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.

flandarz wrote:@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.

If you have a limited budget that's fine, but changing which chapter you have every...single...game and then changing it again when than one is no longer "viable" or "best".

I have never proxy'd and pretty much everyone in our group that is narrative focused is the same.

I have backgrounds for most of my models that I don't plan on changing the background on them to suit the rules I like best. A couple of them are custom backgrounds where I have to get the rules to be a sort of best fit, but most of my factions were based on existing lore. Only my Tau are still somewhat in the air as my background fits better with Bork' An as a science team, but their colors are part way between Vior'La and Farsight. So I haven't quite decided yet.


The Spoiler is a picture of a sample model for each faction I currently have painted up.

Again, I don't like the idea of switching factions just because one set of rules suits the player over another. I am not going to hold anyone else to it, just like I won't for painted models. At the same time, I think a player should play the subfaction they painted their models. At least in general. They don't have to stick with those rules to the end of time, but I would like some consistency. Having the right colors to the right faction or even just sticking with the same faction week after week helps create the illusion that these fictional battles with plastic spacemen are more real with stories and heroics worthy of the future history books. As I said, to do otherwise diminishes the hobby making it a pale shadow of what it can be.

So, I painted my orks in a way where every unit was painted like the clan it would most likely come from. You know, because that's what the fluff in my codex used to say how it worked.

My choppa boyz are black/white, my shoota boyz and tank bustas are yellow, my bikes, trukk boyz and trukks are red, my lootaz are blue, gretchin and weird boyz are brown, nob squads had mixed colors and a good chunk is just painted shoulder pads/pants/helmets in a random color because I need to tell squads appart.

So, to those "you should paint what you are running" guys, what culture should my army have?
Should I repaint everything because GW suddenly decided to change the rules?
Do I need to repaint 2000 points of models from blue to black if I want to run Ghazghkull Thrakka instead of Mad Doc Grotznik who both used to be in one formation just last edition?
Is my Thrakka painted in Bloodaxe colors an illegal model?

 Jidmah wrote:
So, I painted my orks in a way where every unit was painted like the clan it would most likely come from. You know, because that's what the fluff in my codex used to say how it worked.

My choppa boyz are black/white, my shoota boyz and tank bustas are yellow, my bikes, trukk boyz and trukks are red, my lootaz are blue, gretchin and weird boyz are brown, nob squads had mixed colors and a good chunk is just painted shoulder pads/pants/helmets in a random color because I need to tell squads appart.

So, to those "you should paint what you are running" guys, what culture should my army have?
Should I repaint everything because GW suddenly decided to change the rules?
Do I need to repaint 2000 points of models from blue to black if I want to run Ghazghkull Thrakka instead of Mad Doc Grotznik who both used to be in one formation just last edition?
Is my Thrakka painted in Bloodaxe colors an illegal model?

I thik the vast majority of people would not begrudge your ork squads having different Kultures (love ork spell ) as they are all differently painted and their squads are all clearly distinguishable... I think the issue at hand is least relevant to orks as they are generaly pretty mish mash models.. no offence meant to ork lads !!! Also...they all be green skins . From reading peoples comments I don't think anyone says in this scenario it would be a problem.

So, reading this thread a lot of people have made sweeping hyperbole statements about what people allegedly mean when clearly they don't... Its dakka through and through.

So let me do this also:

Vast majority, if not all people have said (myself included) would not have a problem with the entire army with a specific colour scheme being played as another sub factions E.g. Ultramarines being played as iron fists... Different rules and all that can allow for different playstyles so everyone seems to understand the rationale. Heck it would be boring if you always played your army the same way..

Most people have said (myself included) wouldn't even mind if some specific units, although painted like the rest of the army would be a different subfaction - As long as those units are different to other units... I.E. Everything painted as pink marines. But all these vehicles and tech marine in this spearhead are Iron fists, everything else is pink marines rules. Its obvious that t rule chasing/power gaming but I don't think its the crux of the problem.. Do what you wanna do.

But it seems a lot of people (myself included) struggle with identically loaded out and painted units that have different rules. E.g. All of these intercessors across two battalions look identical and are painted as red marines. However, these ones here are raven guard and these ones here are ultramarines.

The consensus seems to be that this is/can be difficult to track on the table top. Especially if all these different squads get blobbed up in CC/tight formations. The controlling player will inevitably remove the wrong model by accident or apply the specific tactic to the wrong combat squad or the opponent will pick wrong target priority or whatever? I say this because I've done it and made mistakes to my detriment! and its soured the game.. And don't do it anymore. But could quite easily see this being done for advantage..

The counter argument seems to be: "Ahh but I explained this at the start of the game so its on you to remember.. too bad you forgot. Your problem. Your burden.. Also I don't make mistakes and will never misplay my unit"

And to that people say.. no its on you to represent your miniatures properly and that the burden is on you. Because they are your miniatures. And everybody makes mistakes... but why create a situation where the likely hood increases purposefully?

I don't think anyone, despite what people seems to have suggested, have been unreasonable(yes some outlier opinions..looking at you ishagu but unreasonable?) and there has been a lot of putting words in peoples mouths talking about double standards or what have you. Its clear what people are trying to say. I don't think the discussion is about weather someone's meta chasing/power gaming and discussing the merits of competitive vs casual (because when does a conversation on dakka ever not degenerate into this) that's a different conversation all together..

My issue is: Why create an environment where you purposefully Increase the likely hood of either player making an error, seems baffling.. Aren't our games supposed to be fun enjoyable and fair ?

I usually run my entire army as one clan, unless I'm running two named characters which have different clans, then some gretchin and weirdboy have a different kulture which do nothing for either. So the confusion for my opponent should be zero.

However multiple people have voiced the opinion that people should only ever play what they have painted, with no exceptions whatsoever. I'd like their opinion on the clan thing.

 Crimson wrote:

 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.

Well, there's one example where it would be require WYSIWYG and paint to coincide - I'm pretty sure 3rd ed Ork vehicles could take "Red Paint Job" as an upgrade, which made them go slightly quicker.

But, as a general rule, you're not wrong.

 Jidmah wrote:
I usually run my entire army as one clan, unless I'm running two named characters which have different clans, then some gretchin and weirdboy have a different kulture which do nothing for either. So the confusion for my opponent should be zero.

However multiple people have voiced the opinion that people should only ever play what they have painted, with no exceptions whatsoever. I'd like their opinion on the clan thing.

If it were my army, I'd go with whichever Clan the Warboss is. Or whichever Clan the leader of the particular detachment is.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I usually run my entire army as one clan, unless I'm running two named characters which have different clans, then some gretchin and weirdboy have a different kulture which do nothing for either. So the confusion for my opponent should be zero.

However multiple people have voiced the opinion that people should only ever play what they have painted, with no exceptions whatsoever. I'd like their opinion on the clan thing.

If it were my army, I'd go with whichever Clan the Warboss is. Or whichever Clan the leader of the particular detachment is.

Almost every big mek and warboss has a different clan, as they were supposed to be the warband leaders that the big boss unified to stat the Waaagh! represented by my army. That's how it works in the fluff - most of Thrakkas inner circle generals (Nazdregg, Orkimedes, Grotznik) are not goff, in DoW Grogutz bullies or kills leaders of other clans to make their warband join them and in IA:7 a goff mek is in charge of an evil suns, a deff skulls and a goff warboss.

Jidmah wrote:So, I painted my orks in a way where every unit was painted like the clan it would most likely come from. You know, because that's what the fluff in my codex used to say how it worked.

My choppa boyz are black/white, my shoota boyz and tank bustas are yellow, my bikes, trukk boyz and trukks are red, my lootaz are blue, gretchin and weird boyz are brown, nob squads had mixed colors and a good chunk is just painted shoulder pads/pants/helmets in a random color because I need to tell squads appart.

So, to those "you should paint what you are running" guys, what culture should my army have?
Should I repaint everything because GW suddenly decided to change the rules?
Do I need to repaint 2000 points of models from blue to black if I want to run Ghazghkull Thrakka instead of Mad Doc Grotznik who both used to be in one formation just last edition?
Is my Thrakka painted in Bloodaxe colors an illegal model?

Personally, I'd play them as whatever klan the Warlord is. If you played your Thraka as Thraka, then I'd expect Goffs (because that's what's on his datasheet), if he was a normal Warboss, then I'd expect Blood Axe.

However, if I were you, based on how you've said you have Warbosses for each subgroup of your army (which is super fluffy and I love it), I'd actually be dividing the army into a bunch of detachments and playing each Klan as their own detachment. So, for me personally, I'd be playing what they're painted as, and your Blood Axe Thraka either as a Blood Axe if generic, or Goff if as Thraka himself.

As far as it goes, I don't think I'd have a problem if your army used a variety of rules, so long as they were obvious, and I'd be pretty open to using different Klan rules. However, if I knew you were only using XYZ Klan rules because they were the "best rules", then I'd be more apprehensive about playing. Say, if you'd been playing Blood Axes for months because that's how you'd painted them, but then if, say, Bad Moon rules become super brokenly good, and you start using them regularly without retooling your lore or repainting or what have you, I'd enjoy playing you less.

Is that the kind of answer you were after?

Orkz are one of those factions where color is basically meaningless. Got Goffs in red armor? "Dey wuz in da Evil Sunz, but da Goffz knowz wut a gud foight iz, so dey joined up wiv dem." Evil Sunz Warboss in blue? "I knicked it from sum git wot looked at me funny, aftah I knokt 'im round a bit."

Having a hodgepodge aesthetic IS the Ork aesthetic.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
However, if I were you, based on how you've said you have Warbosses for each subgroup of your army (which is super fluffy and I love it), I'd actually be dividing the army into a bunch of detachments and playing each Klan as their own detachment. So, for me personally, I'd be playing what they're painted as, and your Blood Axe Thraka either as a Blood Axe if generic, or Goff if as Thraka himself.

Yeah, that would be awesome, but as none of my clans can field 3 troops+2HQ I would be just playing with a maximum of 6 CP. Which means an automatic loss for orks - and not even a close one, but as in the game is a waste of time for both players.

As far as it goes, I don't think I'd have a problem if your army used a variety of rules, so long as they were obvious, and I'd be pretty open to using different Klan rules. However, if I knew you were only using XYZ Klan rules because they were the "best rules", then I'd be more apprehensive about playing. Say, if you'd been playing Blood Axes for months because that's how you'd painted them, but then if, say, Bad Moon rules become super brokenly good, and you start using them regularly without retooling your lore or repainting or what have you, I'd enjoy playing you less.

Is that the kind of answer you were after?

In this context, what do you mean by "repainting what I have to"? Just picking a properly painted warlord?

@Jidmah


I personally would be fine having you use what ever Kultur the unit is painted as.

Part of me thinks Ork should just get to add Kulturs on a per unit basis anyways. Maybe I am not seeing the right games, but I don't think that would make them over powered and it fits their lore. I would even throw in a marine doctrine like power that rewards going mono Kultur.

The only confusing thing would be if players didn't paint their army like yours. Even then, I think most Ork units are fairly obvious which Kultur they want. So long the mono-Kultur was decent enough I could see player sticking to that too.

Jidmah wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
However, if I were you, based on how you've said you have Warbosses for each subgroup of your army (which is super fluffy and I love it), I'd actually be dividing the army into a bunch of detachments and playing each Klan as their own detachment. So, for me personally, I'd be playing what they're painted as, and your Blood Axe Thraka either as a Blood Axe if generic, or Goff if as Thraka himself.

Yeah, that would be awesome, but as none of my clans can field 3 troops+2HQ I would be just playing with a maximum of 6 CP. Which means an automatic loss for orks - and not even a close one, but as in the game is a waste of time for both players.

You don't need to make every detachment a Battalion. Spearheads, Patrols, Vanguards, Outriders, and suchlike are all perfect for this kind of structure. And I don't think I'd have a massive problem with giving you extra CP if you did organise your detachments accordingly above.

But then I do ignore the whole "you can only have 3 detachments per X many points" rule, so maybe that's not viable on your end.

As far as it goes, I don't think I'd have a problem if your army used a variety of rules, so long as they were obvious, and I'd be pretty open to using different Klan rules. However, if I knew you were only using XYZ Klan rules because they were the "best rules", then I'd be more apprehensive about playing. Say, if you'd been playing Blood Axes for months because that's how you'd painted them, but then if, say, Bad Moon rules become super brokenly good, and you start using them regularly without retooling your lore or repainting or what have you, I'd enjoy playing you less.

Is that the kind of answer you were after?

In this context, what do you mean by "repainting what I have to"? Just picking a properly painted warlord?

"what have you", not "what I have to", but yes, if we were assuming that you take the Klan trait of the Warlord instead of splitting down into smaller detachments, then yes, just selecting the appropriate coloured Warboss who's Klan you want to be dominant to be the Warlord would be fine.

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:@Jidmah


I personally would be fine having you use what ever Kultur the unit is painted as.

This too. I think Orks should be one of, if not the only, faction to have a unit by unit Kultur breakdown.