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.

Kall3m0n wrote:

Andykp wrote:
I think if people want to claim the benefits of two different chapters or whatever then they should go to the effort of painting two different colour schemes, if thats done then no problem at all, kudos even. If not it’s power gaming and I’m not interested. Even better, come up with some good fluff reason for the combined force.

If you have a home brew chapter and want to say they are x chapter in one game but y chapter in another then that’s ok. But mixing would be a no from me.

As for playing against a collection of poorly painted garage sale chaos marines I’d rather play against grey plastic.

As for sticking tape or sticks on models to tell them apart, also no. Put the effort in and paint them right. I don’t expect golden demon standards but Otherwise you might as well use bits of card with a marine drawn on it or a symbol and no models at all.

Well, to be honest, I think even what you're suggesting is crap. Every single model should be painted with a GD in mind and all glowing parts of a model must have fiber optics and if you don't 100% match the fluff in both painting and army configuration, I'm not going to play with you. You are clearly a scrub who doesn't take things seriously enough to play casually. *laughs condescending in neckbeard*

Bit baffled here, if you are not a power gamer why are you using one klan to represent another more “playable” klan in your scenario. If it’s painted Badmoonz why isn’t being used as bad moons? To gain a perceived advantage? Sounds a bit power gamer to me. If a mate wants to try out a new klan before deciding to paint or repaint an army that’s fine. Otherwise it is all a bit “that guy”. It all also takes away from the narrative element of the game which to me is key. I guess your post was sarcastic but it’s not clear and I’m not sure of your point. You’re not a power gamer but you will proxy units to play the most powerful combinations? Hmmm

Andykp wrote:

Kall3m0n wrote:

Andykp wrote:
I think if people want to claim the benefits of two different chapters or whatever then they should go to the effort of painting two different colour schemes, if thats done then no problem at all, kudos even. If not it’s power gaming and I’m not interested. Even better, come up with some good fluff reason for the combined force.

If you have a home brew chapter and want to say they are x chapter in one game but y chapter in another then that’s ok. But mixing would be a no from me.

As for playing against a collection of poorly painted garage sale chaos marines I’d rather play against grey plastic.

As for sticking tape or sticks on models to tell them apart, also no. Put the effort in and paint them right. I don’t expect golden demon standards but Otherwise you might as well use bits of card with a marine drawn on it or a symbol and no models at all.

Well, to be honest, I think even what you're suggesting is crap. Every single model should be painted with a GD in mind and all glowing parts of a model must have fiber optics and if you don't 100% match the fluff in both painting and army configuration, I'm not going to play with you. You are clearly a scrub who doesn't take things seriously enough to play casually. *laughs condescending in neckbeard*

Bit baffled here, if you are not a power gamer why are you using one klan to represent another more “playable” klan in your scenario. If it’s painted Badmoonz why isn’t being used as bad moons? To gain a perceived advantage? Sounds a bit power gamer to me. If a mate wants to try out a new klan before deciding to paint or repaint an army that’s fine. Otherwise it is all a bit “that guy”. It all also takes away from the narrative element of the game which to me is key. I guess your post was sarcastic but it’s not clear and I’m not sure of your point. You’re not a power gamer but you will proxy units to play the most powerful combinations? Hmmm

This assumes there is something wrong with wanting your list to be more effective. You throw around power gamer and that guy so much. Sure it's 'power gaming'.
Wanting to run a good list isn't a bad thing.
It's hardly that guy behavior, of course when I pick my tau sept for a list I usually pick based on effectiveness and around the theme I want, there are no rules about paint job and rules and saying that someone using their painted guys as another tactic is really a bad thing is stupid. This is why tactics shouldn't be tied to a subfaction, but should instead be generico, like Iron Hands are just "Flesh is weak", not "Iron Hands", then you can freely use your Iron Hands as other tactics if they fit better.

Eh Im fine with my opponent having different detachments in the same army representing different 'chapters' so to speak all being painted the same.

His money, his army, his dudes. I have absolutely zero issue with someone painting that. to demand someone else to bow to your preferences is unreasonable, and if a mere paint colour scheme is enough to ruin your immersion or whatever you need to get yourself in the mood to play 40k, I'd say your attitude is the bad one here and not the person with the painted models.

No one should ever pressure you into repainting your stuff, you get the final decision no matter what. By all means people can decide not to play you over it, but if that's the case you're probably dodging a gameplay bullet.

Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
Eh Im fine with my opponent having different detachments in the same army representing different 'chapters' so to speak all being painted the same.

His money, his army, his dudes. I have absolutely zero issue with someone painting that. to demand someone else to bow to your preferences is unreasonable, and if a mere paint colour scheme is enough to ruin your immersion or whatever you need to get yourself in the mood to play 40k, I'd say your attitude is the bad one here and not the person with the painted models.

No one should ever pressure you into repainting your stuff, you get the final decision no matter what. By all means people can decide not to play you over it, but if that's the case you're probably dodging a gameplay bullet.

Would you expect them to do something to make it clear which detachment a given unit/model is from, if different detachments are using different sub-faction rules?

 Dysartes wrote:

Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
Eh Im fine with my opponent having different detachments in the same army representing different 'chapters' so to speak all being painted the same.

His money, his army, his dudes. I have absolutely zero issue with someone painting that. to demand someone else to bow to your preferences is unreasonable, and if a mere paint colour scheme is enough to ruin your immersion or whatever you need to get yourself in the mood to play 40k, I'd say your attitude is the bad one here and not the person with the painted models.

No one should ever pressure you into repainting your stuff, you get the final decision no matter what. By all means people can decide not to play you over it, but if that's the case you're probably dodging a gameplay bullet.

Would you expect them to do something to make it clear which detachment a given unit/model is from, if different detachments are using different sub-faction rules?

I would hope they've got a system or something to clearly point that out, but I will not expect them that their solution to this will be the one I have in mind/want as long we could both make a workaround before the game starts.

 Yougottapaythetrolltoll wrote:
Once I watch one of those 30k battle reports on YouTube, it was A battle between Luna Wolves and either Orks or Iron Warriors (can't recall). But before the battle started the guy with The LW army said He also uses them to represent the White Scars in other games and tournaments. This got Me thinking, does anyone else do this? Using One HH legion (specifically traitor ones as I think you can use some HH figures for the first founding chapters like IF and BA) and using them in 40k to represent A similar colored SM chapter? Lore deviancy, aside I think it would be A good way of saving money since Warhammer 40k and Horus Heresy can be some pricey games.

Here's A few mixes I could come up with.

Emperor's Children + Soul Drinkers (Both have purple color schemes)
World Eaters + Storm Wardens (Once heard A theory of the wardens being descendants of the Eaters)
Word Bearers + Exorcists (Both are dark red and have demon iconography)
Thousand Sons + Blood Ravens or some Blood Angels successor.
Luna Wolves + Any primarily White SM like Star Phantoms.
Dark Angels legion + Fallen Angels or Angels of Vengeance


It's just something I've been thinking about now that I'm making A traitor legion for Horus Heresy (My Loyalist Legion is the Iron Hands)

The only reason I would EVER make a different color version of the same army is if I was using multiple chapter tactics in the same list and needed to differentiate them.

Painting sucks.

There is to me if you abandon narrative and fluff to have an advantage. If you want to run powerful lists that don’t have a story or narrative behind them that’s fine but it’s not how I play. In my group we all like to tell stories with our armies and games so that kind of attitude would jar badly. The op asked for our opinions, I gave mine and am defending it but it is just my opinion. The reply to me and his further posts contradicted what he was saying. But maybe my group is so narrative based that the threshold to be that guy or power gamer is lower than others.

I have a huge ORK army all built around deiffernet warband from different clans. Since the new codex I have been choosing armies so that each unit is in the right Foulds for the clan and right detachments. It sometimes mean I run lists of patrols and miss out on CPs, but my mek gunz are Painted in deathskullz colours so I couldn’t play them as being in an evil SUNZ detachment. It would irk me too much. So if I want to take them I have to take a deathskull detachment. If I ever run a mixed clan detachment I just use freebooterz trait or non. It’s normally smaller games. If someone turned up with an eldar army all painted in one colour. Then said some units were alaitoc and some form siam ham then that would cross my threshold of that guy-ness. No lists are unplayable. Maybe some are hard to win with but that isn’t what bothers me.

I've seen both sides of this been done. On one hand I've faced an Imperial Guard army that was entirely made of Cadian models with no identifying features with 3 detachments - one Cadian, one Catachan, and one Tallarn (pre-nerf). Gameplay-wise I could see the strategy behind it, it was a clever way to make the most out of the units capabilities, and even though my opponent wasn't being deliberately obscure (as in, he wasn't trying to deceive me at all. In fact he'd clarify which regiment a unit belonged to often throughout the game) it was still confusing at times.

On the other hand I played a Blood Ravens player back in 7th that used a mix of White Scars and Ravenguard rules. To justify the different traits he decided that they both belonged to different companies and he had painted the company number on one shoulder pad and different coloured trim on the shoulder depending on which company they belonged to. Vehicles were also clearly numbered and coloured according to company as well. I really enjoyed the aesthetic of the army and it's left a lasting impression - I intend on doing something very similar with my Chaos forces.

Rules don't care about paint.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Rules don't care about paint.

I care more about paint than rules. And narrative most of all. That to me is essence of the hobby. It’s different for different folks. I very rarely play a game by the rules. But I don’t cheat. My opponent and I agree our rules before hand and discuss that staory of the game.

Andykp wrote:
I very rarely play a game by the rules. But I don’t cheat.

If you want to make house rules, more power to you. Just don't get angry when I also want to house rule all my models as having 50 wounds and a 1++ FNP.

All color schemes in the game can also be used for Alpha Legion (fighting in another Legion's colors, 'cause Alpha Legion) and Blood Ravens (who accidentally found an entire shipment of someone else's gear).

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Andykp wrote:
I very rarely play a game by the rules. But I don’t cheat.

If you want to make house rules, more power to you. Just don't get angry when I also want to house rule all my models as having 50 wounds and a 1++ FNP.

Reductio ad absurdum, thy name is BCB...

As long as they're painted to a table top quality - you should be able to tell the difference with the decals.

Perfectly acceptable for an allied army!

 Grimtuff wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Andykp wrote:
I very rarely play a game by the rules. But I don’t cheat.

If you want to make house rules, more power to you. Just don't get angry when I also want to house rule all my models as having 50 wounds and a 1++ FNP.

Reductio ad absurdum, thy name is BCB...

Indeed. I think I would turn down a game against him regardless of his stupid idea of house rules. “I” don’t make house rules. Me and my friends do, or we ignore faqs and updates and play the game so it’s fun. It’s a cooperative affair. And we do it with pretty and characterful armies. He obviously prefers the part of the hobby where you go round finding obscure rules interactions and berating anyone on the internet who disagrees with u.

If you'd turn down a game against someone because they want to follow the rules of the game, you're the problem, not them.

Why not use cheap markers on, next to, or underneath a base to mark them? If you have only 2 factions then the units with pennies etc are one faction and the ones without are the other. If you really wanted to get fancy/deface US currency, you could always spray paint them so they have a clearly different color for each side. Then you have up to 3 options: color 1, color 2, and no coin. None of this damages or changes the model in any way.

I like how a good natured question by the OP got turned into something where the usual TFG suspects could spew bile at each other.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you'd turn down a game against someone because they want to follow the rules of the game, you're the problem, not them.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you'd turn down a game against someone because they want to follow the rules of the game, you're the problem, not them.

House rules are not a problem. Stupid house rules, or someone who's abusing beginner rhetoric to fail to make a point is a problem.

For example, I believe your signature has a list of unresolved 40k rules issues; what do you do when they come up in-game? Do you just stand there like a human BSOD, or do you continue somehow? If the latter, that would be a sensible house rule. On the other hand, your repeated nonsense about giving all your Marines 50 Wounds each is not a sensible house rule; if you insisted on that, I'd go and read a book instead.

The rules currently published by Games Workshop in the 40k rulebook (or the little pamphlet, or wherever) are the least important thing about a game of 40k, in my opinion; how could they be anything else, since there's been 8 major versions of them (in four incompatible families) over the years? Not to mention the other games like Epic, BFG, Inquisitor, etc. To me, it's the setting that defines 40k, not the rules, and as such, I will absolutely avoid playing someone who sticks to the letter of the game rules at the expense of narrative and immersion.

Is it a problem? It might be, if you and I were the only two 40k players left on Earth, but happily for both of use that's not the case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Getting back to the OP - I probably wouldn't field an army all painted alike* and then say that some of them are using one set of Chapter rules and others are using a different set - that's confusing, and probably wouldn't make narrative sense to me.

*perhaps I'd field some Ultramarines with the gold shoulder trim of the 2nd company using the Ultramarines rules and some others in the black (? ) of the 8th using the rules of a more assault-oriented Chapter, but probably not.

On the other hand, I knew a guy in 3rd edition with his own Chapter, who would use Codex Space Marines, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, etc, as whim or story took him. I don't remember anyone ever having a problem with that.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
For example, I believe your signature has a list of unresolved 40k rules issues; what do you do when they come up in-game? Do you just stand there like a human BSOD, or do you continue somehow?

I apply the RaW even if I dislike the result, as decreed by Games Workshop themselves. For instances where the rules totally break down (e.g. Multiple Wounded Models in a Unit), the game has the catch-all TMIR to cover for GW's incompetent writing. No "House Rules" needed.

So what is a catch TMIR?

Andykp wrote:
So what is a catch TMIR?

The Most Important Rule. Basicially boils down to "When we do an oopsie poopsie and can't write rules properly, roll off for it every time it comes up because fixing rules is hard and detracts from us selling 30 pence of plastic for £200."

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
For example, I believe your signature has a list of unresolved 40k rules issues; what do you do when they come up in-game? Do you just stand there like a human BSOD, or do you continue somehow?

I apply the RaW even if I dislike the result, as decreed by Games Workshop themselves. For instances where the rules totally break down (e.g. Multiple Wounded Models in a Unit), the game has the catch-all TMIR to cover for GW's incompetent writing. No "House Rules" needed.

So you don't let assault weapons fire after advancing?

Man I'm sure you are fun to play with, well assuming you get any games.

I wouldn't care a bit if your (identically painted) dudespeople were White Scars one game and Iron Hands the next.

Split in the same game, no.

If budgetary considerations are important to you (as they are to me) then it's probably worth mentioning that you can use the same minis to represent Astra Militarum, Renegades & Heretics or Genestealer Cult Factions with very little difficulty.

Of course, if you're impulsive like me, they then become the 'base stock' for different 'soups' and you spend a ton of money anyway.

 Sir Heckington wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
For example, I believe your signature has a list of unresolved 40k rules issues; what do you do when they come up in-game? Do you just stand there like a human BSOD, or do you continue somehow?

I apply the RaW even if I dislike the result, as decreed by Games Workshop themselves. For instances where the rules totally break down (e.g. Multiple Wounded Models in a Unit), the game has the catch-all TMIR to cover for GW's incompetent writing. No "House Rules" needed.

So you don't let assault weapons fire after advancing?

Man I'm sure you are fun to play with, well assuming you get any games.

I don't, no, because the rules do not allow you to do so. I used to allow my opponents to do so but I've since taken a more strict all-or-nothing stance on house rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
For example, I believe your signature has a list of unresolved 40k rules issues; what do you do when they come up in-game? Do you just stand there like a human BSOD, or do you continue somehow?

I apply the RaW even if I dislike the result, as decreed by Games Workshop themselves. For instances where the rules totally break down (e.g. Multiple Wounded Models in a Unit), the game has the catch-all TMIR to cover for GW's incompetent writing. No "House Rules" needed.

So you don't let assault weapons fire after advancing?

Man I'm sure you are fun to play with, well assuming you get any games.

I don't, no, because the rules do not allow you to do so. I used to allow my opponents to do so but I've since taken a more strict all-or-nothing stance on house rules.

Then we are back to the fact I would never play u. If that is your interpretation of the most import rule then, no. TMIR is to have fun. Like i said earlier, it’s horses for courses and I’m sure there other folk out there like you and you have some games but it’s too much for me. Like proper waac tounements players are too far away from where I am in turns of how to enjoy the game. It’s a personal thing.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
For example, I believe your signature has a list of unresolved 40k rules issues; what do you do when they come up in-game? Do you just stand there like a human BSOD, or do you continue somehow?

I apply the RaW even if I dislike the result, as decreed by Games Workshop themselves. For instances where the rules totally break down (e.g. Multiple Wounded Models in a Unit), the game has the catch-all TMIR to cover for GW's incompetent writing. No "House Rules" needed.

So you don't let assault weapons fire after advancing?

Man I'm sure you are fun to play with, well assuming you get any games.

I don't, no, because the rules do not allow you to do so. I used to allow my opponents to do so but I've since taken a more strict all-or-nothing stance on house rules.

So you don't play tournaments?

You play with what, the one person who will play with you?

This is the exact issue with following the rules RAW, the game is supposed to be fun, that's not fun.

Anyway, we should probably get back on topic too the armies.

How often do these things come up? I mean, do you play a lot of games you don't enjoy, or is it just one or two? And why would you keep doing it?