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.

DominayTrix wrote:It's kind of hilarious that this is a fairly uniquely Space Marine problem and it is probably a direct result of them being spammed by GW all the time. Nobody cares or even knows the differences between the different xenos paint schemes. The non-marine Chaos/Imperial factions are largely the same way. You wanna use Vostroyan rules with your Cadian models? No Problem. Blue Cawl? No problem. Blue Iron Hands? WAAAAAAAAAAAC

I happen to use the Vostroyan trait with Cadians, but that is because they are a mercenary force that loots the best weapons simulating the Vostroyan trait. Guard are kinda a bad example in that they are largely done via model and not paint color. I mean there's nothing stopping Catachan from showing off their glorious pecs while wearing desert or arctic camo.

That said, I didn't like that a Necron player used Sautekh when his models were painted as Novokh. I didn't say anything as he was free to choose whichever he wanted, but I did notice.

Spoletta wrote:I'm almost tempted to create a poll:

"Do you know Gorgon Hyvefleet colour scheme?"

So close, I knew they were green but I don't think gray chitin is exactly correct.

***

No one is going to remember these subfactions if their opponent doesn't paint their models or plays a subfaction in the wrong colors. Sure, GW could pump out more background material to help players remember, but I doubt the market exists to make as much profit as they would want. I could be wrong. Me, I almost always play the faction they are painted up in. I just think it is important to the illusion that the 40k universe exists to do such. I don't care if my army/team isn't on the bleeding edge of optimization. I think a whole lot fun can be found just playing one's best with what they have and maybe adding a little light rp-ing here and there.

Spoiler: My Factions Paint Jobs and the Factions they are most of the time


Besides, I played my Genestealer Cults as Twisted Helix once and got absolutely destroyed. Played them the next day as Rusted Claw, like they should be, and managed a fluke win. I only changed the Cult Creed the first game because it heavily affects Marines (Primaris Bolt Rifles mostly) that I didn't want to feel like I was faction tailoring especially since that first game was against a new-ish player with a Primaris heavy list.

Just got absolutely thrashed by IH. Now, he was taking a strong army that really milked everything out of the IH CT, stratagems and extra doctrine, and a lot of relic vehicles and I didn't take the strongest army. However, I didn't enjoy it at all. the match was over before it began, it was impossible to kill anything, everything that charged got murdered on overwatch, especially with the 4+ overwatch stratagem, and the stratagem to let someone heal a vehicle twice. How am I meant to kill even one tank if every turn it gets 6 wounds back? Even with 6 lazcannons and 4 missile launchers on the field I didn't kill a single vehicle except for a relic contemptor that was away from the super vehicle buff guy. And every multi damage weapon is reduced by a damage and gets a 5++ with him. Oh and his HB is really good, It felt gak to play against.

And it stung extra because I was running my raptors with the RG supplement for the first time. It wasn't an optimal list to squeeze stuff out of the supplement like his, but still. Looking at his army vs mine I've been done dirty by GW. Guess it's time to play green Iron hands /s.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
the match was over before it began

So, a normal game of 8th edition?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
the match was over before it began

So, a normal game of 8th edition?

That's the thing, in my experience many games, at least half, are balanced or at least winnable for the disadvantaged player. But yeah, there's still a lot of games in 8th like this. It's not like I didn't know what kind of list he'd be taking, I just don't have the budget for 4 relic FW vehicles/dreads and new primaris vehicles, he does.

Don't feel bad. We should stop blaming players for GWs inability to have the subfactions somewhat similar in ability.

I pretty much have to run my Word Bearers as something else as the gulf between the new marines multiple free buffs and the decent Chaos Legions is bad enough. Using the practically non existent crap that is the XVII is a bridge too far.

I forgot the Word Bearers even had rules.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I forgot the Word Bearers even had rules.

Might aswell don't, that trait is so disgustingly bad that one wonders about it.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I forgot the Word Bearers even had rules.

Might aswell don't, that trait is so disgustingly bad that one wonders about it.

I feel your pain. EC are pretty much the same way. Always* attack first is pretty awful once you weight the conditions required for it to do anything.

 DominayTrix wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I forgot the Word Bearers even had rules.

Might aswell don't, that trait is so disgustingly bad that one wonders about it.

I feel your pain. EC are pretty much the same way. Always* attack first is pretty awful once you weight the conditions required for it to do anything.

Still far superior to the XVII. Breaks up the charging units all going before you advantage. Noise Marines as troops is nice too. I'd gladly trade in the trash summoning Strategem for Excess of Violence.

Word Bearers have the worst faction abilities in the game by a mile.

 DominayTrix wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I forgot the Word Bearers even had rules.

Might aswell don't, that trait is so disgustingly bad that one wonders about it.

I feel your pain. EC are pretty much the same way. Always* attack first is pretty awful once you weight the conditions required for it to do anything.

EC trait just does not synchronise with what EC is good at.
Still heaps more usefull then WB, but I ain't playing WB soo.

Personally it still boggels my mind how that got even left through.
I mean nobody has objected twice now in the case of csm?
For csm gw seems to basically not even attempt the concept of internal balance.

Still far superior to the XVII. Breaks up the charging units all going before you advantage. Noise Marines as troops is nice too. I'd gladly trade in the trash summoning Strategem for Excess of Violence.

Word Bearers have the worst faction abilities in the game by a mile.

It's also useless because of how the faction plays.
F.e. If my r&h had access to it i would run it over IW trait due to the nature of the faction.
It would save me there about 100 -200 pts because of the morale sensitive nature of r&h.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
the match was over before it began

So, a normal game of 8th edition?

Said the one who claims to not be playing 8th?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
Just got absolutely thrashed by IH. Now, he was taking a strong army that really milked everything out of the IH CT, stratagems and extra doctrine, and a lot of relic vehicles and I didn't take the strongest army. However, I didn't enjoy it at all. the match was over before it began, it was impossible to kill anything, everything that charged got murdered on overwatch, especially with the 4+ overwatch stratagem, and the stratagem to let someone heal a vehicle twice. How am I meant to kill even one tank if every turn it gets 6 wounds back? Even with 6 lazcannons and 4 missile launchers on the field I didn't kill a single vehicle except for a relic contemptor that was away from the super vehicle buff guy. And every multi damage weapon is reduced by a damage and gets a 5++ with him. Oh and his HB is really good, It felt gak to play against.

And it stung extra because I was running my raptors with the RG supplement for the first time. It wasn't an optimal list to squeeze stuff out of the supplement like his, but still. Looking at his army vs mine I've been done dirty by GW. Guess it's time to play green Iron hands /s.

It looks like you met the infamous IH parking lot.

There are many ways to beat it, but trying to force your way through strenght is not one. Kill everything outside the parking lot and just score the objectives turn by turn. By turn 3-4 you will be tabled, but your lead on points will be enough to win the game regardless.

Spoletta wrote:

It looks like you met the infamous IH parking lot.

There are many ways to beat it, but trying to force your way through strenght is not one. Kill everything outside the parking lot and just score the objectives turn by turn. By turn 3-4 you will be tabled, but your lead on points will be enough to win the game regardless.

To digress a bit, this is the problem with the ITC tournament ruleset - You can't play for objectives if you're going to be tabled on turn 4.
The Iron Hands player is still going to get a bunch of points, (Kill 1 unit, Kill More, Hold 1 objective, plus most of his secondaries if he sets it up right) and the massive bonus he gets for every turn remaining after he tables will make it unwinable for the non-IH player.
And, since ITC seems to be the standard at most tournaments... It causes problems when the best strategy to beat certain armies only works in traditional GW games.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Shadenuat wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
No one is going to shame you for playing it though. Its just kind of like...ofc you are going to. Why wouldn't you? With marines it's like sacrilege for some reason. GW knows that too...which makes disparity between chapters that much more frustrating.

That's because in their desire to sell everyone their own flavor of marines, GW turned chapters into different armies.

I agree - that is exactly what has happened.

This is also a large part of why people have a problem with this behaviour, you're essentially using another armies codex because yours isn't good enough for what you want. Why stop here though, why not have blue marine alaitoc where your marines are guardians etc.

You thought you were an Ultramarines player, but it turns out you're not. You're a Space Marine powergamer. There's nothing wrong with being a Space Marine powergamer, it's just another way to play. You got used to Ultramarines being the top dog of codex marines, and now that they may not be, your actual identity is conflicting with your perceived identity. You can no longer have your cake and eat it too.

If you want to be an Ultramarines player, play Ultramarines. Use the models you like, or build the best Ultramarines list you can, or whatever you have fun with. Sometimes playing the underdog is more fun. To win with a sub-optimal army vs an army with better rules, you have to be a better player, or get lucky. Each individual win is more of an accomplishment.

If you want to be a Space Marine powergamer, pick whatever rules you think are best, and build the most efficient list you can if that's what you have fun with. If you love optimizing and finding all the nifty combos and then seeing your grand plans come to fruition, that's great. Being able to win consistently, even with a higher tier army, takes a skilled player as well.

What you can't do is play a specific subfaction and also always have the best rules. Sometimes you'll be the best subfaction in the codex, sometimes you won't. So you suck it up and play a sub-optimal subfaction that you identify with and have fun. Or you suck it up and play a faction other than the one you identify with to get the best rules and you have fun. Or you mope and complain and don't have fun.

Marines get this the worst because they have the most history of dedicated subfaction rules and the most supplements for those subfactions. There have been decades for people to fall in love with Ultramarines, or Raven Guard, or Salamanders. Chaos Marines get it some too with the Legions. Eldar, Chaos Daemons, and maybe Guard a bit too, but to a lesser extent than even CSM. The other factions? Up until recently, there weren't rules for Hive Fleets, or Septs, or whatever. People haven't had a chance to tie their identity to a subfaction on the tabletop, so they built an army of their dudes. Now that they have options, they don't feel beholden to one choice, since they haven't spent years or decades building an army dedicated to that choice. They don't see the subfactions as an identity.

So go be an Ultramarines player, or be a Space Marine powergamer, or start a new army. Just have fun, and don't worry so much about it.

Medicinal Carrots wrote:
The other factions? Up until recently, there weren't rules for Hive Fleets, or Septs, or whatever. People haven't had a chance to tie their identity to a subfaction on the tabletop, so they built an army of their dudes. Now that they have options, they don't feel beholden to one choice, since they haven't spent years or decades building an army dedicated to that choice. They don't see the subfactions as an identity.

I agree with everything you've said apart from this bit.

Despite not having rules many sub factions have had their own unique identity - Saim Hann are the jet bike faction, just as my Evil Sunz are the bikers. Instead of theme through rules, players created a theme of their army through model selection. For Orks we had Trukk Boyz, Battlewagon brigades, Biker Mobs, Kan Walls, Green Tide and Stompa Mobs to name a few.

The new rules should be great to add the icing on the cake of your choice and really should benefit the play style that particular sub faction is supposed to be renown for. The problem is when one sub faction is significantly better, or worse than others, players get pissed off because suddenly what was before only a thematic choice (and less a competitive one) suddenly becomes a competitive choice. If I've invested years of my life into modelling and painting my Evil Sunz Orks and suddenly they are the worst Orks I could play, through no fault of my own, I'd be pissed off. It doesn't help that GW balances faction units assuming everyone uses the best sub faction traits also.

How on earth can an Iron Hands repulsor be compared to a White Scars repulsor? They are completely different units at this point and should probably be priced differently.

In other news the power creep is real and IH are ridiculous. I look forward to see how GW attempts to balance this hot mess. SM are without question the strongest mono faction now, by quite a margin. Unless other factions get this V2 codex treatment soon the game will become SM vs SM.

I find it really strange that people care so much about which rules are tied to which paint scheme. Playing Ultramarines with Iron Hands rules seems fine to me, the rules are a framework of mathematical bonuses and don't constrain the creativity and fluff of the battle. I find it sad that only those who paint a neutral colour scheme get to play the game for a reasonable amount of money under this paradigm. Personally I don't play marines and all my Eldar are custom painted so it doesn't matter to me as it can't affect me, except in making my games less fun as my opponent is forced to play something other than what they want to or be faced with social approbation. I don't understand why there is any difference using one chapter's rules over another. If the chapter tacitcs were given generic names and you just picked which to use for your dudes no one would complain and it would be mechanically identical, the fact that they called something Ultramarines Chapter Tactic instead of Chapter Tactic 3 makes so much difference to people is bonkers.

Medicinal Carrots wrote:You thought you were an Ultramarines player, but it turns out you're not. You're a Space Marine powergamer. There's nothing wrong with being a Space Marine powergamer, it's just another way to play. You got used to Ultramarines being the top dog of codex marines, and now that they may not be, your actual identity is conflicting with your perceived identity. You can no longer have your cake and eat it too.

Honestly, can't argue with that, personally.

It's fine to prefer winning and being a powergamer. If you identify more as a powergamer than an Ultramarine player, more power to you. Of course, if someone doesn't want to play a powergaming style game, then they might not want to play against you, but that's their freedom to do so, and would probably feel the same way if you took certain army builds or suchlike.

Just be honest about it, and there's no problems.

What ever the odium comes from being a power gamer, and how bad army hoping may be. I can assure you, it is better to army hop as a power gamer and have fun playing your models, then lose all the time and not have fun with them.

Karol wrote:
What ever the odium comes from being a power gamer, and how bad army hoping may be. I can assure you, it is better to army hop as a power gamer and have fun playing your models, then lose all the time and not have fun with them.

No-one's saying army hopping's a bad thing as if it were some kind of fact.

At the same time, just because you seem to suggest you can't have fun if you're not on the bleeding edge of the meta doesn't mean I can't have fun with an army I've been collecting for decades and have no intention of optimising or modifying to chase said meta. No need for any of this "I can assure you" 'opinions masquerading as facts' stuff.

If you have more fun being a powergamer, go and have fun. If you have more fun with your narrative army and having a relaxed game, go and have fun.
No need to imply that one is inherently more or less fun than the other.

No am saying, because of the gap between good and bad armies, playing a bad army is always less fun, then playing a powergaming army. Specially with how long people play w40k anyway.

You play over 200 games losing every each one of them, and feeling like you do nothing most of the time. And then we can talk about playing a power gamer army is worse then that.

Narrative games aren't even games to begin with. That is like starting a match with someone and telling they can't use arm locks, arm bars or hold you for longer then 8 sec. Am not saying that doing something like narrative can't be fun, but it is many things, mostly social, but playing a game it is not.

Karol wrote:
No am saying, because of the gap between good and bad armies, playing a bad army is always less fun, then playing a powergaming army.

Unfortunately, that's simply not a fact that applies to everyone. It's not always less fun, and playing a powergaming list can often feel far less enjoyable than a tamer list, at least for myself.

I'm not disputing that for you, you might feel that powergaming is more fun, and you're welcome to that, but you're not the arbiter on what's fun or not for me, with all due respect.

Narrative games aren't even games to begin with. That is like starting a match with someone and telling they can't use arm locks, arm bars or hold you for longer then 8 sec. Am not saying that doing something like narrative can't be fun, but it is many things, mostly social, but playing a game it is not.

Sounds like you have a very narrow definition of what a game is. On the sports, analogy, you don't need a referee in football if you're just having a cheeky game with your mates. You don't even need a net - just two things that mark out your goal. Likewise in 40k, you don't need to be optimising your list or even use points. As long as your opponent and yourself agree on what the terms are, you can play.
Do you not class D&D as a game?

Karol wrote:

Narrative games aren't even games to begin with. That is like starting a match with someone and telling they can't use arm locks, arm bars or hold you for longer then 8 sec. Am not saying that doing something like narrative can't be fun, but it is many things, mostly social, but playing a game it is not.

I never, ever get tired of people parading around telling others that the way they play 40k is wrong.

Sterling191 wrote:

Karol wrote:

Narrative games aren't even games to begin with. That is like starting a match with someone and telling they can't use arm locks, arm bars or hold you for longer then 8 sec. Am not saying that doing something like narrative can't be fun, but it is many things, mostly social, but playing a game it is not.

I never, ever get tired of people parading around telling others that the way they play 40k is wrong.

I mean, it would be so easy to just turn around and say "competitive games aren't even games to begin with", and expect that to be taken just as seriously, but that would just be wrong. CLEARLY anyone who plays narrative doesn't know what games are and that their personal hobby experience is objectively flawed.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I mean, it would be so easy to just turn around and say "competitive games aren't even games to begin with", and expect that to be taken just as seriously, but that would just be wrong.

Indeed. Everyone (myself included) has their preferred ruleset and way to play. That doesnt for a second disqualify or cheapen other modes or means of play. At the end of the day, if you and your match partner are having fun, you're doing it right.

Waaaghpower wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

It looks like you met the infamous IH parking lot.

There are many ways to beat it, but trying to force your way through strenght is not one. Kill everything outside the parking lot and just score the objectives turn by turn. By turn 3-4 you will be tabled, but your lead on points will be enough to win the game regardless.

To digress a bit, this is the problem with the ITC tournament ruleset - You can't play for objectives if you're going to be tabled on turn 4.
The Iron Hands player is still going to get a bunch of points, (Kill 1 unit, Kill More, Hold 1 objective, plus most of his secondaries if he sets it up right) and the massive bonus he gets for every turn remaining after he tables will make it unwinable for the non-IH player.
And, since ITC seems to be the standard at most tournaments... It causes problems when the best strategy to beat certain armies only works in traditional GW games.

That's because ITC is trash.

Completely one sided games are not particularly fun whether you win or lose. Smashing the oppositions with laughable ease gets old very quickly. If we're talking about 'what is not a game,' then that is not really a game! In a game both parties have a reasonable (if not necessarily completely equal) change of winning. The best games are those which are really close, when it could really go either way and every decision and every die roll matters.

Waaaghpower wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

It looks like you met the infamous IH parking lot.

There are many ways to beat it, but trying to force your way through strenght is not one. Kill everything outside the parking lot and just score the objectives turn by turn. By turn 3-4 you will be tabled, but your lead on points will be enough to win the game regardless.

To digress a bit, this is the problem with the ITC tournament ruleset - You can't play for objectives if you're going to be tabled on turn 4.
The Iron Hands player is still going to get a bunch of points, (Kill 1 unit, Kill More, Hold 1 objective, plus most of his secondaries if he sets it up right) and the massive bonus he gets for every turn remaining after he tables will make it unwinable for the non-IH player.
And, since ITC seems to be the standard at most tournaments... It causes problems when the best strategy to beat certain armies only works in traditional GW games.

It's a standard only in US, but since he had the Brit flag, i assumed that he played with EU rules (CA 2018).

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:

Karol wrote:

Narrative games aren't even games to begin with. That is like starting a match with someone and telling they can't use arm locks, arm bars or hold you for longer then 8 sec. Am not saying that doing something like narrative can't be fun, but it is many things, mostly social, but playing a game it is not.

I never, ever get tired of people parading around telling others that the way they play 40k is wrong.

I mean, it would be so easy to just turn around and say "competitive games aren't even games to begin with", and expect that to be taken just as seriously, but that would just be wrong. CLEARLY anyone who plays narrative doesn't know what games are and that their personal hobby experience is objectively flawed.

I'm pretty sure that Karol just wanted to say that narrative games aren't about winning or losing - and therefore there wouldn't be a reason to switch to another chapter tactics in the first place.

Drager wrote:
I find it really strange that people care so much about which rules are tied to which paint scheme. Playing Ultramarines with Iron Hands rules seems fine to me, the rules are a framework of mathematical bonuses and don't constrain the creativity and fluff of the battle. I find it sad that only those who paint a neutral colour scheme get to play the game for a reasonable amount of money under this paradigm. Personally I don't play marines and all my Eldar are custom painted so it doesn't matter to me as it can't affect me, except in making my games less fun as my opponent is forced to play something other than what they want to or be faced with social approbation. I don't understand why there is any difference using one chapter's rules over another. If the chapter tacitcs were given generic names and you just picked which to use for your dudes no one would complain and it would be mechanically identical, the fact that they called something Ultramarines Chapter Tactic instead of Chapter Tactic 3 makes so much difference to people is bonkers.

You win the prize for best post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaaghpower wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

It looks like you met the infamous IH parking lot.

There are many ways to beat it, but trying to force your way through strenght is not one. Kill everything outside the parking lot and just score the objectives turn by turn. By turn 3-4 you will be tabled, but your lead on points will be enough to win the game regardless.

To digress a bit, this is the problem with the ITC tournament ruleset - You can't play for objectives if you're going to be tabled on turn 4.
The Iron Hands player is still going to get a bunch of points, (Kill 1 unit, Kill More, Hold 1 objective, plus most of his secondaries if he sets it up right) and the massive bonus he gets for every turn remaining after he tables will make it unwinable for the non-IH player.
And, since ITC seems to be the standard at most tournaments... It causes problems when the best strategy to beat certain armies only works in traditional GW games.

Tabling your opponent will always be the best strategy. That is just war. Destroyed units cant stop you from obtaining your objective.

Xenomancers wrote:

Drager wrote:
I find it really strange that people care so much about which rules are tied to which paint scheme. Playing Ultramarines with Iron Hands rules seems fine to me, the rules are a framework of mathematical bonuses and don't constrain the creativity and fluff of the battle. I find it sad that only those who paint a neutral colour scheme get to play the game for a reasonable amount of money under this paradigm. Personally I don't play marines and all my Eldar are custom painted so it doesn't matter to me as it can't affect me, except in making my games less fun as my opponent is forced to play something other than what they want to or be faced with social approbation. I don't understand why there is any difference using one chapter's rules over another. If the chapter tacitcs were given generic names and you just picked which to use for your dudes no one would complain and it would be mechanically identical, the fact that they called something Ultramarines Chapter Tactic instead of Chapter Tactic 3 makes so much difference to people is bonkers.

You win the prize for best post.

The best post that fits your wants/needs from your POV. I think that anyone else reading this thread will look at the below and consider it the best advice to pass on, as it tackles the perceptions of others looking in on this thread rather than simply internalising the justification for your choice.

Medicinal Carrots wrote:You thought you were an Ultramarines player, but it turns out you're not. You're a Space Marine powergamer. There's nothing wrong with being a Space Marine powergamer, it's just another way to play. You got used to Ultramarines being the top dog of codex marines, and now that they may not be, your actual identity is conflicting with your perceived identity. You can no longer have your cake and eat it too.

If you want to be an Ultramarines player, play Ultramarines. Use the models you like, or build the best Ultramarines list you can, or whatever you have fun with. Sometimes playing the underdog is more fun. To win with a sub-optimal army vs an army with better rules, you have to be a better player, or get lucky. Each individual win is more of an accomplishment.

If you want to be a Space Marine powergamer, pick whatever rules you think are best, and build the most efficient list you can if that's what you have fun with. If you love optimizing and finding all the nifty combos and then seeing your grand plans come to fruition, that's great. Being able to win consistently, even with a higher tier army, takes a skilled player as well.

What you can't do is play a specific subfaction and also always have the best rules. Sometimes you'll be the best subfaction in the codex, sometimes you won't. So you suck it up and play a sub-optimal subfaction that you identify with and have fun. Or you suck it up and play a faction other than the one you identify with to get the best rules and you have fun. Or you mope and complain and don't have fun.

Marines get this the worst because they have the most history of dedicated subfaction rules and the most supplements for those subfactions. There have been decades for people to fall in love with Ultramarines, or Raven Guard, or Salamanders. Chaos Marines get it some too with the Legions. Eldar, Chaos Daemons, and maybe Guard a bit too, but to a lesser extent than even CSM. The other factions? Up until recently, there weren't rules for Hive Fleets, or Septs, or whatever. People haven't had a chance to tie their identity to a subfaction on the tabletop, so they built an army of their dudes. Now that they have options, they don't feel beholden to one choice, since they haven't spent years or decades building an army dedicated to that choice. They don't see the subfactions as an identity.

So go be an Ultramarines player, or be a Space Marine powergamer, or start a new army. Just have fun, and don't worry so much about it.