Does it bother you for someone to use a Counts-As Space Marine Chapter?

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.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Vankraken wrote:
Example 1: Player likes Dawn of War and paints their Marines as Blood Ravens. In one list he uses White Scars rules and in another list uses Iron Hands. Problem with this?

Example 2: Player likes Space Marine and paints their Marines as Ultramarines. In one list he uses Ultramarine tactics because (hey there are rules for this chapter). In another list he uses Imperial Fists because those rules fit that playstyle better, he prefers that chapter tactic over the ones written for Ultras, or he power games. Problem with this?

Example 3: Player paints their Tau army teal with red accents because he likes that color scheme. Later on they find out that "red markings are Vior'la Sept colors" and they are the ones seen on the boxes typically using white armor (as Tau only identifies Septs by small markings instead of armor color like Space Marines do). He doesn't care because up until 8th the sept colors didn't mean anything and didn't even knew what Vior'la is. He uses the Tau Sept rules because (insert reason here). Problem with this?

Example 4: Person buys Grey Knights and paints them blue. Problem with this?

The answer should be no to all of these because its paint on a plastic model that the person took the time and effort to put on there themselves. Just because GW wants to assign rule sets to certain sub factions that have certain paint schemes shouldn't mean you have to use that scheme to use those rules. It also shouldn't mean you have to use a certain rule set because your models are painted a certain way.

Nobody outside just a couple of Tau players are gonna know the color scheme associated with any rules as none of the Septs got special rules until now. Same with Necrons and Tyranids. You can't accuse them of chasing rules unless you're someone that memorized literally every paint scheme for every army ever. I certainly don't have time to do that.

Just make sure that Thunder Hammer counts-as looks like something you'd whack someone with REALLY hard and I'm good to go.

**Vaktathi**

Amishprn86 wrote:
Your poll SUCKS, where is the hard NO!

Playing and Painting are 2 different hobbies and painting takes an immense amount of time. Rules change all the time, playing is meant to be fun, if you are not having fun with Blue boys and what White, or Red boys, why do i care if your Red boys are painted blue?

No one questions Necrons, Tau, DE colors, they only question SM b.c its "easy to know the colors".

Hrm, it goes beyond just colors. SM's get a lot of product and rules support, particularly for tiny niche subfactions, often that some demand are totally necessary, for factions that often have orders of magnitude less distinction than other forces that share a codex.

Being highly visually distinct does factor into that, but does so on both ends, when people see Red marines they expect Red marine rules, not Blue or Grey marine rules, and if they're that easy to switch around then it causes people to question why we have so many distinct rule sets for them in the first place (particularly with the associated issues of power bloat and rules confusion), and does undercut the immersion factor.

Other factions also have a lot fewer subfaction specific stuff, there's no unique Vior'la suit variant or Iyanden wraithtype or unique Catachan tank model to proxy, no universally recognized distinct Cadian uniform color pallette or Genestealer Cult faction colors to rigidly identify units, no Sa'Cea unique shoulderpads, Kabal-specific troop variant kits, or Biel'tan molded heraldry. Space Marine subfactions have all that stuff, where most other factions don't (or have very little).

It shouldn't be much wonder that such mix and matching causes more consternation in that light.

**Dumb Smart Guy**

Elbows wrote:
fraser1191 wrote:
Elbows wrote:
You are chasing rules to benefit you, regardless of how you try to mask it

This is an incredibly unfair statement. Traits are basically play styles

Did you stop reading my post at that point in a rush to respond? I'll assume so. It's also an incredibly fair statement, by the way.

No it's really not.

If we saw plastic men going for 20-30 USD, I could maybe understand this viewpoint more. But with the latest releases being 50+ its kind of obnoxious to expect people to keep to one playstyle for an investment that will run them into the thousands. They should get as much mileage out if it as they want for that type of money.

**BoomWolf**

While true, its dirty.

You bought wolves, you painted wolves, you played wolves, but suddenly you are IH because they are currently more powerful, then you'll switch once another marine faction rises to the top?

Are you playing an army, or are you playing numbers here? you might as well keep your models unpainted and half-assembled at that point.

Because playing off-color marines may be totally kosher on the wargaming aspect, but it kina throws a stinker at the hobby factor.

I want wolves to be wolves, ultras to be ultras, iron hands to be iron hands, etc.
Not 50 shades of "flavor of the month" marines. your army choice flipping according to what's trending means you have zero army identity and loyalty.

**Elbows**

Yes, it is.

You want better/stronger rules...that's not a play style. Just say "I want a stronger, better rule set for my preferred Chapter, that is why I'm using these rules." Simple. I'm not sure why people thing that's such a challenge. Stop hiding behind "flavor", "play style", etc. That's my main point of contention. Stop pretending it's about fluff, lore, style, preferred theme, etc. Just say you are using it because it's a stronger set of rules.

I doubt a single person espousing "it's not because the rules are better!" has ever changed their chapter/army/faction to a definitively worse set of rules because of their play style, or theme, etc.

**Sgt_Smudge**

Dumb Smart Guy wrote:
Elbows wrote:
fraser1191 wrote:
Elbows wrote:
You are chasing rules to benefit you, regardless of how you try to mask it

This is an incredibly unfair statement. Traits are basically play styles

Did you stop reading my post at that point in a rush to respond? I'll assume so. It's also an incredibly fair statement, by the way.

No it's really not.

If we saw plastic men going for 20-30 USD, I could maybe understand this viewpoint more. But with the latest releases being 50+ its kind of obnoxious to expect people to keep to one playstyle for an investment that will run them into the thousands. They should get as much mileage out if it as they want for that type of money.

As a general question, if you saw someone who was fielding a bunch of missile launchers, Tactical Marines and/or Redemptor Dreadnoughts, but then when you play them, tells you that all the missile launchers are lascannons or plasma guns, and all the Tactical Marines are Scouts, and all the Redemptors are actually Leviathan Siege Dreadnoughts, is that cool?

In my eyes, it's the same as WYSIWYG.

**fraser1191**

Elbows wrote:
fraser1191 wrote:
Elbows wrote:
You are chasing rules to benefit you, regardless of how you try to mask it

This is an incredibly unfair statement. Traits are basically play styles

Did you stop reading my post at that point in a rush to respond? I'll assume so. It's also an incredibly fair statement, by the way.

I have over 5000 points of lovingly painted Ultramarines.

And your statement is unfair. You have no right to tell someone how to play unless they're cheating. These traits are essentially arbitrarily assigned to these factions.

Lets flip some stuff around. White scars known for bikes and such suddenly get an extra +1 to armour save for their trait in cover and imperial fists gets a trait that suddenly benefits bikes more and play better for how that person originally imagined their army.

You're telling that person that they have to use something doesn't really fit the idea of white scars?

How about this, I've been using the Ultramarines trait for over a year, I like my list and I wanna shake things up. Can I not use another trait to broaden my stratagies and get more enjoyment out of my army?

It's a game, there's give and take. I'll cut you some slack and say yes I'd stop my opponent from using different traits if it was a bunch of different traits in the same list. But otherwise it's fair game

**Sgt_Smudge**

Elbows wrote:
Yes, it is.

You want better/stronger rules...that's not a play style. Just say "I want a stronger, better rule set for my preferred Chapter, that is why I'm using these rules." Simple. I'm not sure why people thing that's such a challenge. Stop hiding behind "flavor", "play style", etc. That's my main point of contention. Stop pretending it's about fluff, lore, style, preferred theme, etc. Just say you are using it because it's a stronger set of rules.

I doubt a single person espousing "it's not because the rules are better!" has ever changed their chapter/army/faction to a definitively worse set of rules because of their play style, or theme, etc.

I don't disagree with this. It's not about "you shouldn't change your faction!" it's about being honest about why you're doing it. If you're doing it to win, be honest about that. Don't give it the whole "b-b-b-but I SWEAR I'm not trying to gain an advantage" - own up to it. That's not to imply that playing to win is wrong or bad - but it is different to playing to tell a story, or just to have some non-competitive fun.

**puma713**

Kanluwen wrote:
Ishagu wrote:
If it's purely to get better rules then it bothers me.

You can't be a meta chaser and lazy at the same time. Let's see some proper Iron Hands.

More or less this.

One of my biggest pet peeves is that now with Successor Chapters actually getting rules/mechanisms for building them? There is literally zero excuse to play the "X is actually Y" game.
Make up your own color scheme, then turn it into a Successor Chapter for the stuff out of the books.

This is not necessarily true. For instance, if you play Sons of Medusa, you can not use Iron Hands relics. You must pay a 1 CP strategem to take a relic. Also, you cannot use Feirros. But, if you paint up a full army of Sons of Medusa and show up to a game and say, "These guys are Iron Hands." Does that pose a problem for people? It looks like it doesn't for most.

Edit: Which takes the point further, why ever play a successor chapter, by the rules? I have to pay CP for a relic (and only one) to play the same rules I could play if I said my Raptors were Raven Guard. There is an actual penalty to playing a Successor Chapter when there is no penalty for playing Counts-As.

**Klickor**

But if I want to have a fair game then my only option might be to use different rules. Lets say that devastators, whirlwinds and techmarined were the only BA build that didnt get stomped on and jump pack units and fast vehicles were bad. Am I really powergaming if I use the RG rules for my BA even if I dont really gain much if anything in actual win %.

I would say if changing rules to fit a certain playstyle isnt powergaming in itself. It can be but I think using subpar rules only because of the paint is just stupid, leads to loopsided games and foremost breaks immersion and background a lot.

Im gonna use RG because I want a 50/50 chance to win and not 25/75. Not like I want to since I spend hours painting each of my models. I spend a few hours each even on my scouts and intercessors so its not like I dont take the hobby serious but I dont want to spend that time building and painting and then lose the game due to a bad color choice.

**Dumb Smart Guy**

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Dumb Smart Guy wrote:
Elbows wrote:
fraser1191 wrote:
Elbows wrote:
You are chasing rules to benefit you, regardless of how you try to mask it

This is an incredibly unfair statement. Traits are basically play styles

Did you stop reading my post at that point in a rush to respond? I'll assume so. It's also an incredibly fair statement, by the way.

No it's really not.

If we saw plastic men going for 20-30 USD, I could maybe understand this viewpoint more. But with the latest releases being 50+ its kind of obnoxious to expect people to keep to one playstyle for an investment that will run them into the thousands. They should get as much mileage out if it as they want for that type of money.
As a general question, if you saw someone who was fielding a bunch of missile launchers, Tactical Marines and/or Redemptor Dreadnoughts, but then when you play them, tells you that all the missile launchers are lascannons or plasma guns, and all the Tactical Marines are Scouts, and all the Redemptors are actually Leviathan Siege Dreadnoughts, is that cool?

In my eyes, it's the same as WYSIWYG.

Not to me. WYSIWYG has the specific intention of cutting down on confusion so people can at-a-glance their situation on the table without remembering who has the lascannon or melta/flamer, etc.

If someone just says "This game I'll be playing as Raven Guard," what confusion is there?

**puma713**

Amishprn86 wrote:
Your poll SUCKS, where is the hard NO!

Playing and Painting are 2 different hobbies and painting takes an immense amount of time. Rules change all the time, playing is meant to be fun, if you are not having fun with Blue boys and what White, or Red boys, why do i care if your Red boys are painted blue?

No one questions Necrons, Tau, DE colors, they only question SM b.c its "easy to know the colors".

Wow, sorry. I originally had a "No" response, but thought the neutral response covered those opinions. Thanks for your input, though, it's good to hear that most people aren't too hung up on the colors, as long as they're representative of the correct model/weaponry.

**Bharring**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Vankraken wrote:
Example 1: Player likes Dawn of War and paints their Marines as Blood Ravens. In one list he uses White Scars rules and in another list uses Iron Hands. Problem with this?

Example 2: Player likes Space Marine and paints their Marines as Ultramarines. In one list he uses Ultramarine tactics because (hey there are rules for this chapter). In another list he uses Imperial Fists because those rules fit that playstyle better, he prefers that chapter tactic over the ones written for Ultras, or he power games. Problem with this?

Example 3: Player paints their Tau army teal with red accents because he likes that color scheme. Later on they find out that "red markings are Vior'la Sept colors" and they are the ones seen on the boxes typically using white armor (as Tau only identifies Septs by small markings instead of armor color like Space Marines do). He doesn't care because up until 8th the sept colors didn't mean anything and didn't even knew what Vior'la is. He uses the Tau Sept rules because (insert reason here). Problem with this?

Example 4: Person buys Grey Knights and paints them blue. Problem with this?

The answer should be no to all of these because its paint on a plastic model that the person took the time and effort to put on there themselves. Just because GW wants to assign rule sets to certain sub factions that have certain paint schemes shouldn't mean you have to use that scheme to use those rules. It also shouldn't mean you have to use a certain rule set because your models are painted a certain way.

Nobody outside just a couple of Tau players are gonna know the color scheme associated with any rules as none of the Septs got special rules until now. Same with Necrons and Tyranids. You can't accuse them of chasing rules unless you're someone that memorized literally every paint scheme for every army ever.

So I can't know that the "Vor'la" T'au in front of me are painted as T'au sept just because I have no idea what Hive Fleet Shadow Super Kraken The Third uses for colors? Does not follow.

I certainly don't have time to do that.

I should hope not. On the other hand, I should hope you have time to learn *more than 0* faction colors if you wanted to - it takes all of maybe thirty seconds? I'd have to try *really* hard *not* to learn one. You're just trying to confuse the construct.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Elbows wrote:
Yes, it is.

You want better/stronger rules...that's not a play style. Just say "I want a stronger, better rule set for my preferred Chapter, that is why I'm using these rules." Simple. I'm not sure why people thing that's such a challenge. Stop hiding behind "flavor", "play style", etc. That's my main point of contention. Stop pretending it's about fluff, lore, style, preferred theme, etc. Just say you are using it because it's a stronger set of rules.

I doubt a single person espousing "it's not because the rules are better!" has ever changed their chapter/army/faction to a definitively worse set of rules because of their play style, or theme, etc.

Heaven forbid you have a functioning army, right? Screw the current Angels for picking the incorrect Marines, right?

**Bharring**

<sarcasm>This is why I don't get when people get angry that I want to play my Orkz as Dark Eldar. Heaven forbid I have a functional army. Screw Orkz for picking the incorrect Old One pawns, right? </sarcasm>

**Sgt_Smudge**

Dumb Smart Guy wrote:Not to me. WYSIWYG has the specific intention of cutting down on confusion so people can at-a-glance their situation on the table without remembering who has the lascannon or melta/flamer, etc.

If someone just says "This game I'll be playing as Raven Guard," what confusion is there?

Because they've got massive Ultramarine sigils on the side, painted blue, and have "Macragge" written on their banners and armour.

I don't see how that's any less confusing than "these missiles are plasmas, my Tacticals are Scouts, and my Redemptor is a Leviathan". After all, its all about "cutting down on confusion" - but if someone just apparently says "these missiles are plasmas, my Tacticals are Scouts, and my Redemptor is a Leviathan", that removes the confusion, according to your view on colour scheme.

It's about consistency. Why is one cosmetic difference confusing, but the other isn't?

**JNAProductions**

It’s a matter of degree. It’s not hard to understand.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Bharring wrote:
<sarcasm>This is why I don't get when people get angry that I want to play my Orkz as Dark Eldar. Heaven forbid I have a functional army. Screw Orkz for picking the incorrect Old One pawns, right? </sarcasm>

The correct comparison is "Screw the poor Snakebites players that wanted functional rules", but good one! Your terrible arguments never cease to make me laugh.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Dumb Smart Guy wrote:Not to me. WYSIWYG has the specific intention of cutting down on confusion so people can at-a-glance their situation on the table without remembering who has the lascannon or melta/flamer, etc.

If someone just says "This game I'll be playing as Raven Guard," what confusion is there?

Because they've got massive Ultramarine sigils on the side, painted blue, and have "Macragge" written on their banners and armour.

I don't see how that's any less confusing than "these missiles are plasmas, my Tacticals are Scouts, and my Redemptor is a Leviathan". After all, its all about "cutting down on confusion" - but if someone just apparently says "these missiles are plasmas, my Tacticals are Scouts, and my Redemptor is a Leviathan", that removes the confusion, according to your view on colour scheme.

It's about consistency. Why is one cosmetic difference confusing, but the other isn't?

Because one is flat out for the army, and you already know the Raven Guard rules.

Not even close to the same. If you really forget in the middle of the game your opponent was getting the bonus to their armor save when shooting from more than 12" away, you got memory issues, full stop. Maybe start carrying notecards with you to write on so you don't confuse yourself too hard?

**Bharring**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Bharring wrote:
<sarcasm>This is why I don't get when people get angry that I want to play my Orkz as Dark Eldar. Heaven forbid I have a functional army. Screw Orkz for picking the incorrect Old One pawns, right? </sarcasm>

The correct comparison is "Screw the poor Snakebites players that wanted functional rules", but good one! Your terrible arguments never cease to make me laugh.

"Screw the poor Snakebites" would have shown the same concept at the same level (proxying subfactions). Please reconsider the example as describing the same concept, but pushed to an even larger level (proxying entire factions). It's an attempt to show an extreme example of what you're advocating to show that it *is* a negative. At the level you're talking (subfactions), it's not a big deal. But if nobody ever would or should care, then nobody would or should ever care about more extreme examples. And you'd have a hard time arguing nobody would or should care about proxying entire factions.

If you don't understand a post, please take more time to read and digest it. Often, there's meaning you may miss on your first attempt.

**Dumb Smart Guy**

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Dumb Smart Guy wrote:Not to me. WYSIWYG has the specific intention of cutting down on confusion so people can at-a-glance their situation on the table without remembering who has the lascannon or melta/flamer, etc.

If someone just says "This game I'll be playing as Raven Guard," what confusion is there?

Because they've got massive Ultramarine sigils on the side, painted blue, and have "Macragge" written on their banners and armour.

I don't see how that's any less confusing than "these missiles are plasmas, my Tacticals are Scouts, and my Redemptor is a Leviathan". After all, its all about "cutting down on confusion" - but if someone just apparently says "these missiles are plasmas, my Tacticals are Scouts, and my Redemptor is a Leviathan", that removes the confusion, according to your view on colour scheme.

It's about consistency. Why is one cosmetic difference confusing, but the other isn't?

Because it's one universal fact about their list that you can remember for the game. Shenanigans with weapons, vehicles, models, etc are easy to forget, but I don't see how you can suddenly misremember a single fact you've been told 40 minutes beforehand

Also the argument wrt to the archetype UM guy has never been consistent. Once he's got toilet seats and free-hand "Macragge" on the banner, it's clear he cares about other things besides just winning. But he'll get a worse rep than the guy with a "custom" chapter who just has a quick base + drybrush. This characterization has never really make sense to me. People can care about presentation/fluff, while also wanting the flexibility to try different things or also wanting to win with better rulesets.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Bharring wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Bharring wrote:
<sarcasm>This is why I don't get when people get angry that I want to play my Orkz as Dark Eldar. Heaven forbid I have a functional army. Screw Orkz for picking the incorrect Old One pawns, right? </sarcasm>

The correct comparison is "Screw the poor Snakebites players that wanted functional rules", but good one! Your terrible arguments never cease to make me laugh.

"Screw the poor Snakebites" would have shown the same concept at the same level (proxying subfactions). Please reconsider the example as describing the same concept, but pushed to an even larger level (proxying entire factions). It's an attempt to show an extreme example of what you're advocating to show that it *is* a negative. At the level you're talking (subfactions), it's not a big deal. But if nobody ever would or should care, then nobody would or should ever care about more extreme examples. And you'd have a hard time arguing nobody would or should care about proxying entire factions.

If you don't understand a post, please take more time to read and digest it. Often, there's meaning you may miss on your first attempt.

You're just relying on the fallacy of one thing going to lead to another, the same way people opposing gay marriage say it'll lead to people marrying animals. So no of course I don't buy your argument because it's honestly poorly thought out and takes very little critical thinking.

**Bharring**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Dumb Smart Guy wrote:Not to me. WYSIWYG has the specific intention of cutting down on confusion so people can at-a-glance their situation on the table without remembering who has the lascannon or melta/flamer, etc.

If someone just says "This game I'll be playing as Raven Guard," what confusion is there?

Because they've got massive Ultramarine sigils on the side, painted blue, and have "Macragge" written on their banners and armour.

I don't see how that's any less confusing than "these missiles are plasmas, my Tacticals are Scouts, and my Redemptor is a Leviathan". After all, its all about "cutting down on confusion" - but if someone just apparently says "these missiles are plasmas, my Tacticals are Scouts, and my Redemptor is a Leviathan", that removes the confusion, according to your view on colour scheme.

It's about consistency. Why is one cosmetic difference confusing, but the other isn't?

Because one is flat out for the army, and you already know the Raven Guard rules.

"All instances of X are actually Y" is also army wide. And I'm sure he already knows the rules for Plasmas, Scouts, and Levis, too. Sure, the rule then gets applied to each unit in the army - but so does the Raven Guard rule.

Not even close to the same. If you really forget in the middle of the game your opponent was getting the bonus to their armor save when shooting from more than 12" away, you got memory issues, full stop.

Or maybe "I forgot" isn't the only failure point in this scheme? Maybe immersion or visuals might factor in to such a creative-driven hobby?

Maybe start carrying notecards with you to write on so you don't confuse yourself too hard?

Do you have to turn everything into as insulting a response as possible?

**Slayer-Fan123**

I'm sorry, I'm not the one saying "I can't remember your Marines aren't other Marines". That's a legit memory problem, and something I've seen in healthcare.

**Bharring**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Bharring wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Bharring wrote:
<sarcasm>This is why I don't get when people get angry that I want to play my Orkz as Dark Eldar. Heaven forbid I have a functional army. Screw Orkz for picking the incorrect Old One pawns, right? </sarcasm>

The correct comparison is "Screw the poor Snakebites players that wanted functional rules", but good one! Your terrible arguments never cease to make me laugh.

"Screw the poor Snakebites" would have shown the same concept at the same level (proxying subfactions). Please reconsider the example as describing the same concept, but pushed to an even larger level (proxying entire factions). It's an attempt to show an extreme example of what you're advocating to show that it *is* a negative. At the level you're talking (subfactions), it's not a big deal. But if nobody ever would or should care, then nobody would or should ever care about more extreme examples. And you'd have a hard time arguing nobody would or should care about proxying entire factions.

If you don't understand a post, please take more time to read and digest it. Often, there's meaning you may miss on your first attempt.

You're just relying on the fallacy of one thing going to lead to another, the same way people opposing gay marriage say it'll lead to people marrying animals. So no of course I don't buy your argument because it's honestly poorly thought out and takes very little critical thinking.

Not at all.

"Slippery Slope" is saying "If it ever reaches X, it'll reach X+1".
The argument being made is "If X*10 > 0, then X >0".

The first is a fallacy, as it assumes both (1) that X and X+1 are along a natural progression, and (2) the rate of change is clearly a unidirectional force. The second is basic scaling. They're easy to conflate if you're not clear on what "slippery slope" really means.

**Sgt_Smudge**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Dumb Smart Guy wrote:Not to me. WYSIWYG has the specific intention of cutting down on confusion so people can at-a-glance their situation on the table without remembering who has the lascannon or melta/flamer, etc.

If someone just says "This game I'll be playing as Raven Guard," what confusion is there?

Because they've got massive Ultramarine sigils on the side, painted blue, and have "Macragge" written on their banners and armour.

I don't see how that's any less confusing than "these missiles are plasmas, my Tacticals are Scouts, and my Redemptor is a Leviathan". After all, its all about "cutting down on confusion" - but if someone just apparently says "these missiles are plasmas, my Tacticals are Scouts, and my Redemptor is a Leviathan", that removes the confusion, according to your view on colour scheme.

It's about consistency. Why is one cosmetic difference confusing, but the other isn't?

Because one is flat out for the army, and you already know the Raven Guard rules.

So is the "every missile launcher is a plasma, every Tactical is a Scout, and every Redemptor is a Leviathan". There's no half measures - it's completely consistent, universal, and you "already know the rules" for all of them.

Not even close to the same. If you really forget in the middle of the game your opponent was getting the bonus to their armor save when shooting from more than 12" away, you got memory issues, full stop. Maybe start carrying notecards with you to write on so you don't confuse yourself too hard?

No, but I can forget that I'm fighting Raven Guard when I'm seeing Ultramarines, and start to wonder why these "Ultramarines" are getting a bonus to their armour save.

Likewise - if you forget in the middle of the game that your opponent's dreadnoughts have a Leviathan's profile, your opponent's missile launchers fire like plasmas, and their Tacticals are actually just Scouts, "you got memory issues, full stop. Maybe start carrying notecards with you to write on so you don't confuse yourself too hard?"

It's the same thing. WYSIWYG. If I see Ultramarines, I'm sure you can forgive me for thinking their Ultramarines, just as I'm sure you might be confused if I turn up with a plasma gunner, but he's actually a meltagunner. Be consistent.

**Bharring**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm sorry, I'm not the one saying "I can't remember your Marines aren't other Marines". That's a legit memory problem, and something I've seen in healthcare.

It's not "I can't remember $proxy". It's "Proxies lessen my enjoyment".

Consider:

Or maybe "I forgot" isn't the only failure point in this scheme? Maybe immersion or visuals might factor in to such a creative-driven hobby?

When I said '"I forgot" isn't the only failure point', then suggested another, my point wasn't that "forgetting" is the only failure point. My point is *there are others*. I'm not sure how to be clearer.

**Sgt_Smudge**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm sorry, I'm not the one saying "I can't remember your Marines aren't other Marines". That's a legit memory problem, and something I've seen in healthcare.

Likewise "I can't remember your dreadnoughts aren't other dreadnoughts. That's a legit memory problem, and something I've seen in healthcare".

Wanna get that sorted out? A notepad, perhaps?

**Slayer-Fan123**

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Dumb Smart Guy wrote:Not to me. WYSIWYG has the specific intention of cutting down on confusion so people can at-a-glance their situation on the table without remembering who has the lascannon or melta/flamer, etc.

If someone just says "This game I'll be playing as Raven Guard," what confusion is there?

Because they've got massive Ultramarine sigils on the side, painted blue, and have "Macragge" written on their banners and armour.

I don't see how that's any less confusing than "these missiles are plasmas, my Tacticals are Scouts, and my Redemptor is a Leviathan". After all, its all about "cutting down on confusion" - but if someone just apparently says "these missiles are plasmas, my Tacticals are Scouts, and my Redemptor is a Leviathan", that removes the confusion, according to your view on colour scheme.

It's about consistency. Why is one cosmetic difference confusing, but the other isn't?

Because one is flat out for the army, and you already know the Raven Guard rules.
So is the "every missile launcher is a plasma, every Tactical is a Scout, and every Redemptor is a Leviathan". There's no half measures - it's completely consistent, universal, and you "already know the rules" for all of them.

Not even close to the same. If you really forget in the middle of the game your opponent was getting the bonus to their armor save when shooting from more than 12" away, you got memory issues, full stop. Maybe start carrying notecards with you to write on so you don't confuse yourself too hard?
No, but I can forget that I'm fighting Raven Guard when I'm seeing Ultramarines, and start to wonder why these "Ultramarines" are getting a bonus to their armour save.

Likewise - if you forget in the middle of the game that your opponent's dreadnoughts have a Leviathan's profile, your opponent's missile launchers fire like plasmas, and their Tacticals are actually just Scouts, "you got memory issues, full stop. Maybe start carrying notecards with you to write on so you don't confuse yourself too hard?"

It's the same thing. WYSIWYG. If I see Ultramarines, I'm sure you can forgive me for thinking their Ultramarines, just as I'm sure you might be confused if I turn up with a plasma gunner, but he's actually a meltagunner. Be consistent.

So your opponent can't even use Blue for their successors to Raven Guard because you'll get confused you're not fighting Ultranarines? Have you already seen how many Chapter symbols look similar to each other?

Yeah it's your own fault.

**Sgt_Smudge**

Bharring wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Maybe start carrying notecards with you to write on so you don't confuse yourself too hard?

Do you have to turn everything into as insulting a response as possible?

Nah, it's cool. They're insulting their own memory in the same post - after all, if they can't understand that one type of Dreadnought is actually another type, they must obviously need notecards. /s

**Slayer-Fan123**

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm sorry, I'm not the one saying "I can't remember your Marines aren't other Marines". That's a legit memory problem, and something I've seen in healthcare.
Likewise "I can't remember your dreadnoughts aren't other dreadnoughts. That's a legit memory problem, and something I've seen in healthcare".

Wanna get that sorted out? A notepad, perhaps?

If I forget my opponent's regular Dread is actually being used as a Ven Dread (two separate kits ohmygod!!!) then yes I've got memory problems. Luckily I don't, huh?