nurgle5 wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:
This is probably throwing fuel on the fire, but we just saw these guidelines hinted at for AOS:

Worry not! While these rules are designed to represent the unique tactics of the most iconic groupings of Stormcast Eternals, you can use them however you’ve painted your models – just choose the rules that you think best represent how YOUR army fights.

So it looks like GW isn't even willing to enforce this across all their games, just 40k.

This whole thing could have been avoided if GW wrote the traits with phrasing along the lines of:

Codex Adherent: Chapters like the Ultramarines follow the Codex Astartes to the letter. Detachments with this trait gain X
Shadow War: Chapters like the Raven Guard heavily employ stealth tactics. Detachments with this trait gain X

etc, etc.

That way they could indicate what trait suited a chapter/faction in the fluff without limiting players to certain rules through the colour scheme or whatever. I still think people are getting a little too worked up over this, it's incredibly unlikely to become mandatory in the majority of games, especially when so few people seem to finish (or even start ) painting their armies anyway!

 nurgle5 wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:
This is probably throwing fuel on the fire, but we just saw these guidelines hinted at for AOS:

Worry not! While these rules are designed to represent the unique tactics of the most iconic groupings of Stormcast Eternals, you can use them however you’ve painted your models – just choose the rules that you think best represent how YOUR army fights.

So it looks like GW isn't even willing to enforce this across all their games, just 40k.

This whole thing could have been avoided if GW wrote the traits with phrasing along the lines of:

Codex Adherent: Chapters like the Ultramarines follow the Codex Astartes to the letter. Detachments with this trait gain X
Shadow War: Chapters like the Raven Guard heavily employ stealth tactics. Detachments with this trait gain X

etc, etc.

That way they could indicate what trait suited a chapter/faction in the fluff without limiting players to certain rules through the colour scheme or whatever. I still think people are getting a little too worked up over this, it's incredibly unlikely to become mandatory in the majority of games, especially when so few people seem to finish (or even start ) painting their armies anyway!

 nurgle5 wrote:


That way they could indicate what trait suited a chapter/faction in the fluff without limiting players to certain rules through the colour scheme or whatever. I still think people are getting a little too worked up over this, it's incredibly unlikely to become mandatory in the majority of games, especially when so few people seem to finish (or even start ) painting their armies anyway!

 davou wrote:

 nurgle5 wrote:


That way they could indicate what trait suited a chapter/faction in the fluff without limiting players to certain rules through the colour scheme or whatever. I still think people are getting a little too worked up over this, it's incredibly unlikely to become mandatory in the majority of games, especially when so few people seem to finish (or even start ) painting their armies anyway!

Oh man.... Id love a rule saying that models without a finished paint job/basing are not alowed to benefit from chapter/craftworld/hivefleet/sept traits.

 Vankraken wrote:

 davou wrote:

 nurgle5 wrote:


That way they could indicate what trait suited a chapter/faction in the fluff without limiting players to certain rules through the colour scheme or whatever. I still think people are getting a little too worked up over this, it's incredibly unlikely to become mandatory in the majority of games, especially when so few people seem to finish (or even start ) painting their armies anyway!

Oh man.... Id love a rule saying that models without a finished paint job/basing are not alowed to benefit from chapter/craftworld/hivefleet/sept traits.

I'm sure that would be a great rule for encouraging new people with limited time to play the game.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 nurgle5 wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:
This is probably throwing fuel on the fire, but we just saw these guidelines hinted at for AOS:

Worry not! While these rules are designed to represent the unique tactics of the most iconic groupings of Stormcast Eternals, you can use them however you’ve painted your models – just choose the rules that you think best represent how YOUR army fights.

So it looks like GW isn't even willing to enforce this across all their games, just 40k.

This whole thing could have been avoided if GW wrote the traits with phrasing along the lines of:

Codex Adherent: Chapters like the Ultramarines follow the Codex Astartes to the letter. Detachments with this trait gain X
Shadow War: Chapters like the Raven Guard heavily employ stealth tactics. Detachments with this trait gain X

etc, etc.

That way they could indicate what trait suited a chapter/faction in the fluff without limiting players to certain rules through the colour scheme or whatever. I still think people are getting a little too worked up over this, it's incredibly unlikely to become mandatory in the majority of games, especially when so few people seem to finish (or even start ) painting their armies anyway!

The problem is, it still limits Chapters like the Ultramarines and Raven Guard, because as you've said "Chapters like X do X".

People want X Chapter to be able to do Y. How you've worded it is nice, but it doesn't differ at all from what people are expecting from this - to be able to take Ultramarines models and make them play like Raven Guard.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:

 davou wrote:

 nurgle5 wrote:


That way they could indicate what trait suited a chapter/faction in the fluff without limiting players to certain rules through the colour scheme or whatever. I still think people are getting a little too worked up over this, it's incredibly unlikely to become mandatory in the majority of games, especially when so few people seem to finish (or even start ) painting their armies anyway!

Oh man.... Id love a rule saying that models without a finished paint job/basing are not alowed to benefit from chapter/craftworld/hivefleet/sept traits.

I'm sure that would be a great rule for encouraging new people with limited time to play the game.

new players would barely even give a gak and it gives them a goal to shoot for. I'd actually love this rule, to motivate people to finish their armies, not just build them.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
In the past it's always been fine for a successor to use the characters. Unless that's been specifically addressed I'd assume it was still the case. "Counts as Calgar" is still valid, afaik. E.g. my army is led by Chapter Master Marius Alexandar Kreiger, who happens to have Terminator Armor and some sweet Powerfist Storm Bolter combi-weapons.

It has been addressed. Calgar has the ULTRAMARINES keyword and not the <CHAPTER> keyword. So if you want to play a successor of the Ultramarines (e.g., Novamarines) you would replace <CHAPTER> with NOVAMARINES. Calgar's ULTRAMARINES keyword would not change to NOVAMARINES.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Spoiler:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Count as is usually frowned upon in tournaments. So while you might be fine for it, it needs to be fine with everyone at the event, or else I could be in a lot of bother.

So, can you tell me that I'd be fine in nearly any tournament taking a fully Space Marine army, counting as Guard?

Depends entirely on the tournament.

As does this. So, what you're telling me is that I can't go into nearly any tournament with a fully Space Marine modelled army, and count them as Guardsmen.

As I imagine, if it clearly is the Chapter's main colour, and has their heraldry, then it is that Chapter. A blue/gold Chapter is not necessarily Ultramarines if they lack the white U sigil. A green/black Chapter with the white U sigil isn't Ultramarines OR Salamanders, because it has aspects of both, that are mutually exclusive.

My point is that there's no standard, no metric, and no template for this rule. Its unenforceable anyways. Your idea may be radically different than someone else's interpretation.

Well, there is a metric. Ultramarines are only Ultramarines if they're blue, and have the Ultramarine sigil. That's what GW's art suggests, and I've not seen anything else claiming otherwise.

There's clearly a standard as to what an Ultramarine is. It's absolutely enforceable. It's enforceable to what the TO says, and no matter what anyone else claims, it's their call - if GW follow what I've said, which is, in my opinion, the definitive way to determine an Ultramarine, then yes, it's absolutely enforceable.

If people don't want to be locked into a Chapter, than they shouldn't paint their guys as that Chapter. If you want to look like that Chapter, then you should probably be expected to use their rules too, in my books. Sure, that might lead to more "custom" colour schemes. That's fine by me, I don't have an issue with that.

Considering the main marine chapters cover most of the basic colours people would use, it becomes a ridiculous game of determining how similar or not to a well known chapter you look, which is completely arbitrary and has no universal standard to judge against. It also strikes me as a really non important thing to concern yourself with; its their army, not yours. If they want blue marines with gold trim but not ultramarines, they should run them however they want.

Again, just being X colour does not make you X Chapter.

Having X Chapter's colour and X Chapter's heraldry makes you X Chapter.

If someone wants blue marines with gold trim, that isn't Ultramarines. I agree. Having blue marines with gold trim and the white U logo ARE Ultramarines. There's absolutely a universal standard. Blue-ish marines with the Ultramarine logo makes you an Ultramarine. Having blue armour and the Imperial Fist logo makes you a custom Chapter.

You say "it's not your army, so it's not your concern" - so if my opponent rocks up with, as I've said before, plasma guns as meltaguns, meltaguns as plasma cannons at a tournament, that's not my problem as it's their army? If they want plasma guns to be their meltaguns, that's fine?

Don't think that really holds up much, personally, and considering later, you say that many places expect plasma guns to "look like the plasma guns we know and love", what if the opponent doesn't? It's okay, because it's their army?

How similar does it have to be? Well, if someone can look at it, and it matches the armour colour and sigil of the original, then it's official. Successor Chapters, due to how the game says it doesn't specify them, means that you could take the Heralds of Ultramar (clearly Ultramarine successors) and play them as Raven Guard. Plus, it avoids cases of things like the Sons of the Phoenix, an Imperial Fist Chapter who are most likely Emperor's Children gene-stock, being locked in as IF.

Again, the official rule has no standard. Its great that you have a metric, but its specific to you and only you.

It absolutely has standards, as I've said above. Even if MY metric isn't used, GW do have a metric, and they'll hold competing armies to it. That's not mine to hold to, but if they follow mine, which I feel is the most accurate and simple way to do it, then there's no ambiguity.

If you care more about the paintjob, then the rules don't matter. If you want those rules, then you know how to change the paintjob. You're not forced into anything you can't change.

Because changing the paintjob of you army is soooo easy and simple.

Yeah? Putting a bit of paint over the painted insigina isn't hard.

No-one said you needed to repaint the entire model. Just remove any Chapter specific logos, and they're anonymous.

However, I fail to see your point about why the modelled upgrades are any different to a count of paint. If anything, the model is harder to change, because I need to disassemble them, repaint any areas where the glue rips paint off, etc etc. You can just repaint over paintjobs. And yet, you think that me needing to change all the meltagun models for plasma gun ones is more acceptable than just painting over the flat Ultramarine symbol on them?

I never once said you need to change all meltaguns in plasma guns. Not even close, not even implied. Literally the opposite. I said consistency is what matters. And rule of cool.

You said that modelling was different to the paint, and I got the impression you were implying it was easier to remodel them instead of painting something.

I know you didn't say I needed to change it. But I still don't see a difference between modelling and painting, and you've not stated why there's a difference, so I went on with my metaphor.
Plus, consistency isn't always a thing that's counted upon in tournaments, considering many do not allow proxies or count as.

Rule of cool is absolutely unenforceable, unlike paint (which as I've proved, can be enforced - if GW will use my idea of it, I don't know, but I could easily enforce it).

As I said. If they're just blue, no, they're absolutely not Ultramarines. I dislike when people say "oh, it's yellow, it must be an Imperial Fist!". If it has the iconography of that Chapter? Not necessarily even then - the Crimson Fists and Imperial Fists have the same icon. But if they have the same icon and colour scheme? Yeah, you're probably that official Chapter, and should play like them. Not too much to ask.

Until the tournament rule expands what their definition of a matching paint job is, there is no standard, which is a problem. Its great that you have a (sensible) metric, but we don't know what they'll do at the tournament. It could just be two matching colours, or just icons, or requiring icons and matching colours. We don't know, so until then, its unenforceable.

There's a standard which they have. However, it's unknown until people ask or enter their lists.

But why shouldn't I expect that painted army to play like the faction they have been painted to play like? Same as if I'm seeing models with proxy weapons at a tournament (which I personally am fine with, but I know lots of people are not) - according to you, I should just be happy that those models are assembled, and not that every meltagun is now a plasma gun and every plasma gun is now a multimelta.

There are inifnite reasons why someone might have a Salamanders army running another trait. All it takes is a little imagination.

There's infinite reasons my plasma guns might look like meltaguns. All it takes is a little imagination. Unfortunately, many places don't hear those reasons out.

Proxies and counts as are tournament specific rules, and most of the ones I've seen only require that it looks good, is consistent, and attempts to match common aesthetic conventions (plasma looking plasma guns that we all know and love).

Exactly - so why are "plasma looking plasma guns we all know and love" any different from the "Ultramarine looking Ultramarines we all know and love"? Why does a plasma gun need to look like a plasma gun, but an Ultramarine looking model doesn't need to be an Ultramarine?

This whole thing leads down a slippery slope for GW tournaments (assuming no one else adopts this). Do Guard players need to have the official models of the regiment they're running? Are red Cadians good enough as Vostroyans? What about red Catachans? Can Catachan models be used as Cadian models, and vice versa? What if I have Vostroyan models painted in Cadian schemes and iconography? According to the tournament rules, the paintjob matches Cadian, therefore I have to run Cadian despite being obviously Vostroyan models.

The Guardsmen codex makes this very clear. Many guardsmen regiments wear uniform similar to more famous regiments, but aren't necessarily part of that regiment. Examples are the Brimlock Dragoons or Vendoland, who wear Cadian pattern armour, but are not Cadians.

So, according to that lore:
Red Cadians (assuming you mean Cadian models with no Cadian iconography, ie the Cadian Gate symbol) could absolutely be Vostroyan.
Red Catachans (assuming they have no Catachan only iconography such as the word CATACHAN) could be Vostroyan.
Catachan models can absolutely be treated as Cadian in game, and vice versa.
Vostroyan models in Cadian schemes, with symbols of the Cadian Gate, could be anything, because the paintjob features Cadian iconography and colour schemes. If you want them to be Vostroyan, remove the symbol of the Cadian Gate.

Simple.

Not to mention most players couldn't tell you the official colours of Eldar Craftworlds, Hive Fleets, Warbands, or Covens. Its a time consuming, punishing rule that is incredibly difficult to impossible to enforce, will drive people away all to feed into some very specific and niche idea of what 'Forging a Narrative' means.

I could. GW could.

It's absolutely enforceable, and frankly, Forging a Narrative TM is the last thing that's on a lot of people's minds at a tournament where Guilliman shows up to nearly every small skirmish.

If you have painted your models in a specific way, we expect you to use the rules relevant to that scheme. For example, if you have painted your models as Salamanders, your army must have the Salamanders keyword. If you have created your own unique colour scheme, then you may give them any keyword that you wish.

If you have used different keywords between Detachments, there must be a clear visual difference between each Detachment. For example, if you have a Tyranid army with Detachments from both Hive Fleet Kraken and Kronos, the models in each Detachment must be clearly distinguishable from one to another such as a different coloured carapace. Contact us if you are unsure whether something is clearly distinguishable.

Blacksails wrote:All of this boils down to your own impression of what this:

If you have painted your models in a specific way, we expect you to use the rules relevant to that scheme. For example, if you have painted your models as Salamanders, your army must have the Salamanders keyword. If you have created your own unique colour scheme, then you may give them any keyword that you wish.

means in practice. Some of it I agree with, some of it I don't. Point is, that rule above is vague.

There is no minimum numbers that need to match, no iconography, no shade variation, or in the case of Guard, what regiment models are allowed for what trait.

Its all very well for you to say what you'd do, but until GW passes down a specific set of guidelines outlining the exact colours for the traits that have rules, then its functionally unenforceable.

They'd have to have every single tournament player submit pictures of their army in advance to determine what trait they have to play as, or if they're free to pick their own, which of course will get bogged down by people challenging the decision or straight up turning people away.

Let the whole rule stand as just this;

If you have used different keywords between Detachments, there must be a clear visual difference between each Detachment. For example, if you have a Tyranid army with Detachments from both Hive Fleet Kraken and Kronos, the models in each Detachment must be clearly distinguishable from one to another such as a different coloured carapace. Contact us if you are unsure whether something is clearly distinguishable.

That's a fair, enforceable rule that speeds up play and reduces confusion.

Banville wrote:The Detachment stipulation is fine. The official scheme one is unenforceable.

Here's my marine army painted green, with black shoulder pads and with a white drake's head for a symbol. Salamanders? Never heard of them. These are the Jade Dragons. They're a Raven Guard successor. The flames on the armour? They build pyres on which they stack their defeated foes in offering to their Primarch, as a beacon to guide him home. Sometimes, these pyres can be thousands of feet high and indeed are visible from space.

Or, as a protest, bring Ultramarines, painted in detail and play them as Alpha Legion.

 Blacksails wrote:
An obviously painted UM army would obviously use UM rules in this rule, the issue arises with all the non obvious painted armies that look decidedly similar. That's the issue I'm driving at. A blue marine with gold trim and no markings could be an UM, but so could a blue marines with white trim and no markings. A blue marine with white/gold trim and a totally different icon looks like UM from a far, but is obviously some other chapter based on the icon. The rule, as stated, doesn't take any of these nuances or similarities in to account.

I generally agree with you on what constitutes a paint scheme that matches a faction, but I can already see how many people wouldn't, and the rule leaves much to be desired in how its defined. At a minimum it would have to include a specific range of shades for a primary colour, a specific range of accent/trim colours, and a minimum amount of iconography (something like a sergeant must have the chapter icon for each squad), otherwise anyone running a colour scheme remotely similar to an official one would get lumped in to an official trait against their will.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
An obviously painted UM army would obviously use UM rules in this rule, the issue arises with all the non obvious painted armies that look decidedly similar. That's the issue I'm driving at. A blue marine with gold trim and no markings could be an UM, but so could a blue marines with white trim and no markings. A blue marine with white/gold trim and a totally different icon looks like UM from a far, but is obviously some other chapter based on the icon. The rule, as stated, doesn't take any of these nuances or similarities in to account.

But as you've said, because all of these lack the markings, none of them are Ultramarines. It's simple. Colours + Logo = Chapter. If it doesn't have either matching, then it's custom.

Hell, a blue marine with a white trim could be an Ultramarines, Heralds of Ultramar, Rainbow Warriors, Death Strike etc etc, and they're all canon.

I generally agree with you on what constitutes a paint scheme that matches a faction, but I can already see how many people wouldn't, and the rule leaves much to be desired in how its defined. At a minimum it would have to include a specific range of shades for a primary colour, a specific range of accent/trim colours, and a minimum amount of iconography (something like a sergeant must have the chapter icon for each squad), otherwise anyone running a colour scheme remotely similar to an official one would get lumped in to an official trait against their will.

It's not hard to specify most primary and secondary colours. Trims/accent colours don't matter, as Chapters usually follow codex colour markings (so blue armour and purple trims could still be Ultramarines) and iconography is as simple as narrowing down all of the Chapters who have their own specific rules, and saying their their Chapter logos, should any one logo be on any model in that army, are treated as the logo for the army (unless multiple are present, in which case, the chapter is custom).

Again - in order to "accidentally" get lumped into a specific Chapter, you need to share both the colour scheme AND the logo. If you have a halved colour scheme, then you're at no risk. If you use pink/orange/purple/grey/brown/gold/silver/etc etc as your primary colour for their armour, you're at no risk. If you don't put any logos on your guys, or at least, no logos belonging to the 9/10 official Chapters with rules, then you've got no risk.

It's not hard to avoid being forced into a Chapter Tactic if you want to avoid it.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:

 davou wrote:

 nurgle5 wrote:


That way they could indicate what trait suited a chapter/faction in the fluff without limiting players to certain rules through the colour scheme or whatever. I still think people are getting a little too worked up over this, it's incredibly unlikely to become mandatory in the majority of games, especially when so few people seem to finish (or even start ) painting their armies anyway!

Oh man.... Id love a rule saying that models without a finished paint job/basing are not alowed to benefit from chapter/craftworld/hivefleet/sept traits.

I'm sure that would be a great rule for encouraging new people with limited time to play the game.

new players would barely even give a gak and it gives them a goal to shoot for. I'd actually love this rule, to motivate people to finish their armies, not just build them.

Vankraken wrote:The only issue I can see with this is GW tried to force garbage on the player base before with their stupid AoS "performance" buffs for shouting WAAAGH or saying a prayer to the lady of the lake or whatever. The rumblings from the community tend to steer GW vaguely in the right direction so it's fair to voice our concerns.

davou wrote:Oh man.... Id love a rule saying that models without a finished paint job/basing are not alowed to benefit from chapter/craftworld/hivefleet/sept traits.

Spoiler:

Karol wrote:
Motivated to do what? The rules seems like a way for stores to force people to buy paints, brushs etc. A very smaller minority is realy great at painting, and being bad at something and being forced to do stuff, is not fun. Specially when your forced to spend your own money on it. It is like paying the police for them delivering you to the 24 hours vodka jails.