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.

Brother Ramses wrote:I am ok for testing out a codex, but having to continually play against someone that has to proxy models gets tedious.

That is a completely different discussion, and not a pertinent argument to this one.

Now, taking an existing codex and doing a counts-as army that is modeled correctly, hell yea. I have a vision of a Word Bearers army using the SW codex to allow a proliferation of Dark Apostles (four wolf priests), champions (wolf guard in PA and TDA), and daemons (Fenrisian wolves). That sounds pretty well representative of a Word Bearers army.

Cool. Then why can't some of the models be "recycled" and used (modelled correctly) in various armies?

Black Templar Crusaders, Space Wolf Blood Claws, SM Assault Marines and Blood Angel Assault Marines can all be perfectly represented by a marine model armed with a bolt pistol and a chainsword.
That is what I do with my "represent-every-codex-I-feel-like" army.
Please note that, in my army, special units such as Sanguinary Guard, Death Company, Thunder Wolf Cavalry and every single Grey Knight is represented by official models as they are hard do a really nice counts-as with and still be WYSIWYG.

The only models I "recycle" are the generic ones, and they are all painted in my own colour scheme that isn't related to any of the existing ones.

Would this be a problem to play against?

Carnage43 wrote:
Otherwise why would you EVER conform to any of the "standard" paint schemes?

Because you have a soul.

Have we sunk so low as wargamers that we are more concerned with being able to use as many rules as possible than creating a visual spectacle? This discussion wouldn't even happen among historical gamers, who spend hours researching the colours for the units in their forces. To them the differences between units are only represented by colour. And they'd never dream of using Prussians as French, or vice versa.

DeathReaper wrote:

Redbeard wrote:
These models:

...

Redbeard, kaldor, and others:
If I were to paint the model (With BP and CCW) on the right black with orange shoulders, like my avatar, because I liked the look of the model for my homebrew chapter.

Would you see that as acceptable? / not acceptable? / Something in between?

That's fine. You can paint your models however you want. On the other hand, if you then tried to tell me that they were blood angels, in spite of the fact that those models aren't part of the model range for blood angels, I'd have an issue with that. That's proxying. Those models are space wolves. They're only part of the Space Wolf model range. Paint them however you want, it won't change the fact that those models are Space Wolf models, and claiming that they're Blood Angels would be as ridiculous as claiming that Necron Warriors were Blood Angels.

Steelmage99 wrote:
Black Templar Crusaders, Space Wolf Blood Claws, SM Assault Marines and Blood Angel Assault Marines can all be perfectly represented by a marine model armed with a bolt pistol and a chainsword.

Space Wolf Blood Claws have specific models (Space Wolves) available. They're not just generic marines with bolt pistols and chainswords.

To be fair the BA codex could represent the Ultramarines' 8th company (basically a captain, chaplain, standard bearer, apothecary and 10 assault squads) better than the standard SM codex does. Ignoring units like the DC, SR, Furioso, Baal Pred, etc to still fit in with the theme but use alternate rules to represent it better.

By the way, for those asking if tournaments allow this, here is the model policy from Adepticon, the largest and most successful 40k event in North America, if not the world.

Count-as armies are allowed at AdeptiCon as long as they follow all the above rules and restrictions. The onus is on the owning player to alleviate any and all avenues of confusion that might result from using count-as models/armies. Countas models MUST be WYSIWYG, appropriately equipped and sized accordingly in order to best represent the model/unit in question. Count-as armies should demonstrate reasonable effort when it comes to conversions, simply using an existing army with a different codex (as a proxy) is NOT allowed.

I could be wrong, but I think that adepticon policy is geared towards necrons 'counts as' undead orks using the ork codex or something like that. You need to convert the necrons to be wysiwyg using shootas, choppas, sluggas and not tesla guns. But, I'm a bit biased because I don't think different colors and symbols from the traditional scheme equates to a proxy. Based on what I've read, it seems like the way I interpret that rule is also how adepticon enforces it. I've never been, so I say again, that is based on what I've read.

WYSIWYG has nothing to do with paint, so as long as you have all the marines modeled with the right wargear, Adepticon will allow the use of blue Blood Angels or red Space Wolves.

A guy at my FLGS has nothing but count as armies. He goes to Adepticon and other tournaments frequently and never has a problem. His armies include Dark Eldar represented by heavily modified Skaven, and Chaos Imperial Guard represented by a mix of IG, SM, and fantasy models. Another player has chaos space marines represented by orks waving symbols of khorne and with a hefty amount of red paint. Are these not game legal?

-cgmckenzie

I don't have a problem with someone painting their army any color they want. As long as they build their army using correct units/point costs from the current Codex. Thats part of the fun of 40k, making an army your army. I can't really see a problem with using different codexes and the same painted army, as long as the models are WYSIWYG.

Thats one of the reasons I havn't jumped onto the FoW wagon. I would be really annoyed playing it and having people tell me my camo is the wrong color for a specific campaign or time period.

Who really cares? If you have the right models in your army, the color shouldn't really be an issue, except to have 3 different ones to satisfy some requirement of a tournament.

You'll probably get a lot of purists getting angry if you tried that; Ultramarines are supposed to be the strict followers of the mainstream Codex, while the other Codexes represent significant deviations. If you really wanted a Stormraven, I'd actually recommend starting another detachment entirely and painting them in that army's colors.

Just make sure your opponent is okay with it; I wouldn't have a problem so long as you went all one Codex or all the other (no Marneus Calgar in a Stormraven, for instance).

Also, nice models.

Redbeard wrote:

Carnage43 wrote:
Otherwise why would you EVER conform to any of the "standard" paint schemes?

Because you have a soul.

Have we sunk so low as wargamers that we are more concerned with being able to use as many rules as possible than creating a visual spectacle? This discussion wouldn't even happen among historical gamers, who spend hours researching the colours for the units in their forces. To them the differences between units are only represented by colour. And they'd never dream of using Prussians as French, or vice versa.

I understand this. Up until 2-3 years ago I wouldn't have dreamed of using anything but the vanilla marine codex for my army. Lets face it though, GW writes some really bad books sometimes, and shifts between edition rules can really change the power scale and play style of army lists.

I got into playing heavily in tournaments a couple of years ago and realized that vanilla marines didn't fit the way I wanted to play with their current book (Too slow and static for my liking) so I had a few choices;

1. Buy/play a completely new army. I shelved my marines for over a year and played my Nids after their most recent codex, but realized I wasn't going to beat SW/DE and later GK with them. Buying a third army was too expensive.
2. Stop playing in competitive games until i had a codex I liked. Well, that wouldn't be much fun, and I do enjoy competitive gaming. Plus this could very well be 3-4 or more years of not playing.
3. Buy a $30 codex and raid my bits box. This also gave me the chance to paint some new units I wouldn't normally have access to.

I had a lot of pride in my Ultramarines, and resisted book flip-flopping for years, but seeing everyone with fast tanks, or long fangs or whatever the over powered unit of the day was gets tiring really quickly, especially when most of their armies are Vanilla marines +1. Waiting years upon years for a book that might suit my play style wasn't really very wise either.

I've had a ton of fun playing a "generic" marine chapter. I picked up some old dreads on Ebay and bought some Blood talon arms, I spent some tourny winnings on the Storm Raven. Found some cheap missile launcher guys on Ebay and can field 15 Long Fangs. I'm planning on building a squad of "TWC" with marines riding lizards, and a "Wolf Lord" riding a Carnosaur. I've even got a Dreadknight on the way which I intend on converting up to use as a Demon Prince for when I use the chaos codex. All of these wouldn't have happened if I just had the vanilla book to draw from. I'd probably have a Vulkan model for faux-salamanders (which is better....how?), a couple of rifle-dreads (which I don't really like, visually or game-play wise) and probably a heap and a half of assault terminators and/or Sternguard.

I don't see why I should be denied being able to use one rule book or another just because my guys are blue. 10 years ago this would have be blasphemy, but the opinions having been shifting steadily over the last 4-5 years and it's now largely acceptable. It's not really fair to the poor dead end Xenos lists like Eldar or Orks and Tau, as there's nothing they can do but suffer through with their rule books, but I'm not going to suffer just because they have to.

As for historical gaming. Yeah, a new rule book doesn't come out every few years and suddenly upgrade the french muskets to AK-47s, what once was, will always be the same. I imagine historical gaming is more about recreating battles accurately then about actual "gaming". I know you realize that 40k is a lot less "by the book" then historical gaming is. No one is going to mock some poor kid that has his tactical or assault squad markings on the wrong shoulder pad, or didn't paint his sergeant's helmet red for ultramarines or painted his BA librarian red instead of the codex signified blue....etc

If you really, really want to field a Stormraven...

Why not go the Deathwatch route?

Per the Deathwatch RPG, they have access to Stormravens. So ask your buddies how they'd feel about playing against--or having the option of playing with-- a homebrew unit of 5 Astartes kitted out with Sternguard level gear and the option for a Stormraven.

Kanluwen wrote:If you really, really want to field a Stormraven...

Why not go the Deathwatch route?

Per the Deathwatch RPG, they have access to Stormravens. So ask your buddies how they'd feel about playing against--or having the option of playing with-- a homebrew unit of 5 Astartes kitted out with Sternguard level gear and the option for a Stormraven.

I don't think his problem was ever to do with a Stormraven not fitting in with the fluff, he wants to field a codex army which has rules for it.

On a fluff level I personally have no problem believing every marine chapter will have access to stormravens. The ad mech only gave it to the Blood Angels, Gk and Deathwatch? nah, it will be in the 6th Ed vanilla marine codex, I'd put money on it.

ifStatement wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:If you really, really want to field a Stormraven...

Why not go the Deathwatch route?

Per the Deathwatch RPG, they have access to Stormravens. So ask your buddies how they'd feel about playing against--or having the option of playing with-- a homebrew unit of 5 Astartes kitted out with Sternguard level gear and the option for a Stormraven.

I don't think his problem was ever to do with a Stormraven not fitting in with the fluff, he wants to field a codex army which has rules for it.

You don't need to field a Codex army to field a single Stormraven. The problem comes from wanting to field a "tournament" styled army with it, IMO.

Playing with your friends? You shouldn't encounter too much of an issue.

On a fluff level I personally have no problem believing every marine chapter will have access to stormravens. The ad mech only gave it to the Blood Angels, Gk and Deathwatch? nah, it will be in the 6th Ed vanilla marine codex, I'd put money on it.

You'd be wrong, in all likelihood. They have explicitly stated that the Stormraven is only sticking with the Blood Angels and Grey Knights. The Deathwatch (and the Storm Wardens) having it is a fluke, in all likelihood a piece of FFG fluff put in so that people who enjoy having miniatures to go with their tabletop games could field a gunship of some kind for their Deathwatch Kill-Teams without having to shell out for a Thunderhawk.

What GW did state, however, is that the Stormraven is likely not the only kind of gunship fielded by the Astartes.

Kanluwen wrote:You'd be wrong, in all likelihood. They have explicitly stated that the Stormraven is only sticking with the Blood Angels and Grey Knights. The Deathwatch (and the Storm Wardens) having it is a fluke, in all likelihood a piece of FFG fluff put in so that people who enjoy having miniatures to go with their tabletop games could field a gunship of some kind for their Deathwatch Kill-Teams without having to shell out for a Thunderhawk.

It's kind of like how when the LRC came out there was fluff saying it was incredibly rare to all chapters but Black Templars and had rules so that non BT chapters could only take one. Those rules and fluff disappeared in 4th ed. GW restricting the sales of a model through the rules though, that's unprecedented.

I'm a little confused as to the root of all this argument. I'm not referring to the whole codex-swapping bit. I'm just not sure why the OP wants to use a storm-brick when the Ultramarines have substantial available armour in terms of land raiders, predators, vindicators, etc. I assume this is to do with the slot on the FoC. I mean the storm-brick is fast attack and the armour is heavy support, so is the aim to squeeze more powerful units into a slot in which the OP has space/does not want the existing units/etc.

If this is the case then I would nix it, if someone playing vanilla SM comes in with, say, 3 land raiders in the hs slot and 3 storm-bricks in the fa slot then I would call it. A storm-brick is effectively a flying tank.

I absolutely agree that the storm-brick will end up in the vanilla SM codex next edition. However, I would want the unit used fairly in this instance. If the OP said he wanted to swap a storm-brick for a land raider say or if some other fair agreement could be reached.

With my GK army (I know, I know) I am a bit frustrated that the vehicle pool is pretty thin. Yes the top, uber stuff is there (land raiders and storm-bricks, which are powerful) but with no whirlwinds, predators and vindicators this is a limit on flexibility. It means that any GK armour is a very large points investment. Personally I assume there is some reason for this which I ought to respect. In my opinion if the GK are the top-dog chapter and can have any equipment then I would imagine they could field whatever rhino variants they wanted. Any counter-argument is pretty much knocked down by the fact that they can have rhinos and razorbacks. Whatever I think the codex says no they can't so I respect that even if I disagree.

As for the colour of models the paint scheme is incidental to me to be honest!

Skylifter wrote:
Using Grey Knight or Blood Angel rules to play Ultramarines is, to me, no different to using Necron rules to play Orks. Yes, it is more easily identifiable what is supposed to be what in the first case, but it is still using the wrong rules.

Unfortunetly for you GW creators say its fine, as long as he uses a single codex and everything is correct in terms of wargear then there is no problem what colour they are.

As long as a player doesn't try to create a mind numbingly aweful back story to try and justify the codex use and just says 'i like this codex and i like this colour' i would play them.

lol smurfs wielding halberds and ironclads with blender claws! Yea thats not weird. I get allowing people to customize but there is some weak attempts at codex hopping and hiding behind creative players who actually do some really cool conversions etc.

You have to remember that not everyone plays for the same reason, GW players are made up of gamers, painters/modelers, fluff guys or a mix of everything.

So in a tournament, an event that resolves arond play, with a few points given to painting (not fluff). Then it is perfectly resonable to assume that an opposing player won't object to them not following fluff, as that isn't the point of the event.

Seeing as he is changing codex to use new models and the ones he already has shouldn't be a problem either seeing as this is an expensive hobby, he's not bending fluff as he is not playing a fluff army.

Redbeard wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:
Black Templar Crusaders, Space Wolf Blood Claws, SM Assault Marines and Blood Angel Assault Marines can all be perfectly represented by a marine model armed with a bolt pistol and a chainsword.

Space Wolf Blood Claws have specific models (Space Wolves) available. They're not just generic marines with bolt pistols and chainswords.

I know they have special dedicated models. A generic space marine model can represent as Blood Claw to all extents of game-related WYSIWYG though. And that is no different than if I had my my own conversion, which I assume wouldn't be a problem as long as it was WYSIWYG.....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:By the way, for those asking if tournaments allow this, here is the model policy from Adepticon, the largest and most successful 40k event in North America, if not the world.

Count-as armies are allowed at AdeptiCon as long as they follow all the above rules and restrictions. The onus is on the owning player to alleviate any and all avenues of confusion that might result from using count-as models/armies. Countas models MUST be WYSIWYG, appropriately equipped and sized accordingly in order to best represent the model/unit in question. Count-as armies should demonstrate reasonable effort when it comes to conversions, simply using an existing army with a different codex (as a proxy) is NOT allowed.

Unless "reasonable effort" if clearly defined that statement is worthless....and what do I care about the rules of a tournament on another continent, large or otherwise?

Anyone can codex hop all they want. But it is contemptible, low-brow and petty. And it always will be. The blue blood angels posted a page or two ago are a perfect example: What a trashy army!

haendas wrote:I could be wrong, but I think that adepticon policy is geared towards necrons 'counts as' undead orks using the ork codex or something like that

Which is absolutely no different to using ultramarines as blood angels

BluntmanDC wrote:

Skylifter wrote:
Using Grey Knight or Blood Angel rules to play Ultramarines is, to me, no different to using Necron rules to play Orks. Yes, it is more easily identifiable what is supposed to be what in the first case, but it is still using the wrong rules.

Unfortunetly for you GW creators say its fine

Of course it is. And by extension, using any size-comparable models is also fine. Grots as eldar, nobs as terminators, rhinos as falcons, whatever you want is fair game. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.

Kaldor wrote:Anyone can codex hop all they want. But it is contemptible, low-brow and petty. And it always will be. The blue blood angels posted a page or two ago are a perfect example: What a trashy army!

haendas wrote:I could be wrong, but I think that adepticon policy is geared towards necrons 'counts as' undead orks using the ork codex or something like that

Which is absolutely no different to using ultramarines as blood angels

That's not hurtful at all. <sniff>

So, your opinion is that everything has to be 100% WYSIWYG and the proper paint scheme to use the rule book? What about successor chapters or home brew chapters? Not legal? What if your Grey Knights are chainmail silver instead of mithril? What if their guns are dark red instead of blood red? It seems like a person's intent is your "breaking point". If someone wants to use the Blood Angels codex for "Blood Angels successor chapter #214" then that's okay regardless of paint scheme, but if they want to use it because they like the rules, "What a trashy army!" is your response? How can you know a person's intent without them telling you? What if I didn't tell you my marines were Ultramarines and instead the "Cerulean Angels" successor of the Blood Angels and always have been. Is it okay now? Getting picky over paint schemes just gives more people reasons to not paint anything at all. I'd rather see green and blue Blood Angels or red Space Wolves then an army that's completely unpainted.

The line is drawn by GW at models, not paint. Period.

BluntmanDC wrote:

Skylifter wrote:
Using Grey Knight or Blood Angel rules to play Ultramarines is, to me, no different to using Necron rules to play Orks. Yes, it is more easily identifiable what is supposed to be what in the first case, but it is still using the wrong rules.

Unfortunetly for you GW creators say its fine

Of course it is. And by extension, using any size-comparable models is also fine. Grots as eldar, nobs as terminators, rhinos as falcons, whatever you want is fair game. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.

Also a little weirded out that the 2 people that are annoying me in this thread are Kaldor and Draigo. I think I'm sensing a pattern.

Kaldor wrote:Anyone can codex hop all they want. But it is contemptible, low-brow and petty. And it always will be. The blue blood angels posted a page or two ago are a perfect example: What a trashy army!

haendas wrote:I could be wrong, but I think that adepticon policy is geared towards necrons 'counts as' undead orks using the ork codex or something like that

Which is absolutely no different to using ultramarines as blood angels

BluntmanDC wrote:

Skylifter wrote:
Using Grey Knight or Blood Angel rules to play Ultramarines is, to me, no different to using Necron rules to play Orks. Yes, it is more easily identifiable what is supposed to be what in the first case, but it is still using the wrong rules.

Unfortunetly for you GW creators say its fine

Of course it is. And by extension, using any size-comparable models is also fine. Grots as eldar, nobs as terminators, rhinos as falcons, whatever you want is fair game. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.

You can't add new rules and expect people who play a game governed by rules to not care, especially when you try to convince us that a rule means something different than the convention. By the way, Adepticon allowed by buddy with an all white scar paint theme, even white scar markings and models, to play them as space wolves... no one even batted an eye.

Adeptus Astartes in PA can be any Chapter of the Adeptus Astartes as long as special equip is WYSIWYG. GW rule, internationally accepted, been that way since RT. That is in no way the same thing as saying an ork is an eldar (again that too is internationally accepted, official, not tournament legal, and again always been that way). You can insist that playing a Salamander as a Blood Angel violates WYSIWYG, but since the first codices were published, you'd be wrong (both the people who make the game and the vast majority of tournaments and players say so too). You can also insist that its the same as a Rhino being a Falcon (welcome to logical fallacies, BTW) but again, no noteworthy establishment in the 40k community agrees.

Lobukia wrote: That is in no way the same thing as saying an ork is an eldar.

It is exactly the same. It's ignoring the established rules and background associated with a particular model and using whatever rules happen to take your fancy.

And as I said earlier, thats fine. They're your models, and you can play them however you want.

But it is contemptible, cheap, low-brow and petty. And it always will be.

Being picky about color for the different " factions" so Chapters, Cabals, Craft Worlds, are nothing but a scheme for GW to make you purchase more armies since you cant proxy them.

Kaldor wrote:

haendas wrote:I could be wrong, but I think that adepticon policy is geared towards necrons 'counts as' undead orks using the ork codex or something like that

Which is absolutely no different to using ultramarines as blood angels

You also seem to have missed the point entirely, which was that color and iconography doesn't limit you to a specific marine codex in that tournament.

Contemptible, cheap, low brow, and petty? Wow. That makes it sound like con-men, not players in a game. You need to get off whatever pedestal you put yourself on to look down on other players of the game like that, especially when it is because of color scheme of their toys.

-cgmckenzie

Carnage43 wrote: It seems like a person's intent is your "breaking point". If someone wants to use the Blood Angels codex for "Blood Angels successor chapter #214" then that's okay regardless of paint scheme, but if they want to use it because they like the rules, "What a trashy army!" is your response?

Bingo.

Blue blood-angels are fine, if thats what you want. Ultramarine blood angels are tacky and crass.

There are two ways to divine a persons intent: Admissions and overt acts. Having an army painted and modelled as one thing, but using the rules of another, is a very overt act. I don't care about green space wolves or blue blood angles, but dark angel space wolves and ultramarine blood angels is crossing the line.

Kaldor wrote:

Carnage43 wrote: It seems like a person's intent is your "breaking point". If someone wants to use the Blood Angels codex for "Blood Angels successor chapter #214" then that's okay regardless of paint scheme, but if they want to use it because they like the rules, "What a trashy army!" is your response?

Bingo.

Blue blood-angels are fine, if thats what you want. Ultramarine blood angels are tacky and crass.

There are two ways to divine a persons intent: Admissions and overt acts. Having an army painted and modelled as one thing, but using the rules of another, is a very overt act. I don't care about green space wolves or blue blood angles, but dark angel space wolves and ultramarine blood angels is crossing the line.

Ya know who else was really concerned with the purity of his army?


/Godwin'd

As a general overview of the thread so far I think as long as the OP steers clear of Redbeard and Kaldor he will be fine.

So, lets take this out of marines. Is it proxying to use Cadian models for an IG army that has no ties to Cadia? Judging from this thread, yes. Is it proxying to paint your Eldar in camo, again i get the idea that yes it is. What about grey orks? PROXIES! Your taking it too far, a marine is a marine, the wargear is pretty much universal. Say i want a space wolves army, but hate the models, well Ill use regular marines, and say acute senses is a sensor package rather then super noses. Done. Red thirst could be certain units get inspired by the Emperor to have furious charge and be fearless. Its almost like you have no imagination.

Lunahound wrote:Being picky about color for the different " factions" so Chapters, Cabals, Craft Worlds, are nothing but a scheme for GW to make you purchase more armies since you cant proxy them.

Not at all. Let's get this out of the way first. GW is not going to send enforcers to your house or club and make sure you do things their way. You could play all of GWs games using cardboard chits, cut to the right base sizes. You could even play games with better rules, using cardboard chits

Most people don't want to do that. But, you could, and you could avoid paying GW for any miniatures in the process. GW isn't making anyone do anything.

There is something more going on here. It's as if using models adds some additional value to the game that cardboard chits don't have. What value is that? It's aesthetics.

You don't have to paint your models. You don't even need to prime them. I have seen people play the game with unpainted models before; i know it can be done. And yet, people do paint their models. Why would anyone go to this extra trouble? Again, it's the aesthetics. Miniature wargames aren't just about gaming, they're about the aesthetics.

You don't have to use the right models to play the game. You don't have to use the right colour schemes. But, in failing to do those things, you give up some of the aesthetic. Some of what makes miniature wargames what they are.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:So, lets take this out of marines. Is it proxying to use Cadian models for an IG army that has no ties to Cadia? Judging from this thread, yes. Is it proxying to paint your Eldar in camo, again i get the idea that yes it is. What about grey orks? PROXIES!

Not at all. I think what Kaldor said about intent is pretty key here. It's not a proxy if you're using an army as you originally intended. If you wanted grey orks, good for you. I've also seen 'counts-as' armies where orks were used as necrons, or where adeptus mechanicus models were used as daemons. No problem, that's what was intended, and a good deal of work was put into them to make them obvious as what they were representing.

It ventures into proxying when you take an army and use different rules for it than you originally intended. Of course, intent cannot be proven, but if you show up with a space marine army that has all the correct chapter markings for one chapter, and then claim to be using a different set of rules, that's pretty obvious. Rather than jump through mental hurdles to convince yourself that this right, why not just admit that you're proxying one army for another and get on with your game?

And, if your intent is to use the most generic looking models and paint scheme you can in order to maximize the flexibility of which rules you're using... well, using cardboard counters are the most flexible. If that's your goal, well, just accept that you're losing out on the aesthetics that make miniature wargames worth playing in the first place.

Say i want a space wolves army, but hate the models...

Then it's not really like you want a Space Wolves army, is it?

well Ill use regular marines ... Its almost like you have no imagination.

Wait a second, you want to use the (overpowered) Space Wolves rules (let's not pretend that you actually want a Space Wolves army, it's just the rules you want), and the best you can come up with is using regular marine models, and you say I've no imagination? You could make ork-wolves. You could make chaos-wolves (with berserkers riding juggernauts instead of thunderwolves). You could do eldar-wolves with dragon riding exodites. And, yet, the best you come up with is regular marines. And say I have no imagination.