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.

An interesting thread popped up on Warseer and was summarily closed due to the heated devolution of the discussion.
thread in question

But I think the thread could have been far more constructive if it was made into a poll so that the heated opinions could be kept to a minimum (as in "I am right!" "No, you are wrong!") and people could just vote on what they beleive in instead of arguing their heads off. So, I am making this poll to find out what the majority of players think about this subject.

The Facts:

A player wants to use Dark Angel rules to play a Deathwing styled army.

The player is using models that are painted in what is typically recognized as being a Black Templars scheme, but are otherwise completely WYSIWYG.

Page 77 of the Dark Angels codex says:

Do you feel using models that are painted in a scheme that is typically recognized as 'X army' but using rules from 'Y army' to play them ruins the spirit of WYSIWYG?

Discuss, but please remember that this is a thread based on a personal opinion, and that everyone has their own.
If you want your opinions to be respected, then respect theirs when replying to them.

Aslong as you provide army list with specific Chapter listed on it, i wouldn't complain about it.

Not sure about tournament though, wouldn't TFG be able to
change the army with special rules on the spot according to the army he faces to his advantage?

I would assume that beyond colour scheme the iconography will be unique to your chapter and therefore stand them out as being a successor chapter which could come from any founding chapter. i would be happy with that, though personnal i wouldn't want my custom chapter to look like any other which you may be able to see from my image.

LunaHound wrote:
Aslong as you provide army list with specific Chapter listed on it, i wouldn't complain about it.

Not sure about tournament though, wouldn't TFG be able to
change the army with special rules on the spot according to the army he faces to his advantage?

Again, for the purposes of this thread, he is using Dark Angels rules. That is why I made a list of Bullet pointed Facts to debate over, not on suppositions of what might be done.

Remember, tourneys require a list to be handed in (any that I have seen anyways). Switching between games at a tournament, while possible, would result in consequences.
But that isn't what this thread is talking about.

If it's not a legal army except under the Deathwing rules, no, he couldn't change it.

I remember there was a SW player a few years ago that had an all-termie army that 'counted as' Deathwing.

Some people will cry that the sky is falling. As long as everything is consistent and more or less obvious, I'm fine with it.

LunaHound wrote:
Aslong as you provide army list with specific Chapter listed on it, i wouldn't complain about it.

I agree. I'd hope that a DA successor would have some unique details even if it's in Black Templar B&W, though.

LunaHound wrote:
Not sure about tournament though, wouldn't TFG be able to
change the army with special rules on the spot according to the army he faces to his advantage?

I would think you'd need to register with a specified variant and I'd hope the tournament player announcements would be word as <TFG's name>'s <specific army> vs. <other tfg>'s <specific army>.

I'm not a tournament player, though, so I may be wrong.

I wouldn't consider it bad form as such. Sure if you go to a tourny or a game you have been prepping for, for a long time then there really is no excuse. I know I wouldn't play DA or SW with my 4th company UltraMarines. But that's just me, I have no problem with proxies in games with friends but if I ever got the guts to go to a tourny I would make sure my models and paint scheme matched my list to the best of my abilities.

I'd have no problem facing a Dark Angel Deathwing that had been painted similar to Black Templars.
But I wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway, being n00b and not knowing much beyond UltraSmurf colours!

The Codex does say you can paint it how you like.
Turning up to a game and your foe complaining should lead to turning to page 77 for confirmation.

If the army was painted with Black Templar symbols, then it gets a little confusing, but if it is just a similar scheme then I see no problem.

Are there 1000 colour schemes that are sufficiently different to each other to never be confused?

For a tourney, i suggest using "correct" symbology on the figures, and if he wants to call them "Black Angel successor chapter" then that's fine.
Legal list, legal paint job.

NOTE: I didn't vote, as neither option is right for me.
More for option 1, but it is not completely irrelevant.

BlackSpike wrote:I'd have no problem facing a Dark Angel Deathwing that had been painted similar to Black Templars.
But I wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway, being n00b and not knowing much beyond UltraSmurf colours!

The Codex does say you can paint it how you like.
Turning up to a game and your foe complaining should lead to turning to page 77 for confirmation.

If the army was painted with Black Templar symbols, then it gets a little confusing, but if it is just a similar scheme then I see no problem.

Are there 1000 colour schemes that are sufficiently different to each other to never be confused?

For a tourney, i suggest using "correct" symbology on the figures, and if he wants to call them "Black Angel successor chapter" then that's fine.
Legal list, legal paint job.

NOTE: I didn't vote, as neither option is right for me.
More for option 1, but it is not completely irrelevant.

Interesting.

So there is a difference between friendly play and tourney play to you then?

What constitutes a legal paint job in your opinion?

I ask because I seldom see a person who has multiple armies for different occasions.
I also see a lot of interesting and creative themes in tournaments that have nothing to do with the paint or the models involved. (Old squat models using the Ork or IG rules, as an example).

Considering the above, would you still say that a paint scheme is relevant (or somewhat relevant) in a tournament setting?

I think in the Spirit of Counts As, it's perfectly fine. He could then justify it as "This is Marshal Tactical von Dreadnought McArmor's Sword Brethren Strike Force. I'm using the Death Wing rules to represent him using all his terminators in a critical strike before the rest of the Crusade shows up."

Or something relevant to any Chapter's 1st Company/WolfGuard/Equivalent.

Personally i think its fine, as long as you state what the rules you are using at the beginning of the game and make it clear to your opponent what is what then their really shouldn't be a problem.

However their are times when this is open to abuse, to take an example their was on army one of my mates played at this years UK GT, glancing at it, it looked like a normal vanilla space marine army painted brown and bone, with a giant on tank tracks, it turned out he was using the CSM army book and that giant/conversion/thing was a summoned greater daemon. Now this would all be fine except that he had a unit of raptors (which were just basic assault marines) with the mark of slaanesh, and to represent this he painted one section of the sergeants jump pack pink. To most of us watching the game after we'd finished ours it was clear the guy wanted to take a CSM force from a purely gaming perspective and did as little adjustments to his models to do it, shockingly the referees didn't say anything to him at all.

I didn't put an answer in the poll because the second option is a little too far off in the wording.

I'm on the same page with 99MDeery, when I see someone with Black Templars minis (complete with iconography) playing as vanilla SM or BA, or whatever.

Being a 2nd ed to 5th ed player, it was always about picking the army (and paint scheme) based on the look, feel, and playability of the army. So my marines are Flesh Tearers, and follow the BA rules. I would not use another army's rules (nor the vanilla marine ones) to represent Flesh Tearers, even if it would provide me an advantage in game. And that is what it all comes down to, imo.

All of this 'use special characters to represent whomever in your army' makes them less than special, and fosters an environment where selections are made based upon perceived power or advantage (which is fine, if that's your play style), rather than on background (which is an equally valid way to play). And if the idea is to 'proxy' from the current strongest to the newest strongest list that gets published, and justify it with weak fluff, then I don't know what to think.

I liked the CSM army lists when all they were was a different paint job to differentiate the armies - my original Word Bearers were just red CSM, the same exact ones as all the other legions. And it was cool to me, because the background was cool. I think those days are gone.

*edited for clarity*

I'd say it's in bad form. I'd frown on it, as most players who I've met who play "counts as" fail to to the due diligence required. "This is this, this is this, etc..." That's why I like open lists and trading lists back and forth between opponents.

Now, I did hear of a counts as player who took pictures of all his swapped units, and put those pictures into his excel file he was using as his army list. He had a picture of a typical model in the "counts as" unit next to that unit's entry. Then he printed out a copy for himself, for the judges, and for each opponent. That, I'm fine with.

Cruentus wrote:I liked the CSM army lists when all they were was a different paint job to differentiate the armies - my original Word Bearers were just red CSM, the same exact ones as all the other legions. And it was cool to me, because the background was cool. I think those days are gone.

I agree with you Cruentus. It's sad that people expect rules to go with their story. I played Blood Angels before the Angels of Death codex. I loved reading the stories, and the death company was a (little used) bonus. I assure people that they can have a salamander's army without having Vulkan He'stan in it. Just paint them green.

Legal and fine by me. I think it is BS that only a DIY army can use whatever rules they want but someone using a known chapter is stuck with those rules and only those rules. Black templar couldn't field a small army of terminators? Of course they could. So why not let em use the DW rules as long as the actual models themselves are WYSWIG.

The only time there was ever even close to an issue related to this is the old 4ed SM rules that implied a WYSWIG for paint jobs. That is gone now though, so I see no reason to dwell on it.

This is one of those things I find a little distasteful, and would never personally do. You're basically telling the world "I picked this army's scheme because it's cool, but I picked this army's rules because they're better.' However, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it if someone else did it, nor would I think (much ) less of them. It's the same way I feel about people who paint their army extremely half-assed.

Cruentus wrote:ll of this 'use special characters to represent whomever in your army' makes them less than special, and fosters an environment where selections are made based upon perceived power or advantage (which is fine, if that's your play style), rather than on background (which is an equally valid way to play). And if the idea is to 'proxy' from the current strongest to the newest strongest list that gets published, and justify it with weak fluff, then I don't know what to think.

I think this is one of very few places GW dropped the ball on the new marines 'dex. It was a bad idea giving all the special characters specific names, instead of generic ones. This automatically associates each character with a specific chapter, so people automatically react negatively to the use of these characters outside of their original chapter. Despite GW saying 'oh, you can just name him whatever you like!', you're going to HAVE to refer to your special character as Vulkan or Shrike or Pedro so people will know wtf that model is. Generic titles would have sufficed, because then your 'assault marine chapter master 1-A' could ALSO be Shrike, but he doesn't HAVE to be. See what I mean?

It's not necessarily non-WYSIWYG, but I can't say I enjoy playing against people who do that.

If you have templars iconograpy and templars colours and templars models maybe people will think you're playing templars. If you gain an advantage because an opponent makes a mistake confusing the rules you're using with the rules that your army looks like it's using, then it's definitely in bad form.

WYSIWYG is a rule for modeling, not color schemes.

The Defenestrator wrote:This is one of those things I find a little distasteful, and would never personally do. You're basically telling the world "I picked this army's scheme because it's cool, but I picked this army's rules because they're better.'

To be fair, in this case he was using the Deathwing rules for Black Templars; that's sort of the opposite of picking the better rules.

I think it makes more sense when you want an army with a unique structure, and there's only one that has it available.

Despite GW saying 'oh, you can just name him whatever you like!', you're going to HAVE to refer to your special character as Vulkan or Shrike or Pedro so people will know wtf that model is.

That's the core of the Special Character problem. Yeah, you can name him whatever you like, but you can call your terminators "eliminators," or your land speeder a "sky runner" if you want. You still have to refer by the official name for your opponent to know what you're referring to.

malfred wrote:WYSIWYG is a rule for modeling, not color schemes.

I completely agree, but it seems there is a trend for people to incorporate the two into what they think WYSIWYG is, as evinced by the warseer thread I linked to.

Judging by the poll, there is a fair number on dakka who beleive that. Frankly, I am more than surprised that the numbers are that high.

99MDeery wrote:However their are times when this is open to abuse, to take an example their was on army one of my mates played at this years UK GT, glancing at it, it looked like a normal vanilla space marine army painted brown and bone, with a giant on tank tracks, it turned out he was using the CSM army book and that giant/conversion/thing was a summoned greater daemon. Now this would all be fine except that he had a unit of raptors (which were just basic assault marines) with the mark of slaanesh, and to represent this he painted one section of the sergeants jump pack pink. To most of us watching the game after we'd finished ours it was clear the guy wanted to take a CSM force from a purely gaming perspective and did as little adjustments to his models to do it, shockingly the referees didn't say anything to him at all.

I don't see how this would really end up being a problem. Did the guy come up and say he was using a marine list with some odd models or did he say it was a chaos list? So long as people are up front with what their army list is, then it isn't a big deal. If you know it's chaos, it's very obvious that the assault marines are raptors. It can be a bit more confusing about what regular marine modles are and what the giant is supposed to be, but a little pre game chat should make everything nice and clear.

Hellfury wrote:Judging by the poll, there is a fair number on dakka who beleive that. Frankly, I am more than surprised that the numbers are that high.

Well, something can still be in bad form without being in violation of the rules. Your poll questions make it kind of hard to differentiate the two.

Option number two has the wording "bad form" in it. So people on the fence
should vote there.

i would consider such as successor chapters ect ect.

they would follow the traits of the main chapter, so i dont see why not, im pretty open minded, and to be honest, a new colour for DA would refreshing

Hellfury wrote:

BlackSpike wrote:I'd have no problem facing a Dark Angel Deathwing that had been painted similar to Black Templars.
But I wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway, being n00b and not knowing much beyond UltraSmurf colours!

The Codex does say you can paint it how you like.
Turning up to a game and your foe complaining should lead to turning to page 77 for confirmation.

If the army was painted with Black Templar symbols, then it gets a little confusing, but if it is just a similar scheme then I see no problem.

Are there 1000 colour schemes that are sufficiently different to each other to never be confused?

For a tourney, i suggest using "correct" symbology on the figures, and if he wants to call them "Black Angel successor chapter" then that's fine.
Legal list, legal paint job.

NOTE: I didn't vote, as neither option is right for me.
More for option 1, but it is not completely irrelevant.

Interesting.

So there is a difference between friendly play and tourney play to you then?

What constitutes a legal paint job in your opinion?

I ask because I seldom see a person who has multiple armies for different occasions.
I also see a lot of interesting and creative themes in tournaments that have nothing to do with the paint or the models involved. (Old squat models using the Ork or IG rules, as an example).

Considering the above, would you still say that a paint scheme is relevant (or somewhat relevant) in a tournament setting?

I don't play friendly games by tournament rules, so there is a difference.
I doubt many tournaments would let me field my Epic Great Gargants (no conversion) as DeffDredds.

To be honest, I have never been to a tournament, but I doubt it would be looked on with favour to lay down a blue army with large white "inverted Omega" symbols on them and say "These are my Space Wolves".
I did only suggest not trying it, and leave it to more experienced Tournament-goers to give more accurate advice on such matters.

I can't define legal paint-job, and maybe "Legal" is not quite the right word.
Black Templar models, with a Black Templar paint-job, and Black Templar Symbols on shoulder-pads, flags, tanks etc is not a legal paint-job for a Dark Angel Army list.
Not that I, personally, would mind, but I suggest that it would not look good in a more formal setting than my lounge!

Interesting and creative themes is great! The more inspired models/paint-jobs/stories/chapter histories, and the less UltraSmurfs I see, the better!

A fair amount comes down to how interesting/fun the game is. If someone has gone to the trouble of writing a chapter-history, designing balanced rules, and stories of famous Chapter-Members, I might let them field unpainted grots as their Marines and coke-can dreadnoughts.
On the flip-side, in friendly games, I feel no remorse in telling people "Paint ya dang models, ya weedy git! You said these are Space Wolves, what's with the Blue paint-job?"
Some of my friends refuse to field their models until they are completely happy with the paint-job, others spray, dip and play.

As I stated, I am more of the opinion that it does not matter, but I do not class it as completely irrelevant, as I enjoy a game where the models are accurately portrayed.
If you want to paint your marines in Ultramarine Blue, but call them UltraScarlets, I'd prefer it if you painted Red Omegas on them. But I doubt I'd refuse to play against them if you didn't.

Related question, if I took Red Paint Job on my Ork vehicles to gain an extra 1 inch of movement, how many of you would be insulted if they weren't painted red, but blue instead?

I would hope that most of you wouldn't care.

You know, I started out reading this thread thinking that the people who would have a problem with this were the ones with the problem. I mean, I would have NO problem doing it with any of my armies.

Then I began to examine my own game play. I guess what makes it OK for me is that I go over my list with my opponent before pretty well EVERY game, friendly or tourney. I encourage opponents to ask questions, and go over every piece of wargear unless I feel sure that my opponent has seen my army before and knows exactly what I am doing.

So I guess I think that if you go over it with your opponent, they understand what they are looking t, and your modeling is consistant, it's cool. I'm actually a big advocate of the modeling being consistant. I don't care if you are using a "boomstick"on your model to represent a meltagun; so long as ALL "boomsticks"in your army represent meltaguns.

chrispy, aslong as i was told before hand it wouldnt bother me too much

but it goes against the well know phrase "red wunz go fasta!"

Redbeard wrote:It's not necessarily non-WYSIWYG, but I can't say I enjoy playing against people who do that.

If you have templars iconograpy and templars colours and templars models maybe people will think you're playing templars. If you gain an advantage because an opponent makes a mistake confusing the rules you're using with the rules that your army looks like it's using, then it's definitely in bad form.

For me, its not even about being confused playing my opponent. Its about hopscotching around with the rules that you use to field your army. If you wanted to field an all-termi army, the DA (and successor) armies are there for you. You could even paint a DIY, but why Templars? Their 'thing' is mass foot infantry and running at you after being shot.

One player in our group would do this all the time with his Eldar. The rainbow guardians, or those painted as Alaitoc would all of sudden be Ulthwe (because those rules were better at the time). It killed the visual and the immersion in the game for me. If he wanted Ulthwe, why not paint them Ulthwe?

Another player has DIY marines, and he had a description of their approach to tactics, organization, etc. under 3rd to 4th. Now with the new dex, I expect his list to change, but I don't expect it to change every time we play, and I certainly don't expect it to change to a 'named' chapter. He'll pick units/Hqs/etc that fit his "chapter" and he'll be done.

And all of this is not to say I wouldn't play someone who used Templars as DA. I would play them, and probably have a great game, and enjoy it. The game would be just a little less interesting than if I were actually facing Templars (or DA).

I'm just wondering if the guys who are strict about the "immersion" or "mix and match rules and paintjobs" remember that this is an expensive game and very few could buy a whole other army of the exact same models just to paint them a slightly different color and use slightly different rules. Then again I guess some of you take the background more seriously cuz to me the only difference between black marines, pink marines, and light blue marines are the colors. (Hurr marienz)

Chrispy wrote:Related question, if I took Red Paint Job on my Ork vehicles to gain an extra 1 inch of movement, how many of you would be insulted if they weren't painted red, but blue instead?

I would hope that most of you wouldn't care.

As long as it's different from unupgraded vehicles so the Orks could believe it was somehow faster cuz it was painted differently, sure.