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.

Well for my Honor Guard i just have them all In Older armor and all have Scrolls and Insence burners on them. Brass helmets. With Gold Griffons on the shoulder pads.
(matches the theme of the army of howling Griffons)

Well my Comand squad has pole banners, and scrolls, with White helmets and Blue marking on them/ Yellow Griffons on the shoulder pads.

While the rest of the army has Black Griffons.

Manchu wrote:

Gwar! wrote:]And nowhere does it state that those line drawings are the only way it can look.

In fact, the actual rules make no reference to the drawings, so they cannot be used as part of your argument.

This is pretty laughable. You could say the exact same things about the line drawings of weapons.

This one.

There are 2 examples of artificer armor outside UM honorguard.

1) sicarius
2) hestan

Both wear what is presented in drawings and fluff......ornate armor.

As said at the beginning of this thread, make those models outstanding against your standard scheme and youre set.
More bling, trophys, bionics, whatever is considered a honor to be shown on your armor in the appropriate chapter.

Manchu wrote:This is pretty laughable. You could say the exact same things about the line drawings of weapons.

I think the difference here is that GW have a very firmly established look for their weapons that (with the exception of the odd model like the old LR Exterminator with its rather Lascannon-looking Autocannons) they stick to fairly firmly. So when you see something that looks like a Heavy Bolter, you know that it's a Heavy Bolter.

Armour has always been a little more variable. Guardians and Dire Avengers have different armour saves, but their armour is just about (for the last 2 editions was) identical. Predators and Rhinos likewise have different armour, but look the same.

Artificer Armour has always just been slightly improved power armour. Yes, it's often depicted as being much more ornate... but where exactly do you draw the line? How much does a standard set of power armour need to be modified before it stops being power armour and starts being artificer armour?

There is no real, clear line.

The line drawings in the codex are examples of how the different armour can look. If you're going to assume that all artificer armour looks like that pictured, you're also going to have to assume that all power armour is Mk7 with covered belly cables... which removes most of the current Marine range from actually being playable as power armour...

insaniak wrote:There is no real, clear line.

The consensus about that line (at minimum) on page one seemed to be "fancy shoulder pads." I don't know if you've read all of my posts on this but I am not arguing against WYSIWYG but rather for it--even when it comes to artificer armor. The only reason I brought up weapons is to show that it's easier/cheaper to glue on shoulder pads than to convert sisters' weapons/buy melta sisters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:The line drawings in the codex are examples of how the different armour can look. If you're going to assume that all artificer armour looks like that pictured, you're also going to have to assume that all power armour is Mk7 with covered belly cables... which removes most of the current Marine range from actually being playable as power armour...

Bad argument alert. The point of those drawings is that artificer armor is more ornate than power armor.

There should be a noticable difference.

G

Manchu wrote:I don't know if you've read all of my posts on this but I am not arguing against WYSIWYG but rather for it--even when it comes to artificer armor.

As am I. My point is simply that WYSIWYG, when it comes to different types of armour, is variable.

If a Dire Avenger and a Guardian can look identical but have (ruleswise) different armour saves and (fluffwise) different types of armour, why can't the same hold true for Marines? (In fact, Eldar are a perfect example of fluff not matching the models actually available, since Guardians are covered in plates just like Aspect Warriors, wereas the fluff descriptions of Guardian mesh armour and Aspect armour specifically list plates and the lack thereof as being the main difference between the two armour types.)

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for nice fancy Honour Guard conversions. But I'm also not going to look down my nose at someone who turns up to a game with regular plastic marines with Honour Guard decals on their shoulder pads. If GW aren't going to bother showing any sort of consistency on armour representation, I see no reason to expect players to do so.

Many codices such as the new SW show detailed pictures representing different types of armor. We should educate players so they can learn about the background.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Many codices such as the new SW show detailed pictures representing different types of armor. We should educate players so they can learn about the background.

G

And as we have said multiple times, not all Artificer Armour looks like that. Some looks exactly like Power Armour but is just made of vastly superior materials.

Gwar! wrote:And as we have said multiple times, not all Artificer Armour looks like that. Some looks exactly like Power Armour but is just made of vastly superior materials.

Yes you have said it but there is no support for this. All we have is the phrase "superficially similar," which could mean - EITHER -

"same basic shape but significantly more ornate," which is supported by models, pictures, and line drawing as well as the Honor Guard entry--"So it is that the Honor Guard enter the fray in ornate suits of artificer armour . . .", p.53--not to mention BL fluff (which I'll agree not to use),

- OR -

"looks exactly the same but is of better quality," which is supported by nothing except the possibility of that grammatical interpretation and the aesthetics of a single chapter, the Iron Warriors *edit* Hands.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:If a Dire Avenger and a Guardian can look identical but have (ruleswise) different armour saves and (fluffwise) different types of armour, why can't the same hold true for Marines?

I hesitate to get into this debate but the models are clearly not identical even if they are (superficially, ) similar to maintain a consistent design.

insaniak wrote:But I'm also not going to look down my nose at someone who turns up to a game with regular plastic marines with Honour Guard decals on their shoulder pads.

What is this decal you're talking about? If there is a Honor Guard decal then I'd agree that would be enough. (Remember, I was all for using fancy pauldrons and never argued that people should turn their nose up at plastic marines.)

insaniak wrote:If GW aren't going to bother showing any sort of consistency on armour representation, I see no reason to expect players to do so.

I don't follow you on this one. It seems to me that artificer armor is consistently portrayed as significantly more ornate.

Gwar can you quote any source to support your claim? I am curious.

G

JD21290 wrote:I do agree with some markings.
throw in a few new shoulder pads, change wargear and decoration on models and it will be fine.
Since there are no official models for them (except smurfs) you should get a fair bit of slack.

What chapter are you running?
I can give you some advice on parts and what to use to set them apart from everything else.

I'm using the 2nd company of the "Sons of the emperor" (adaptation of the mainstray Sons of orar.)

They're Mechrite red and Mordian blue, they're aquila is the eagle with sculpted flames rising from it's head. (for troops, they keep simpler markings, reminiscent of their organisation. I.e, first tactical squad will have x coloured tactical arrow, whereas an assault squad may have a spreadline in green.)

You can't really help me

As for this argument over artificer armour, I'd asume using drillpoint razors and alot of badab black/baal red, I can make their armour look all prettyful.

The real concern I had, was -Is- there are specific models dedicated to the purpose of being Honour guard, as for CM/CC, the problem comes in that they're both incredibly LA.So, I'm assuming by 'commander' I can have 2 CM's in my army, and own everyone.

I've gone with a champion w/ Relic blade and bolter, Standard bearer with Bolter and Chapter standard. (really good conversion.) three veterans w/ relic blades and bolters.

Might make some other troops into HG. (I've got shoulder pads from blisters I've won.)

Green Blow Fly wrote:Gwar can you quote any source to support your claim? I am curious.

Yeah, it's in the Space Marine codex, the very first sentence of the Artificer armour description amongst other sections:

Artificer Armour
Though the two are superficially similar in appearance, artificer armour is as far beyond power armour as power armour is beyond the carapace used by Space Marine Scouts and elite Imperial Guard formations.
[...]
Techmarines also wear a form of artificer armour. These are rarely as old and venerable as the other suits, but are power armour substantially modified and improved upon by several generations of Techmarines

Every model I have seen released by GW for techmarines have very distinct suits of armor. Other character miniatures such as Dante, Mephiston, and others the same. Thank you for providing the reference. I appreciate it. : )

G

I've already addressed how much and how little that quotation supports your claim. You must have something more, right?

As for the second part, I see that you're trying to equate artificer armor with power armor but the quotation itself makes the distinction between what a techmarine wears and what the Honor Guard or Chapter Master or whatever other notable marine wears. I hope you're not going to next argue that a tactical marine painted red is an adequate model to represent a tech marine.

Has this gotten a bit far from the OP though? Unless someone is a raging douche, ornately painted Marines with suitably wysiwyg wargear should be fine to be used as Honor Guard.

@Monster Rain: Sigh, that's what we've been saying actually. The discussion is about whether marines that are not, in your words, ornately paint would be acceptable. I say "no" and my buddy Gwar! (seems to) say "yes" while insaniak says both or neither (I'm a bit confused on that one . . .).

I'm looking at the official honor guard units and they don't seem all that different from regular marines? They have a few more gubbins, that's all.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:I'm looking at the official honor guard units and they don't seem all that different from regular marines? They have a few more gubbins, that's all.

And great big bloody Us on them, as obviously no-one plays anything except Ultramahrines.

Seriously the honorguard have very distinct armor. Their helmets are an excellent example.

G

so are the giant u's all over them

Gwar! wrote:And great big bloody Us on them, as obviously no-one plays anything except Ultramahrines.

I've held off starting a Codex Chapter for a long time now because I can't settle on one. But the nagging feeling I get is "Just do UM, they'll always get their models."

Anyway: Which set of pictures looks most disimilar?

Set One




Set Two

The bottom ones are dissimilar, they're easily twice the size.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:The bottom ones are dissimilar, they're easily twice the size.

Fixed. I hope that can help you concentrate.

Pictures FTW.

G

Manchu wrote:

insaniak wrote:If a Dire Avenger and a Guardian can look identical but have (ruleswise) different armour saves and (fluffwise) different types of armour, why can't the same hold true for Marines?

I hesitate to get into this debate but the models are clearly not identical even if they are (superficially, ) similar to maintain a consistent design.

Aside from the helmets, there is no difference, model-wise, between an Avenger's Aspect Armour and a Guardian's mesh armour.

What is this decal you're talking about? If there is a Honor Guard decal then I'd agree that would be enough.

I wasn't talking about any specific decal, since a lot of people make up their own markings for their chapters. I simply meant that they should have some different marking on their shoulders to denote their status.

I don't follow you on this one. It seems to me that artificer armor is consistently portrayed as significantly more ornate.

I wasn't referring to Artificer armour specifically with that comment. It was more of a general comment on the fact that GW are wildly inconsistent with how armour is portrayed on their models. Two practically identical models can have different armour values. Models wearing a loincloth and a smile can have a better armour save than a guy in a flak vest. Vehicles built on the exact same chassis can have different armour values. No consistency... because the strength of armour isn't always a result solely of how it looks.

Manchu wrote:@Monster Rain: Sigh, that's what we've been saying actually. The discussion is about whether marines that are not, in your words, ornately paint would be acceptable. I say "no" and my buddy Gwar! (seems to) say "yes" while insaniak says both or neither (I'm a bit confused on that one . . .).

What's confusing? I'm saying that while I would prefer to see Artificer armour portrayed in a suitably ornate fashion, I have no problem with it also being identical to power armour, so long as their is some obvious way of telling the model apart from those with power armour.

Honour Guard don't have the option to take power armour. So as long as a squad is easily recognisable as an Honour Guard, what their armour looks like is really irrelevant. Put them in ornate armour and call it artificer armour. Put them in regular power armour, say it's made of advanced materials and call it artificer armour. Put them in loincloths and paint an aquila on their chests and say that they're Blessed by the Emperor and that has the same effect as artificer armour. All come to the same thing: They're Honour Guard, and so they have a 2+ save.

So I have a genuine question for the 'Honor Guard/Artificer Armor has to look significantly different' crowd. Where exactly is the line drawn?

The only HG models that GW releases are solid metal figurines covered (absolutely covered) with Ultramarine heraldry. If that's the yardstick that HG have to be measured against, then nothing but the most egregiously kitbashed figs is even going to come close to the requisite level of 'Ornateness' that people are claiming the rulebook cites.

If we're going to say that HG have to look like the HG in the pictures section of the rulebook, then okay, let the egregious kitbashing commence. But from what I gather reading through page 1 of this thread, ornate shoulderpads or somesuch is "sufficient". That, to me, is a completely subjective and false compromise based on nothing in the rulebook. Look at Calgar's retinue. Their shoulderpads are probably the most normal thing about their power armor.

I lean much more towards the superficial resemblance argument being posited by Gwar et al. simply because that's what's in the rules. I think the difference between the HG and the Techmarine artificer armor is another big sticking point; their armor schemes look nothing alike. This tells me that what makes artificer armor is not all the gilt and trimmings, it's the actual *armor* that, according to the rulebook, superficially resembles power armor.

insaniak wrote:Aside from the helmets, there is no difference, model-wise, between an Avenger's Aspect Armour and a Guardian's mesh armour.

Look more closely.

inaniak wrote:Honour Guard don't have the option to take power armour. So as long as a squad is easily recognisable as an Honour Guard, what their armour looks like is really irrelevant. Put them in ornate armour and call it artificer armour. Put them in regular power armour, say it's made of advanced materials and call it artificer armour. Put them in loincloths and paint an aquila on their chests and say that they're Blessed by the Emperor and that has the same effect as artificer armour. All come to the same thing: They're Honour Guard, and so they have a 2+ save.

Keep the heavy bolter and flamer sisters that come in the 42USD squad and don't bother buying melta sistersfor 8.25 each and say that Forge World Manchu makes a few variants on the melta design that look "superficially similar" to heavy bolters and flamers. All comes to the same thing: WYSIWYG goes right out the window. The reason I find your position confusing is because you seem to be saying two opposite things at the same time: just make sure they have ornate painting/fancy markings and they're Honor Guard VERSUS do whatever you want (including nothing) and they're Honor Guard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:I lean much more towards the superficial resemblance argument being posited by Gwar et al. simply because that's what's in the rules.

No. It's not. The opposite is in the rules. So--like you said--let the kitbashing begin. The shoulder pad compromise was to avoid that. But if you're only interested in "what's in the rules" and you don't want to play UM then I hope you have an advanced degree in conversion.

sourclams wrote:I think the difference between the HG and the Techmarine artificer armor is another big sticking point; their armor schemes look nothing alike. This tells me that what makes artificer armor is not all the gilt and trimmings, it's the actual *armor* that, according to the rulebook, superficially resembles power armor.

Artificer armor is, most basically, power armor that is superior to normal power armor. What does it look like? Generally, it is far more ornate than power armor. How does the form of artificer armor (to get back to the actual Codex) differ from HG artificer armor? It's not as old. Is it less ornate? That's not what the dex says. And so we look at the techmarine model: lo and behold, it IS more ornate than regular power armor! Fluff-wise, the difference is--as Gwar! pointed out--construction materials, built-in systems, and other not necessarily outwardly noticeable features. The question in this thread is how do you model an appropriate WYSIWYG Honor Guard. GW has answered the question of what artificer armor looks like--it is more ORNATE. So, with paint or bitz or greenstuff, you model it to be more ornate. It's really just that simple.

Manchu I think you have presented your case well. : )

Exalt.

G

Model them accordingly to how you want them armed, then just write on the base "Honor Guard". If your opponent can't understand that, he needs to go back to elementary school.