Switch Theme:

WYSIWYG: Am I being the jerk?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker





 Ishagu wrote:
GW don't permit 3rd party bits at their events because a business cannot and should not advertise a competitive product on their premises for free. If that person ends up on Warhammer TV then GW are inadvertently advertising his models to everyone watching.

Removed - BrookM


You are probably the biggest delusional dakkanaut ever.

GW has a monopoly on the franchise and is in the market position an Oligopol.
They virtually have neither competition in 40k nor has the competition in the market itself any chance to flourish without beeing dependant on GW or GW's policies.

Secondly:
You realize that you validate their no model no rules policy indirectly.
You know what that also did? Cut into their own bottomline, because i rekon 90% of the modles that got produced for these were kitbashed and modelled out of other GW parts.

Thirdly: Here:
"Piracy is not a consummer problem, piracy is almost always a service problem" Gabe Newell.
let's take a look at GW's service: F.e. Chaos Terminators. Base equipment combi bolters and chainaxes. You could rightfully expect a full basic equipment loadout right? WRONG, feth you give us money and buy 4 more Terminator kits.
Or another exemple, Reaper chaincannons.
They don't provide a decently priced alternative, in order for their greedy restrictive policies to shine through, and since they have no real competitions people turn to recasters and alternatives.
In my case, i would like to buy FW renegades, i can't the service is not provided. (doubly so if we take the rules in but alas)
Rules btw are a prime exemple here aswell. there are 106 doccuments, of which about 50% (probably more) are hidden behind a pricetag? Piecemeal spread around ?


Fourth: Telling someone to go out of the internet.
Buddy, Free speech is a thing, and most certainly i won't go away just because your delusional self tells me too

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/09/13 13:39:32


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
Trick Question, of course it's the loyalists!

(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost and 8th edition.) 
   
Made in us
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine




Douglasville, GA

I'm relatively certain (no book in front of me) that the first line in the BRB also says something along the lines of "These rules are designed for use with your Citadel miniatures". So even if you consider the FB post to be "only for GW tournaments" the rulebook itself gives you GW's opinion on using 3rd party and kitbashed models.
   
Made in us
Strangely Beautiful Daemonette of Slaanesh






 Ishagu wrote:
GW don't permit 3rd party bits at their events because a business cannot and should not advertise a competitive product on their premises for free. If that person ends up on Warhammer TV then GW are inadvertently advertising his models to everyone watching.

Removed - BrookM


So for clarity, you justify your stance that a paintjob locks you into a specific army trait based on the warhammer world rules posted by GW and want to apply the same rule to games outside of warhammer world. However, after calling "no third party bases" a strange conclusion, you have retracted that statement after being contradicted by factual evidence of GW enforcing that at Warhammer Citadel. Your new stance is that "GW would be a fool to advertise third party products for free." Correct me if I am wrong in assuming you don't want to apply this rule outside of official GW events at Warhammer Citadel if the sole reason is "no advertising competitors." Sounds like picking and choosing if both of those rules normally aren't applied outside of warhammer world events.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/13 13:39:52


 
   
Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker





 flandarz wrote:
I'm relatively certain (no book in front of me) that the first line in the BRB also says something along the lines of "These rules are designed for use with your Citadel miniatures". So even if you consider the FB post to be "only for GW tournaments" the rulebook itself gives you GW's opinion on using 3rd party and kitbashed models.


How dareth thou kitbashing a Archon on a Jetbike by using regular drukhari jetbikes! OR warbosses on BIKES

GW needs to enforce their 25CHF /charachter model policy.
and 60+ for ABBADON.

You cheap pleb you!
/

Massive sarcasm.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
Trick Question, of course it's the loyalists!

(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost and 8th edition.) 
   
Made in us
Wing Commander





At the store I got started at, the manager would allow any kitbash of GW parts. As long as it was either greenstuff, or parts of GW models pieced together, it was allowed, and Greenstuff in reason. Anything NOT made by GW or FW was not allowed in the store.

I always thought this was silly, but it makes financial sense to me now.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Not Online!!! wrote:
Rules btw are a prime exemple here aswell. there are 106 doccuments, of which about 50% (probably more) are hidden behind a pricetag? Piecemeal spread around ?
108 now actually, with 4 more soon to follow.

Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294 +++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND FOURTY FOUR (144) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities || Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. || Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker





 BaconCatBug wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Rules btw are a prime exemple here aswell. there are 106 doccuments, of which about 50% (probably more) are hidden behind a pricetag? Piecemeal spread around ?
108 now actually, with 4 more soon to follow.



He got the list.

Can you do me a favour bacon, please make a seperate entry for those that you need to pay for.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
Trick Question, of course it's the loyalists!

(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost and 8th edition.) 
   
Made in us
Wing Commander





Also, aren't a LOT of those invalidated by the new codices?
   
Made in gb
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle






 DominayTrix wrote:
 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:
Spoiler:






To be fair WRT that example, GW have always operated on a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy with 3rd party bits and bases (bases are not disallowed at Warhammer World as they realise it is unenforceable) plus said manager at the Citadel is a bit of a knob apparently. Had he known that, the guy asking put his foot in it when he should not have advertised the fact.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/13 12:53:50




A GW fan walks into a bar, buys the same drink as yesterday but pays more.

""Unite" is a human word, ... join me or die."

If you break apart my posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in gb
Dispassionate Imperial Judge






HATE Club, East London

So many rules are intended for tournaments but end up getting used as a 'standard rule set' for pickup games. Rule of 3, for example.

Conveniently, while WYSIWYG is no longer in the rulebook, it IS a standard rule seen in pretty much every tournament pack.

If you're happy that the standard way to play pickup games is 'tournament rules' then you should be fine with WYSIWYG too.

   
Made in fi
Chaplain with Hate to Spare






My previous chapter was a custom chapter, not because I wanted to switch rules, but because I like creating my own thing. They were Imperial Fists successors and always used those rules, whether it was optimal or not. However, with my new Primaris chapter I decided to be less strict with this. they're a custom chapter as well, again because that's what I like for lore and modelling reasons. However, I'm not gonna tie them to some arbitrary set of rules. I have played them as Raven Guard, Iron Hands and Salamanders at least. Not because what is optimal, but because I want to try different playstyles. Which rules GW decides to assign which subfaction seem to be pretty random anyway. If you want to create a fast hit and run marine army, the Ultramarine supplement is probably better choice than the White Scars.

Only the insane have strength enough to prosper. Only those who prosper may truly judge what is sane. 
   
Made in us
Wing Commander





You know, I don't think I've ever had this problem with people's personally devised armies with invented lore. I've only had this problem lately, with the new codexes, with already established armies trying to be another chapter.

It's one thing if you build "The long lost tiedyed fluff lords of Argon" who look crazy but play identically to white scars. I can respect you went in your own direction, and applaud your ability to put in that work to make it extra special.

What I take issue with is the soup lists of clearly identified armies that are proxing as something that is not them. Ultra Marines proxying as IF, or IF proxing as BT. I'm willing you play you, but you might as well be playing with poker chips, coke cans, and gummy bears. I respect you want to try new things, but you don't get the same respect as the Tiedyeguy.

   
Made in us
Boom! Leman Russ Commander





 Stormonu wrote:
Side question - who here has run across opponents who are using multiple marine chapters in a single army?

I haven’t even tried a soup list, much less different chapters in the same army, so the whole affair boggles me a bit.


I don't usually see it because there's typically not more than 1 detachment of marines, or if there are they're the same to maintain bubble integrity.

At the very least, I use different ORDER keywords for my army and for my faith enabler character[s], because Faith kind of only works if you're one specific Order but I want to use the +1A +1S trait because I really like that playstyle and the general implications for the way I play my army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 ArbitorIan wrote:
So many rules are intended for tournaments but end up getting used as a 'standard rule set' for pickup games. Rule of 3, for example.

Conveniently, while WYSIWYG is no longer in the rulebook, it IS a standard rule seen in pretty much every tournament pack.

If you're happy that the standard way to play pickup games is 'tournament rules' then you should be fine with WYSIWYG too.


WYSIWYG applied to wargear and units. Paint is a sacred method of artistic expression and the core element of personalizing your force to the way you like it, and should not be penalized.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/13 14:31:39


Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in gb
Dispassionate Imperial Judge






HATE Club, East London

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

WYSIWYG applied to wargear and units. Paint is a sacred method of artistic expression and the core element of personalizing your force to the way you like it, and should not be penalized.


What you see is what you get.

If I see Ultramarines, I expect to get Ultramarines.

   
Made in us
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine




Douglasville, GA

"Paint your Marines rainbow and play them as any Chapter you want, but decide to choose a color and you're stuck for life" is all I'm getting out of this.

As I said before, as long as I can easily determine which unit is which, I don't really care what colors you use. I feel like being so strict about it is what will really decrease your enjoyment of the game, not someone using blue Marines to stand-in for yellow ones. Because how much enjoyment are you getting out of NOT playing 40k, because you refused to play a guy with the "wrong" colors?
   
Made in us
Charging Dragon Prince





West Lafayette, IN

 Imateria wrote:
The only one being obtuse is you and those expressing similarly snobish views.).


Snobbish.

Expecting to know what one is up against isn't snobbish, it's reasonable in a hobby where the players spout sportsmanship. Unless you're a CAAC, in which case no craps given.

 Imateria wrote:
I have 5000pts of a Craftworld Iyanden Wraith army, yet if fielding a full army the only trait I'll never use for it is the Iyanden trait. It's not because it's weak per se, if you build around it with massed Guardian blobs and vehicles you could come up with a strong list, it's just neither useful or thematic for a Wraith army to the point where I might as well not have one. Instead I use Ulthwe because it suits them much better (and isn't as obnoxious as Alaitoc, the best trait).


Either/or, neither/nor.

Good for you, I guess? I'm trying to figure out if you just like yellow and Ulthwe rules or have an army mostly consisting of Wraiths and simply run Ultwhe for better perks. End result is the same. Not sure what you're trying to say other than "It's not poor form because I choose to do it." Let me ask you a question, is it still modeling for an advantage if YOU do it? Yep.

Here's the real question: do you mix three or more Craftworld traits in the same army without differentiating the models? If so, TFG.

 Imateria wrote:
Apparently, though, matching the rules your going to use to your army and it's playstyle is a foreign concept.


You're. Contracted form of "you are", not to be confused with the possessive form of "you", which is "your".

Its. This is the correct possessive form. The contracted form of "it is" is "it's".

If you're going to insult someone's comprehension skills like you did in your last sentence, you better make sure the body of your message is beyond reproach.




What I got from this thread's bulk is that some people expect some form of decorum when it comes to lists, or at least consistency, and the CAACs are all about shaming those people with shouts of "gatekeeping" and the like. This falls back on the whole "social contract" aspect, it would seem, so the correct answer from ANYONE on either side of this debate is "establish it up front or don't play the game at all".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/13 17:13:38


www.classichammer.com

For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming

Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
   
Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker





 flandarz wrote:
"Paint your Marines rainbow and play them as any Chapter you want, but decide to choose a color and you're stuck for life" is all I'm getting out of this.

As I said before, as long as I can easily determine which unit is which, I don't really care what colors you use. I feel like being so strict about it is what will really decrease your enjoyment of the game, not someone using blue Marines to stand-in for yellow ones. Because how much enjoyment are you getting out of NOT playing 40k, because you refused to play a guy with the "wrong" colors?


Rainbow marines will be the new ultra successor. (not UM) they are made out of scraps of all marines, and resemble all tactics.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
Trick Question, of course it's the loyalists!

(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost and 8th edition.) 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant





 ArbitorIan wrote:
... while WYSIWYG is no longer in the rulebook...
Contrary to popular belief, WYSIWYG was never a published rule. The phrase is mentioned in passing in 3rd ed rulebook only.
   
Made in us
Esteemed Veteran Space Marine




San Jose, CA

Not Online!!! wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Rules btw are a prime exemple here aswell. there are 106 doccuments, of which about 50% (probably more) are hidden behind a pricetag? Piecemeal spread around ?
108 now actually, with 4 more soon to follow.



He got the list.

Can you do me a favour bacon, please make a seperate entry for those that you need to pay for.

Now that's funny.
Not Online!!! wrote:
 flandarz wrote:
"Paint your Marines rainbow and play them as any Chapter you want, but decide to choose a color and you're stuck for life" is all I'm getting out of this.

As I said before, as long as I can easily determine which unit is which, I don't really care what colors you use. I feel like being so strict about it is what will really decrease your enjoyment of the game, not someone using blue Marines to stand-in for yellow ones. Because how much enjoyment are you getting out of NOT playing 40k, because you refused to play a guy with the "wrong" colors?


Rainbow marines will be the new ultra successor. (not UM) they are made out of scraps of all marines, and resemble all tactics.


Umm, no. Rainbow Warriors have been their own thing since RT.

I picked my colors loonnnnnngggggg ago and they could suck but my colors dont change for any reason. If you liked the chapter enough to spend time painting it to look right, why would you change it? its like all that work was for nought. Chasing the dragon never ends well.....
   
Made in us
Wing Commander





 skchsan wrote:
 ArbitorIan wrote:
... while WYSIWYG is no longer in the rulebook...
Contrary to popular belief, WYSIWYG was never a published rule. The phrase is mentioned in passing in 3rd ed rulebook only.


Contrary to popular belief, blowing really hard on your opponents models while then are on tall ruins isn't actually forbidden in the play book! Neither is spitting on them, or shoving your booger hooks up your fourth point of contact, and wiping your re fried beans all over their Guilliman model!

But we don't do it, because we're not animals. We live in a society. It has been pointed out numerous times in this thread how it is easily known that GW intended this to be the case.
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle






 skchsan wrote:
 ArbitorIan wrote:
... while WYSIWYG is no longer in the rulebook...
Contrary to popular belief, WYSIWYG was never a published rule. The phrase is mentioned in passing in 3rd ed rulebook only.


Incorrect.

Every single codex in 3rd ed had "All weapons and wargear must be represented on the model" in the wargear section.



A GW fan walks into a bar, buys the same drink as yesterday but pays more.

""Unite" is a human word, ... join me or die."

If you break apart my posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in fi
Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 Grimtuff wrote:

Every single codex in 3rd ed had "All weapons and wargear must be represented on the model" in the wargear section.

And that is what most people understand WYSIWYG to mean. No mention of paintjob there.

Only the insane have strength enough to prosper. Only those who prosper may truly judge what is sane. 
   
Made in us
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine




Douglasville, GA

@Racerguy: Again, I ain't talking about the guy who changes Chapters whenever one outmetas the other. I'm talking about the vast majority who just wanna try something out without purchasing and painting a brand new army to do so. Maybe they got a limited budget (both money and time) and would like to see how another Chapter plays before committing to it? Generally, the folks "chasing the dragon" are the same people who are fine with just buying a new army and doing it up right. It's your casual to semi-casual players who proxy.

@Fezzik: Wow. So, apparently not having the right colors for your sub-faction makes you an animal. Some real passive-aggressive insulting going on. I honestly considered not even engaging with this, because you don't seem very receptive to compromise or other opinions, but I do wanna mention that "intent" and "the rules", particularly in 40k, are often at odds with each other. Now, you're free to refuse a match for whatever reason you want. Wrong colors. Some real stank. Don't like the cut of their jib. Whatever. But I feel like you're doing yourself (and the hobby) a disservice with such arbitrary refusals as "Your models are yellow when they should be blue!"
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


Contrary to popular belief, blowing really hard on your opponents models while then are on tall ruins isn't actually forbidden in the play book! Neither is spitting on them, or shoving your booger hooks up your fourth point of contact, and wiping your re fried beans all over their Guilliman model!

But we don't do it, because we're not animals. We live in a society. It has been pointed out numerous times in this thread how it is easily known that GW intended this to be the case.


You know, I'm beginning to think I understand the problem in this particular equation. And it isnt your opponent.
   
Made in fi
Chaplain with Hate to Spare






There are savages who play with unpainted models. If my opponent has a painted army, I'm not gonna complain about them painting it in a 'wrong' colour.

Only the insane have strength enough to prosper. Only those who prosper may truly judge what is sane. 
   
Made in us
Wing Commander





Sterling191 wrote:
 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


Contrary to popular belief, blowing really hard on your opponents models while then are on tall ruins isn't actually forbidden in the play book! Neither is spitting on them, or shoving your booger hooks up your fourth point of contact, and wiping your re fried beans all over their Guilliman model!

But we don't do it, because we're not animals. We live in a society. It has been pointed out numerous times in this thread how it is easily known that GW intended this to be the case.


You know, I'm beginning to think I understand the problem in this particular equation. And it isnt your opponent.


Hey, passive aggressive snarky internet tough guy act aside, I clearly stated in the premise that I didn't make a issue of it at all, during any of the games. I merely asked the forum if they would accept this, or if I am wrong and need to adjust to the way things are. The overwhelming majority here support the fact that WYSIWYG with multi-faction lists, but with mono-dex lists it's ok to represent other than what you paint. Which is fine.

Again, the specific complaint here was lazy hobbyists multi-dexing and having all their units be painted other than the dexes they were listing. Which again, most people here state is a problem and shouldn't be allowed.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Hey, passive aggressive snarky internet tough guy act aside, I clearly stated in the premise that I didn't make a issue of it at all, during any of the games.


And yet here you are, throwing out your usual hyperbolic reaction to anyone disagreeing with your stance that everyone should do exactly what you want them to do.



 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
The overwhelming majority here support the fact that WYSIWYG with multi-faction lists, but with mono-dex lists it's ok to represent other than what you paint. Which is fine.

Again, the specific complaint here was lazy hobbyists multi-dexing and having all their units be painted other than the dexes they were listing. Which again, most people here state is a problem and shouldn't be allowed.


Yeah...no. Good on you for trying to rationalize yourself back to your original position though. Excellent effort.
   
Made in gb
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought




Nottingham

As I see it:
If I see Ultramarines, I'm going to expect to be playing against Ultramarines.

If I'm told "hey, they're not Ultramarines, they're *insert Chapter here*" that's cool (again, provided that they're not doing the whole multiple Chapters with no visual difference thing), and I don't inherently have a problem with that.

Depending on other contexts, I may or may not enjoy the game as much as I would if they were just playing how they're painted (if they're just trialling out a different playstyle vs if they're chasing the meta/most powerful/optimised option*), but the inherent act of changing out your Chapter isn't the issue.

I would always rather play a painted list than an unpainted one. However, I'd rather play a painted Iron Hands list than an Ultramarine army proxying as Iron Hands. And I'd also rather play a guy who has painted Ultramarines proxying as Iron Hands because they want to trial the new rules over someone who has Iron Hands proxied as Ultramarines because they're chasing the hypothetical meta.

It's the attitude I'd take objection with, more than anything else. And attitude's not something any rule can dictate or govern.

*if not obvious, I'm not exactly a competitive player, and would rather just play a relaxed game where the fluff and narrative are the main contributors. That's not to say that I think people who play in other ways are wrong or inferior, but that it's simply not my style, and I prefer to not play that way.

Read the history of the Charadon Crusade: The Crusade of Fury was at an end.
Join the Crion Crusade: I think it's the combination of butt jokes, democratic necrons, explosions, and mind-fething that draws people to this Crusade like moths to a bug zapper - War Kitten
Rippy wrote:Never forgetti, template spaghetti.
DR:90S++G++MB+IPw40k07-D++A++/sWD366R++T(F)DM+ 
   
Made in us
Wing Commander





 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
As I see it:
If I see Ultramarines, I'm going to expect to be playing against Ultramarines.

If I'm told "hey, they're not Ultramarines, they're *insert Chapter here*" that's cool (again, provided that they're not doing the whole multiple Chapters with no visual difference thing), and I don't inherently have a problem with that.

Depending on other contexts, I may or may not enjoy the game as much as I would if they were just playing how they're painted (if they're just trialling out a different playstyle vs if they're chasing the meta/most powerful/optimised option*), but the inherent act of changing out your Chapter isn't the issue.

I would always rather play a painted list than an unpainted one. However, I'd rather play a painted Iron Hands list than an Ultramarine army proxying as Iron Hands. And I'd also rather play a guy who has painted Ultramarines proxying as Iron Hands because they want to trial the new rules over someone who has Iron Hands proxied as Ultramarines because they're chasing the hypothetical meta.

It's the attitude I'd take objection with, more than anything else. And attitude's not something any rule can dictate or govern.

*if not obvious, I'm not exactly a competitive player, and would rather just play a relaxed game where the fluff and narrative are the main contributors. That's not to say that I think people who play in other ways are wrong or inferior, but that it's simply not my style, and I prefer to not play that way.


Thank you for putting this post on the thread. Excellently said. It's not a rule, we can't mandate, but we have more enjoyment from games where our opponents paint their armies according to what they are playing. But se la vie.
   
Made in gb
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought




Nottingham

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Thank you for putting this post on the thread. Excellently said. It's not a rule, we can't mandate, but we have more enjoyment from games where our opponents paint their armies according to what they are playing. But se la vie.
I'm not going to turn around to someone and say "um actually, you can't do that because...", but I reserve any right to judge someone for doing it, in the same way I would if someone was moving my models, or had an unpainted list, or proxied coke cans, or any other thing - it's not that doing those things is inherently a problem, because I am cool with those things depending on the circumstances. It's the context that matters.

Playing with a different Chapter's rules because we're just trying out some different playstyles? Cool.
Playing with a different Chapter's rules because we're both playing to win hard? Fair game.
Playing with a different Chapter's rules because you want to win easier in a casual/fluffy game? No thanks.

And no, I don't expect these to be universal rules, only that people respect my preference of playing as much as I respect theirs.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/13 21:03:55


Read the history of the Charadon Crusade: The Crusade of Fury was at an end.
Join the Crion Crusade: I think it's the combination of butt jokes, democratic necrons, explosions, and mind-fething that draws people to this Crusade like moths to a bug zapper - War Kitten
Rippy wrote:Never forgetti, template spaghetti.
DR:90S++G++MB+IPw40k07-D++A++/sWD366R++T(F)DM+ 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: