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.

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 think you need to paint some lightning bolts or speed lines or something on it.

That'll let everyone know it's fasta.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

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 think you need to paint some lightning bolts or speed lines or something on it.

That'll let everyone know it's fasta.

Or glue clear plastic sheet with motion lines on it.

Really wouldn't bother me if he stuck within the 1 dex. I fully expect that my friend will be borrowing me my DA to proxy his BT against me. As long as he sticks with BT rules paint scheme wouldn't matter.

Basically if your staying within the DA dex, usuing only the DA rules (so none of the new stuff unfortunatly) not an issue - just remind me before the game is all.

Edit: Basically as long as their are consistant and dont suddenly try to play them as BT termies with Furious Charge...

This is asinine guys, now we have to use the right paint scheme?
Some people in this thread remind me of two napoleonic wargamers I saw years ago in a shop, one refused to play against the other because the hussars of Idon´tknowwhere were painted with the wrong shade of blue.

M.

i have to say, color means little too me, as long as they follow the rules for the DA i wouldn't care if they where painted up as Ultras, some people have gone through the effort to paint their models a set way and then later on as they change tactics and interests, they don't want to go and paint over their already set colors, so they have two options, buy new models, which not everyone has the cash to do so, or play the rule set with their different colored units, which is free and easier, i played a Deathwing Army the other week, and used my terminators with black and blue for their paints, i just wanted to field the army its a pain to have them just eating dust all the time i spent a good 200+ on them all and i want to use them in 1500pt games i never get the chance, and no one objected so wtf guys, pull your heads out your rears, breath in some fresh air, and let people play, its a game for gods sake, its should be fun, not nickles and dimes, well that's what i got to say..........

So, as of my vote, 84% have voted for the first choice.
That means that 84% of you wouldn't mind if I painted my Marines as Dark Angels but used the Blood Angels rules?



Ghidorah

Ghidorah wrote:So, as of my vote, 84% have voted for the first choice.
That means that 84% of you wouldn't mind if I painted my Marines as Dark Angels but used the Blood Angels rules?



Ghidorah

Why not? I've considered it to rep the 8th Company of the Dark Angels since it's the only list with Assault Marines as Troops and if I ever do another group of Power armored, non-bike Dark Angels, it'd be 8th Company.

Because the full 4th Company isn't enough and my constantly growing group of 1st, 2nd, and 10th Company members means I'll likely eventually have full 1st, 2nd, and 10th Companies...

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.

Yes, I would.

If someone took extra armor, then they would have to model it. If someone took a hunter killer missile, etc. A vehicle with a "red paint job" better have red on it somewhere, otherwise it is not WYSIWYG, as we're not seeing red. And not on the undercarriage, either. Somewhere visible.

Valhallan42nd wrote:

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.

Yes, I would.

If someone took extra armor, then they would have to model it. If someone took a hunter killer missile, etc. A vehicle with a "red paint job" better have red on it somewhere, otherwise it is not WYSIWYG, as we're not seeing red. And not on the undercarriage, either. Somewhere visible.

You could do "counts as" to rep giant rocket boosters, extra wheels, or grot drivers as the "red paint job." As long as you are clear about what the conversion is, how it is unique, and what it counts as, I don't see any problem with it.

If you have an army that is painted *exactly* as Black Tempars, using all-Black Templars bitz, copying the 'eavy Metal BT paint scheme and heraldry to every detail, then I expect it to be played under Codex: Black Templars, *NOT* Codex: Dark Angels.

If you play a Black Templars army as Dark Angels, then you are proxying the army is something that it isn't.

OTOH, if you have a DIY army that merely uses BT Termie bitz (because you like the Black Templar bitz, for exampl), then feel free to play as whatever you choose!

JohnHwangDD wrote:If you have an army that is painted *exactly* as Black Tempars, using all-Black Templars bitz, copying the 'eavy Metal BT paint scheme and heraldry to every detail, then I expect it to be played under Codex: Black Templars, *NOT* Codex: Dark Angels.

If you play a Black Templars army as Dark Angels, then you are proxying the army is something that it isn't.

OTOH, if you have a DIY army that merely uses BT Termie bitz (because you like the Black Templar bitz, for exampl), then feel free to play as whatever you choose!

I think Marshal Tactical von Dreadnought McArmor would disagree with you.

Okay, honestly, I do disagree, but mostly I wanted to type that again.

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.

I would.

The rule is Red Paint Job, not Blue Paint Job.

If you want the extra inch of movement, you don't have to spray the thing BA Red, but there had better be some clearly visible, significant red elements. You can paint some red flames on the front, or lay down a crimson or near-pink racing stripe. You can paint the engine red, add red thruster rockets, or slap on a bright red wing.

I really don't care what or how you do it - that's up to you.

But it's *GOT* to be red if you want the bonus.

Ghidorah wrote:So, as of my vote, 84% have voted for the first choice.
That means that 84% of you wouldn't mind if I painted my Marines as Dark Angels but used the Blood Angels rules?

If you're painted as Dark Angels (or Unforgiven), with full DA Heraldry then I'd mind.

If you want to play a DIY force, great! Join the Grey Marines like Jervis and Grey Death and I.

But if you're going to pick an defined army, then pick it and stick with it.

Otherwise, the whole thing gets confusing, and that's the point of WYSIWYG. When you paint as DA, then we expect you to play as DA. Not BT, not BA, not SW, but DA.

Seriously, if you have a bunch of guys all fielding what look to be Ultramarines down to the stripes on the VS helmets, but one guy claims to be DA, another BA, and the third as Chaos, then things are kinda messed up.

Platuan4th wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:OTOH, if you have a DIY army that merely uses BT Termie bitz (because you like the Black Templar bitz, for exampl), then feel free to play as whatever you choose!

I think Marshal Tactical von Dreadnought McArmor would disagree with you.

Okay, honestly, I do disagree, but mostly I wanted to type that again.

No prob. Those BT bitz are incredible and look great!

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.

Not at all.

I think there's a critical distinction to be made here, between A: an army that's just black and white Space Marines (and black and white bikes) and the occasional chained up book using DA or BA or SW rules and B: an army that IS a "Black Templars Army" (all the iconography including the Maltese Cross, etc) using the same rules.

The former is great, and I have no problem with it, and is exactly the reason why I will NEVER play an established chapter of Marines: I don't want to be shoehorned into a specific ruleset, and I don't want to deal with TFG who's going to yell at me about doing otherwise.

The latter is perfectly fine by me, as well, and I fully respect the option for MTvDmcA to do bring the 1st Company (or whatever those wacky Templars do) into battle. Besides, anyone that IS doing the latter is most likely prepared for the crap that they're going to take and has already decided they don't care, so let's go ahead and get on with the game.

Ghidorah wrote:So, as of my vote, 84% have voted for the first choice.
That means that 84% of you wouldn't mind if I painted my Marines as Dark Angels but used the Blood Angels rules?



Ghidorah

Red marines, green marines. Whatever, they're still marines.
Same goes for pink marines and bile-green marines. Use 'em however you want cuz they're still just marines. Maybe with spikes.

on the red paint job subjest, it means they go faster, so anything which would cause that (in an ork sense) would be fine for me aslong as it was unique to the wagonz using it, and i could see something along the lines of:

go fasta stripes, boosters, extra wheels, lightning bolts, its all good to me

and as for marine colours, i would be fine with anyone using any colour marines as DA's, allthough, people with a BA army with all the insignia and emblems using them as DA would be pushing thier luck.

I voted B, but that was more of a comment on how I'd generally like people to behave rather than this specific case.
You see in this particular case, the only way to play 1st Company shock assault is to use the DA rules, no matter what color your marines are. Same thing with the BA rules being used ot field "Generic Assault Company VII", I can somewhat understand the reasoning behind it, even though I don't really approve. However, it would make me pretty sad to see the "Generic Assault Company VII" being led by "Non-specific Old Space Vampire".

Things I would never like to see is Ultramarines "hunting parties" or whatever using SW rules, just because you want flexible squad sizes.

yeah,
I understand the concept of a ______wing army is to use the DW rules for your armys terminators UltraWing BloodWing WolfWing and based on that alone I'd have no problems playing him.

But the poll could have used more degrees of resolution for selecting where people sit on the issue, as we are not talking about ______wing armies? we are talking about using the colours of one army and using the rules of another.

If the Black and White combo is in a different scheme ~eg black bodies white helmets~ then he has generic marines and is good to go, with no issues at all!
But from the text it sounds like he's painted them as Black Templars and has decided he wants to use another codex and by RAW Page 77 doesn't cover him; he hasn't made up his own colour scheme, he's painted them as Black Templars.

I voted B... because I'm not 100% happy with the situation, I believe that half this hobby is the fluff and what he's doing is a bit off... I think he could use the templar list and gone heavy on the terminators.

I'd never concider going to a tourney with my army of plague marines using them as noise marines!?
And that's not even moving out of the Chaos Marine Codex.
Saying that I'm not a WYSIWYG nazi. If I want to field a lash prince in my nurgle army, I'll make a skinny nurgle DaemonPrince (probabily with a whip) and make sure everyone knows that it's a lash prince...

Panic..

I honestly wouldn't mind if you painted your Black Templars pink: as long as I could see a Templar Cross on them.

If you say otherwise, it's a sorry state the hobby's got to where every paint scheme has to be adhering to what Games Workshop think the models should look like. Pfft.

~sA

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

Exactly.

It says "...Bad form and/or illegal" meaning either or both.
Implying a more or less negative reaction to using a paint scheme that is commonly associated with one army and using rules for another.

Ok, now that a fair amount of people have voted and discussed their opinions, I will weigh in with my opinion on the matter.

I honestly beleive that:

... the color scheme of an army that GW suggests to their consumers is merely a guideline and is there to help market and sell their models by making them look pretty and has no bearing on the rules, fluff or tactics of a specific army. In other words, black armor and a maltese cross does not equal Black Templars. It is the rules that make Black Templars what they are. I would even encourage people to use any rules they like for the army that they painted as long as everything is consistently represented.

...GW mirrors this attitude towards giving consumers greater control over how they paint their dollies in examples such as page 77 of the Dark Angels codex. I not only think that they encourage such things, but they want consumers to do this.

...a person who really enjoys the look of one paint job he has seen in a publication and wanting to use rules for another army is the right of the person who is painting their army. In short, its their dollies and as long as it is consistent, there should be no need for anything other than positive remarks from me to reinforce his creativity, even if the paintjob sucks.

...there is no difference between making up your own color scheme (DIY) and using a color scheme that someone else thought of before you (the supposed color scheme that people might recognizing as belonging to another chapter, craftworld, gang, etc). Plagerism being the most sincerest form of flattery.

...people hold onto preconceived notions about what an army 'should' look like or what paintjob is 'legal'.

...I would be ok with an ork player using a blue paintjob to represent the rule of "red goes fastuh!" if the paintjob was consistent on the vehicles where the player chooses to place the rule on. It is not my place to be anything other than supportive of another persons creativity. It is an easy thing to say instead of "red goes fastuh!" that "blue goes fastuh" with a simple replacement of a single word. Its not a huge stretch, so it isn't a big deal. In fact, I like the idea of replacing it with blue simply for the fact that it is different than what I see from many other ork armies.

Miguelsan wrote:This is asinine guys, now we have to use the right paint scheme?
Some people in this thread remind me of two napoleonic wargamers I saw years ago in a shop, one refused to play against the other because the hussars of Idon´tknowwhere were painted with the wrong shade of blue.

M.

QFT

Miguelsan wrote:This is asinine guys, now we have to use the right paint scheme?
Some people in this thread remind me of two napoleonic wargamers I saw years ago in a shop, one refused to play against the other because the hussars of Idon´tknowwhere were painted with the wrong shade of blue.

M.

Not that I disagree at all with your viewpoint, but I do have to remark on the side who prefer people to match the commonly associated paintjob with the rules of a specific army for a moment.

Its all in what you expect to get out of a game. Some peoples expectations go further than "hey nice looking army" and go further into what they beleive 'should' look like regardless of how creative or the lack creativity of may be.

Using your historical example for a moment, that person who refused to play because the shade was off I would assume refused to play because that opponents army didn't meet up with his expectations of what the army should look like. I also assume that he is looking for a game that is possibly more immersive to him by literally putting himself onto the battlefield and imagining himself overlooking the battle from on high.

Again, I do fully agree with your stance, but for the sake of civility, I have to defend their stance as you shouldn't put down how people have opined on the subject with words such as asinine. The thread will quickly devolve into name calling and will be less than constructive.

The purpose of the thread isn't to see who is right, but to see how people feel and to give them an outlet to express that without negative remarks towards their opinion.

Agree or disagree, we can learn by seeing other peoples viewpoints and why they feel that way. Perhaps even come to a nice balancing accord. (I know, this R the Intarnetz, so that is nigh impossible, but still worth a shot)

You have been pretty even handed throughout the thread.

What have you done with Hellfury?

Hellfury wrote:
I honestly believe that:

... the color scheme of an army that GW suggests to their consumers is merely a guideline and is there to help market and sell their models by making them look pretty and has no bearing on the rules, fluff or tactics of a specific army. In other words, black armor and a maltese cross does not equal Black Templars. It is the rules that make Black Templars what they are. I would even encourage people to use any rules they like for the army that they painted as long as everything is consistently represented.

...GW mirrors this attitude towards giving consumers greater control over how they paint their dollies in examples such as page 77 of the Dark Angels codex. I not only think that they encourage such things, but they want consumers to do this.

...a person who really enjoys the look of one paint job he has seen in a publication and wanting to use rules for another army is the right of the person who is painting their army. In short, its their dollies and as long as it is consistent, there should be no need for anything other than positive remarks from me to reinforce his creativity, even if the paintjob sucks.

...there is no difference between making up your own color scheme (DIY) and using a color scheme that someone else thought of before you (the supposed color scheme that people might recognizing as belonging to another chapter, craftworld, gang, etc). Plagiarism being the most sincerest form of flattery.

...people hold onto preconceived notions about what an army 'should' look like or what paintjob is 'legal'.

...I would be ok with an ork player using a blue paintjob to represent the rule of "red goes fastuh!" if the paintjob was consistent on the vehicles where the player chooses to place the rule on. It is not my place to be anything other than supportive of another persons creativity. It is an easy thing to say instead of "red goes fastuh!" that "blue goes fastuh" with a simple replacement of a single word. Its not a huge stretch, so it isn't a big deal. In fact, I like the idea of replacing it with blue simply for the fact that it is different than what I see from many other ork armies.

Not only QFT but also for the nice and polite way to deal with different opinions ;-)

I'd sum it up differently:
Rules are rules.
Paint job is paint job.
There is no need for one to imply the other.

Consistency helps me remember things, though. That may mean "all melta-weapon-replacements look the same" or even "all special weapons look different, but hey, I am only fielding meltas anyway". But that's just helpful, not required. I could simply learn to remember my opponent's army sheets better, I am not that old. Plus, if I got the chance to see the cool BT models instead of ultra smurfs, I could not care less about which rules they use.

As another point of interest, I'd recommend the Counts-as thread.

Phoenix wrote:

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.

I do think that what that player was doing was bad form. It does seem clear that he wanted a chaos army, but didn't want to devote the time or the energy into building one. At your FLGS and in friendly games I think that'd be fine, but in a GT I think it just shows laziness.

But, if I wanted to use catachan models, an arctic paint scheme and the tallarran doctrine set from the back of the IG dex, I think that'd be fine as long as I devoted the time to building up said army with a decent theme and explanation for my choices.

-Inquisitor Leet

I wouldn't mind at all.

The point of WYSIWYG is that everybody is clear on what's what. I would have a problem with someone expecting me to remember which of his all-bolter marine squads has an invisible lascannon in it and which one has an invisible flamer.

But it's not like I'm going to forget that you're playing Deathwing when all you have on the table are 20 Termies, regardless of how they're painted.

EDIT: It's also rather sad that some of you would accuse a Deathwing player of doing it for the awesome rules...

Tierlieb wrote:
I'd sum it up differently:
Rules are rules.
Paint job is paint job.
There is no need for one to imply the other.

Couldn´t agree more. Paint and model your army anyway you want but as long as I´m not breaking any rules leave my army alone even if your fluff sense is damaged by my pink Ulthawe Eldars

M.

I applaud anyone who takes the time to actually paint their army. I won't penalyze them for it. Outside of tournaments it seems the minority of people actually play with fully painted armies, which is shame.