Opinions on someone using Army 1 paint scheme but using Army 2's Codex?

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.

**Jstncloud**

Skylifter wrote:I completely agree with Kaldor.

I was originally going to quote a ton of posts, but I'll refrain.

I have no problem with a force of marines in a blue colour scheme using the BA codex. They could be BA successors, after all.

But I have a problem with:
1. A force of Ultramarines (or any other non-BA-successor) using the BA codex.*
2. A DIY chapter which the player claims to be non-BA-successors using the BA codex.
3. The same in relation to all other codices, ie non-DA-successor using CA etc.

Why is that? Because, as Kaldor did point out somewhere, background is an important part of the game. Rules are written to represent the background. Ultramarines do not have the red thirst, nor acute senses. Dark Angels do not have wolf tail talismans or sagas. If you use SW rules for DA, the game feels wrong to me, and I wouldn't enjoy it, therefore I would prefer to play someone who is using the right codex.

So a blue BA successor is fine - it is imaginable within the rules of the shared universe's background that the BA have a blue successor chapter, no problems there. But Ultramarines most definitely are not a BA successor. And that's the end of it for me.

I often read "It doesn't matter how they are painted." Well, not the colour scheme as such, but it does matter what chapter they are supposed to represent. Sure, there could be a wolf lord who decides his great company now wear red, but they would certainly not wear the blood angel icon and have their wolf guard wear golden nipple armour and so on (and no, it is not imaginable within the rules of the shared universe's background that the SW have a successor, either).

There is no difference between using orks as necrons and using UMs as BA. Now if you use models from the BA range and convert and paint them in a way that they look like UMs (or Black Consuls, or Hawk Lords, or whatever other codex chapter), then including them in a UM force is no problem. If you could convert necron models to look like something from the ork codex, I'm not going to see a problem either - and I am actually sure there are some people who already managed that, if not, we definitely need more looted ghost arks.

* (And that isn't even about the markings alone. It is about what the player wants his models to be. Someone telling me "I play my Ultramarines using BA rules 'cause I like those better", I instantly detest him and won't play him. If he says "This is my new BA successor chapter, I'm using some old models from my UMs, but I'm going to repaint them soon" I'll ask him for a game and I'll enjoy it.)

Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:
P.S. the only difference between Marine armies is the paint-color (For standard units that are in every book, like TH/SS terminators are the same in all marine armies that have TH/SS terminators, or Assault marines are the same in all books etc.)

Okay, now there's one quote that I can easily make my point with.

No, it is not. If it were, there would only be a single MEQ codex. The differences between marine armies include, but are not limited to:
- background
- paint scheme recommendations (the colour schemes of actual chapters are background material, not rules on how to paint your models)
- playstyle
- look&feel (a term used by designers to describe differences in style which are hard to actually put into words - necrons have a different l&f than orks, but UMs also have a different l&f than BA)
- model range

Btw, the model you use as BA librarian has Inquisition and Grey Knight markings modelled on. If you convert it, for example by scraping those markings off, then you can use it as your BA librarian. If you do not convert it, then it is, at most, a proxy.

So basically if you run out of Codex: Space Marines you need to run a presented chapter or successor, not a 'home made chapter?'

Same with Blood Angels?

In one of my posts I noted that the Ultramarines I run as as close to a home made chapter as I could do. I love the blue scheme (my High School colors were blue/white so it is imprinted upon me), I liked the U symbol, I also liked the Death Company X, so what did I do? My own company of Ultramarines, Alpha Company. Are they real? No. Are they a successor, not a listed one. Should I be able to play them? From my interpretation of what you said, no.

So, while I appreciate the input, I think that if I explain my 'companies' backstory to the player, should be no problem.

Kaldor wrote:
Steelmage99 wrote:You didn't answer his question.

Well spotted.

That is not what the WYSIWYG rules in 40k talks about. It talks about models and their game-play upgrades.

Specific models have specific rules. C:SM tactical squads have combat tactics, Grey Hunters have acute senses, Blood Angels have the red thirst. If I'm seeing Blood Angles iconography and I'm getting models with acute sense, then I'm not getting what I'm seeing, am I?

How about a Furioso Librarian Dreadnought, it cannot take 'Extra Armor' but a normal Furioso can, there is no clear way to model 'Extra Armor' but if someone says "hey this is here" you know. So because a red Furioso Librarian is KNOWN to not have extra armor, but a blue one could be confused with one that does means it is not WYSIWYG? That is a bit ridiculous honestly.

How about Sternguard Veterans' special ammunition? How do you know they have it? It cannot be modeled right? It is a skill that is told to the opponent, much like combat tactics, red thirst, bolter drill (Lysander?) and so on.

I fail to see why a color scheme would make you feel deceived, especially if the opponent has a) an army roster and b) clearly lets everyone know what he/she is playing.

Otherwise, lets all fall in line and play ONLY the colors that GW assigns their respective armies.

DeathReaper wrote:
Kaldor wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:Actually you are, because the winged blood drop belongs to a secret successor chapter of Space wolves called "Winged Wolves" they wear red armor to blend into their volcanic home world where they maintain a secret fortress, and are only called upon in times of dire need.

And the second you start doing stuff like this, you've crossed the line from 'miniatures wargame' to 'cardboard playing chits'. Like I said above, you can run a list however you want but swapping codexes whenever you want is really poor form. Lets be very clear on that. As soon as you start doing that you may as well be using orks as eldar, grots as terminators, or paint-pots as genestealers.

Do you see the difference?

I do see the difference, Clearly a Eldar and an Ork look very different, anyone should be able to tell them apart.

Not playing someone because they use a certain paint scheme on their models, no matter what codex they are using, is silly.

The rules do not govern how you paint your models and you are free to paint them, and apply any stickers to them that you like.

The pieces on the table are simply a representation of the rules.

I have a question I would like answered if you would please.

I have a Librarian in Terminator armor and Storm Shield I use in my games. He is painted to match the rest of my army, but the model is the same model seen below (Minus the banner because I did not like the look of it). The question is: Would you refuse to play against me because I use this as my Blood Angles Librarian?

P.S. the only difference between Marine armies is the paint-color (For standard units that are in every book, like TH/SS terminators are the same in all marine armies that have TH/SS terminators, or Assault marines are the same in all books etc.)

I'd have to agree with your example, I am using Death Company marines legs, bits, and so on to make my tacticals, are they Death Company? No. Do they have the correct gear, sure do. So tactically, they are blue which is not the traditional red (if I am using the BA book), but...they have all of their weapons presented...so. Kind of the same thing you did with your model conversion.

Kirika wrote:I don't really care what paint scheme the army is using as long as the weapons and gear is what you see is what you get. I've done different marines chapter armies over the years and it gets expensive. As long as the model has the weapons and gear its supposed to I don't care if your using Blood Angel rules with ultra marines colors. Mixing codex rules however is not legal.

Same way I feel.

Skylifter wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
The only converting I did was I removed the Stormbolter. it still has the books and sword icons on it.

- background (Does not matter in the 40k BRB) so there is no difference there.

Well, it does matter to me. Else I could be playing with chits of paper, as Kaldor rightly said, and I could also stop calling them space marines and just call them unit type a, unit type b, etc. If I didn't like the background so much, if I was just in it for playing a challenging game, I'd play something else with less complicated and partly contradictory rules.

DeathReaper wrote:
When I use him, I say that he is on loan from the grey knights assisting my Blood Angels with a special mission. the roleplay does not matter to me, but some opponents get all worked up when they see that model, I tell them about the GK helping out the BA, and they calm down.(Not that I encounter many of those people).

It is not a proxy, it is a Psyker with a Storm Shield, and a Force Weapon.

To me, it is a proxy, and your explanation doesn't explain why it is painted red then. I am one of those people who 'get all worked up', as you so derogatorily put it. You should accept that some people enjoy the game for its roleplaying aspect much more than for its tactical aspect. If you do not care for the background, that does not make your view any more right, just different.

To me and most people I know, 40K is nothing without the background. Therefore, I will not play someone who disregards the background - I simply wouldn't enjoy it.

So if we were in a tournament setting, where I can paint my models any color I wish, whether it be pink, purple, BLUE, neon-baby-poop-green, you'd refuse to play me given my situation even though I am fielding a WYSIWYG army and painting them within the rules set forth in the book?

I love the game as much as the next guy, but I find it hard to believe you'd forfeit a game to someone over a paint job in a tournament you are paying to participate in.

That is like me saying "Well hey there guy, your army is not painted to 'my' standard, not playing with you, shoo now."

Finally, as I stated previously, Alpha company (my derivative of what I imagine an Ultramarines' Special Forces unit to be)is better suited with the BA rules right now. Does Red Thirst fit?, no, not really. Does the rest of the gear, weapons, tanks, and overall availability of the book mesh better with where I want to go right now?, more-so than the Codex: Space Marine, sure it does.

Furthermore, I am in no way 'trying' to get anyone heated, I just wanted to see the various point of views presented here on DakkaDakka in regards to what I want to do (and I am sure, now based on the responses, that I am not the only one who has or will try to do this with their models).

**jgehunter**

How has this thread gotten so far, I don't think it tells you anywhere on the rulebook that when painting SM you have to follow the exact color scheme and heraldry, and as long as it is WYSIWYG I wouldn't have a complaint about it.

**Skylifter**

I can only continue to restate my opinion, since we are talking about different things here.

I never said it was a game rule that you had to adhere to the background. I said that I only enjoy the game if my opponent does. If you do not care about background, you are not going to be my opponent more than once, and that's that.

You wanted to know whether I'd let you use the BA codex for your UMs. The answer is no, and the reason is the one stated over and over again above. I do not care whether you agree with me about this, because I do not have to play a game with you, nor you with me.

**Jstncloud**

Skylifter wrote:I can only continue to restate my opinion, since we are talking about different things here.

I never said it was a game rule that you had to adhere to the background. I said that I only enjoy the game if my opponent does. If you do not care about background, you are not going to be my opponent more than once, and that's that.

You wanted to know whether I'd let you use the BA codex for your UMs. The answer is no, and the reason is the one stated over and over again above. I do not care whether you agree with me about this, because I do not have to play a game with you, nor you with me.

That is fine, and should we meet in a tournament setting I'd gladly listen to you as you either a) gave me a free win because my army was not the color you'd want it to be or b) changed your mind because a forfeiture is a lose and you might as well play against the guy with the army that is colored in a way that you do not like.

I respect your standpoint, I do not respect however refusal to play, only hurts you and the other guy, that is unless you have a overwhelming number of people in your area who play, at which point you can pick and choose anyways.

jgehunter wrote:How has this thread gotten so far, I don't think it tells you anywhere on the rulebook that when painting SM you have to follow the exact color scheme and heraldry, and as long as it is WYSIWYG I wouldn't have a complaint about it.

Bit of a back and forth, I feel like the general consensus is most people don't care so long as it is WYSIWYG.

**Skylifter**

I live in Germany's second largest city, and if I ever move elsewhere, it'll be the largest, I have no problem finding gamers who share my view of the game. And I do not attend tournaments, partly because I care more about the roleplaying aspect than about the competition aspect of the game. So I won't ever be in the situation you described. And whether you respect my refusal to play you does not affect me either - if you have a problem with that, yeah, that's exactly it: your problem.

Also, if you post an open question like this on the internet and then get annoyed when someone says no, you just shouldn't ask questions like that. What would you have done if more people like me and Kaldor had answered this? Stopped doing it? That would have been silly if you really want to do it, wouldn't it?

**Redbeard**

With the exception that colour conveys information, and a blood angel is not WYSIWYG as a space wolf.

Is all power armour equivalent for WYSIWYG? I see no reason it should be.

Space wolf power armour has runes and wolf pelts on it. Grey knight power armour has etching on it. Chaos marine power armour has little chaos tips and stars on it. They look different.

Just because they all use the same kind of armour doesn't make them the same. Different codex, different models - using the wrong ones is clearly a violation of WYSIWYG.

Is the exception being made because it is 'close enough'? Well, what about an ork with a shoota and a dire avenger with a shuriken catapult? They both have submachine gun looking weapons. Why aren't these close enough?

Philosophically, I have issues with the idea that color and iconography are not part of WYSIWYG. We identify a bolter as a bolter because of a picture in a book that says, 'this is a bolter'. We identify an ultramarine the same way - the same book that shows us what a bolter looks like shows us what an ultramarine looks like, and that's not what a blood angel looks like.

Realistically, my friends have used far worse proxies than the wrong colour guy and I've still played with them

**haendas**

I thought Ultramarines as whatever was a common sight on the competitive circuit. Redbeard, your signature mentions adepticon 2011, did you not see red space wolves and blue blood angels for example?

**Grakmar**

I haven't read the entire thread, but here's my take on it:

I have no problem with someone playing a marine army that is clearly intended as SM, BA, DA, etc as another marine army. However, I fully expect you to allow me to play my Eldar army as Orks or Necrons.

**Abyssel**

The only thing that I, or anyone I have ever known, cares two craps about is:

What codex are you using?
If it is a Space Marine codex (i.e. models using space marine armor), than do you have space marine models? (note symbols don't matter at this point.)

Running a space marine codex using tyranid models would be a no go because tyranids are not the same size/shape for LOS purposes, and it is hard to distinguish who has what wargear.

Now space marines, you guys are naming stuff that you can't or at the very least, would be hard pressed to represent in game, like, red thirst, combat tactics, acute senses, so on and so forth.

My XV8's use a lot of hard wired stuff, so should I have a specific model for each hard wired gear? No because you can't model it, it's with the inside of the suit. All the things you listed are with the specific space marine inside. What if your ultramarine captain got his gauntlet shot off by a chaos bolter and he was fighting alongside blood angels. I'm sure he'd at least pick said gauntlet up for defense.

Would you throw the same arguement out for Chaos Space Marines? It says in their fluff that they pick up pieces of armor all the time to replace the old armor that is damaged.

Hell in Soul Hunter, Talos has a blood angels power sword, so you're telling me that if I wanted to make Talos, I couldn't put a Blood Angels power sword on him? It's what he is using in the book.

**Redbeard**

haendas wrote:I thought Ultramarines as whatever was a common sight on the competitive circuit. Redbeard, your signature mentions adepticon 2011, did you not see red space wolves and blue blood angels for example?

Just because I've seen them doesn't mean I like it. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean I'm going to pitch a fit or not play because of it. I'm aware that not everyone shares the same values.

Sometimes, you take the bad with the good. In my ideal world, the rules would be balanced, people would choose armies based on the models and fluff that they liked, and those armies would actually be viable, regardless of what they were. There would be no need to pretend ultras were blood angels or space wolves because the ultras would be just as good. Of course, in my ideal world, you'd never see an unpainted mini on the table and all the terrain would be wonderful and no one would ever cheat either. A boy can dream though.

**Steelmage99**

Grakmar wrote:I haven't read the entire thread, but here's my take on it:

I have no problem with someone playing a marine army that is clearly intended as SM, BA, DA, etc as another marine army. However, I fully expect you to allow me to play my Eldar army as Orks or Necrons.

As long as the models are WYSIWYG I am fine with that. Especially if you have made a conscious effort to model you army to match the codex.

**DeathReaper**

Redbeard wrote:Sometimes, you take the bad with the good. In my ideal world, the rules would be balanced, people would choose armies based on the models and fluff that they liked, and those armies would actually be viable, regardless of what they were. There would be no need to pretend ultras were blood angels or space wolves because the ultras would be just as good.

Then what do you make of this link?

It is right from GW's website, and it is where you buy the Fast Attack choices for Codex Space Marines.

Notice the Land Speeder storm, that is clearly from the SM Codex. but what is that picture next to it? that is not from the SM Codex...

That is a Blood Angles assault squad???

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/armySubUnitCats.jsp?catId=cat440275a&rootCatGameStyle=

And this next one, did this terminator squad come from the SM codex or the Blood Angels codex?

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440272a&prodId=prod1060028

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440192a&prodId=prod1060028

One is linked from BA Elite, one from SM elite, which is which, how can we tell?

Bottom line is the paint does not matter, let your opponent know what codex you are using, and have all your upgrades modeled, and you are good to go.

**azazel the cat**

Honestly, if I didn't have such a low opinion of people in general, I would be amazed at some of the things I've read so far. It's not my intention to make anyone look foolish, as I believe people are doing a satisfactory job of that themselves. However, I do like to ask questions, so here goes:

Is this a Dark Angel or a Salamander?

Spoiler:

If I had an entire army painted like this, and owned both the Dark Angels and Codex: Marines codices, would you let me use these figures as either army, so long as the wargear was proper?

Also:
Why is this figure listed as a Vanilla Marine? Was he in a hurry this morning and grabbed the wrong banner on his way out the door?

Looks like Ezekiel has a bad case of the blues. But how can this be? Dark Angels are only allowed to wear green and beige!

Why does that Grey Knight Terminator Librarian wear so much blue? Doesn't he know that he's not supposed to be the same model for every army?

Why does that Space Wolves Dreadnought have a big U on it? I thought that Space Wolves were covered in furs and crap like that.

Oh noes! That Blood Angels combat squad also has big Us on their blue armor! Right on GW's own website!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

@Deathreaper:

Are you

ing kidding me? You ninja'd me on just about every point I made! Stay out of my head!

...I'm gonna go pull my fillings out now.

**haendas**

Redbeard wrote:
haendas wrote:I thought Ultramarines as whatever was a common sight on the competitive circuit. Redbeard, your signature mentions adepticon 2011, did you not see red space wolves and blue blood angels for example?

Just because I've seen them doesn't mean I like it. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean I'm going to pitch a fit or not play because of it. I'm aware that not everyone shares the same values.

Sometimes, you take the bad with the good. In my ideal world, the rules would be balanced, people would choose armies based on the models and fluff that they liked, and those armies would actually be viable, regardless of what they were. There would be no need to pretend ultras were blood angels or space wolves because the ultras would be just as good. Of course, in my ideal world, you'd never see an unpainted mini on the table and all the terrain would be wonderful and no one would ever cheat either. A boy can dream though.

Your first post said that it is "clearly a violation of wysiwyg." I would think that if it is clearly a violation that it wouldn't be accepted in a tournament that enforces painting and wysiwyg.

For what it is worth, I do like your vision of an ideal world.

**dnanoodle**

I know a guy who did this forever with his marines. I never denied him using whatever coded he wanted, but I never liked it either. It meant my Eldar had to be ready for 3 different kinds of Marines in addition to IG. He on the other hand, only had to worry about facing Eldar.

I don't think it's fair that the most abundant type of army allows people to play any codex they want.

Please note that I have no problem with blue guys always being run as Blood Angels. I just don't like the jumping back and forth on a whim to use the most powerful SM books.

**haendas**

dnanoodle wrote:I know a guy who did this forever with his marines. I never denied him using whatever coded he wanted, but I never liked it either. It meant my Eldar had to be ready for 3 different kinds of Marines in addition to IG. He on the other hand, only had to worry about facing Eldar.

I don't think it's fair that the most abundant type of army allows people to play any codex they want.

Please note that I have no problem with blue guys always being run as Blood Angels. I just don't like the jumping back and forth on a whim to use the most powerful SM books.

The only significant difference between the guy you know and the guy I know who has 4 different armies really just comes down to the amount of money they spent.

**Kaldor**

cgmckenzie wrote:A space marine in power armor with a bolter is a space marine in PA with a bolter. I could field an army with every single member is from a different chapter with different paint schemes for each model, and run them as any codex I want.

The point I'm trying to make is that as soon as you disregard chapter markings and paint schemes, ANY model is the same as any other model. There is no difference between a grot, a necron, an ork or an eldar. And just as you can make up some bullsquirt about a space-wolf successor chapter that just happens to look exactly like the blood angels chapter, I can make up some ridiculous story about how a bunch of grots were psychically enhanced by an unknown energy based life-form and now have the stats and rules of grey knight paladins.

You have to draw a line somewhere, and that line is well and truly crossed by the time we start treating marine models as chapter-interchangeable.

Jstncloud wrote:At least painting them is painting them, would you prefer that we simply use unpainted models to prevent issues?

Absolutely. At least you can retain some integrity if the models are completely devoid of chapter-specific markings.

Steelmage99 wrote:
Grakmar wrote:I haven't read the entire thread, but here's my take on it:

I have no problem with someone playing a marine army that is clearly intended as SM, BA, DA, etc as another marine army. However, I fully expect you to allow me to play my Eldar army as Orks or Necrons.

As long as the models are WYSIWYG I am fine with that. Especially if you have made a conscious effort to model you army to match the codex.

Lol, nope. The shuriken catapults can be counts as bolters, the star cannons counts as lascannons, the multilasers counts-as autocannons.

There is no WYSIWYG rule, and the box-out on page 47 only applies to characters, so an entire army of counts as eldar as orks is perfectly legal with zero modification.

If you allow one, you gotta allow the other.

**shock_at**

This discussion has become about the elitists vs the liberals. People who wanna have fun on their own terms vs people who want to have fun. It's like a DnD session where one player is a full on roleplayer being teamed with a board game (maybe even wargaming) player.

Since both sides are opinions for casual play, it might be better to see it it in a tournament setting. Would a tournament allow blue space marine models with a U stickers that came with the box be played as blood angels. Has there been any tournament that has disallowed an army based on it's aesthetics?

**Redbeard**

DeathReaper wrote:
Then what do you make of this link?
...

Some models, including those that you indicated, are part of multiple ranges. I applaud your ability to pick out the models that are clearly part of multiple ranges. HTML can be so hard to navigate.

This model:

is a Blood Angel. The tear drop iconography clearly marks it out as being either a Blood Angel, or one of their successors. That model, unconverted, is not a Space Marine Apothecary.

These models:

are Space Wolves. You can tell by the wolf pelts and tails, the diamond icons on the guns, and the curves on the helmets. They are not Space Marines, they are Space Wolves. They are no more Space Marines than Dire Avengers are Space Marines. Space Marines are no more Space Wolves than they are Dire Avengers.

You will not find pictures of either the Blood Angel Sanguinary Priest or the Space Wolf squad members under the tabs for Space Marines. They are not part of that model range.

Bottom line is the paint does not matter, let your opponent know what codex you are using, and have all your upgrades modeled, and you are good to go.

This is your opinion. In my opinion, paint does matter, once it is applied in a way that defines it as part of a specific model range. If you want to paint a successor chapter, I have no issues with that, and you can call it a successor to any chapter you want, so long as your models are part of the range you're claiming. But, once you slap a defined chapter marking on it, that is no longer WYSIWYG. If I see an Ultramarine, it is only WYSIWYG if it's using Codex: Space Marine rules. There is no difference, in my opinion, between calling an Ultramarine a Blood Angel, and calling a plasma gun a meltagun. The appearance of each is clearly defined in the codexes, so calling it something different is proxying, not WYSIWYG.

azazel the cat wrote:Honestly, if I didn't have such a low opinion of people in general, I would be amazed at some of the things I've read so far. It's not my intention to make anyone look foolish, as I believe people are doing a satisfactory job of that themselves. However, I do like to ask questions, so here goes:

Is this a Dark Angel or a Salamander?

Spoiler:

It's a Dark Angel. Salamanders use Snot Green with black weapons, Dark Angels use Dark Angel Green with red weapons. If you're trying to be tricky, you should use a harder question.

If I had an entire army painted like this, and owned both the Dark Angels and Codex: Marines codices, would you let me use these figures as either army, so long as the wargear was proper?

No, it's not based.

Seriously? Like I said before, I've "let" people put cardboard boxes on the table to proxy models they didn't have yet. There is no GW secret police that are going to sneak into our basements and demand anything of us. Is it ideal? No. Is it cool? No. Will I "let" you do it? If you're drinking beer and rolling dice with me, sure.

haendas wrote:...
Your first post said that it is "clearly a violation of wysiwyg." I would think that if it is clearly a violation that it wouldn't be accepted in a tournament that enforces painting and wysiwyg.

For what it is worth, I do like your vision of an ideal world.

I've seen unpainted models at tournaments that 'enforce' painting. GW allowed a guy to use an unpainted army at a GT, much to the annoyance of his opponents who had paid to play against painted armies. I've seen people explain proxies at tournaments. It's one thing to say you're going to require something, it's entirely something different to look at the guy who couldn't get his stuff finished in time and actually tell him that he's not allowed to play. People tend to be forgiving. It's good to have ideals to strive towards, but that doesn't mean we need to be harsh and unforgiving to those who don't meet them. I mean, what should we do, have 'special' tournaments for the people who can't figure it out?

**haendas**

Long thread short, most players will not have a problem with blue blood angels. Most tournaments won't have a problem with it either. It would seem that a small percentage of players will have a problem with it but will still play against it. An even smaller percentage of players will have a problem with it and not play against it. Chances are that the OP is in the clear. Go for it

**Carnage43**

Kaldor wrote:
Abyssel wrote: Once again, paint is paint

Paint is not just paint. At what point do we stop playing a miniatures wargame and start playing with cardboard chits with 'plasma gunner' and 'landraider' written on it? Where exactly is the line?

For me, as soon as we decide we don't care what rules should be associated with our models, and we use whatever rules we want, we have crossed that line and we may as well be playing with bits of cardboard.

Paint is just paint. Models are models. The rules for WYSIWYG are perfectly defined. There's nothing about "All your Blood Angels have to be Red or you can't use their codex". That said, a tactical marine isn't a grey knight, or a plague marine.

Otherwise why would you EVER conform to any of the "standard" paint schemes? I'd just make up a successor chapter, paint em however I want and play with which ever codex I feel like that week. Does it matter if my succor chapter is orange...or ultramarine blue? No, it will still use which ever codex I want. Some people committed to a paint scheme 15+ years ago, so are they supposed to strip and re-paint thousands of points of models because they thought Ultramarines were cool when they were 12?

I play "Renegade Ultra Blood Wolf Angels" Chapter of marines, they are painted blue and are totally WYSIWYG, try and stop me from using which ever codex I like.

Here's the Blood Angels army I ran in a tournament two months ago. That's my Mephiston model out front.

**agnosto**

People are funny sometimes.

It's hard for me to believe that someone's level of enjoyment is completely dependent upon a perceived back story written by a corps of proven bad writers (GW fluff writers). I can accept people might feel that way but it seems odd to me that you would even play the game because the fluff is so entirely different from the rules and actual army interaction on the table.

I suppose I'm in the "paint is just a color" group; I have never heard of or witnessed anyone at the FLGS that I frequent even comment on the things that people do with their own property. One person even has an IG army created out of WHFB undead models; it looks fantastic but I suppose some people posting here would refuse to play him because zombies with las pistols are frowned upon since they only belong in fantasy.

**ph34r**

Dear Kaldor,

Games Workshop has flat out stated that you can use your own color schemes for whatever marine book you are playing, and that they do not necessarily have to color match.

In other words, you are objectively wrong.

Love,

ph34r

**azazel the cat**

Redbeard wrote:But, once you slap a defined chapter marking on it, that is no longer WYSIWYG. If I see an Ultramarine, it is only WYSIWYG if it's using Codex: Space Marine rules.

How do you explain this? Please note the army this model is listed under.

While I do agree with you that a Sanguinary Priest is ONLY a Sanguinary Priest, I cannot say that a blue Tac Squad with big white U markings cannot be a Blood Angels Tac Squad, because the ONLY difference is the sticker. What's to prevent someone from placing an Ultramarine U on one shoulder, and a Blood Angels logo on the other? Then what would you do? Hell, why not field an army of Two-Face marines, each model being painted half blue and half red. The only extra burden on you as an opponent is that you would have to remember what army you're playing against.

Hopefully that is not too hard.

Granted, your opponent can't claim that Calgar is Mephiston. However, the point is that it's a lot more affordable to buy both Calgar, Mephiston and a single Tac Squad than it is to buy a separate Tac Squad for every colour scheme.

**DeathReaper**

Redbeard wrote:
These models:

are Space Wolves. You can tell by the wolf pelts and tails, the diamond icons on the guns, and the curves on the helmets. They are not Space Marines, they are Space Wolves. They are no more Space Marines than Dire Avengers are Space Marines. Space Marines are no more Space Wolves than they are Dire Avengers.

Redbeard, kaldor, and others:
If I were to paint the model (With BP and CCW) on the right black with orange shoulders, like my avatar, because I liked the look of the model for my homebrew chapter.

Would you see that as acceptable?

not acceptable?

Something in between?

**ifStatement**

Who cares what they think? They are obviously in the minority.

Can I just say that while I support those who say paint your marines however you like that doesn't mean I think 40k fluff is stupid (like some are saying) or GW writers suck. I personally like the fluff and like creating fluffy armies, I just don't get up tight about what others choose to do with their armies.

**cgmckenzie**

That is an interesting point; homebrew chapters being played with any book. I have my requisite marines(red/white/blue scheme because I am horribly creative) but names them something I can't quite remember with enough fluff to fill a couple pages.

What codex do I get to run them as? Am I relegated to merely C:SM or can I branch out, claiming them to be BA, BT, or SW successors? Can I have 1 of each book and switch my army to my discretion? Or am I stuck to playing only the ultrasmurfs for C:SM, the emo vampires for C:BA, and the barbarian jerks for C:SW?

-cgmckenzie

-cgmckenzie

**Vampirate of Sartosa**

I got the impression that the OP was choosing C:BA because the playstyle fitted the fluff of his "Alpha Company" best.

**Jstncloud**

Skylifter wrote:I live in Germany's second largest city, and if I ever move elsewhere, it'll be the largest, I have no problem finding gamers who share my view of the game. And I do not attend tournaments, partly because I care more about the roleplaying aspect than about the competition aspect of the game. So I won't ever be in the situation you described. And whether you respect my refusal to play you does not affect me either - if you have a problem with that, yeah, that's exactly it: your problem.

Also, if you post an open question like this on the internet and then get annoyed when someone says no, you just shouldn't ask questions like that. What would you have done if more people like me and Kaldor had answered this? Stopped doing it? That would have been silly if you really want to do it, wouldn't it?

As I stated previously, respect your standpoint one a portion not the whole thing, continue to post in the thread all you like. You addressed my question, obviously the opinions I was seeking were from people who were more tournament oriented, my mistake for not being overly specific as I to play with friends who share an overwhelming love for the game and the lore. Guess the difference is we take it less seriously and wish to have fun playing the game, and we normally do, so I'll keep doing me and you can keep doing you.

Redbeard wrote:With the exception that colour conveys information, and a blood angel is not WYSIWYG as a space wolf.

Is all power armour equivalent for WYSIWYG? I see no reason it should be.

Space wolf power armour has runes and wolf pelts on it. Grey knight power armour has etching on it. Chaos marine power armour has little chaos tips and stars on it. They look different.

Just because they all use the same kind of armour doesn't make them the same. Different codex, different models - using the wrong ones is clearly a violation of WYSIWYG.

Is the exception being made because it is 'close enough'? Well, what about an ork with a shoota and a dire avenger with a shuriken catapult? They both have submachine gun looking weapons. Why aren't these close enough?

Philosophically, I have issues with the idea that color and iconography are not part of WYSIWYG. We identify a bolter as a bolter because of a picture in a book that says, 'this is a bolter'. We identify an ultramarine the same way - the same book that shows us what a bolter looks like shows us what an ultramarine looks like, and that's not what a blood angel looks like.

Realistically, my friends have used far worse proxies than the wrong colour guy and I've still played with them

I think the major issue is customization, what if I wanted to make my own company of DIY marines (and I did, again, Alpha Company) and I wanted to use Blue, White, and a U. Because the codex suggests red, not what I want to use, I should not use it? I see more of the argument with specific units that obviously dictate they are something else but that is not the issue, I am not parading Calgar around as a 'count-as' I am simply using the colors I like, the icon I like, with Blood Angel stuff, all of the weapons are WYSIWIG, and all of the HQs are either WYSIWYG or the actual model.

I will agree on one fact though, I've let friends use some crazy proxies...cough....soda can drop pods....cough lol.

Grakmar wrote:I haven't read the entire thread, but here's my take on it:

I have no problem with someone playing a marine army that is clearly intended as SM, BA, DA, etc as another marine army. However, I fully expect you to allow me to play my Eldar army as Orks or Necrons.

Because clearly a Blue Blood Angel does not look like any other tactical marine, last I checked we used the same kits to make the same generic units. Last I checked Ork units were not also listed under the Eldar unit page for purchase on the GW web page.

Abyssel wrote:The only thing that I, or anyone I have ever known, cares two craps about is:

What codex are you using?
If it is a Space Marine codex (i.e. models using space marine armor), than do you have space marine models? (note symbols don't matter at this point.)

Running a space marine codex using tyranid models would be a no go because tyranids are not the same size/shape for LOS purposes, and it is hard to distinguish who has what wargear.

Now space marines, you guys are naming stuff that you can't or at the very least, would be hard pressed to represent in game, like, red thirst, combat tactics, acute senses, so on and so forth.

My XV8's use a lot of hard wired stuff, so should I have a specific model for each hard wired gear? No because you can't model it, it's with the inside of the suit. All the things you listed are with the specific space marine inside. What if your ultramarine captain got his gauntlet shot off by a chaos bolter and he was fighting alongside blood angels. I'm sure he'd at least pick said gauntlet up for defense.

Would you throw the same arguement out for Chaos Space Marines? It says in their fluff that they pick up pieces of armor all the time to replace the old armor that is damaged.

Hell in Soul Hunter, Talos has a blood angels power sword, so you're telling me that if I wanted to make Talos, I couldn't put a Blood Angels power sword on him? It's what he is using in the book.

Same way my group usually runs things, and makes sense for people to play what they want to play. The points you make are pretty logical.

Redbeard wrote:
haendas wrote:I thought Ultramarines as whatever was a common sight on the competitive circuit. Redbeard, your signature mentions adepticon 2011, did you not see red space wolves and blue blood angels for example?

Just because I've seen them doesn't mean I like it. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean I'm going to pitch a fit or not play because of it. I'm aware that not everyone shares the same values.

Sometimes, you take the bad with the good. In my ideal world, the rules would be balanced, people would choose armies based on the models and fluff that they liked, and those armies would actually be viable, regardless of what they were. There would be no need to pretend ultras were blood angels or space wolves because the ultras would be just as good. Of course, in my ideal world, you'd never see an unpainted mini on the table and all the terrain would be wonderful and no one would ever cheat either. A boy can dream though.

This is very true as well, the main reason I wanted to try another codex was for access to units I did not have access too (the armor to be specific). I'd like to think that in 6th ed Codex Marines will get the Storm Raven and some other goodies, but who knows when we will get it, and who knows how balanced GW is gonna make the other mes that is out. I'd love nothing more than to get out-played and not out-I-have-the-newest-codexed. On a personal note, tested the Blood Angels tonight, got rocked (though it was funny), I was testing the Librarian Furioso, turn 2 I activate the Wings ability, perils, roll a 6 for damage, sat the rest of the game in my deployment zone chilling (he was supposed to move with my transports for mobile 5+ cover saves).

azazel the cat wrote:Honestly, if I didn't have such a low opinion of people in general, I would be amazed at some of the things I've read so far. It's not my intention to make anyone look foolish, as I believe people are doing a satisfactory job of that themselves. However, I do like to ask questions, so here goes:

Is this a Dark Angel or a Salamander?

Spoiler:

If I had an entire army painted like this, and owned both the Dark Angels and Codex: Marines codices, would you let me use these figures as either army, so long as the wargear was proper?

Also:
Why is this figure listed as a Vanilla Marine? Was he in a hurry this morning and grabbed the wrong banner on his way out the door?

Looks like Ezekiel has a bad case of the blues. But how can this be? Dark Angels are only allowed to wear green and beige!

Why does that Grey Knight Terminator Librarian wear so much blue? Doesn't he know that he's not supposed to be the same model for every army?

Why does that Space Wolves Dreadnought have a big U on it? I thought that Space Wolves were covered in furs and crap like that.

Oh noes! That Blood Angels combat squad also has big Us on their blue armor! Right on GW's own website!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

@Deathreaper:

Are you ing kidding me? You ninja'd me on just about every point I made! Stay out of my head!

...I'm gonna go pull my fillings out now.

Love it

Carnage43 wrote:
Kaldor wrote:
Abyssel wrote: Once again, paint is paint

Paint is not just paint. At what point do we stop playing a miniatures wargame and start playing with cardboard chits with 'plasma gunner' and 'landraider' written on it? Where exactly is the line?

For me, as soon as we decide we don't care what rules should be associated with our models, and we use whatever rules we want, we have crossed that line and we may as well be playing with bits of cardboard.

Paint is just paint. Models are models. The rules for WYSIWYG are perfectly defined. There's nothing about "All your Blood Angels have to be Red or you can't use their codex". That said, a tactical marine isn't a grey knight, or a plague marine.

Otherwise why would you EVER conform to any of the "standard" paint schemes? I'd just make up a successor chapter, paint em however I want and play with which ever codex I feel like that week. Does it matter if my succor chapter is orange...or ultramarine blue? No, it will still use which ever codex I want. Some people committed to a paint scheme 15+ years ago, so are they supposed to strip and re-paint thousands of points of models because they thought Ultramarines were cool when they were 12?

I play "Renegade Ultra Blood Wolf Angels" Chapter of marines, they are painted blue and are totally WYSIWYG, try and stop me from using which ever codex I like.

Here's the Blood Angels army I ran in a tournament two months ago. That's my Mephiston model out front.

And I just Loled.

So, this is a long post but I genuinely try to reply to thread that I started rather than just blindly leave it alone after having stirred a nest it seems.

For all of those against and for it, thanks for the replies.

**Brother Ramses**

I am ok for testing out a codex, but having to continually play against someone that has to proxy models gets tedious.

Now, taking an existing codex and doing a counts-as army that is modeled correctly, hell yea. I have a vision of a Word Bearers army using the SW codex to allow a proliferation of Dark Apostles (four wolf priests), champions (wolf guard in PA and TDA), and daemons (Fenrisian wolves). That sounds pretty well representative of a Word Bearers army.