Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grimtuff wrote:

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.

 Grimtuff wrote:

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.

A Town Called Malus 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.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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?

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.

Ice_can wrote:

 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?

Not Online!!! wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 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

You forgot *** give us your money and shut up.

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.

'How GW intends' doesn't mean squat. It changes from year to year based on sales figures, and has no impact outside GW HQ.

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 GW HQ.

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.

 Ishagu wrote:

Voss wrote:
'How GW intends' doesn't mean squat. It changes from year to year based on sales figures, and has no impact outside GW HQ.

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.

 DominayTrix wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

Voss wrote:
'How GW intends' doesn't mean squat. It changes from year to year based on sales figures, and has no impact outside GW HQ.

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.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 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.

 some bloke wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

 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.

 Ishagu wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

Voss wrote:
'How GW intends' doesn't mean squat. It changes from year to year based on sales figures, and has no impact outside GW HQ.

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:

And I will happily face out more and more gw for my renegades.
Just for that statement alone.

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

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.