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.

Hello

I am building a dark angles army upon a recent return to 40k after 20ish years away. So far I’ve been nostalgic and stuck with old marines, the Primaris fluff hasn’t gripped me. But I think it’s time to embrace the future so I have some hell blasters on their way.

I like the idea that the DA would be sceptical of the Primaris marines and I am also bored of painting green, so I thought I would pretend that the DA were using successor chapters as a testing ground for introducing Primaris marines and so include Primaris units and another unforgiven chapter.

But if I do this am I screwing myself on the battle field in terms of building command points or applying tactics across my whole army with the key words. I still don’t have my head around it.

Does that make sense

Just play DA in all but colour theme.

If you really wanna play successor go ahead. but you'll lose out on relics and such.

Even places like tournaments don't mind being one army but a different colour as long as you are consistent.

Good to know thanks

Simple and best answer is... Play what you like.

The more complex answer is that there are two camps of thought.
Camp 1 - Successor chapters are NOT their parent chapter and so you will lose out on a lot of rules, stratagems, relics, etc. that require the entire army have the required keyword, in your case <DARK ANGELS>.
Camp 2 - Color schemes and lore do not matter when you're playing a game to win win win, so apply whatever rules you want to get the most and best advantage needed.

The growing trend is Camp 1 because far to many tournament players and meta chasers have grossly abused the mindset of Camp 2.

 oni wrote:
Simple and best answer is... Play what you like.

The more complex answer is that there are two camps of thought.
Camp 1 - Successor chapters are NOT their parent chapter and so you will lose out on a lot of rules, stratagems, relics, etc. that require the entire army have the required keyword, in your case <DARK ANGELS>.
Camp 2 - Color schemes and lore do not matter when you're playing a game to win win win, so apply whatever rules you want to get the most and best advantage needed.

The growing trend is Camp 1 because far to many tournament players and meta chasers have grossly abused the mindset of Camp 2.

All that said, this is Dark Angels we're talking about.

"Successor Chapters" are often "successors" only sofar as the paperwork and Inquisitors are concerned. "Dark Angels" is a collection of "chapters" as-is. Aren't Ravenwing, Deathwing, and Greenwing already 3+ distinct chapters?

All this player is doing is extending the pattern. This Primaris "Chapter" is no less "Dark Angels" than many other "successor chapters". So it should have it's own paint scheme. And be it's own Chapter. But it's DARK ANGELS.

Personally, I'd be totally fine with someone doing similar for any chapter - it's great that the player is so involved in the fluff. But it's not even a variance for the Closet Traitor legion.

If anything, it'd be heretical/wrong to paint his Primaris with "Dark Angels" Greenwing colors.

I wouldn’t want to deploy a forces that works any different to if I painted them all green, just like the idea of a bit colour on the table

mrFickle wrote:
I wouldn’t want to deploy a forces that works any different to if I painted them all green, just like the idea of a bit colour on the table

What I'm saying is that painting them all green is what would make them *not* Dark Angels. Dark Angels use different chapters with variant heraldry for different assets.

Dark Angels Termies are white (Deathwing).
Dark Angels Bikers are black (Ravenwing).
Dark Angels Tacs are green (Greenwing).

If you have a Primaris contingent, painting them Green ( or black or white) would be more incorrect than painting them another color.

It's basically the only "chapter" in the game where you cannonically *should* paint them different colors, and technically be a different chapter, but still use the <CHAPTER>/detatchments. Same with Deathwing and Ravenwing - you shouldn't paint them green. You paint them white and black (respectively), they take DARK ANGELS for <CHAPTER>, and they can be in the same detatchment as Greenwing. So if you have non-Greenwing forces (such as your Primaris), they should not be painted green.

Interesting I just looked at the codex to try and make sense of this and if I am reading it right it states that, for example, azreal 4+ invulnerable save for dark angles unit within 6inches doesn’t apply to successor chapters be side you have to change the dark angles faction key word with, for example, angels of absolution.

Is that the opposite of the above?

So.....

EDIT* added some more about successors

Successor chapter are not Dark Angels. Dark Angels are their own thing. However the successors (often) follow the same layout of the first.

That is, instead of a 1st company they have Deathwing

Instead of a 2nd Company they have Ravenwing.

Then 3rd company onwards is where the troops begin.

Deathwing paint themselves bones. Ravenwing Black. Normal DA are Green. (Hense the dubbed term Greenwing).

Primaris marines in lore are mainly situated in the 3rd, 4th and 5th companies but are in others too.

What they are saying is if you wanted to do an entirely primaris "company/army" you could and just say, oh yeah these are the 12th (primaris) company, so they paint themselves Purple and gold. Until they are trusted and move into the 3rd company w/e.

However from a rules perspective you can be any colour and still be DA, as long as you are declaring yourself as a DA(even if you a blue). If you declare yourself as a successor you lose doctirines, relics, bubble like azrael etc.

Although successors lore wise may as well just be more DA as all successors chapter masters still report to Azrael as the supreme grand master. We may or may not still be a legion.

Currently the normal Space Marines codex has chapter specific rules and even supplement books for the prevalent chapters (e.g. Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, Iron Hands, etc.).

In the Space Marines codex and reinforced further in the supplements, it's made clear that successor chapters are NOT in any way their parent chapter and that the appropriate keyword(s) must be applied.

For example, the successor chapter Sons of Guilliman are not Ultramarines and therefore cannot use rules that require the <ULTRAMARINES> keyword. The Dark Angels successor chapter Angels of Redemption are not themselves Dark Angels.

Edit...
Removed incorrect information.

Ok so I guess as long as i don’t declare them a successor halter with home brew rules and relics and then try to get away with bleeding the benefits across then it doesn’t really matter, if I declare everything with the keyword dark angels then there is. I advantage and I can make up my own reason for the different coloured armour

I double checked the codex. They do have the successor chapter restrictions.

So you will not be able to use rules and abilities that require the <DARK ANGELS> keyword on units that are from a successor chapter.

Units that are not thematically (i.e. painted as) Dark Angels are considered to be a successor chapter.

 oni wrote:
I double checked the codex. They do have the successor chapter restrictions.

So you will not be able to use rules and abilities that require the <DARK ANGELS> keyword on units that are from a successor chapter.

Units that are not thematically (i.e. painted as) Dark Angels are considered to be a successor chapter.

Only if you declare as such.

There is literally nothing in the game to say these purple and gold dudes are dark angels, i just paint them people because XYZ.

If you say they're Dark Angels and build them as dark angels but paint them not green, they're still dark angels.

Only limitation is literally "be consistant". Don't have a green unit, and a blue unit and a black unit (unless it's for deathwing/ravenwing split of course).

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

 oni wrote:
I double checked the codex. They do have the successor chapter restrictions.

So you will not be able to use rules and abilities that require the <DARK ANGELS> keyword on units that are from a successor chapter.

Units that are not thematically (i.e. painted as) Dark Angels are considered to be a successor chapter.

Only if you declare as such.

There is literally nothing in the game to say these purple and gold dudes are dark angels, i just paint them people because XYZ.

If you say they're Dark Angels and build them as dark angels but paint them not green, they're still dark angels.

Only limitation is literally "be consistant". Don't have a green unit, and a blue unit and a black unit (unless it's for deathwing/ravenwing split of course).

This is quickly becoming an outdated way of thinking because of the abuses by tournament players and meta chasers.

 oni wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

 oni wrote:
I double checked the codex. They do have the successor chapter restrictions.

So you will not be able to use rules and abilities that require the <DARK ANGELS> keyword on units that are from a successor chapter.

Units that are not thematically (i.e. painted as) Dark Angels are considered to be a successor chapter.

Only if you declare as such.

There is literally nothing in the game to say these purple and gold dudes are dark angels, i just paint them people because XYZ.

If you say they're Dark Angels and build them as dark angels but paint them not green, they're still dark angels.

Only limitation is literally "be consistant". Don't have a green unit, and a blue unit and a black unit (unless it's for deathwing/ravenwing split of course).

This is quickly becoming an outdated way of thinking because of the abuses by tournament players and meta chasers.

Out dated or not. It is still the way it is and the rules.

Until such a time when workshop say clearly "if you do not paint to primary colours of the army you are successor" then those be the rules. You cna paint whatever you like.

Workshop will never say that because being able to experiment and paint what you like is a HUGE part of the hobby for a lot of people.

It looks like I was way off on Dark Angels lore. Not sure where/how I got turned around. Ignore all my comments.

Wouldn't that mean that unless your using the space marine succesors with their really powerful two trait combinations, it aint really worth using a non core chapter?

I still don’t see what difference it makes unless you are trying to basically run 1 army but with 2 sets of traits that apply across the whole army. If you are only applying one set of rules, the ones from the codex, then does it matter if you paint one unit different and make a little step about how they’ve been called in as reinforcements.

Sure if you want the traits from 2 armies and to use units from a different codex then you need to split it all out

If you have two different subsets of units that are painted differently, it's expected that they be different.

So if half your guys are green, and half your guys are blue, it's expected that those blue guys are different.

If your green guys are Salamanders, and your blue guys are UltraMarines, that's different. The different color is justified.

If your green guys are "real" Marines, and your blue guys are Primaris, that's different. The different color is justified.

If your green guys aren't different from the blue guys, it's confusing. Why the different color?

Chapter is the usual distinction made with color, but it's not the only distinction. Again, Deathwing and Ravenwing aren't green, but are still Dark Angels. Likewise, you could have blue Primaris marines that aren't part of Greenwing, but are still Dark Angels.

I don't think most chapters do that - painting different specialties different color. But there is precedent - and that precedent is *exactly the chapter we're talking about*.

Now, per above, having the Blue Primaris actually be another *chapter* could be debateable. But having them be a different color yet use Dark Angels rules is not.

I don't get the problem.

"These are my dudes; they are all Dark Angels."
"Cool."

This isn't a situation where you have red Salamanders, blue Iron Fists and green Blood Angels. There's literally - LITERALLY - one Faction to keep track of.

So where's the problem?

 oni wrote:
Simple and best answer is... Play what you like.

The more complex answer is that there are two camps of thought.
Camp 1 - Successor chapters are NOT their parent chapter and so you will lose out on a lot of rules, stratagems, relics, etc. that require the entire army have the required keyword, in your case <DARK ANGELS>.
Camp 2 - Color schemes and lore do not matter when you're playing a game to win win win, so apply whatever rules you want to get the most and best advantage needed.

The growing trend is Camp 1 because far to many tournament players and meta chasers have grossly abused the mindset of Camp 2.

Blatant fething lies. Every time painting for rules comes up there is always MASSIVE backlash. Why? Because it's stupid for multiple reasons.

1. It murders creativity. You end up with 90 grey marine armies and it's SUPER boring. It's actually WORSE than the green ultramarine problem because when you have to play the rules that match your paint job, you don't forgo rules, you forgo paintjobs. So you end up with hastily done paintjobs over recently stripped models AT BEST.

2. It only applies to space marines. Without looking it up, what's the difference between argent shroud and sacred heart? Do you even know for sure what army those are from? Very few people can actually identify the non-marine armies' CT by sight.

3. It's stupidly unenforceable. Dark angels are green and red? What green? What red? Can I use Sautek Green and Wild rider red? If not why not? What about Moot Green and Wazdakka red? If that's not okay where's the line? What green, specifically makes dark angels?

Is it specifically Caliban green? If so what about highlights? If I take it up through 5-6 layers of progressively higher highlights, that's going to be a very diffent green than some who only does 2. What If I use Warpstone Glow and Moot green as highlights but someone else uses Loren Forest and Stracken green? Those are entirely different looking models, they can't BOTH be dark angels anymore than a red or a black model could be. So which one gets tossed?

Painting for rules, outside of the standard 'make sure you can tell which models have which CTs, is the single most asinine, stupid bullgak that a TO could possibly enforce.

There are two classes of complaints about rules vs paint scheme.

The first, and seemingly much more popular one, is about immersion. Those Blue&Gold Iron Hands with the White Toiletseat are very immersion breaking. It's just gamey and unfun to some.

That class of issues is a nonissue here. This deviation from what the OP assumed was expected is *in line* with fluff and continuity. The crowd concerned with paint colors for this reason would be 150% OK with it.

(Side note: one of the few times percents over 100 are actually valid - this group isn't just OK with it, they get excited at the OP's devotion / immersion!)

The other argument is WYSIWYG. Someone might assume those Blue primaris are UltraMarines (although a good job at their heraldry should make it clear they're Dark Angels regardless of color). It might be a minor annoyance, but isn't a big deal. As long as you can have red UltraMarine successors (which you can and should be able to do), primary color alone is suggestive but not conclusive.

Most of the people who care, especially those who care strongly, care for the first reason.

 oni wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

 oni wrote:
I double checked the codex. They do have the successor chapter restrictions.

So you will not be able to use rules and abilities that require the <DARK ANGELS> keyword on units that are from a successor chapter.

Units that are not thematically (i.e. painted as) Dark Angels are considered to be a successor chapter.

Only if you declare as such.

There is literally nothing in the game to say these purple and gold dudes are dark angels, i just paint them people because XYZ.

If you say they're Dark Angels and build them as dark angels but paint them not green, they're still dark angels.

Only limitation is literally "be consistant". Don't have a green unit, and a blue unit and a black unit (unless it's for deathwing/ravenwing split of course).

This is quickly becoming an outdated way of thinking because of the abuses by tournament players and meta chasers.

No it isn't. Not even a little bit. YOU may want to feth people over for your own asinine idea of what armies should look like, but it's not a 'trend'.

As long as people who aren't complete a-holes continue to play this game, ideas like this will remain on the fringes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

 oni wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

 oni wrote:
I double checked the codex. They do have the successor chapter restrictions.

So you will not be able to use rules and abilities that require the <DARK ANGELS> keyword on units that are from a successor chapter.

Units that are not thematically (i.e. painted as) Dark Angels are considered to be a successor chapter.

Only if you declare as such.

There is literally nothing in the game to say these purple and gold dudes are dark angels, i just paint them people because XYZ.

If you say they're Dark Angels and build them as dark angels but paint them not green, they're still dark angels.

Only limitation is literally "be consistant". Don't have a green unit, and a blue unit and a black unit (unless it's for deathwing/ravenwing split of course).

This is quickly becoming an outdated way of thinking because of the abuses by tournament players and meta chasers.

Out dated or not. It is still the way it is and the rules.

Until such a time when workshop say clearly "if you do not paint to primary colours of the army you are successor" then those be the rules. You cna paint whatever you like.

Workshop will never say that because being able to experiment and paint what you like is a HUGE part of the hobby for a lot of people.

Even this isn't enough. There are plenty of Stormcast models that explicitly say they must be painted blue and gold and...nobody gives a gak.

Paint what you want, as long as you can tell the difference between 2 CTs, who cares?

Without looking it up, what's the difference between argent shroud and sacred heart? Do you even know for sure what army those are from? Very few people can actually identify the non-marine armies' CT by sight.

argent shroud actually exists?

I have/had one of those counts-as chapters, that some purists really hate.
They are my own colour scheme and mainly uses Dark Angel iconography, but also Black Templar bits.
Back when I played, they would be Dark Angels one day, White Scars the next and Space Wolves the week after and so on....
I was of course careful to be WYSIWYG, and had made special unique conversions to represent those really chapter specific units - like Thunder Wolf Cavalry or Furioso Dreads.
This wasn't a case of me being lazy. It was a case of me not being willing to miss out on the opportunities to model and paint all those specific units.

I never had any issues.

mrFickle wrote:
Hello

I am building a dark angles army upon a recent return to 40k after 20ish years away. So far I’ve been nostalgic and stuck with old marines, the Primaris fluff hasn’t gripped me. But I think it’s time to embrace the future so I have some hell blasters on their way.

I like the idea that the DA would be sceptical of the Primaris marines and I am also bored of painting green, so I thought I would pretend that the DA were using successor chapters as a testing ground for introducing Primaris marines and so include Primaris units and another unforgiven chapter.

But if I do this am I screwing myself on the battle field in terms of building command points or applying tactics across my whole army with the key words. I still don’t have my head around it.

Does that make sense

If you haven't already, you should get the Dark Angels Codex and the latest Psychic Awakening book "The Ritual of the Damned." These two books, along with the BRB, will provide you what you need to build your army. I will say up front that according to th published works of GW the Dark Angels certainly have Primaris units. There is suspicion, to be sure, but they are in the Chapter. The Phil Kelly "War of Secrets" novel explores this.

When you play a Successor chapter of the Unforgiven, you replace the <Dark Angels> keyword with your chosen <Successor> keyword. Your <Successor> keyword then translates across to all your units drawn from the Codex and Psychic Awakening book. Your Unforgiven units then get all the abilities, tactics and stratagems that apply to <Dark Angels>. What you lose access to is the Named Characters and the Lion-share (do you see what I did there) of the Relics. Azrael and Sammael are pretty much what make Dark Angels work on the tabletop, so its a voluntary nerf to run a Successor. As a result there is no in-game advantage to using a Successor Chapter. The Ritual of the Damned has at least made Successors better than under the Codex with more Relics/Special Issue Wargear and you can at least make some more jazzy warlords. You have a couple of options to achieve the effect you are looking for, the viability of which will vary depending on the context of where you are playing.

Option 1 - You could run your army as <Dark Angels>, with your Primaris models in their own Detachment with a different paint scheme. In your heart the Primaris would be <Some Head-Cannon Successor Chapter> but on your list/tabletop they would be <Dark Angels>. This would work in many venues, but you could not do this at a Games Workshop Warhammer World event or at the LVO. Those events/venues have rather strict rules about paint schemes and named Chapters. Their house, their rules! Having said that, even Ritual of the Damned has some Dark Angels saying that "Colours doth not a Dark Angel make." You could see how far that gets you!

Option 2 - You could have a <Dark Angels> Detachment with Azrael etc and a <Nephews of the Lion Who Are Kept in the Dark Angels> Detachment for your Primaris. As long as each Detachment only has models from one <Chapter> then both are battle forged and grant appropriate CPs and gain traits/stratagems/warlord traits/relics. There would have to paint differences to satisfy places like LVO and Warhammer World, not to mention avoiding confusion with your opponent at a pick-up game. Your <Succcessor> Chapter detachment would not be <Dark Angels> though, in terms of aura buffs etc. So Azrael could not buff your Primaris from your <Successor> Chapter. While both Detachments would have the Grim Resolve ability and would have Doctrines from Angels of Death, you would not get the Relentless Hunt "super doctrine." So you are self-nerfing again. You lose out on the tabletop but gain head-cannon points. Only you can determine if the cost is worth the gain!

Option 3 - A nuanced approach would be to have two Detachments, one with "old marines" and one with Primaris. Make them all <Dark Angels> but put some kind of knee-pad paint scheme on the Primaris to make them a little different. Call it a Company marking and you are both legal and fluffy. If your army is based the same LVO cannot complain. If you feel that this is selling out then go with the pure approach of Option 2 and live with your decision on the tabletop!

Welcome back to the Rock!

T2B