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.

My room-mates and I are pretty strict fluff adherents. We were talking about list building and I brought up the idea of him using the Dark Angels codex to represent his Iron Hands. I felt that the 'grim resolve' rule better represented the Iron Hands obstinance in battle than 'combat tactics' rule does.

He feels uncomfortable because the book says Dark Angels on it and not Iron Hands. This is somewhat my fault as I have trained him to play with the fluff in mind. My second room-mate of course said that no one should ever use a different codex for anything, but I think he was just saying that because he always has to disagree with everything I say. For instance I shouldn't be using Codex Blood Angels to represent Raven Guard just like I shouldn't use it to represent Eldar.

Thoughts or opinions on the matter? What can I do or say to convince him it's ok?

Tell him that the fluff has nothing to do with the rules of the game.

Or make a Codex: Iron Hands cover and print it out, then tape it over the Dark Angels book.

 6^ wrote:
He feels uncomfortable because the book says Dark Angels on it and not Iron Hands. This is somewhat my fault as I have trained him to play with the fluff in mind. My second room-mate of course said that no one should ever use a different codex for anything, but I think he was just saying that because he always has to disagree with everything I say. For instance I shouldn't be using Codex Blood Angels to represent Raven Guard just like I shouldn't use it to represent Eldar.

Not really the same thing. The various Marine codexes cover different ways that Marine Chapters are organised, but using Codex: DA doesn't really lock you into playing Dark Angels any more than using Codex: SM means you have to play Ultramarines (not even back in 2nd edition, when it was actually called Codex: Ultramarines).

People tend to frown on using a named codex for another Chapter that has its own specific codex (So using Dark Angels as Blood Angels, for example) but Chapters that dont have a codex of their own? Use whichever Marine book you want. So long as you make it clear to your opponent which army you are playing, nobody will care.

100% this ^.

You should not be punished for painting your men a particular shade.

As long as the models are all WYSIWYG how you paint or fluff them has absolutely nothing to do with the rules.

On the other hand, if your opponents don't feel comfortable with the idea then they're well within their rights to decline a game using those rules.

It's up to you to sell the idea. Assure them you'll make everything perfectly clear, and be as transparent as possible about your reasons.

Yeah but why would someone refuse to play against that? They'd have no reason to have an issue with it, unless you were codex-hopping to gain advantage of power rules, which the OP's friend clearly is not.

People have refused to play against my Or do Xenos army because my Jokaero were guardsmen with all the weapons (Las cannon, Multi Melts, Heavy Flamer) modelled on them rather than monkeys.

I've never heard of someone refusing to play because you were using WYSIWYG models but in a different colour scheme and fluffed different.

I'd say point out the successor Chapters in the Codex. That's permission to use the army for at least half a dozen different colour schemes for differently named Chapters, right there in the book itself.

I'd let it fly. As Insaniak said, it gets a little shysty when you're talking about using one Codex to represent another. But when you are making an army that isn't repped by one of the main six marine 'dexes, then you're free to take your pick.

In agreement here. Its kind of wrong to me to use a different Codex for an army that actually has its own Codex, but technically there is nothing illegal about it. If the Codex doesn't have their own book, I always look back on the Chapter Approved / Index Astrates White Dwarf articles and then look at which Space Marine flavor Codex will do the job most accurately.

Really, given how many armies aren't even painted, I don't feel an opponent has the right to complain I'm using Space Wolf rules for Dark Angels (purely fictional example!) if I'm fully painted and WYSIWYG. He can always so no, and a tournament normally only cares that its painted and WYSIWYG.

Drager wrote:
I've never heard of someone refusing to play because you were using WYSIWYG models but in a different colour scheme and fluffed different.

I did back in 2nd Edition right after the 1st Space Wolf Codex, my opponent refused to play my Space Wolves becouse they were Primer Grey [they were fully painted] rather than Space Wolf Grey in a turny no less. I took the win and move on.

As for me I run Each Company using a Diffrent Codex with my DIY Space Marine Chapter, The Imperial Tigers. Everyone play with has no issues with it, or at least they never said anything.
1st: Dark Angels [Deathwing]
2nd: Grey Knights
4th: Dark Angles [Greenwing]
8th: Blood Angels [Assualt Company]

As long as I keep this as my "Cannon" I have had no issues.

 BryllCream wrote:
Yeah but why would someone refuse to play against that? They'd have no reason to have an issue with it, unless you were codex-hopping to gain advantage of power rules, which the OP's friend clearly is not.

Because they're accustomed to the idea that if an army has a codex, then it should use that codex. It's not such a stretch to understand that people might be uncomfortable with players using an army from one codex (Iron Hands) while using the rules from another (Dark Angels). Or it could be that they're playing an army that doesn't allow codex hopping (i.e. anything that isn't a Space Marine, pretty much), so it could be seen as an unfair advantage - a kind of "I'm forced to stick with this one codex, so should you" mindset.

I get that in the end they're all just various flavours of Space Marines, but saying that they'd "have no reason to have an issue with it" is a little unfair. I might not agree with their feelings, but I still believe that they have every right to refuse a game for any reason.

I agree that the OP is clearly not doing it for some kind of perceived advantage, which is why I suggest that you can still win them over. If you're completely clear about why you want to do this, and your models are sufficiently WYSIWYG, then your opponents might be more likely to understand and ease into it. I remember when this sort of thing first started happening on the Internet - there was all sorts of uproar because it was seen as Marine players taking an advantage where other players could not, but it seems like the idea grew on the community and, judging by this thread and others, most people are now fine with it as long as you're clear about what you're using.

I cant see a problem with using a different codex for an army that does not really have one. CA is the latest SM codex so it makes sense to use it for Iron hands its an up to date codex with up to date rules. I don't however agree with using that new codex's Special Charactors. That is sort of anti fluff. I would rather someone right there own rules and fluff for them.

 cerbrus2 wrote:
I don't however agree with using that new codex's Special Charactors. That is sort of anti fluff. I would rather someone right there own rules and fluff for them.

GW disagrees. All of the newer codexes (from about halfway through 5th edition) have mentioned it being perfectly acceptable to use an existing Special Character as a stand in for a character in a different Chapter.


Which is admittedly a complete about face for them... I still remember Rick Priestly's White Dwarf rant in 2nd edition about how doing that rather than just creating your very own, original Special Character would result in the end of civilisation as we know it...

 insaniak wrote:

 cerbrus2 wrote:
I don't however agree with using that new codex's Special Charactors. That is sort of anti fluff. I would rather someone right there own rules and fluff for them.

GW disagrees. All of the newer codexes (from about halfway through 5th edition) have mentioned it being perfectly acceptable to use an existing Special Character as a stand in for a character in a different Chapter.


Which is admittedly a complete about face for them... I still remember Rick Priestly's White Dwarf rant in 2nd edition about how doing that rather than just creating your very own, original Special Character would result in the end of civilisation as we know it...

Can you remember that White dwarf issue I have all from #1up to #147

'Fraid not. I would still have it at home somewhere... I don't recall if it was an editorial or an FAQ response, so it would take some serious wading to find it

 insaniak wrote:
'Fraid not. I would still have it at home somewhere... I don't recall if it was an editorial or an FAQ response, so it would take some serious wading to find it

haha well im going through them all on my blog so i will eventually fined it.

But back on topic

This is basically the main reason why I started playing Space marines. I just pant them whatever colour I want, and whenever a new marine codex comes out, I just switch to that newer, usually more powerful codex without having to buy new models.

Polecat wrote:
This is basically the main reason why I started playing Space marines. I just pant them whatever colour I want, and whenever a new marine codex comes out, I just switch to that newer, usually more powerful codex without having to buy new models.

That seems in poor taste.

 6^ wrote:

Polecat wrote:
This is basically the main reason why I started playing Space marines. I just pant them whatever colour I want, and whenever a new marine codex comes out, I just switch to that newer, usually more powerful codex without having to buy new models.

That seems in poor taste.

Having more codices to play with for the same models seems cool to me. Don't play marines myself, but it doesn't seem poor taste to me.

 6^ wrote:

Polecat wrote:
This is basically the main reason why I started playing Space marines. I just pant them whatever colour I want, and whenever a new marine codex comes out, I just switch to that newer, usually more powerful codex without having to buy new models.

That seems in poor taste.

You know what is even worse taste? The price GW thinks it's models are worth. The more different things you can use a model for, the more you are getting out of it's value.

cryhavok wrote:

whenever a new marine codex comes out, I just switch to that newer, usually more powerful codex

This the part that is in bad taste

 Anpu42 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:

whenever a new marine codex comes out, I just switch to that newer, usually more powerful codex

This the part that is in bad taste

I got that, I just disagree. Why not play with the most powerful codex available? Why is that in bad taste? Is wanting to play with a fun competitive army a bad thing?

Well I'm a competitive gamer at heart and enjoy my hobby as game>modelling>>>>painting. Don't see anything wrong with that.

Drager wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:
whenever a new marine codex comes out, I just switch to that newer, usually more powerful codex

This the part that is in bad taste

I got that, I just disagree. Why not play with the most powerful codex available? Why is that in bad taste? Is wanting to play with a fun competitive army a bad thing?
Well I'm a competitive gamer at heart and enjoy my hobby as game>modelling>>>>painting. Don't see anything wrong with that.

First I do Codex Jump using the same models, I just don’t bother repainting them and I try to keep the Wargear the same from Army to Army.
However “Jumping on the Power Bandwagon” is always in bad taste.
I have had that twice with MY Space Wolves:
1st was in 2nd Edition to were I was the only one in the local Meta and then when the Space Wolf Codex came out, then there were 5-6 of them, some just exploit Wolf Guard in Terminator Armor with both Assault Cannons and Cyclone Launcher on the same models. I even had one player whom had just started playing Space Wolves a month before tell me my Space Wolves were not Space Wolves because they were Primer Grey not Space Wolf Grey.
The second time is when the 5th Edition came out. it was almost 3 months before I got to the local Game Store with my Space Wolves and the first thing I heard when I started pulling out my army was.
“Great another ing Space Wolf player, jumping on the Bandwagon!”

The other thing is, yes I lightly “Codex Jump”, but it has nothing to do with “Power”.
I have another Space Marine DIY Chapter I have been running since 1990, The Imperial Tigers. As part of there Fluff is that they like to use Lightning Claws. My “Codex Jumping” has to do with mostly with “Can I equip my Sergeants with Lighting Claw”. This is why I am currently using the Dark Angels Codex, that I love the Deathwing.
So to me, yes your reason in bad taste.

I really don't get it. I've been in the same position you describe with my DE, which I've been playing since their first release. I got labelled a bandwagon jumper, but so what?

I just don't get why people like to tell others what is OK to play or what isn't or why it is OK to do something that doesn't affect them or their own choices. That, I find to be in bad taste, as it tells someone they are a worse person for liking to play with the most powerful stuff, when its just a difference in motivation for playing.

Drager wrote:
I really don't get it. I've been in the same position you describe with my DE, which I've been playing since their first release. I got labelled a bandwagon jumper, but so what?
I just don't get why people like to tell others what is OK to play or what isn't or why it is OK to do something that doesn't affect them or their own choices. That, I find to be in bad taste, as it tells someone they are a worse person for liking to play with the most powerful stuff, when its just a difference in motivation for playing.

I used to feel that way, until I sated getting to made out as TFG just for what army I pulled out, not played and crushed the others, but just putting my army on the table to show it off.

Then the next time I go there over a year later the same guys are all playing Blood Angles, Dark Eldar and Necrons when they were playing Chaos Marines or Space Marines.

Drager wrote:
People have refused to play against my Or do Xenos army because my Jokaero were guardsmen with all the weapons (Las cannon, Multi Melts, Heavy Flamer) modelled on them rather than monkeys.

I use Pack Ape models from Hackmaster for my Jokaero. Despite them being the right size and beautifully detailed pewter models, I get complaints that they are too 'great ape-y' and 'not orangutang-y enough'

Drager wrote:
I really don't get it. I've been in the same position you describe with my DE, which I've been playing since their first release. I got labelled a bandwagon jumper, but so what?

I just don't get why people like to tell others what is OK to play or what isn't or why it is OK to do something that doesn't affect them or their own choices. That, I find to be in bad taste, as it tells someone they are a worse person for liking to play with the most powerful stuff, when its just a difference in motivation for playing.

I agree. The way I see it there are a few different facets of this hobby. Three of the more obvious ones are:

- Painting and modeling
- Background lore and fluff
- Actually playing the game

I've never been into the fluff. I don't really read the non-rules portions of any codex I've bought, personally I think a lot of it reads like bad fan fiction. I've never read a Black Library book. For me the fluff takes a distant back seat to anything else. When I look at picking up a new army I only really want to know if that army has cool models and rules that'll be fun on the table.

However, I know people that will stop playing an army they've used for years just because a new Codex came out and the new fluff doesn't sit well with them. One player at my local store traded away his Necrons because he couldn't get behind the fluff. I think that's a bit silly, but to each his own.