargame anywhere online.
Does it happen - sure - but its something you'd likely have to go looking for to find. By and large wargamers are INSANELY self supporting and positive about other people painting their models.

It would take a very interesting person to tell somebody in person that their paint scheme sucks. People feel much more comfortable being negative online.

I remember one situation where a person was showing off their custom army that had just terrible ideas. It was bright blue and lime green, with ham fisted converstions using out of scale parts. The thread got pretty toxic (although plenty of people were supportive in a way), and the OP got upset, and even posted that everybody at his store complimented it. One guy finally asked the OP if he got actual compliments, or if people said things that sounds positive but aren't speciifc, like "what a creative army" or "wow, those colors are vivid!" or even "I wouldn't have though to combined those!" The poor guy had taken all of the vague back slapping he got from people as actual gas that what he made was great.

i'm not saying we should be meaner, just that it's a lot harder to tell a person their work sucks to their face than it is to bash something online.

in 40k, yes, in HH no. I mean... HH is more of a "historical" game than 40k is, alternative color scheems feel wrong

Man, that's super interesting because that's the total opposite of what our local was like.

Compliments abound but we all called it like we saw it. Helpful and nicer to new people but God forbid you became a permanent fixture in the group because you would be flayed alive.
It was very much a case of "you dish it, you take it" so nobody ever got bent out of shape. It helped there were only about 2 actually good painters in the group but they couldn't play to save their lives so they still got their licks.

Then again, it is Scotland so normal rules don't apply.

BanjoJohn wrote:
in 40k, yes, in HH no. I mean... HH is more of a "historical" game than 40k is, alternative color scheems feel wrong

I think it depends how alternative. Painting Iron Warriors in pink, yellow, and purple synthwave would be jarring, but painting them in a rust color with black trim because they failed on a mission and are fighting to regain their heraldry would be pretty cool.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Not to excuse it, but I think there's a generation where the idea of Nazis was taken less seriously by many because they mostly showed up as cartoon villains in media, such as Raiders of the Lost Ark. They were, to many, just a thing of the past with little connection to modern society, and more easily dismissable.

Times have changed.

the Views on "Nazis" are and were not the same all across the world. Like with all things. For example GW , I think, finds communists goblin revolutionary army funny. And it is their right, as they are set in a specific culture in a specific time and space. But not everyone finds soviet/communists as fun. And it is so across all the world. There is a historical game played on a scale similar to imperials, but historical. I never go in to it, besides watching it being played, but it is rather popular at my dorm. See one day, one of the guys from my floor almost came to blows with another one, after a 10min lecture on how Turkish culture, esthethics,etc is the best. What we didn't know at the time that the guy who got a "bit" upset was a Kurd from Iraq, whose half family got executed in 2015, so for him "turkish" and "good" wasn't an acceptable combo.

In the end like with all things taste and culture based. It depends. As long as the army is clear in what is what, and which unit is which, a lot of people won't care how or even if stuff is painted. Just don't bring stuff covered with Truzubz or Hammer&Sickles, if you want to play me. Real world stuff is also why I avoid real world games.

^Spot on post. Yes, different subjects take on different "weights" depending on locale and context. Growing up my media landscape had them typically as silly villains or the butt of Monty Python jokes.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

Nazi Orks? Doesn't seem like the first choice for a fascist theme...

Hah! Have you seen the original Stormboyz models?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Grimdank/comments/eyx463/2nd_edition_stormboyz_are_umm_interesting/

Their 2nd ed fluff, btw, is that during Ork adolescence they become less wild and crazy like normal orks, and instead become "smart and well disciplined". The other Orks find all their "parading and boot polishing" silly. I think there's something about how they're inclined to copy the humans they see too. As in, the Stormboyz look like nazis because the humans they see are like nazis. . . a.k.a the Imperium.

In that thread btw, someone links to a chart of Ork glyphs, and the one for "Orky/good" looks a lot like a blocky swastika. I just checked my 2nd ed book and that's not the glyph in there, although what is in there could be seen as a more abstracted version. It's sort of a pinwheel framed in a larger square. I'm curious as to what's in the earlier publications such as 'Ere We Go.

From waargh ORKS.

Famously used on ghaz’s banner, very stylised but clearly it is what it is. Especially when shown on the sleeve on the banner.

Right, but it’s clearly not styled in that way. Wrong, aha, axis. Reads more as a square with lines.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Right, but it’s clearly not styled in that way. Wrong, aha, axis. Reads more as a square with lines.

I definitely don’t remember being offended or shocked at the time, I thinks very much looking back on it it looks in appropriate but in reality it’s just a shape that we are associating now with that iconography.

This in charge at GW at the time were far far far from right wing and and it certainly wasn’t their intention to imply anything like that.

Wow. I've seen those images hundreds of times and never noticed the swastika.

Now I'm wondering about all the other things I've not noticed...

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Wow. I've seen those images hundreds of times and never noticed the swastika.

Now I'm wondering about all the other things I've not noticed...

Illuminati symbols everywhere!