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.

Its not like I'm married to my army. They are not my "team". I have nothing truly invested in my plastic figures besides the time spent painting them.

Why would you discourage someones fun by them wanting to mix it up? You know how old it gets playing the same army every single game?

Some people don't have huge disposable income, so instead, they buy space marines, paint them nicely and then buy 4 codices. Boom, 4 different armies he can play when he wants to mix it up.

They are still WYSIWYG and if anyone were to mark me down in any score just because I choose to play my green marines as space wolves for this tournament/friendly game. Well then this hobby suddenly becomes, who has the most money, free time to paint, instead of, hey lets have fun.

How come everyone is completely fine with fluff/painters putting huge amounts of time into building 20 different armies, but when someone wants to get by on the cheap but still have variety, you jump all over them. Whatever happened to the fun you guys constantly preach to tournament/competitive gamers?

Being a dick to your opponent because of the models he decided to use or way he painted his models sure doesn't sound like fun.

RaW: Absolutely nothing against this.
HWYPI: Go for it. Dealing with Space Marines, pretty much everything translates from one army to the next. It's not going to confuse anyone. Devastators have a place in every SM codex ('cept maybe BT), Tactical Marines are in every codex, etc.

On the topic of "must be modelled correctly"- Why shouldn't also be painted correctly, have the correct squad markings, and conform to all fluff? That is just an arbitrary line in the sand.

On the topic of "army loyalty"- lolwut? Why do you feel loyalty to a bunch of plastic figs? I can see having a sense of nostalgia/accomplishment/fondness/etc, but loyalty?

If colors were an issue it would mean that unpainted or plain primed armies could not take the field. I would be concerned if your models held different or illegal weapons or configurations then the list allows for the chapter.

Also someone brought up the successor chapters issue. That works too. There are so many successor chapter that fall under the same codex, you just call them a successor and play on.

Marcus Iago Geruasius wrote:If colors were an issue it would mean that unpainted or plain primed armies could not take the field.

You'll find quite a lot of players who think that's exactly as it should be...

Also someone brought up the successor chapters issue. That works too. There are so many successor chapter that fall under the same codex, you just call them a successor and play on.

It doesn't even have to be a successor, since successors don't always follow the same organisational structure as their parent Chapter. The Blood Drinkers, for example, have been mentioned in the fluff as a strict Codex chapter, despite being descended from the Blood Angels, who more or less follow Codex structure but have their own marking scheme.

So I see no reason at all you couldn't create, say, a Dark Angels successor and have them using the Space Wolves codex.

I have a friend with an Imperial Fist army that he bounces back and forth between C:SM and C:SW quite often, simply because he says that Counter-Attack and Long Fangs fits the siege-based fluff of the IF army. Most people at our FLGS don't bat an eye at that.

I guess my problem with the whole "paint scheme = WYSIWYG" is that the line is so arbitrary. Most people don't care that if someone runs their yellow marines as SW/BA/DA/BT. However, if you run your blue and gold marines as any of those you become a power-gaming WAAC player? Where does the line fall seperating the two and who determines it?

It is should not ever be a problem for a nice 'counts as ' chapter such as they one shown in the first page of this thread. A lot of people are using the SW codex (example) to create other chapters such as White Scars since they feel the units available and rules can be used to represent their chapter. Take for example a preheresy SM legion such as the World Eaters, there arent really rules for them but going by their background we have a good idea how to build them in a manner that would properly represent their background.

On the other hand if you use a green army of codex SM to represent Black Templars for example it's obvious from some of the responses in this thread that some will take offense. If everything is WYSIWYG then I don't see any major problems with it.

G

Ok, here's my plan.

I have a GK army, I'm thinking of getting a small Space Marine force that I can ally my GKs to.

I'm not going to have any more than 20 regular tac marines.

So to you SW fanatics, if I have my 2 squads of PAGK and 2 squads of tac marines, and hand you an army list that says I have 2 squads of grey hunters on it, will you have trouble figuring out that the tac squads are grey hunters?

Technically the models representing Grey Hunters should have bolters, bolt pistols and chainswords to be WYSIWYG.

G

I was under the assumption that only special weapons needed to be modeled to adhere to WYSIWYG?

kuro_khan wrote:I was under the assumption that only special weapons needed to be modeled to adhere to WYSIWYG?

Some codexes include a rule stating that upgrades must be represented on the model. That doesn't mean that standard equipment doesn't have to be... it's just a clarification.

WYSIWYG is not a rule in the 40K rulebook. It's a gaming convention designed to make the game easier to play. The model you see on the table is supposed to accurately represent the model taken in the army list.

The definition of WYSIWYG is inherent in the name.

Back in the day the Compendium to the Rouge Trader rules There was a page or two of different marine chapters with different color schemes for different worlds and different campaigns. It just makes scene that the marines will camouflage their amour to match the environment that will be fighting in.

Just put the symbol of the chapter on the shoulder pads and vehicles and you should be good.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Technically the models representing Grey Hunters should have bolters, bolt pistols and chainswords to be WYSIWYG.

G

Incorrect.

kuro_khan wrote:I was under the assumption that only special weapons needed to be modeled to adhere to WYSIWYG?

Optional weapons and wargear must be modelled.

insaniak wrote:WYSIWYG is not a rule in the 40K rulebook.

Incorrect. Page 47.

We've already had the WYSIWYG RAW discussion a while back. It only applies to equipment, for one, so it has no bearing here. Furthermore, the consensus was that only optional equipment should be modeled.

RustyKnight wrote:

insaniak wrote:WYSIWYG is not a rule in the 40K rulebook.

Incorrect. Page 47.

Ah, there you go. I had a vague recollection of there being some mention of it in there, but couldn't find it. Yay for incomplete indexes.

Either way, the rulebook entry mentions what GW expect in regards to equipment. The rest of my post, about the general convention, still stands.

I asked this question

IMO:

SP 1: Paint is for the gratification of an authentic game.
SP 2: Any tourney who says you can't paint how you wish to is not worth paying/playing for/in.
SP 3: WYSIWYG as is now very well known to dakka is based on gear.

Erratta: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/271252.page
thats the argument.

hope that helps.

kuro_khan wrote:
Back when there were Craftworld options, you never tried playing as the multiple craftworld (Biel-Tan/Ulthwe/Alaitoc/etc...) with the same paint scheme? You used a totally different army for each attempt?

I only played one craftworld, and stuck to it, if i can win with one army and enjoy it, why change it? And besides the craftworld lists were all on the same codex, unlike the SM varient lists, who have their own codex and are a different army.

CptZach wrote:
Why? Because you play some xenos army and you can't do the same thing? So basically you think everyone should be punished because you are?

I used to have blood angels and used them only as blood angels, a few years later i then switched to a codex standard army and re-painted/bought new models.

In the end this is a hobby involving collecting, painting and gaming. Some people like one aspect over the others, i used to rush my paint jobs just so i could spend more time gaming, now i take care on each model so it looks good when i play (and woe betide any kids with sticky fingers coming anywhere near them) There is nothing to stop you painting them however you like, but as i said, most people have several lists (the "fun" list and the "butt stomping" list) don't be surprised if people look down on your attitude and decide to teach you a lesson in the finer art of gaming like a douche. In my store this wouldn't fly well at all, i guess your store/club/basement is more lenient.

dayve110 wrote:

kuro_khan wrote:
Back when there were Craftworld options, you never tried playing as the multiple craftworld (Biel-Tan/Ulthwe/Alaitoc/etc...) with the same paint scheme? You used a totally different army for each attempt?

I only played one craftworld, and stuck to it, if i can win with one army and enjoy it, why change it? And besides the craftworld lists were all on the same codex, unlike the SM varient lists, who have their own codex and are a different army.

You don't enjoy variety?

dayve110 wrote:
...but as i said, most people have several lists (the "fun" list and the "butt stomping" list) don't be surprised if people look down on your attitude and decide to teach you a lesson in the finer art of gaming like a douche. In my store this wouldn't fly well at all, i guess your store/club/basement is more lenient.

Bring on the "butt stomping list". I play for the challenge. In addition, the kind of people who would look down on me because I have a different reason for playing the hobby, are the kind of people I look down on. Godwin's Law is about to come into effect soon...

kuro_khan wrote:Godwin's Law is about to come into effect soon...

Can't see a lot of hosted images from work.

looks like someones been on /tg lately.

The issue with more 'serious' hobbyists isn't that your orange Marines are space wolves, it's that they're space wolves, and blood angels, and ultramarines....

And are you kidding about variety? As an ork player I can run horde, mech, kan wall, gun line, biker, orkwing, and freebooter armies. There is a lot of variety in most codex.

A lot more than playing base tac squads with different special rules every week anyway.

And I hate to break it to you, warhammer is not an especially tactical game, it contains dice and imbalanced armies. If you want a tactical game, stick to chess or go.

Kroot Loops wrote:The issue with more 'serious' hobbyists isn't that your orange Marines are space wolves, it's that they're space wolves, and blood angels, and ultramarines....

If it's okay for them to be each one individually, then what difference does it make to switch every few weeks? What the army was last month has no impact on what it is this month.

I say go for it, just make sure your opponent is clear about what rules you are using at the start of the game.

There are no rules in any codex or rulebook regarding painting (except Red Ones go Fasta in the Orks). Your models are yours, so paint them the way you like. If anyone tells you different, tell them to Jog on and find someone reasonable to play. If a tournament doesn't allow your differently painted army, it isn't a tourney worth supporting.

Kroot Loops wrote:The issue with more 'serious' hobbyists isn't that your orange Marines are space wolves, it's that they're space wolves, and blood angels, and ultramarines....

And are you kidding about variety? As an ork player I can run horde, mech, kan wall, gun line, biker, orkwing, and freebooter armies. There is a lot of variety in most codex.

A lot more than playing base tac squads with different special rules every week anyway.

And I hate to break it to you, warhammer is not an especially tactical game, it contains dice and imbalanced armies. If you want a tactical game, stick to chess or go.

So because space marines have less variety in their codex they shouldn't be allowed to play the other codices? ....

Warhammer is actually pretty tactical, and despite what a lot of people think, not all that imbalanced at the higher levels of competition.

Kroot Loops wrote:The issue with more 'serious' hobbyists isn't that your orange Marines are space wolves, it's that they're space wolves, and blood angels, and ultramarines....

Not picking out this poster for any particular reason, I just keep seeing this dichotomy between SERIOUS hobbyists and whatever isn't a SERIOUS hobbyist as being grounds for disallowing a multipaint Marine army.

I have read every single 40k book, including the gakky Eldar one, printed in the last 5 years and many from before that. In spite of only playing 40k for the last 2.5 years or so, I own 6 armies, several of which are fully painted to a good standard, and my investment in the hobby is many thousands of dollars. I attend tournaments as regularly as I can, and have traveled to do so.

By any metric, I am a SERIOUS hobbyist. And I have no problem with multi-painted Marine armies!

Serious hobbyists don't have problems with paint scheme or codex swapping; the ones who do are SERIOUS hobbyists who are anal about paint schemes and codex swapping. In my opinion, there's a difference.

Anal retentive people will find a reason to be anal retentive about anything, simply because they're anal retentive. Multipaint Marines are not illegal, don't detract from the hobby in terms of more people playing, wider player pool, more diversity, and hobby growth. It does somehow detract from the hobby from this strange perspective of WRONGBADFUN!!!, but I think the positives outweigh the negatives.

CptZach wrote:

Kroot Loops wrote:The issue with more 'serious' hobbyists isn't that your orange Marines are space wolves, it's that they're space wolves, and blood angels, and ultramarines....

And are you kidding about variety? As an ork player I can run horde, mech, kan wall, gun line, biker, orkwing, and freebooter armies. There is a lot of variety in most codex.

A lot more than playing base tac squads with different special rules every week anyway.

And I hate to break it to you, warhammer is not an especially tactical game, it contains dice and imbalanced armies. If you want a tactical game, stick to chess or go.

So because space marines have less variety in their codex they shouldn't be allowed to play the other codices? ....

Warhammer is actually pretty tactical, and despite what a lot of people think, not all that imbalanced at the higher levels of competition.

How do Marines have less diversity? You can play vanilla, drop pod army, bike army, dreadhead, rhino spam, scout army, etc etc.

I've never said you can't do it, but you will have to expect that there will be those that see you use the exact same models to represent standard SM chapters, BA, DA, SW, BT armies on a regular basis, and have a negative opinion of you for that reason.

I mean I saw a video of a 'ard boyz WHFB tournament, and it was table after table of unprimed, unpainted daemon armies. What a let down. Even the FLGS tournaments here require a three color minimum paint job if you want to play in a tourny or league.

I was trying to present both sides, and I still maintain; You can do it, don't be surprised if you get negative reactions from it.

Player 1 is an extremely talented painter. He spent a large amount of time gathering unit choices that are varied and look good together, often at the expense of effectiveness. This was a choice he made to make the army look better. He is lauded by hobbyists and has great contempt for anyone that does not play his way.

Player 2 is an extremely talented tactician. He spent a large amount of time gathering unit choices that work well together and allow his army to succeed in the missions placed before him. Often this involves several units on the table being the same. This was a choice he made to make the army play better. He is hated by hobbyists, and generally has contempt for no one.

I wonder when things went wrong?

Player 1 must receive full sportsmanship points every game. Regardless of the fact that he purposely brought a non-synergistic army to the game. But he sure paints well (or paid a professional to do so)!

Player 2 must receive 0 sportsmanship points, as it is a general consensus on the internet that all armies in the future bring their worst forces to battle. He will also be told to never come back to play, as his army is unfair.

The post earlier about giving well painted armies 0 for sportsmanship got me thinking about this whole concept. Is it fair to only limit one part of the game? What if everyone coming to a tournament was told that only 5 converted models were allowed and a maximum of 4 colours could be used to paint each model?

Once you start dictating how a hobby is meant to be enjoyed, where does it end? Warhammer is meant to be multi-dimensional in what draws players to the game.

Are we going to get that worked up because someone is playing a Space Wolves list and had the audacity to place something on the table without a stupid beard? Really?

Heres the deal, which i love about GW games, paint scheme doesn't matter. Paint scheme is nothing more than docterenized fluff. As along as the models on the table more or less have a high degree of "what you see is what you get" run your all white/red power armor bikes as ravenwing or what have you.
In a tournament, bring the list as said chapter, and keep it that for the duration of the tournament. If i left the "U's" off my blue power armor marines, i could run them as whatever i wanted so long as I have the models to support what i say they are. But even then, I'll claim that "in game fluff" the ultra marines have been practicing some of the white scars biker formations, and play them as white scars, as long as i have enough bikes on the field.

dayve110 wrote:In the end this is a hobby involving collecting, painting and gaming. Some people like one aspect over the others, i used to rush my paint jobs just so i could spend more time gaming, now i take care on each model so it looks good when i play (and woe betide any kids with sticky fingers coming anywhere near them) There is nothing to stop you painting them however you like, but as i said, most people have several lists (the "fun" list and the "butt stomping" list) don't be surprised if people look down on your attitude and decide to teach you a lesson in the finer art of gaming like a douche. In my store this wouldn't fly well at all, i guess your store/club/basement is more lenient.

Absolutely a great comment and on the mark! What makes one player's attitudes and hobby pursuits better than anyone else's? Only their hubris and false sense of self-importance.