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 play dark eldar. I did create new background for my cabal and coven and painted them all in a unique colour scheme with mostly metallics. Even the haemonculus coven models are painted this way. So now I am reading the DE previews and I realize that non of the factions that get obsessions are similar to my own color scheme. So I will have to chose which rules my army will get. I don't think my mates will have a problem with that.

But I would like to know how other players see it? Is it frowned upon? DE Color schemes were never linked with rules before unlike Space Marines for example.

I've been doing it with the Eldar for a while now, none of my opponents have cared yet.

Paint your minis how you want, and play whichever subfaction you want. Anyone who complains about either choice is an ass.

I never heard anybody complain about the color scheme of an army as long as you state beforehand what rules they are. I mean, it was accepted even as far back a I could remember (back in 3rd ed) that you could use rules for Blood Angles for the successor chapters for instance (until they got their own rules). If it's literally the same exact models I don't know anyone who would care especially if they get to play against a fully painted army!

Anon052 wrote:
I play dark eldar. I did create new background for my cabal and coven and painted them all in a unique colour scheme with mostly metallics. Even the haemonculus coven models are painted this way. So now I am reading the DE previews and I realize that non of the factions that get obsessions are similar to my own color scheme. So I will have to chose which rules my army will get. I don't think my mates will have a problem with that.

But I would like to know how other players see it? Is it frowned upon? DE Color schemes were never linked with rules before unlike Space Marines for example.

Nobody will have problems. There are Cadians in winter fatigues, Cadians in desert fatigues, Cadians in urban fatigues, Cadians in khaki and green, Valhallans who are Cadians in winter fatigues, Tallarnians who are Cadians in desert fatigues, Tallarnians who are Cadians in winter fatigues, etc.

Take the Kabal Obsession that you think is best for your army's playstyle, and that's your Kabal Obsession.

If anything, picking your own colors is better than picking an existing faction, because it is then less confusing to switch subfactions from game to game.

The only exception to this that I can see is if you plan on mixing a lot of the subfactions together in one army (which seems like DE mammary want to do), you might want to do some kind of consistent squad markings or something so it's clear what is what.

Paint scheme and rules are, and should be, separate.

Your army is yours, and you choose how to paint it. Even if you painted your models like the Kabal of the Black Heart, you can still choose to play them as the Kabak of the Obsidian Rose. Anyone saying otherwise is being That Guy.

They're your models, make them awesome in your own way. My only stipulation is that if you run mixed detachments, that different sub-factions be represented clearly and consistently.

Yeah, no. It's absolutely STUPID to think that Grey Plastic gets to change rules on a whim, but lovingly painted minis don't.

Play you, dude.

GW with their stupid snowflake rules designed the game so that it's encouraged to change special rules of your army based on what helps you most this game rather than any idea of actually caring about fluff. Standard of these days.

tneva82 wrote:
GW with their stupid snowflake rules designed the game so that it's encouraged to change special rules of your army based on what helps you most this game rather than any idea of actually caring about fluff. Standard of these days.

Ah yes, the old "GW encourages you to change rules" when they don't ever. In fact, I think GW's rules are intended to allow people to make their armies more fluffy. I don't recall anywhere in the codex where I've read: "Pick a doctrine for your <Regiment>. Furthermore, feel free to change it whenever."

I generally get the impression that your Regiment is expected to stay the same, and that changing rules between games is not even mentioned, never mind encouraged.

Anon052 wrote:
I play dark eldar. I did create new background for my cabal and coven and painted them all in a unique colour scheme with mostly metallics. Even the haemonculus coven models are painted this way. So now I am reading the DE previews and I realize that non of the factions that get obsessions are similar to my own color scheme. So I will have to chose which rules my army will get. I don't think my mates will have a problem with that.

But I would like to know how other players see it? Is it frowned upon? DE Color schemes were never linked with rules before unlike Space Marines for example.

There is not, will not, and should not, ever be a relationship between paint job and rules.

The ONLY thing I would say is acceptable is that it's reasonable to require that you have some way to differentiate between your chapter tactics.

I've yet to find the rule saying "you have to paint your Kabal of the Black Heart dark green with green edge highlights." Can anyone help point out to me where that rule is? Thanks.

 meleti wrote:
I've yet to find the rule saying "you have to paint your Kabal of the Black Heart dark green with green edge highlights." Can anyone help point out to me where that rule is? Thanks.

As late as the 4th edition codex (although it really was written for 5th), Ork vehicles got an extra inch of movement for being painted red.

Most people were fine handwaving it away for the sake of aesthetics, but the rule was there.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
GW with their stupid snowflake rules designed the game so that it's encouraged to change special rules of your army based on what helps you most this game rather than any idea of actually caring about fluff. Standard of these days.

Ah yes, the old "GW encourages you to change rules" when they don't ever. In fact, I think GW's rules are intended to allow people to make their armies more fluffy. I don't recall anywhere in the codex where I've read: "Pick a doctrine for your <Regiment>. Furthermore, feel free to change it whenever."

I generally get the impression that your Regiment is expected to stay the same, and that changing rules between games is not even mentioned, never mind encouraged.

They knew very well what will happen when they introduce FREE rules you can cherry pick at will.

Well that or they have IQ worse than 3 year old kid.

Just watch your back at a WW event.

I've heard some stories that some Age of Sigmar tournaments did enforce faction colours linked to rules ; but by and large no one cares.

First up most players don't know the alternative schemes for factions outside of Space Marines who make it blindingly obvious with decades of marketing and unique army rosters for many of their subfactions.

Furthermore many of the schemes are insanely similar. Heck the Daughters of Khaine official schemes are mostly just "this is a shade or two different in red or copper". That's the kind of thing most players will never notice what so ever.



Colourschemes are rather like upgrades - no one really cares if they are modelled correctly so long as your army list is clearly written and you can tell one squad from another distinctly on the tabletop.

Based on how GW has done the subfaction rules each subfaction within most armies is now basically a set of bonus points toward certain tactical focuses. So this being a game of army building it makes sense that if you went close combat heavy you'd pick the subfaction that, for free, gives you bonuses to your close combat score; similarly if you then made your army for the next fight ranged focused you'd use the subfaction that favours that.



No one (not even GW) expects you to buy a full range of models and paint them in each possible scheme to have freedom of choice. I mean sure GW won't stop you and if you want to do it you can, but the vast majority of people won't.


Edit - also I don't subscribe to the view that its fair that if you paint the army in the "official" subfaciton scheme that you must be limited to that subfaction; but that if you used your own scheme (which could be just one colour difference) you have freedom to choose whatever group(s) you want.

Paintjob is irrelevant. The only important thing is WYSIWYG, avoid proxies and bring the appropriate wargear and no one will complain.

Weĺ GW did say in a FAQ that successor factions can't get their factions traits or some dumb thing... to me this kind of showed GW'S stance on all of this... Annoyed me a lot as I wish they just let you pick what ever you want... all my friends do that anyway. But I sometimes want the Ultramarines warlord trait but hate the idea of saying I play Ultramarines when I am playing a cool successor chapter to the imperial fists. XD if I was honest though, it does slightly annoy me when you have a guy when a fully painted Ultramarines army with girlyman but then says that one half of the army is raven guard or something but even then I'd be cool with it.

I'm the opposite from most of the people here. While chapter/craftworld traits are pretty vague, and GW does encourage you to pick one that "best" matches your army (since loads of people use custom chapters/craftworlds, etc.), I personally like to leave the Warlord Traits, Relics, Stratagems to their respective chapters and craftworlds.

To me, that allows some armies to have a tiny bit of special flavour. I use the Biel Tan Craftworld trait, but I don't use their warlord traits, relics, or stratagems - because I'm not actually playing Biel Tan.

Doesn't ruin my game, or ruin my fun, etc.

So long as you make it clear to your opponent there is nothing wrong with it.

IIRC, the only time that the paint scheme matters(ed) was at a GW event in Nottingham that said that Blood Angels had to be red, Dark Angels need to be green, Ultramarines need to be blue, etc.. They said at that time that if you want to use a chapter's rules you had to use the official paint scheme. I don't know if they have since revised that rule but that's the only time that I've heard that paint schemes matter to which rules you want to use.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
IIRC, the only time that the paint scheme matters(ed) was at a GW event in Nottingham that said that Blood Angels had to be red, Dark Angels need to be green, Ultramarines need to be blue, etc.. They said at that time that if you want to use a chapter's rules you had to use the official paint scheme. I don't know if they have since revised that rule but that's the only time that I've heard that paint schemes matter to which rules you want to use.

They did say that but it didn't stop people bringing red Ultra Marines with a red Gulliman.

I personally wouldn't even notice. For reference, my Blood Angels are grey and Sanguinary Guard are red. So yeah, whatever colour floats your boat imo.

If you had seperate detachments under different chapters or whatever the army equivelant was, i'd only expect minor differences so i could tell, be these base markings or different hair colours, whatever, that would also be cool with me.

It's also nice to see different colours on the board i find too

Fluff wise a colour scheme doesn't even work with some armies. Tyranids are noted as evolving new skin colours based upon the worlds they are on and other tactical requirements; so there's no reason they can't copy-cat each others colour schemes!

There has been one time in my years of wargaming where someones paint scheme bothered me.

It was a tournament a few years ago (7th ed) and they had a 13th Black Crusade themed army/paint scheme. So his models were painted like Ultramarines, Black Templars, Space Wolves, etc. When I asked what Chapter Tactic he was using all he said was Vanilla.

I never got a straight answer from him.

Other than that one instance I have no problem with people painting their army that they want to paint it. Just make it clear rules wise what the are!