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.

Chaos marines no longer have mutations by RAW. Only possessed and maybe raptors, though those are optional. Marines have bionics, or did until recently, which might model some mutations better!

Loyalist terminator armor comes with different trims right in the kit, and the power armor kit comes with different marks of shoulders.

I have marines with no less than 3 different types of backpacks due to different versions of models, not counting the little pictures on the backpacks.

There are many different sorts of leg trims for loyalists, again within the standard kit.

So really it just comes down to what pictures they painted on their armor. Yay?

But many chaos marines are built with mutations, right? Also, the backpacks have ALWAYS looked different than the loyalist versions. I still have some RT era white plastic Space Marines and some early 2nd CSMs. They never looked the same. The trim is very different from CSM and SM (if you disagree, look at the 13th company which mixes bits from SM and CSM - it is quite obvious which came from which kit).

Also, we are not talking rules so RAW is irrelevant, we are talking appearance and army choice, remember?

Anyway, once more, the OP asked for people's thoughts on it, I have given mine. I stick with it. It is internally consistent.

Somnicide wrote:It would depend on how it looked. If you used Imperial armor as the base and glued spikes to it (a la Black Dragons) it wouldn't be much of a problem as long as you didn't use anything else.

You do realize that to create the CSM plastics the GW sculptors took Imperial armor as the base and glued spikes to it, don't you?

Somnicide wrote:What about Sisters of Battle? They are all in power armor with Bolters. They use the rhino chassis on their vehicles. I just don't like it. It doesn't fit the established background.

You wanna know what doesn't fit the established background? Codex: Chaos Space Marines. That's what.

He doesn't Abby... my point wizzed right past his head.
Saddly he doesn't grasp that Chaos marines are loyalist marines who drew naughty things on their armor and welded silly oversized spikes to it while sitting around bored in the warp.

The fact he is saying that SoB shouldn't have bolters, power armor or rhinos based on background established further confirms his insanity. I think he is secretly an agent of Tzeentch, executing some plan so nefarious it makes no sense to anyone else.

And Somn, the point about RAW was that modeling a guy with a tentacle makes as much difference rules wise as modeling him with 6 fingers on his right hand. Which is to say zero.

Now, if CSM with tentacles got a +1 combat resolution, or a man with 6 fingers had to roll every turn to see if he was challenged by the son of a Spanish swordmaker he murdered years prior, then you might have a minor point. It might be confusing since the aesthetic differences mattered as WYSIWYG. But it doesn't. Paint color doesn't matter either. It has specifically been stated in the 4th Ed. Marine codex that even Ultramarines can take traits, and special chapters can be strictly codex rules wise.

Edit: 6 fingers on his RIGHT hand... no one is looking for anyone with 6 fingers on their left...

Somnicide wrote:But many chaos marines are built with mutations, right? Also, the backpacks have ALWAYS looked different than the loyalist versions.

So what happens if I glue chaos backpacks on my loyalist marines!? Which codex do I use?? Or would you object to someone gluing chaos backpacks on their loyalist space marines altogether?

(if you disagree, look at the 13th company which mixes bits from SM and CSM - it is quite obvious which came from which kit)

This brings up a good point. What if my army uses a mix of bits from SM and CSM? Then which codex would I have to use? What if my guys just recently turned to Chaos and have replaced their imperial insignia with Chaos symbols but they still have functioning land speeders and loyalist backpacks? Is that not allowed? Or what if they're Alpha Legion? According to Legion Alpha Legion may actually be loyalists in disguise! How do I know if I'm using the right codex???

Uh, actually, I was saying that sisters have rhinos and bolters and power armor but shouldn't be using the space marines codex for you.

I think the fact that I am allowed to have a different opinion than you wizzed right by your head...

Anyway, I will just agree to disagree on the topic of tourney play. Once more, since somehow it wasn't clear,

It is okay to play with whatever the hell you want in a friendly game. use tyranids as orks, use imperial guard as chaos space marines, use hero clix as daemons. If you want to play in a tourney, it is my opinion that you should play the army of the models you bought.

I am sorry that you don't like your new codex. Buy a new army, trade for a new army or don't play in tourneys or expect the fact that we spend hundreds of dollars and hours on our armies and we don't think it is cute or cool or clever that you just choose to use a codex that you like better with the models you already have.

Edit: 6 fingers on his RIGHT hand... no one is looking for anyone with 6 fingers on their left...

and wehr has the post ftw with a Princess Bride quote! well played, sir!

Wehrkind wrote:Now, if CSM with tentacles got a +1 combat resolution, or a man with 6 fingers had to roll every turn to see if he was challenged by the son of a Spanish swordmaker he murdered years prior, then you might have a minor point.

Reaper totally makes a six-fingered demon prince. And I totally bought him. Awesome.

Obviously you have to send Somnicide an email with pictures of every bit of kit on every model, as well as a fully typed fluff description of no less than 3 pages, with appropriate photos of every model pre and post painting. Preferably you do this before you decide on a paint scheme, because there are EEEEEVIL colors that will mark your marines as heretics just as surely as spikes, skulls or giant wangs on their armor.

Be warned!

Oh, and if you have Sisters, you need to melt them down in a pot and recast them as Ultra Marines, unless you like red, then you have to cast them as Blood Angels. Unless they turn out spikey, then they HAVE to be Khornate warriors.

It totally makes sense.

Somnicide wrote:One more way it could make a difference in game play - CSM don't have ATSKNF so if a unit of CSM is down to it's last model or two and falling back I can ignore it, if a loyalist is falling back, he can still rally and is still a scoring objective.

Except that if your opponent has told you from the beginning that you've been playing against loyalists and assuming you've been paying attention the whole game how could you possibly think it didn't have ATSKNF when everything in the codex does. Now if there was something that didn't have it in the book and modeled a unit that did have it to look like the ones without it I could maybe see this but since that can't happen I'm kind of confused by your reason.

Come to think of it, I really need to model up a counts as Callidus assassin to look like Indigo Montoya... he could randomly appear and prompt Princess Bride quotes. Most excellent!

That would make a really amusing Inquisitor's retinue in fact.

I've been mulling over what kind of army to run with the new marine dex, and I'm thinking that Iron Warriors totally fits the bill! And they'll even be pre-heresy. The heresy referred to is the heresy known as the 4th ed chaos codex.

DEATH TO THE FALSE CODEX!!!!!!

Sigh. Once more, I was asked my opinion and I have given it. If you don't play in tourneys then it doesn't matter at all. If you do play in a tourney then you need to be aware that you might get dinged.

The fact that the question had to be asked implies that there was some concern of shenanigans. My personal rule, if I have to ask if something is cool, it probably isn't.

The snarky comment about my requirements for the game was uncalled for and unnecessary. I tend to give my opponent the benefit of the doubt on virtually everything having to do with the game. I am not really difficult to play ( I don't think so anyway and have never been told so.)

I am fine with a debate, but if you wanna get pissy and personal then it can only degrade into a flame war and no one wins those.

I get the feeling that Somnicide is just a real "by the book" kinda guy who needs all spikey marines to be Chaos Space Marines, all Thousand Sons to be blue with headcrests, and all Fzorgle Princes to be big and pink.

So I guess I only have one question for you Somnicide. Why do you hate freedom?

Abadaba-boohoo wrote:

So I guess I only have one question for you Somnicide. Why do you hate freedom?

Cause freedom leads to whining and whining leads to threads being locked.

The reason, however, that you might get dinged is that there are people like you who have exceedingly, and irrationally, precise requirements about what is ok modeling and painting for a set of rules. So irrationally precise that you don't like marines being the same color as other marines if some marines that color could use a special rule, even if you opponant says "Hey, these aren't the special marines, these are bog standard codex marines."

You are entititled to your oppinion, but that doesn't mean it is not poorly thought out, inoffensive or silly.
Really, explain how your system of deciding what rules to use does not boil down to "What does GW write on the box as the proper army list?" Then explain why it makes any difference.

Well, we are playing GW rules so it would stand to reason that I would base my decisions on "what they (GW) write on the box", right?

GW also says you can use "counts as." And they say the most important rule is "have fun".

So you are saying it does boil down to that for you. Gotcha.

Please explain why it matters, and not in the "I keep forgetting that he uses codex X, despite the fact he told me so" sense.

Also, for clarity, would you be against someone using say an Ultramarine commander set with some Black Templar bits to make a BT captain? The box doesn't say!

Somnicide wrote:Well, we are playing GW rules so it would stand to reason that I would base my decisions on "what they (GW) write on the box", right?

Yeah, and as I pointed out, GW made it clear in the GT rules that this sort of thing is allowed. If you want to state and opinion and rest, you can. You simply say "I understand that rule and the community approve, but I personally don't agree with it or like it." And then you walk away. When you debate or defend your opinion as anything other than personal preference, you open it to attack.

Edit: Guys, to be fair I think we all know what he means. He finds units that traditionally have one rule set (plague marines) used in another, different traditional ruleset confusing. that's not that weird, so mocking it with ridiculous examples isn't exactly fair or useful. I think somebody should put their big boy pants on and try to remember what army your playing, not what the army looks like, but if he's a visual learner it might be a hard habit to break.

Wehrkind wrote:Come to think of it, I really need to model up a counts as Callidus assassin to look like Indigo Montoya... he could randomly appear and prompt Princess Bride quotes. Most excellent!

That would make a really amusing Inquisitor's retinue in fact.

Only if you can spell it correctly. His name is Inigo Montoya. You misspelled his name. Prepare to die.

DAMNIT! I always misspell that. Every. Bloody. Time.

Even when I think "He is not named after a flower!" just before typing, I write "Indigo" every bloody time.

Thank you for your correction. My shame demands that I be prepared to die.

Okay, first up the main rule is have fun. Does you having fun trump me having fun?

Next up, thanks (I think) to Pol for sort of coming to my defense, although the insinuations of me being a bit slow make it a bit of a backhand comment.

Third, it is not a matter of whether I can keep track of it or not. That is irrelevant. I can do it just fine. Just like I can do with tokens, or coins or bases with A written on it for assault marines, R for raptors, D for devs or whatever. The point of the matter is that this game is WYSIWYG. A Chaos Space Marine is, in WYSIWYG a Chaos Space Marine. It is not a loyalist Space Marine with spikes.

The onus is on you to make it clear through WYSIWYG what your army is. Whether or not I can keep track of it is irrelevant. The true question is, "Should I have to keep track of it?" To which, the answer is "no" because we are playing a "what you see is what you get" game.

I know that Indy GTs allow (or used to) you to bring whatever manufacturers models you wanted as long as it was clear what it was supposed to be. In those cases most people erred on the side of caution so there would be absolutely no mistaking what it is. Again, it is not that the opponent can't, rather it is that the opponent shouldn't have to.

The original question was

Would you allow me to play with an army like this, and more importantly, could I use it at a tournament?

The answer, as I have posted several times, is Yes to both questions. In a friendly game I would not even have a little problem with it. In a tourney environment I would still play it, however there could be repercussions depending on what the army score checklist was. I don't really know how to make my thoughts any more clear.

Somnicide wrote:
At the end of a tournament I have trouble remembering what is in my own list.

You're entitled to your opinion. Given the above quote, however, I would question the weight of your opinion dealing with matters in a tournament setting.

Somnicide wrote:Okay, first up the main rule is have fun. Does you having fun trump me having fun?

The obvious answer is yes.

Your other point about "repercussions in a tournament setting depending on scoring systems" seems a little chipmunky to me. If I spend alot of time converting and painting a wonderful army following counts as and agonize over every little detail just to avoid arguments, and then you dock me sportmanship because you don't like the "counts as" rule, I'd find that just a tad bit insulting.

And that is why subjective scoring is bad.

kadun wrote:

Somnicide wrote:
At the end of a tournament I have trouble remembering what is in my own list.

You're entitled to your opinion. Given the above quote, however, I would question the weight of your opinion dealing with matters in a tournament setting.

And given your quote I doubt you play in tourneys at all :-)

Your other point about "repercussions in a tournament setting depending on scoring systems" seems a little chipmunky to me. If I spend alot of time converting and painting a wonderful army following counts as and agonize over every little detail just to avoid arguments, and then you dock me sportmanship because you don't like the "counts as" rule, I'd find that just a tad bit insulting.

And that is why subjective scoring is bad.

Nope, it isn't at all. If the questions are about, does the army look good, is it fun to play against, etc, then it will be fine. If the checklist says "is the army accurately wysiwyg" then the answer is obviously no.

Also, as I said above, I would not dock your sports unless you deserved it during play. I am pretty lenient on that because I am playing a game and will almost always have a good time. I like to think that I am very good about compartmentalizing things out. I have docked Darrian on comp before and still given him max sports scores. His list didn't fit within the comp guidelines for that league season and I docked him. He is usually a pleasure to play against and so that was noted as well. If the guidelines do not include anything about comp or the like then you are fine.

I had no idea that it was such a bad thing to actually follow the rules.

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

Somnicide wrote:But many chaos marines are built with mutations, right? Also, the backpacks have ALWAYS looked different than the loyalist versions.

So what happens if I glue chaos backpacks on my loyalist marines!? Which codex do I use?? Or would you object to someone gluing chaos backpacks on their loyalist space marines altogether?

(if you disagree, look at the 13th company which mixes bits from SM and CSM - it is quite obvious which came from which kit)

This brings up a good point. What if my army uses a mix of bits from SM and CSM? Then which codex would I have to use? What if my guys just recently turned to Chaos and have replaced their imperial insignia with Chaos symbols but they still have functioning land speeders and loyalist backpacks? Is that not allowed? Or what if they're Alpha Legion? According to Legion Alpha Legion may actually be loyalists in disguise! How do I know if I'm using the right codex???

I remember that army. It was grey and it had werewolves in it and maybe some Grey Werewolf Slayers or something. I never quite got those guys. Were they Van Helsings that were grey or just gray werewolfs that slew things?

Van Helsings aside, now that the EoT rules are invalid, if you own an army of marines with mixed Chaos and loyalist armor then you should do the honorable thing and retire them from gaming. For-Evv-Ver. It's a shame that the stubborn 13th Company players can't follow the example of all the LatD guys who quietly and peacefully gave up their right to have a GW-approved army.

Yeah, it sucks. My LaTD is no longer legal. My Ulthwe strike force is no longer legal. Them's the breaks. You pay your admission and you take the ride.

I had a hell of a fun time playing them while they were legal for tourneys and have a hell of a fun time playing them with my friends now. Would I take one to a tourney? No.

Yes, I like rules. I think everything goes much smoother when everyone plays by the same ones.

Vaktathi wrote:
Obliterators aren't by any means mandatory in an IW army, they are just more common in IW armies than in others. In fact most IW fluff (Storm of Iron, Dead Sky Black Sun, etc) doesn't even mention oblits, but does mention tons of heavy cannon weapons, artillery, etc.

Actually in Storm of Iron, the tech priest the Iron Warriors capture is turned into an obliterator.

Why not make a pre-heresy army which turned to chaos afterwards like Emperor's Children? When using the loyalist rules you could just say they're pre-heresy and when you want CSM you could just say it is a very early stagein the Horus heresy and they haven't changed their armour or mutated yet. I would probably paint up a daemon prince model exclusively for when I use the CSM rules, but I'm sure there wouldn't be any problems.

Somnicide, you are confusing WYSIWYG and Counts As. The former relates to wargear like heavy weapons and such, the latter to which models you use.
The two are not exclusive, but rather work together. Counts As allows you use whatever model you want for something, so a spikey marine can be a loyal marine. WYSIWYG demands that you are consistant about it, such that if one spikey marine has a lascannon and another had a missile launcher modeled on them, you shouldn't say they are both autocannons.

That's it.

The rules do not specify what a Marine looks like, or a Tyranid. GW specifically allows you to remodel and remake your figures to please yourself.

Really, that's it. All of your statements about "You can't use a spikey man with rules for a non spikey man because a spikey man isn't a non spikey man!" just scream "My way is the only way to have fun! My interpretation is the only one that is right!"

To answer your question about rule 1: No, one person's fun doesn't trump another's.
However, your willingness to dock someone's nicely converted counts as army because you don't like the rules they used implies that you think it is ok for your concept of fun to dominate theirs. If you really thought both people should have fun as they see fit, you would be in the "So long as they are following the rules, it's fine" camp.