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.

I bought a tau starter box recently.
Ive painted them red, with the new septs/tennets am i now forced to play farsight enclaves or are people more forgiving woth chapter tactics etc

The tau tend to have many paint schemes per sept, so I for one wouldn’t hold you to any given sept based on paint scheme... Your mileage may vary...

It's in the same vein as Space Marines. It doesn't matter what color your models are. What matters is what choice you've made and what you have written on your roster.

Thanks for the replies. Ive been collecting years i just.dont play yet. Wanted.to know the general feeling when i start playing if it is frowned upon

peter012 wrote:
Thanks for the replies. Ive been collecting years i just.dont play yet. Wanted.to know the general feeling when i start playing if it is frowned upon

Yes it can be frowned upon but its very very rare to find anyone that actually cares what colour you paint your models, I personally dont like it as an ultramarine should look like an ultramarine, but my personal opinion has no bearing on what people can play and how they paint their models.

the moment GW gave induvidual "clans" different bonuses that are not equaly powerfull/usefull, was the moment "clan" loyalty went straight out the window.
paint them black and blue and play the farsight clan if you want to, as no1 has the right to deny that.

I remember this became a heated debate in a previous thread when the AM/IG regiments were announced. Most couldn't care less what color scheme was and which regiment you chose, but there was a handful of people that would claim they simply wouldn't play against a person who did that because they were power gaming (regardless of whether or not you chose to handicap yourself as well).

Simply don't play those people, its that simple.

 Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:
I remember this became a heated debate in a previous thread when the AM/IG regiments were announced. Most couldn't care less what color scheme was and which regiment you chose, but there was a handful of people that would claim they simply wouldn't play against a person who did that because they were power gaming (regardless of whether or not you chose to handicap yourself as well).

Simply don't play those people, its that simple.

That would be the same people who claimed that making any army composition decision based on effectiveness made you a power gamer...

I think it's pretty safe to ignore them.

The only point where it becomes any kind of issue is if your army includes detachments from multiple septs and your paint scheme confuses the issue.

All green Spacemarines aren't DA or Salamanders.

Plus you don't seem to have spot grey panels on the model which FSE do.

I wouldn't hesitate to let you use your own made up Sept using anothers tenets.

Sadly others may not be as forgiving.

Oops, just noticed a grey panel. Not to worry, I stick with the above.

If it's a tournament, check with the organisers. There are indeed some tournaments that don't allow an obviously painted as Ultramarines-army to use Blood Angels tactic, etc.. (incl. Warhammer World events?).

They're likely to be more lenient with Tau, I would think, but checking ahead of time avoids hurt feelings and problems on all sides.

If it's just a friendly game, I cannot fathom anyone having a problem.

As I say, anyone who would frown apon this would then need to model WYSIWYG psychic powers, grenades, and tactics now.

I would say if anyone who frowns apon this is a person not needing to play with.

Honestly most players don't even know the official colour schemes for sub-groups. Barring Space Marines who have not only had a fortune in marketing spent on each sub-group but have distinct listings on the website and their own army books and also their own unique models - every other sub-group is visually identical to the other.

Others can be very similar, the new Daughters of Khaine sub-groups have almost identical paint schemes where the variations are much more subtle.


In the end no one cares, the upgrades via sub-groups are purely a handful of various rules tied to a grouping and as such are just like picking upgrades or seals or spells/mind powers. Nothing that needs to go on the model and only needs to go on the army list.


There's also a practical side since as the upgrades on offer for sub-groups are often tied to specific stats and focuses its clear that osme sub groups are going to be the "close combat"choice whilst another might have ranged bonuses etc.. Expecting players to buy a whole new army for a +1 ranged attack instead of a +1 close combat attack is - honestly - abusively bonkers. Even GW wouldn't expect players to do that (they won't complain if they do though).



Write it on the army list and be sure that your squads can be told apart from each other on the tabletop (which is the same if they are all one subgroup or multiples) and then just use whatever paints you want.



Note - it should also be said that it is very unfair if people who make their own unique scheme can choose whatever army; whlist those who use an "official" or similar to official one should be tied to that specific army.

Note 2 - it should further be noted that Space Marine sub-groups are fully well rounded armies in their own right. Blood Angles are not just a +1 attack but a whole roster of units unto themselves who can go for whatever they want. Same for Ultramarines and the rest. So that, again, differs greatly from other armies that have subgroups where the only difference is the colour.

Worth noting: the general armor colors does not determine Sept. It's the color of the little lines that make your Sept (white for Tau, red for viorla, etc)

ryzouken wrote:
Worth noting: the general armor colors does not determine Sept. It's the color of the little lines that make your Sept (white for Tau, red for viorla, etc)

This; unlike pretty much all the other 40k factions, the Tau design their uniforms around the environments they're fighting in - the only heraldry they take from their Sept are those markings you see on shoulder pads, helmets and leg armour. The Farsight Enclaves are perhaps the only group of Tau who may not follow this ideal, but just painting them red doesn't make them Farsight Enclave, nor does it force you to abide by any rules that the Farsight Enclaves have. The most suitable rules for your army, yes, but certainly not an obligation if you choose to play them under a different Sept.

If anyone gives you crap about how you paint/play your toy soldiers you now know not to play with them.

Your toys, paint them how you like.

Just make sure that you let your opponent know whats happening before the game starts.

Though, to be honest, I'd prefer (but not require) detachments from different septs/chapters/regiments/ect be painted differently. They don't have to match the official art, but just something to tell them apart, like a different color shoulder pad or something.

 Mmmpi wrote:
They don't have to match the official art, but just something to tell them apart, like a different color shoulder pad or something.

Honestly I think there's two schools of thought on this

1) If you had two groups of space marines on the table, one with grenades and one without most players wouldn't demand that both be distinct in terms of grenades, to tell them apart. Ergo upgrades are often not easily if ever visible on the models and can't be told apart at a glance the same way unit type or weapon can. Therefore as the detachment type is similar to an upgrade we shouldn't expect players to have to take the extra step to tell units apart from each other in that form.

2) The best way (IMO) is to paint units in squad groups and then use a repeated detail that changes (eg painting a shoulder pad a certain colour) or part of the base (terrain detail or just painting the rim of the base) so that each squad has its own colour.
You can then list on the arm list which colour squads are with which detachment.
This keeps the identity of each squad independent of any specific detachment/group and also means that even if you use a single detachment for your whole army; you can still tell your squads apart from each other. Useful in combat esp if you're running a lot of similar units into close combat where sometimes its easy to forget which is in whcih group (get two units of 20 gaunts together and even a skilled player can mistake which is which group

Play them whatever sept you want. Red Tau doesn't lock you into a Sept just like having blue space marines doesn't force you to only ever play as Ultramarines.

As long as it's clear at the beginning of what everything is and Septs magically don't change every turn, there is no issue - and if the opponent has a problem with this then you probably won't enjoy playing against them anyway.

Fluff wise, Tau normally have a dress paint/scheme/uniform for formal occasions, then actual camouflage based on the environment they're fighting in, so paint them however you want and use whatever sept you want.