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.

Redbeard wrote:40k and Star Trek are like polar opposites in terms of sci-fi. One is a happy, fluffy land of sunshine and daisies where everything wrong in the world can be solved in an hour by reconfiguring something. The other is a grim, dark place where no matter how long you toil, you're either going to end up as tyranid food, or simply consumed by the unending bureaucracy of the imperium.

They don't mix. Really.

What about the Tau?

They fit in, don't they?

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Redbeard wrote:40k and Star Trek are like polar opposites in terms of sci-fi. One is a happy, fluffy land of sunshine and daisies where everything wrong in the world can be solved in an hour by reconfiguring something. The other is a grim, dark place where no matter how long you toil, you're either going to end up as tyranid food, or simply consumed by the unending bureaucracy of the imperium.

They don't mix. Really.

What about the Tau?

They fit in, don't they?

Tau will fit in once GW releases the Dark Tau or the Chaos Tau or the Chaos Dark Tau of the
Lost and the Damned.

I take a dissenting view from Redbeard - I like the idea. However, I don't believe that the Imperium of man and Space Marines specifically work well in concept.

Imperium models may work better for your ideas, but the Tau's philosophy and technology are probably better matched to the Federation...

I don't like the idea, personally. I wouldn't tank scores, I wouldn't laugh, and I certainly wouldn't do anything to discourage you from doing the army you want to do. While I don't feel as strongly about it as Redbeard, I think that it's just not organic enough to the background of the 40k universe to really grab me.

Of course, that's based just on the initial "table read" of your idea. I think done well, so that instead of being a Star Trek army built using 40k it's a 40k army that uses Star Trek as inspiration it could be interesting. Call them a chapter once though lost in the Ghost Stars that's returned with archeotech and strange ideas for changing the imperium of man. the more you integrate them into 40k, the better the army will feel.

yeh, I like Polonius' idea. A chapter that came into contact with a lost human civilisation & picked up parts of their philosophy...

Also, for the record I think 'The Federation' is a better chapter name than Ulised's Flawless Protectors.

As for the colour scheme, the pictures arent working for me, but going back to someone else's idea, I dont like the idea of full coloured plate for each of the ranks, i.e. full yellow for command, full blue for apothecaries, etc. I think it'll make the army look disjointed. I think you should give them grey armour, with trim & one knee pad in the appropriate colours to indicate rank, & then the federation symbol on their shoulderpads.

just my 2 pence.

Redbeard wrote:
I'll go ahead and say it - I'd be that guy - if I ever have to play against a star trek army in a tournament, I'm tanking every soft score I can.

More like TFG....

Thats AWEFULLY harsh treatment for someone having fun with the hobby. Especially if I work hard to have interesting conversions and the army is painted well.

Polonius wrote:. I think done well, so that instead of being a Star Trek army built using 40k it's a 40k army that uses Star Trek as inspiration it could be interesting. Call them a chapter once though lost in the Ghost Stars that's returned with archeotech and strange ideas for changing the imperium of man. the more you integrate them into 40k, the better the army will feel.

This is exactly what I'm trying to do....try to make the two ideas mesh the best way they can by slightly editing certain fluff ideas from the 'Trek' universe. Note how the "PRIME DIRECTIVE" is adjusted from instead of the 'U.F.P.' not being allowed to interfere with planets, instead it's 'U.F.P.' Space Marines protecting said planets from dirty alien scum interferance. I wont be using, "Captain Kirk" as a hero....more likely my first hero will be "Chapter Master Tiberius"...more of an inside roundabout 'hint' at kirk.

Make sure to include a rhino with a fully functional and always malfunctioning holodec.

And in all seriousness, I do like this idea.

Deadshane1 wrote:

Redbeard wrote:
I'll go ahead and say it - I'd be that guy - if I ever have to play against a star trek army in a tournament, I'm tanking every soft score I can.

More like TFG....

Thats AWEFULLY harsh treatment for someone having fun with the hobby. Especially if I work hard to have interesting conversions and the army is painted well.

Redbeard wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:

Redbeard wrote:
I'll go ahead and say it - I'd be that guy - if I ever have to play against a star trek army in a tournament, I'm tanking every soft score I can.

More like TFG....

Thats AWEFULLY harsh treatment for someone having fun with the hobby. Especially if I work hard to have interesting conversions and the army is painted well.

No more than you would be TFG for doing it in the first place. Not meaning to be offensive, but I enjoy 40k because of the dark grim future. I seriously dislike Star Trek, mostly because of the fans of the show, and because it is, in my mind, everything science fiction should not be - a soap opera. Now, at a game store, I'd just refuse to play against it. Like I said, to me, I would rather play against unpainted models than Star Trek tripe. At a tournament, I wouldn't have that option. I'd be in a situation where I'm forced to accept that your Star Trek guys and my 40k guys are in the same universe.

I don't care how well implemented it is, or how cool the conversions are, that's the bottom line for me. I dislike Star Trek intensely, and I don't want to have my toy soldiers on the same table with your toy explorers. And, honestly, I don't see this as any more extreme than saying I wouldn't play against someone's green army men, or their transformer toys.

You would be the one bringing in an unwanted element to this shared universe concept, not me. If that makes me TFG, well, then I guess that's that. But, I'm being honest about my feelings towards the matter. I've never docked a single opponent I've ever played for their army composition. But, I'm sorry, Star Trek would get me to. You asked if this would be a good idea. I'm telling you straight up that there are people, like me, who will be offended by it. It's your choice. I'd rather see your assault Iron Hands though.

So basically, you advocate tanking someone's soft scores if you intensely dislike any part of their army.

THAT my friend, makes you a serious jerk in a tournement situation. No flame, thats just what I see.

I hope you dont 'intensely dislike' any basic army Codex. I know people that 'intensely hate' playing against Orks, or Necrons.

What if you 'intensely hate' armies that are coloured yellow...I guess you're going to tank any Imperial Fist players huh?

You dont like Star Trek so you're going to bust on not only my sportsmanship, army comp (even if its a good marine army outside of the theme) and paintjob (even it its painted to an immaculate level).

Thats just the sort of thing you get kicked out of tournements for.

Just because you dont like the way someone is presenting their army on the tabletop, you'd have NO justification to chipmunk their scores across the board.

Even though I'm not at all a Star Trek fan, I'd say go ahead and do it. It might fit better with some modeled IG, but even so, who's stopping you?

Deadshane1 wrote:
So basically, you advocate tanking someone's soft scores if you intensely dislike any part of their army.

No, that's not what I said at all - that's a slippery slope fallacy.

I advocate that 40k armies should be based in the 40k universe. If you showed up with an army of gobots, I'd tank that. If you showed up with star wars figures, I'd tank that. We're playing 40k, not 'sci-fi warriors'. Trying to extend that any further, such as your imperial fist/dislike of yellow analogy has nothing to do with my argument. Imperial Fists are an established part of the 40k universe.

Just because you dont like the way someone is presenting their army on the tabletop, you'd have NO justification to chipmunk their scores across the board.

That all depends on how the questions are worded. If it's an adepticon-style checklist for sportsmanship, then you'll get your point for being there on time. You'll get your point for having a tape measure. You won't get a point for me ever wanting to play you again. If it's an open-ended rate-your-opponent's-sportsmanship, then I'll rate you 0, because in my opinion, showing up with an army based in another genre entirely is extremely poor sportsmanship and shows no respect to your opponent who wants to play 40k.

I'm not going to lie in order to dock you points, or break tournament rules. If there is a direct question like 'did you get there on time', then I'll answer it truthfully. But any points that are at my discretion to assign won't be assigned to an army such as the one you're proposing. And that's entirely justifiable.

Redbeard wrote:
showing up with an army based in another genre entirely is extremely poor sportsmanship

This quote right here makes your entire arguement look pretty ridiculous. I also find it funny that now you're backpeddling and claiming that you're only tanking soft scores that 'would apply' now instead of "every soft score I can" as you originally mentioned. Tells me that somewhere deep down inside, you know you're wrong with your stance here. Which is encouraging.

Sportsmanship isnt about how I paint my models or how I convert them.

If we have a good game, with 0 rules issues, have a couple of laughs during said game and you kabosh my Sportsmanship simply because you dislike "Trek" you sir, are a total Jerk. (again, no flame but really...)

Its called creativity, and actually considering what I've got planned for this army at this point...a BIG CHALLENGE. (conversion/painting-wise) THAT, especially assuming the army is well done, and thought out, should be something that is rewarded in a Tournement situation....and frequently is.

If there were more gamers out there like you tanking scores for modellers trying to be creative and make something original and different out of their armies, it would be a sad atmosphere indeed for people who try to keep things fresh at Tournements and create their own little 'spectacle' for people to appreciate.

At what point does your stance become 'justified'

What if I make a DIY chapter with no fluff and the only thing that can be tied to Star Trek is a "Arrowhead" symbol such as the StarFleet insignia....but I claim to simply like the symbol? I dont see a problem with this.....

Now I name my Chapter Master Tiberius....nothing wrong with that.

Heck, I think I want my tactical squads' personell to be seperated, but choose not to use rank insignia or squad markings, instead I'm going to use different colors for minor parts of each models' armour...its a DIY chapter so this should be ok.

WHOA wait a minute, my shuttles are an obvious homage to Star Trek! The impulse nacelles and the fact that I named one of them "Galileo 7" just ruined your game....I guess I'm deserving of your ridiculous sportsmanship judgement.

Try to have more of an open mind. The things you mention have not a shred of ANYTHING to do with Sportsmanship. Maybe you dont like the idea, but "ruining the game"? You sound like a spoiled child.

p.s. your apparent hatred of all things "star trek"(you did mention that you intensly dislike it, and apparently any referance to it within 40k would ruin your game) reminds me of the guy on Jackass who "hates Mustard".

On that note, I've seen an IG army that was completely converted to include every character from G.I. Joe.

Silly? Yes. Against 'The Dark Nature of the Fluff' that some people feel the need to completely immerse themselves in? Absolutely. But everyone loved it.

If you can't have a game with something like that and laugh at it, or feel the need to insult someone for fielding such an army, then that, my friend, is poor sportsmanship. What is one chance game against something silly and totally out of character really going to do to hurt your total immersion? Nothing.

If that was the same army that made a couple of GT's 3-4 years ago, I saw it.

It wasnt even particularly expertly painted, but the execution was so good it was a serious contender for "players choice".

I think redbeard's point is legit. It might look good. It might be an interesting idea. It might be funny and interesting to do star trek themed marines. But it's not at all thematic. It doesn't in any way fit in with the space marines conceptually, and it doesn't make any sense in the context of the 40K universe.

So if you like your games of 40K to be thematic, and to fit in well with the fluff, it would probably annoy you to play against this army, which seems to frivolously play with it.

Deadshane1 wrote:

Redbeard wrote:
showing up with an army based in another genre entirely is extremely poor sportsmanship

This quote right here makes your entire arguement look pretty ridiculous.

Why is that? The idea of sportsmanship is that you're showing respect to your opponent. If your opponent shows up with the intent of playing some games within the established 40k genre, and here you go bringing Star Trek stuff, immediately, your opponent isn't going to be having a good time. Read the latest Standard Bearer - enjoyment of the fluff side of 40k is one of the main reasons that people play this game. You're taking that away from them. And, while I dislike Star Trek, as I said, it's really no different than if you did up your necrons like cylons or daleks. People like the 40k fluff. You're taking that away from them.

I also find it funny that now you're backpeddling and claiming that you're only tanking soft scores that 'would apply' now instead of "every soft score I can" as you originally mentioned. Tells me that somewhere deep down inside, you know you're wrong with your stance here. Which is encouraging.

Unless you look at the definition of 'I can'. If the rules of the tournament allow me to do something, then that's something "I can" do. I'm not a liar or a cheat. I'm not going to break rules to get at your theme. Those are things I cannot do. I'm not backpeddling, I'm clarifying.

Sportsmanship isnt about how I paint my models or how I convert them.

Sure it is. Sportsmanship is about showing respect to your opponent. If your army disrespects your opponent then it's poor sportsmanship to bring it. As I said above, many people play this game because of the fluff. You're throwing that in their face.

If we have a good game, with 0 rules issues, have a couple of laughs during said game and you kabosh my Sportsmanship simply because you dislike "Trek" you sir, are a total Jerk. (again, no flame but really...)

If you start a thread asking if something is a good idea, and someone posts a very legitimate reason why it isn't a good idea, and you then call them a jerk, you sir, are a troll. But, you know...

Its called creativity,...

It's well-established among professional writers that it is harder, and more challenging, to be creative within a given set of rules than without. The 40k universe is your set of rules. Work within it, be creative within it, and there are no problems.

Try to have more of an open mind. The things you mention have not a shred of ANYTHING to do with Sportsmanship. Maybe you dont like the idea, but "ruining the game"? You sound like a spoiled child.

Again, you asked the question. I gave you an answer you didn't like - and you started throwing names at me. Who is the spoiled child?

You havent convinced me (or I doubt many people here) that a themed army can somehow be disrespectful to an opponent. Nazi symbolism? Now THAT can be considered disrespectful. Star Trek? Get over yourself.

Unless you look at the definition of 'I can'.

Thats rich.

You backpeddled, dont deny it. There is one obvious meaning of "I dont like your army so I'm going to tank every soft score I can." This is what you said. Everyone knows what you meant and what context it was in.

Sportsmanship is showing respect to your opponent

I suppose torpedoing someones soft scores because you dont like their theme is respect...regardless of whether or not you had a smooth game.

If you start a thread asking if something is a good idea, and someone posts a very legitimate reason why it isn't a good idea, and you then call them a jerk, you sir, are a troll. But, you know...

First, I never CALLED you a jerk if you go back and read the posts, now if you came thru and actually tank people in soft scores like this, then yes, you'd fit my definition of "jerk" or TFG.

Second, I'm not arguing with you that this is a good idea, I'm arguing with you that your views on scoring a player with an army like this is out of sorts. THATS what we've been arguing over for the last few posts, not whether or not the Star Trek themed marine army is a good idea.

Third, Redbeard and others may think that this isnt a good idea because of their personal tastes. This isnt a legitimate reason not to paint MY army in this way. If 'I' think that the idea is sound I really dont care about what you think, unless of course you can give me a REAL reason why its a bad idea. Too hard to convert, paint job will take forever, WILDLY offensive (again, the Nazi symbolism would be an example). These are all legit reasons not to do it.

Basically, you're telling me, "I think its stupid" and while its fine that you think that (and I HAVE taken your opinion into account) its not really much of a reason NOT to do it since our opinions on the theme's attractiveness are totally opposite. Since its MY army and not YOURS, your opinion that its a dumb idea doesnt really weigh in very heavy.

You can paint your army any way you like, but you have to accept that some people might not enjoy playing against it. Only some mind you.

For example if you painted your army as care bears, and they looked great, and you personally loved them, you could see how some people would not want to play against that army, because they like to get involved in the game, and somehow just can't picture their sinister chaos marines exchanging blows with cuddly toys?

This is similar. I'm not saying you shouldn't do it. Just that I think it's silly and doesn't fit.

wiggles wrote:You can paint your army any way you like, but you have to accept that some people might not enjoy playing against it. Only some mind you.

For example if you painted your army as care bears, and they looked great, and you personally loved them, you could see how some people would not want to play against that army, because they like to get involved in the game, and somehow just can't picture their sinister chaos marines exchanging blows with cuddly toys?

This is similar. I'm not saying you shouldn't do it. Just that I think it's silly and doesn't fit.

...and I'm saying thats fine. I understand that.

My issue is with someone in a tournement environment looking to torpedo "all the soft scores he can" because he doesnt like your theme. THAT is hardly better than cheating. Its vindictive and hateful. Especially if you dont take the smoothness of the game and the person across the table from you into account first.

Deadshane1 wrote:
You backpeddled, dont deny it. There is one obvious meaning of "I dont like your army so I'm going to tank every soft score I can." This is what you said. Everyone knows what you meant and what context it was in.

You're still trying to put words in my mouth. Apparently not everyone knows what I meant, and I suppose that means I wasn't clear enough.

Sportsmanship is showing respect to your opponent

I suppose torpedoing someones soft scores because you dont like their theme is respect...regardless of whether or not you had a smooth game.

Look, you may not care about the genre, but some people do. If I played against your non-40k army, I would not enjoy the game. Part of the enjoyment of the game, for me, is the genre. I don't care how smooth you are, that's just how I feel. Part of the enjoyment of this game, for me, is playing against other well-painted armies. Part of it is feeling that our little battle could, in fact, take place in the established universe.

In every tournament I've attended, part, if not all, of the 'sportsmanship' score is based on 'did you enjoy the game'.

So, what part of this is invalid on my part? Are my reasons for enjoying the game invalid? Would me accurately describing my not enjoying the game be invalid?

Third, Redbeard and others may think that this isnt a good idea because of their personal tastes. This isnt a legitimate reason not to paint MY army in this way. If 'I' think that the idea is sound I really dont care about what you think, unless of course you can give me a REAL reason why its a bad idea. Too hard to convert, paint job will take forever, WILDLY offensive (again, the Nazi symbolism would be an example). These are all legit reasons not to do it.

Ok, you started this thread saying that your reason for doing this is because you do care what other people think. You care, because, in your words,

Also I realised one of the thing that really gets me aggravated when I have a specific chapter, is when people dont think that the unit selections 'fit' their idea of how the chapter should be represented on the feild. Case in point was a Raven Guard army I posted recently where people didnt understand what made it a Raven Guard army. Now whether or not they were correct in thinking that the list I made up failed to represent RavenGuard, doenst matter, the point is...If I'm in a tournement situation, and someone feels that 3 assault units in an Iron Hands army isnt appropriate (first impressions say it isnt, but....) that may come to reflect on your soft scores.

You clearly state here that you do care, and you care because it might impact your soft scores. Guess what - running a non-40k theme might also impact your soft scores.

As a side note, I don't think "it's hard" or "it will take too long" are good reasons not to do something. If it was easy, everyone would have done it.

Basically, you're telling me, "I think its stupid" and while its fine that you think that (and I HAVE taken your opinion into account) its not really much of a reason NOT to do it since our opinions on the theme's attractiveness are totally opposite. Since its MY army and not YOURS, your opinion that its a dumb idea doesnt really weigh in very heavy.

Actually, no, that's not the point I was trying to get across at all. The point I was trying to get across is the one that I think I summed up a couple of lines above. If your reason for not doing an established chapter is fear that people might misinterpret it and it might hurt your soft-scores, then the reason not to do this is that people who care about the fluff might hurt your soft scores. It appears that concern for your soft-scores is a motivational factor, and I do not believe that running a non-40k theme is a good way to ensure that you don't have that problem.

The Grimdark™ Future needs some comic relief to keep it from disappearing up its own dark Black Hole of Grimdarkness.

Most RTTs I've been to that have comp scoring usually have a box that says, more or less, "Do you feel that this army accurately represents an army that could be encountered in the 40K universe?" Usually this is taken to be there in case people play lists that obviously don't happen in fluff, like Nidzilla and two small ripper squads, but it would be perfectly valid for Redbeard to zero this score. Star Trek is not part of the 40K universe. Zeroing other scores is a dick move. You're not playing against the army, you're playing against the player.

However, I personally think that these are just miniatures in a game, and people have every right to do up their models however they please. I've seen several Star Wars guard armies, and done well it looks really cool. Star Trek, Star Wars, Hello Kitty Marines, hell even female Space Marines - if you can model it, go for it. It's your choice, and if you pull it off well then I think it would be great.

I'm making the greatest chapter ever, the 'Rainbow Space Shark Warriors'.

The Star Trek guys sound perfectly fine to me.

Redbeard wrote:
P.S. You mentioned that you were doing this to avoid the potential soft-score hit that would come from having assault marines in an iron hand army (or the like). I'll go ahead and say it - I'd be that guy - if I ever have to play against a star trek army in a tournament, I'm tanking every soft score I can.

Personally I'd do the same right back to you for being an a-hole.

i personally, disagree with the star trek theme, if only because you are suggesting that you do the Federation. i personally dislike star trek, so naturally take this with a grain of salt

for a marine army, i think something like the borg may "fit" better into the grimdark world of 40k... however, if you spent the time to convert, paint, and generally make your army look well done and pleasing to see on the tabletop, then i have no problem....

i am really new to the hobby, and enjoy the fluff and modeling aspects of it (havent been able to get any games in, thanks to current geographic location) and i thought your spin on the "prime directives" was interesting and would shift the theme far enough away from the "fluffy flower fields of happiness" that is star trek into something more akin to the "grim darkness of the far future" of 40k.

i personally love seeing well painted and converted marines and other models posted up on forums here, usually they inspire me to want to waste more money on some other crazy conversion.

This is what I was looking for:


You should base the army around that episode.

Orkeosaurus wrote:This is what I was looking for:


You should base the army around that episode.

"Who's interfere'in? We're......takin' over!"

IMO, Star Trek is better as Imperial Guard (use the Cadian models). But Redbeard is right from a basic themes POV.

Shadow Tigers would look more like a CSM army, because of the patterning on the armor. (Space Marines have been properly retconned to not wear camoflague to reflect them being Knights in Space).

That said, if you want Space Marines in grey jungle stripe, they're *your* minis, so go for it!