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.

Breng77 wrote:

How you paint your army should never force your rules upon you unless you chose to.

Couldn’t agree more with this.

I use Cadian models because they’re readily available and relatively cheap (and I don’t like the catachan models) but I have painted them in my own scheme and come up with background for them as my own regiment so I shouldn’t feel bad about using whatever doctrine I want. I will probably try each one out a couple of times to see how it plays before I decide on one I want to stick with and which suits my play style.

ITT:

People arguing back and forth about a situation that is easily and pretty much instantly resolved in person at a gaming table by anyone with a modicum of social skills.

Everyone knows the guy at the club who has a million unpainted marine models who has changed up his chapter tactics 150 times since sixth edition to try and have the best rules available at any given time. Odds are, that's not even the most annoying thing they do during the game to turn opponents off them, and if you call them out on it, they almost invariably get indignant and demand you show them where IN THE RULES it says they can't have all their units magnetized and switch between lascannons when he sees he's playing a tank army to heavy bolters when he's playing orks to grav cannons when he's playing marines, or where IN THE RULES it says he can't model all his units lying down on the ground to make it harder to gain LOS.

Likewise, everyone knows the guy who has his own custom chapter, and mixes and matches the existing CT rules to reflect his own lore. There's a guy at my own club who runs a dragon-themed space marine chapter and mixes the Salamander chapter tactics for the bulk of his army with a contingent of Blood Angels so he can get a librarian dread and a fragioso, because it's the closest thing the game has to a dreadnought with a flamer weapon as its main gun.

Everyone knows Player A is a pain in the ass to play with, and Player B is generally chill and enjoyable. And on the internet, both will be accused of being Player A, and both will defend themselves claiming to be Player B. Both the accusation and the defense is pointless, because the fact of the matter is you have to actually play against someone to know.

I remember that White Dwarf article of one of the Studio Design guys that talked about his "Grey space Wolves" and how he had used them throug 20 years as Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Ultramarines, and literally every different space marine chapter.

As other guy has said, maybe for people that only play 1 game every 1 or 2 months, is okay to always use the same list with the same rules, but at least for me, that play 2-3 times a week, even changing my lists, I want variety or things grown stagnant very fast. And yes, I have 3 different armies, but if one army can offer me 6-8 different stiles of play, is gonna give me much more run for my money and much more fun.

I think too that making your units of different regiments/chapter/etc... different is a sing of respect (And by different I say something as simple as having a different number in their shoulder, or a line of some colour in the base or their armour, etc...)

 lolman1c wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
I think no matter the argument we can all agree cherry picking is the worst.

No, I think that's perfectly fine. If you want to hamstring yourself, go ahead, but don't go thinking everyone else will.

 lolman1c wrote:
if you start to give every single squad different rules that I can't even keep up with then you're abusing the game just to win.

First of all, there has to be some sort of marking to help your opponent know what is what. Second of all, what you call abusing the game, I call following the rules of the game.

Ahh... so you're that player who everyone avoids in the club and jokes about behind their back? The amount of times I've heard people make fun of the phrase "I call following the rules of the game" and avoid the players who say it... sometimes they're is more than just rules to this game. It's also about community and friendship.

Ahh, so you're that player that thinks everyone has to have your opinion, and talks gak behind their backs. Anyone I play with would tell you that no, we're not going to make house rules dependant on the colour of your marines, but they wouldn't talk gak behind your back, because they're not that kind of people. They're actually friendly and inclusive, unlike your crowd.

Imo it's all about how you paint them. If you have your own custom theme them play them with whatever your background is (I'd avoid changing the background every time one unit becomes slightly better because then your leaning towards TFG status). For example I have/ am working on a crusade themed guard army. All are black and white Templar theme but I have different models representing different units EX Cadian guys are cadian but still black and white. I love all the guard (except jungle fighters) and thus wanted an army theme I could slow build over years without needing 100000 different tanks every time I felt like changing up the lore. So I have regiments from around the galaxy that are crusading with various different black templar crusades. My infantry will always be WYSIWYG but my tanks all look the same.

I personally would not have have an issue with someone using doctrines other than those associated with the color schemes of their models.

I say this for non-permissive reasons. There's a few things I have observed that often don't get discussed about counts-as armies. I feel like models and paint schemes matter in this game for reasons other than lining GW investor pockets.

1) Constantly switching up doctrines means you might be good, but probably will never be great, with any one. It takes dozens of games to really learn how an army works. You learn about non-evident synergies, you learn about combos that make your army more effective, you learn when / where / why to trigger said doctrines. So if someone wants a game and they're not set in their mechanics - that's usually not as much of a challenge. This seems to be more of a problem for counts-as players who want to try many different playstyles without sticking to one long enough to become talented.

2) My CSM army is painted as Black Legion, unmistakable paint job. When I have tried to play it as Alpha Legion or Emperor's Children, a few funny things happened. One, I did not always remember to stick to the rules of the faux chapter. When looking at Black Legion, your mind wants to play Black Legion (for example, with leadership - I have to stop myself from adding +1 to the rolls EVERY time I go to roll.) Two, opponents don't always know to respect the rules of the faux chapter. Maybe they agreed to do so, but there's a need for clarifications throughout the game. This can be tedious and I just don't like doing it.

So... while I have no problem playing against a counts-as army, it's probably not the same as playing against properly painted models, I probably have an advantage. Those colors / symbols / weapons / etc mean something, and it's not always simple to change how you think about them.

When playing as a counts-as army, I have more of a tendency to forget rules myself and make mistakes on the board. I do that in every game, it's just more of a problem when I am trying to remember a different set of rules than what I am used to. I feel more comfortable with my own Chapter while playing the game, which is more of an advantage than I would get from some cover save or interrupt cycle. Overall, I can do more better.

Very strict. Like this thread!

 Purifier wrote:
That's what I've been trying to say, but apparently "it's not the same thing." Or something. Honestly, no one cares more about irrelevant details than the people online.

Like I mentioned in the other thread, I know this is a trivial thing, but evidently it is big enough in our hobby to cause a ruckus. I have a similar issue with Special Characters but that's a story for another day.

The thing with "just use whatever doctrine you want" is that it locks you out of special characters. As I've said more than once. To Purifier. But she fails to understand.

An example:

The Tallarn are known for tanks. I want a badass above-the-grain Tallarn Tank Commander. I pick Pask, as he is a badass tank commander. I go to pick Regiment tactics, and I can no longer use Tallarn, because Pask has the Cadia keyword. I am now playing a Cadian tank company, and it no longer fits my fast & swift playstyle.

OR

I don't take pask. I now get my fast & swift playstyle. But my Tank Commander isn't as good as a Cadian one for some reason even though my planet is better than Cadia at tank warfare. So now I play against a Cadian tank company and lose the armoured battle, more often than not, despite the opposite being the case in the fluff. My tank commanders cannot receive orders from a higher tank commander, and even my company commander is less good than his, despite armoured cavalry being a Tallarn thing.

If, instead, the Regimental Doctrines were not tied to the same thing Special Characters were, you could, for example, play a "Swift as the Wind" Cadian tank company, getting Pask and the Tallarn playstyle in the same army.

That's part of the issue I have with special characters too (a bit too restrictive for essentially an otherwise straight upgrade to a vanilla character), but that and everything else is for another thread.

I'm not failing to understand it, your reasoning is just entirely based on fluff as you have no idea what balance is, and since I don't agree that anything in the rules should be dictated by fluff, I wholeheartedly disagree with your standpoint.

Basing buffs off of fluff is fine, but balancing around it is a travesty.

Plus, maybe the Tallarn are known to be great at tank warfare as a general rule, but maybe even the Tallarn defer to Pask as the one exception to the rule, because he is better than them, even being Cadian. Or maybe they don't but he is anyway.

Your reading of what is fluffy and what isn't is so narrow because if it doesn't fit your own head-cannon, you refuse it outright.

 Purifier wrote:
I'm not failing to understand it, your reasoning is just entirely based on fluff as you have no idea what balance is, and since I don't agree that anything in the rules should be dictated by fluff, I wholeheartedly disagree with your standpoint.

Basing buffs off of fluff is fine, but balancing around it is a travesty.

Plus, maybe the Tallarn are known to be great at tank warfare as a general rule, but maybe even the Tallarn defer to Pask as the one exception to the rule, because he is better than them, even being Cadian. Or maybe they don't but he is anyway.

Your reading of what is fluffy and what isn't is so narrow because if it doesn't fit your own head-cannon, you refuse it outright.

I don't know what to tell you.

You're essentially saying I'm not allowed to dislike the way things were handled because you personally don't agree with the way I view the game.

Okay then.

I disagree with your analysis of the way fluff is handled and believe fluff should not be sacrificed on the altar of balance. I also believe that having more options for an army allows players more freedom to make an army that conforms to their version of the fluff, whatever it may be, than having fewer options. Therefore, it is better to have more options, rather than fewer, if you want to satisfy a large number of fluffy players.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The thing with "just use whatever doctrine you want" is that it locks you out of special characters. As I've said more than once. To Purifier. But she fails to understand.

An example:

The Tallarn are known for tanks. I want a badass above-the-grain Tallarn Tank Commander. I pick Pask, as he is a badass tank commander. I go to pick Regiment tactics, and I can no longer use Tallarn, because Pask has the Cadia keyword. I am now playing a Cadian tank company, and it no longer fits my fast & swift playstyle.

OR

I don't take pask. I now get my fast & swift playstyle. But my Tank Commander isn't as good as a Cadian one for some reason even though my planet is better than Cadia at tank warfare. So now I play against a Cadian tank company and lose the armoured battle, more often than not, despite the opposite being the case in the fluff. My tank commanders cannot receive orders from a higher tank commander, and even my company commander is less good than his, despite armoured cavalry being a Tallarn thing.

If, instead, the Regimental Doctrines were not tied to the same thing Special Characters were, you could, for example, play a "Swift as the Wind" Cadian tank company, getting Pask and the Tallarn playstyle in the same army.

This seems like a pretty different issue. Presumably GW thought about what they were doing when they combined particular doctrines and warlord traits and stratagems and special characters. The game would be pretty different if you could just mix and match these at will -- probably we'd see a lot of Hard to Hit Ultramarines with Guilliman, for example. Now, I think that, often, special characters are badly implemented such that they tend to overshadow Chapter Tactics type rules when picking a subfaction (see Guilliman, Cawl, and maybe Harker), but I think everyone gets that if you want to use Raven Guard rules for your Ultramarines then they're not going to benefit as much from Guilliman's aura. This is just not what's meant when people talk about using whatever subfaction rules you want.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Therefore, it is better to have more options, rather than fewer, if you want to satisfy a large number of fluffy players.

Those same "fluffy players" are also going to cry the same rivers as everyone else when the game gets bloated and impossible to balance because everyone can take everything so everyone is taking the best choices with the best characters with whatever the best choice of regiment is for him etc etc because the more things you add that interact, the harder it will be to foresee how those things will interact.

 Purifier wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Therefore, it is better to have more options, rather than fewer, if you want to satisfy a large number of fluffy players.

Those same "fluffy players" are also going to cry the same rivers as everyone else when the game gets bloated and impossible to balance because everyone can take everything so everyone is taking the best choices with the best characters with whatever the best choice of regiment is for him etc etc because the more things you add that interact, the harder it will be to foresee how those things will interact.

I also disagree with you here; I haven't cried about balance since I decided I really only play 40k for the fluff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The thing with "just use whatever doctrine you want" is that it locks you out of special characters. As I've said more than once. To Purifier. But she fails to understand.

An example:

The Tallarn are known for tanks. I want a badass above-the-grain Tallarn Tank Commander. I pick Pask, as he is a badass tank commander. I go to pick Regiment tactics, and I can no longer use Tallarn, because Pask has the Cadia keyword. I am now playing a Cadian tank company, and it no longer fits my fast & swift playstyle.

OR

I don't take pask. I now get my fast & swift playstyle. But my Tank Commander isn't as good as a Cadian one for some reason even though my planet is better than Cadia at tank warfare. So now I play against a Cadian tank company and lose the armoured battle, more often than not, despite the opposite being the case in the fluff. My tank commanders cannot receive orders from a higher tank commander, and even my company commander is less good than his, despite armoured cavalry being a Tallarn thing.

If, instead, the Regimental Doctrines were not tied to the same thing Special Characters were, you could, for example, play a "Swift as the Wind" Cadian tank company, getting Pask and the Tallarn playstyle in the same army.

This seems like a pretty different issue. Presumably GW thought about what they were doing when they combined particular doctrines and warlord traits and stratagems and special characters. The game would be pretty different if you could just mix and match these at will -- probably we'd see a lot of Hard to Hit Ultramarines with Guilliman, for example. Now, I think that, often, special characters are badly implemented such that they tend to overshadow Chapter Tactics type rules when picking a subfaction (see Guilliman, Cawl, and maybe Harker), but I think everyone gets that if you want to use Raven Guard rules for your Ultramarines then they're not going to benefit as much from Guilliman's aura. This is just not what's meant when people talk about using whatever subfaction rules you want.

Yes but I don't want to see fluff sacrificed on the altar of balance.

Perhaps if GW made it so that special characters weren't just a "clearly better in every way" version of a regular character then people would be more inclined to make their own characters. It is a lack of options in the first place that causes this. "Oh, you want a tank commander who can give orders to other tank commanders? Seems reasonable and fluffy, as armour regiment commanders exist across the galaxy...

...oh, also they're all Cadians. Every single one. Because we couldn't be assed to give this option to a regular tank commander."

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I also disagree with you here; I haven't cried about balance since I decided I really only play 40k for the fluff.

That is one hell of a bold faced lie, when ee're in another thread RIGHT NOW where you are literally demanding that assault never be able to touch you, because otherwise you find it unbalanced.

 Purifier wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I also disagree with you here; I haven't cried about balance since I decided I really only play 40k for the fluff.

That is one hell of a bold faced lie, when ee're in another thread RIGHT NOW where you are literally demanding that assault never be able to touch you, because otherwise you find it unbalanced.

Yep, that's what I said. You're exactly right. Definitely didn't have more nuance or context than "I don't want assault to touch me."

And no, it's not because I find it unbalanced. It's because I think it is unfun. There is a difference, though I don't expect you to see it.

Isnt this the same as a ultramarine painted army using raven guard rules, just because they are better, it doesnt sit right with me but that wont stop me from letting other people do it, I just wont.

Again as long as I can easily identify which regiment your models belong to which is fine.

However if your a douche and tell me this conscript squad is vahallan for bring in next wave and this one is Cadian for reroll 1s and they are all Cadian models that your freely blob up together as a screen.

I reserve the right to flip the damn table over and ask you to tell me which models are vahallan and which are Cadian again!!!

Purifier, Unit, in how many Threads are you gonna be simultaneously arguing agains't each other ad nauseam?

 Galas wrote:
Purifier, Unit, in how many Threads are you gonna be simultaneously arguing agains't each other ad nauseam?

Till I finally put her on ignore, I think. She seems stubborn.

"It's unfun." It's unfun for you if the opponent has a chance to beat you. /facepalm.

 Purifier wrote:
"It's unfun." It's unfun for you if the opponent has a chance to beat you. /facepalm.

Keep punching that strawman.

When you get your anger out and want to get around to actually talking about what I said, you can bring it up in PMs or the other thread.

Enough off topic.

use the ignore and carry on.

It's not like the 8 regiments in the Codex are the only 8 regiments in the entire galaxy, so I'm totally fine with mixing doctrines and models to maybe represent a different regiment from a different planet.
Realistically, if you think about it, those 8 planets are just a tiny tiny fraction of all the planets in the Imperium At least 99% of all guard regiments will come from someplace else, and while they may look like Cadians (standard issue kit), they might not have the same doctrines.

Space Marines: Strip the paint and paint them color of the week to play how you'd like.

IG: Buy Pewter or Metal models that may or may not be out of production so you can play how you'd like.

Lance845 wrote:I support the follow the rules arguments.

In that there are none.

No rule exists that requires you to model or paint any of your models any particular way. If every game you want to play your green guardsmen as different types of guardsmen to try out or mix up the rules then do it. There is no rule requiring people to paint their SM any way to get the rules. There is likewise no rule requiring you to paint or build your guardsmen a certain way use the rules of a regiment. Just make clear what regiment your detachment is to your opponent and play a good game. Anyone who gives you gak for it is dragging their idiotic house rules into the actual rules and trying to drag everyone down with them.

Purifier wrote:Second of all, what you call abusing the game, I call following the rules of the game.

Ah, THE RULES..

This is an interesting one. How do you know which models, sold by Games Workshop, should be used to represent, say, a Space Marine Tactical Squad? Stupid question, right? We all know. But hey, we're looking for rules, and it turns out there are none. Therefore, I can use 10 grots, or 10 hormaguants, or a mix of different tanks to be my 'tactical squad'. I think most people would agree that this is stupid, and most RAW players would have a problem with this.

So, how DO we know? Well, first, there's a whole codex which constantly shows pictures of specific models with notes below them that say 'Tactical Marine' or 'Space Marine' or, specifically, for the blue ones, 'Ultramarine'. That's one way.

Also, GW sells a boxed set called a 'Space Marine Tactical Squad', so we could go by the box covers if that works better, and use the pictures in the book to determine which chapter they are. They make a box they call a Space Marine Tactical Squad, so that's what you should use. They clearly show named chapters with colour schemes, so that's how you know which chapter is which. Or you could make their own.

But hold on, none of those things are RULES. You can split hairs and say they're in the wrong bit of the codex or something. If that's true, you condone using literally anything (paperclips, dreadnoughts, blobs of putty, orks, coins) in any setting because, after all, there are no rules.

For Imperial Guard, there is no boxed set called an 'Imperial Guard Infantry Squad'. If you go online right now and try and buy one, you have the option to buy a box of 'Cadians', or a box called 'Valhallan Squad', and if you try and use the codexes, you'll find really clear images of which models are called what thing. They make it really really clear what models are for what unit entry, and what Cadians/Valhallans/Tallarn look like.

This is all really pernickety, of course. As far as I'm concerned, rule of cool is the most important one, and that's judged entirely by how much effort you put in to making your models look 'right' for the setting. And we all know what Ultramarines or Space Wolves or Steel Legion or Valhallans look like. I'm only pointing it out because, if you assume there are no rules about what model to use, then there really are NO rules. Rules-wise, using a Valhallan as a Tallarn is the same as using a Gretchin as a Tallarn.

Wow this thread got interesting.

To respond I would never tell someone, "Those models are painted Cadian (or Ultramarine, Black Legion or whatever), so you have to use Cadian(or Ultramarine or Black Legion) Regiment (or Chapter or Legion) or I am not playing you!!!". I am pretty liberal even with proxies as long as they are around the same size as the model, so using different tactics is fine. And if someone really wants to try something I wouldn't make a fuss.

However, I would like to say, and I am sorry if I offend, but if you have a whole army painted as Ultramarines or Cadia or whatever, and you are using them as something else solely because the rules are better, you are a power gamer. I know that they don't have plastic for many IG regiments and that really bottle necks people choices. But if you painted your whole army Cadian, put Cadian markings on vehicles etc., there is a reason. Clearly you liked the background or something. Same with Marines and Chaos. If you made an army a certain way there was a reason, where you liked the background, colors, god whatever. To change what you play just because some rules are better is power gaming. By the way, there is nothing wrong with power gaming, but don't sit there and act like your not using these rules that are better for an advantage in the game to win.

I have a few units of Tzeentch painted and marked models for Chaos Marines. I would never use them as Slannesh or Khorne just because the Marks or Stratagems or whatever are better even though I am well within my rights to do so because as someone pointed out earlier on this thread, there is no GW rule that says "this Chapter Tactic (or whatever) only applies if the model is painted this Chapter" or God or whatever. I will say that if I am trying to be competitive, I have bought my Tzeentch painted Marines and Rubrics as Alpha legion despite them not having anything that makes them more Alpha legion than Tzeentch or Thousand Sons. And when I use that list I am power gaming. I am ok doing that but not shifting gods. That is my preference and I don't begrudge anyone theirs. But again don't sit there and give me some fluff BS about how your Cadians are actually from Mordian or whatever, just say "I am using the Mordian Regiment on these models" and I will say cool and we will play. If I think you are a power gamer because of that, well that is my opinion and you really shouldn't care what I think anyway (my wife certainly doesn't lol)

 ArbitorIan wrote:

Lance845 wrote:I support the follow the rules arguments.

In that there are none.

No rule exists that requires you to model or paint any of your models any particular way. If every game you want to play your green guardsmen as different types of guardsmen to try out or mix up the rules then do it. There is no rule requiring people to paint their SM any way to get the rules. There is likewise no rule requiring you to paint or build your guardsmen a certain way use the rules of a regiment. Just make clear what regiment your detachment is to your opponent and play a good game. Anyone who gives you gak for it is dragging their idiotic house rules into the actual rules and trying to drag everyone down with them.

Purifier wrote:Second of all, what you call abusing the game, I call following the rules of the game.

Ah, THE RULES..

This is an interesting one. How do you know which models, sold by Games Workshop, should be used to represent, say, a Space Marine Tactical Squad? Stupid question, right? We all know. But hey, we're looking for rules, and it turns out there are none. Therefore, I can use 10 grots, or 10 hormaguants, or a mix of different tanks to be my 'tactical squad'. I think most people would agree that this is stupid, and most RAW players would have a problem with this.

So, how DO we know? Well, first, there's a whole codex which constantly shows pictures of specific models with notes below them that say 'Tactical Marine' or 'Space Marine' or, specifically, for the blue ones, 'Ultramarine'. That's one way.

Also, GW sells a boxed set called a 'Space Marine Tactical Squad', so we could go by the box covers if that works better, and use the pictures in the book to determine which chapter they are. They make a box they call a Space Marine Tactical Squad, so that's what you should use. They clearly show named chapters with colour schemes, so that's how you know which chapter is which. Or you could make their own.

But hold on, none of those things are RULES. You can split hairs and say they're in the wrong bit of the codex or something. If that's true, you condone using literally anything (paperclips, dreadnoughts, blobs of putty, orks, coins) in any setting because, after all, there are no rules.

For Imperial Guard, there is no boxed set called an 'Imperial Guard Infantry Squad'. If you go online right now and try and buy one, you have the option to buy a box of 'Cadians', or a box called 'Valhallan Squad', and if you try and use the codexes, you'll find really clear images of which models are called what thing. They make it really really clear what models are for what unit entry, and what Cadians/Valhallans/Tallarn look like.

This is all really pernickety, of course. As far as I'm concerned, rule of cool is the most important one, and that's judged entirely by how much effort you put in to making your models look 'right' for the setting. And we all know what Ultramarines or Space Wolves or Steel Legion or Valhallans look like. I'm only pointing it out because, if you assume there are no rules about what model to use, then there really are NO rules. Rules-wise, using a Valhallan as a Tallarn is the same as using a Gretchin as a Tallarn.

If modeled with a lasgun, if all other models were IG models (tanks etc) I would have little issue with someone making a grot guard army.

Arbitorlan, that's a bit of a strawman as well. The only rule that truly matters to me when it comes to modelling and using proxies or count-as is WYSIWYG. Meaning that if you're going to play 10 grots as a TAC squad with a rocket launcher and 9 bolters, those grots better have a rocket launcher and bolters.

Of course, WYSIWYG is a subjective guideline, but it's been expressed in the rulebooks before as something along the lines of, "...equipment must be visually represented on the model so your opponents can clearly see what they are facing."

Now, if you want to play grots as space marines, or Cadians as Kreig or whatever, I'm fine with that. Even if you're just trying to maximize your list in specific cases. BUT - if you are going to be switching around like that for whatever reason, whether it be that you can't afford the correct models or you just can't decide on one thing, then you better at least get some magnets and a pin vice. I don't care about grots-as-SM, but I DO expect whatever you're playing to have exactly the wargear you say it does. Otherwise there's just no way to keep track of what's what for anyone.