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 personally would not enjoy that game.. Having same units have different rules but look exactly the same is just a recipie for a very awkward game defining moment along the lines of.. ohh yeah I wasn't allowed to re-roll those 1s etc..

As an Eldar player I have a homebrew scheme. I on occasion mix craft worlds but it will never have identical looking units duplicated across different detachments with different traits. That would confuse me let alone my opponent .

When I have, its always been a case of: All the guardians, rangers, warlock and Eldrad are Ulthwe so you don't get a -1 to hit these dudes... (that's my core battalion CP battery I base my lists around ) everything else is alitoic so will get a -1 to hit against them. But to be honest best is mono sub faction as it just makes the admin so much less stressful personally.

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:
I don't think they necessarily need to be painted completely differently but there should be some way to differentiate otherwise identical models.

 Nazrak wrote:
Argh, yeah I'd absolutely hate this. Play guys as what they're painted and stop trying to game the system to your advantage.

What if my guys aren't painted in the colours of any particular subfaction?

You have to use the current Squats rules instead.

My buddy played his finely painted Salamanders army, everything was WYSIWYG but I still managed to get surprised when I got smacked by a random thunderhammer in a Tac Squad. Who puts thunderhammers in Tac Squads? Who takes TAC Squads? I think my opponent just said everything was WYSIWYG and then I asked a couple of follow up questions, so that's maybe also something to look out for even if you are playing WYSIWYG, are you notifying your opponent of Relics, WL Traits and such properly before the game begins and maybe mentioning the upgrades your unit has even if they are clearly visible.

For me colour identity is not a big issue but it's something I need to be more aware of I think because I like to play my two-Dynasty army and the two Dynasties are not visually different. The only thing I can say is that my regular Destroyers and all my Scarabs are speedy boys and the Heavy Destroyers and the rest of my army are gunny boys.

I find that a lot of people forget to do their re-rolls or FNP than anything like malicious cheating occurs, I don't think I remember that happening ever actually. Certainly nothing as brash as adding two Tactics to a single unit. I know back in a gaming club I attended when I first started wargaming the old grogs running the kids day every week would encourage us to cheat and one of them constantly came up with house rules from who knows where, it's hilarious in retrospect. My buddy would create woods that were exactly wide enough to shoot through for his cannons and stuff like that, we thought that was part of it, we were all a bunch of little munchkins.

As far as being a jerk, you can make whatever demands from your opponent you want, if you want them to paint one of your miniatures before they get the privilege to play then that's your prerogative and your opponent is free to not indulge your painting requirements and not play you. If you can find a middle ground where you put stickers on models that might be confused as being from a different chapter then all the more power to you. Alternatively putting a coloured dice, token or piece of paper might work as well. You wouldn't call someone who only wanted to play competitive or only wanted to play narrative a jerk either.

But to add to that, if you didn't do that compromise with the stickers, I might just pick out my strong mono-Dynasty army instead of my weak dual-Dynasty army. Not to be a git but because the mono-Dynasty army I enjoy the most is also strong. Especially with the new SM rules I think that's going to be the case. "Oh you won't let me play my Vanguard Veterans as Ravenguard in my Iron Hands list? I guess I'll have to go full gunline with my Iron Hands."

It is ultimately a game played between 2 living human beings. I am sure both parties can work things out. If you do not enjoy doing said book keeping, just let your opponent know and if it makes you more comfortable to have him mark the units with dice or tokens, let him know. I personally wouldn't mind placing a token or 2 if I am going to do something like that just to make life easy for everyone.

That said I do play my stuff WYSIWYG but never expect the same from anyone else. To each their own it is a game after all.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I ended up buying colored sticky dots after the last game, and now if anyone tries it, their models are getting dotted.

Ouch man, GOLDEN RULE- DO NOT TOUCH MODELS WITHOUT PERMISSION, I can't vouch for anyone elses area but in my local that is a fantastic way to get black listed if you made any alterations to someones models, no matter how tiny without strict permission, glue on the dots aside.

Onto the main subject however - In a pick up game I don't mind as long as my opponent has attempted to make it clear! I'm fine if its all painted Ultramarine, but every squad equipped with X is actually Y Chapter - That's fine, I will write out a piece of paper at the start confirming it with my opponent and I will refer to it when I am unsure, by turn 2 hopefully its memorised.

I'm a little more annoyed if the army is rampant with non WYSIWYG models, The worst I do is proxy 2 converted Soul Grinders into Defilers but I have come across 'oh that guys bolter is a plasma gun!'... His squad has 4 other bolters damn it man

I don’t think it unreasonable to expect an opponent to make it clear which figures represent what on the table. Same colour scheme for different Chapters does not do this. At the very least, the guy/gal shows a lack of foresight.

My Orks are RT vintage, so ‘counts as’ can apply to the whole army, and wysiwyg went out the window a long time ago. All the Boyz are armed with different weapons - so I make sure my opponent knows that ‘all Boyz are Shootas’ or ‘all Boyz are Sluggas’. The Mob Boss has a back banner. Easier for me, easier for them. If I run big shootas/whatever, then they -are- wysiwyg, and easily identifiable.

Is being easily identifiable too much to ask?

At 1000 points all the carapace weapons on my War Dog army are heavy stubbers. At 1500 points they're WYSIWYG (some are actually meltas). Other than that, I play my Ultramarines as WYSIWYG Ultramarines, but due to the recent points drop I'm currently including an unpainted miniature to try out a few alternatives before committing to buying and painting.

So that's me. As for opponent's, I'd expect similar - I'd prefer them to have the correct models, but changing a couple of loadouts or running a single counts-as unit is fine too. Running a painted chapter as another does seem like an attempt to access rules for another army to gain an advantage, unless you're including a few additional units painted differently in an existing army.

Of course other factions have it easier - Tyranid players seem to be able to choose their hive fleet without too much opposition because Tyranids lack such a well recognised colour scheme.

 Nazrak wrote:
A sort of related question for all the people saying "oh it's fine as long as they stick something on them to distinguish units, or paint all the bases differently" or whatever – does it not bug you how terrible that would look?

If by painting the bases differently we're talking about just colour coding the rim of the base, not the bit on top, then not at all as it won't look terrible.

If there are problems distinguishing units there are several less painful solutions and much less permanent than paint marking or repainting.

- use coloured rings, also known as base extenders.
- use movement trays with color marks.
- use elastic markers on the models

I understand it gets confusing easily and if I were you, I'd be upset as well if this occurred repeatedly.

As an Imperial Guard player, I usually run all my infantry as Vostroyans (I have a custom regiment so... no space cossacks), and all vehicles usually as Tallarn. If I take artillery, I take it as Catachan and the mandatory HQ slot is usually a Primaris Psyker or Lord Commissar, there the regiment does not matter anyway.

Is it a footslogger? Vostroya
Is it a vehicle? Tallarn
Does it have a bit gun pointing upwards or a few missiles on it? Catachan


---------------------------

Gir Spirit Bane wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I ended up buying colored sticky dots after the last game, and now if anyone tries it, their models are getting dotted.

Ouch man, GOLDEN RULE- DO NOT TOUCH MODELS WITHOUT PERMISSION, I can't vouch for anyone elses area but in my local that is a fantastic way to get black listed if you made any alterations to someones models, no matter how tiny without strict permission, glue on the dots aside.

I'm quite sure the OP is well aware of that. His intention was probably "Either stick those dots on your miniatures or find a different opponent."

I think it is okay to ask your opponent to make units clearly distinguishable. Though I also think it is okay to ask someone if you can try out a list with proxies or incorrect colours because you want to test out some ideas before committing.

 Nazrak wrote:
A sort of related question for all the people saying "oh it's fine as long as they stick something on them to distinguish units, or paint all the bases differently" or whatever – does it not bug you how terrible that would look?

Nope. Not one bit. As long as I know visually at a glance what unit is what & wich models belong to it? Then I don't care how you accomplish that.

I'm on the same page as most. If I need pen&paper to track your army, you'll get a hard no.

I once forced an eldar player to write paper slips with his psychic powers on them because he kept losing track of what units had what buffs applied to them and which psykers had attempted, failed or succeeded what. It doesn't matter whether he was trying something shady or not, but if you try to use a fortune re-roll on a unit which was not targeted with that power, you are going to do the paperwork for me.

Same for mixing and matching sub-faction traits. Unless I can distinguish those factions at first glance (all vehicles are X, all infantry are Y is sufficient), I'll either force you to label your army, or we will not have a game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nazrak wrote:
A sort of related question for all the people saying "oh it's fine as long as they stick something on them to distinguish units, or paint all the bases differently" or whatever – does it not bug you how terrible that would look?

Against people trying to mix&match sub-factions a force which was painted as one coherent force, immersion tends to not be a thing anyways.
People who just want to have a not-sucking army trait usually just replace their original army trait with a different one (for example CF for ravenguard, iyanden for allaitoc or blood axes for deffskulls) - then you don't need labels anyways.

 skchsan wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Pandabeer wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Overread wrote:

Last time I recall reading this rule it was in the GW tournament organising pack. Ergo it was aimed at being a rule for tournaments.

oni claimed it's in the codex. I am unable to find that in the codex I have with me, and I highly doubt that it was lost when they translated it to the German language. p108 doesn't talk about paint colour, nor do pages 174 and 176. Page 108 at some point even says that you CHOOSE to assign a chapter to a model.

This is what they are referencing.

That still doesn't say anything about paint jobs.

Yes it does. How else would your army be Storm Lords if not for a paint job? Learn to infer.

I guess that means if you're color blind and can't paint corresponding chapter colors you cant play 40k. That really sucks.

Or what if your army is a 2e era BA force. Blood Angel Orange hasn't been a color longer than 1/2 the players have been alive. and if you see it, it aint the modern red. Do you get told, "No, sorry. You're not a BA anymore."?

 Jidmah wrote:
I'm on the same page as most. If I need pen&paper to track your army, you'll get a hard no.

I once forced an eldar player to write paper slips with his psychic powers on them because he kept losing track of what units had what buffs applied to them and which psykers had attempted, failed or succeeded what. It doesn't matter whether he was trying something shady or not, but if you try to use a fortune re-roll on a unit which was not targeted with that power, you are going to do the paperwork for me.

Same for mixing and matching sub-faction traits. Unless I can distinguish those factions at first glance (all vehicles are X, all infantry are Y is sufficient), I'll either force you to label your army, or we will not have a game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nazrak wrote:
A sort of related question for all the people saying "oh it's fine as long as they stick something on them to distinguish units, or paint all the bases differently" or whatever – does it not bug you how terrible that would look?

Against people trying to mix&match sub-factions a force which was painted as one coherent force, immersion tends to not be a thing anyways.
People who just want to have a not-sucking army trait usually just replace their original army trait with a different one (for example CF for ravenguard, iyanden for allaitoc or blood axes for deffskulls) - then you don't need labels anyways.

So much this if you want a subfaction trait that doesn't match your paint job fine.
If your playing 3 sub factions in 1 army with 1 paint scheme, yeah nope. They have to be easily distinguishable, if they arn't histort says they will magically move back and forth between the rules.

Like my Tau is 1 paint scheme but the different subfactions have different base materials, Martian Dust is Tau ash/sulphur wastes is borkan is something most people can track. But yeah I wouldn't have the balls to try and pull that with them all based the same.

i don't really care what people play their units as so long as I can tell and it isn't super confusing to keep track of.

That said, just do a custom paint job and you can run your marines as whatever you want to run them as from one game to the next.

Things like different painted rims on bases or markers on the models are helpful even if you're fielding an army all from the same faction. If you've got 3 units of termagaunts, each 30 strong and you're charging them into the enemy in a huge block then it REALLY helps if you've got some unique markers for each squad. Even if they are all equipped the same, it still helps greatly in avoiding confusion on which gaunt goes with which squad.

So even if you're not going to mix match sub-forces within a single army; then having a view toward unique identification on models really helps. The only downside is it might push you to buying more models to have complete squads rather than mix matching them, but overall it makes your game a lot easier to play.



Heck you can even get creative - that's Red Squad - they've won every single close combat they go into over the last 5 games! Ergo letting you write some story to your army not just play with it in a tactical sense. Little things like this can seem silly or unimportant, but they can sometimes just add to the overall fun and creative, story, imagination side of the game.

1+ on keeping it simple.

I built a list with 6 deff dreads, with a view to trying out some combos and seeing what worked. Due to time constraints, I couldn't mod my dreads in time and instead changed the list to be all identical twin-KMB dreads. This was to avoid confusion.

I've no issues with a bit of unWYSIWYGness, providing it is clear and easy to understand. Some people like to try things out before they commit to ripping a model apart or repainting it. I would find it difficult if they had 3 identical squads with different chapters - it is easy to just have a slightly different model in each unit to distinguish it ("the guy brandishing his chainsword above his head is in the ravenguard squad", for example).

i'd be happy with a bit of stuff to remember, but not a whole army of it. I'd fail to keep track of that on my own army, let alone an unfamiliar one!

I have recently become a lot more hardline in regards to WYSIWYG. Too many people are cutting corners to chase the meta and my sympathy has expired. Make no mistake, it's only ever done so people can use better rules.

I don't allow my opponent to use proxies. Also, if they have painted their models in the colour of a popular, established chapter they shouldn't be playing them as anything else. Custom Chapters are an exception of course, they could be anything. But if your army is very much an Ultramarine force right down to unit markings they shouldn't be using the rules of Raven Guard/Iron Hands, etc

Weapon and model proxies are a definite no. High quality conversions can be ok on a case by case basis, some can be truly amazing and enrich the experience.

You want to have the best stuff? That's perfectly fine. Go out, buy it, and paint it accordingly.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
WYSIWYG is not a rule. As long as they are using the correct Citadel™ Miniature for the datasheet it doesn't matter what wargear is represented.

There you go again with your binary approach. It may not be a literal rule in the holy of holies rulebook that you seem to think every word in it is some kind of edict from on high; but it IS a rule insofar right now as a form of gentlemen's agreement. In the same vein as counts-as, rule of cool and several others.

But you knew this already and just wanted to be a knob.

He's not being binary...

The OP asks for opinion on the enforceability of WYSIWYG, and certain member voiced their opinion that not following WYSIWYG is essentially cheating.

BCB is merely stating the fact that because WYSIWYG is not an actual written rule, and therefore cannot be "broken", and there's no actual way of "enforcing" it other than mutual agreement.

Bingo. If someone wants to use their Crimson Fists or Salamanders as something more functional, why should I stop them? It's GWs fault their rules suck, and it's the least I can do to help out an opponent

Maybe they should put a little foresight into it before committing to a Chapter, then. Or possibly make up a Successor Chapter specifically so they aren't tied to a specific trait.

the_scotsman wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Often i find the same people who want to run the same models as 3 chapters will conveniently use whatever chapter tactic benefits the unit at the time like... oh they are mius 1 to hit due to being 12 inches away... then after wounds... ignoreing on 6 for iron hands. After that they get mad when you call them out on the horsegak of claiming the unit is both "oh honest mistake i was confused" "like motherf@(#er how do you think i feel having to track all your s#(*t"

Yeah that didn't happen.

can confirm had a player try and pull the both strats and get upset at me for pointing it out like "its an honest mistake" after pulling that gak all game (though usually it was not as brash as using the strats in the same phase on the same unit)

its like people who get annoyed when you ask them what unit is in which transport and then call them out later for deciding a wave serpant with dire avengers declared on drop is the wave serpant now that has fire dragons because its closer to one of my battle wagons. and the other one is near an objective with grots so the dire avengers can take it easy.

Almost all games I have played versus people actually, actively cheating, it has been this blatant. Because if people who cheat were smart, they could win without cheating.

Willful cheating is almost always:

-Saying a dice result was something other than it was and quickly picking it up

-Blatantly fabricating rules or saying a model's stats are different from what they are.

-Cheating at the list-building step (Taking way more points than the other player has, or list-tailoring and taking wargear options based on what is in the opponent's army)

It's never some creative thing. I can absolutely see someone doing the -1 to hit and the 6+ fnp.

oni wrote:For those of you who don't own the codex or didn't read the part of the codex that's relevant to this 'conversation'...

GW has now clarified, in writing, as rules, that your paint job + iconography now 100% makes the decision of what chapter you are.

If you're color scheme and chapter symbol match Ultramatines... You are an Ultramarine and can only use the applicable Ultramarines rules.

If your color scheme and chapter symbol match that of a known successor chapter... You are that successor chapter and must use all applicable rules.

If your color scheme does not match Imperial Fists than you are not Imperial Fists and therefore cannot use the Imperial Fists rules.

There are of course mechanics in place (i.e. stratagems and other written rules) that provide a manner of flexibility, but overall GW has put their foot down; drawn a line in the sand... No more picking and choosing the best rules for game advantage. Your paint job + chapter symbol now 100% matters.

I expect and sincerely hope this carries over to other factions when their codex's are re-released.

List tailoring isn't cheating. At all. Knowing you're facing a variety of Eldar and running as many Heavy Bolters as possible is smart resource management. REAL militaries do it all the time.



I guess I'm far too much of a stickler for WYSIWYG, I like to know EXACTLY what I'm facing at all times.

 Just Tony wrote:


Maybe they should put a little foresight into it before committing to a Chapter, then. Or possibly make up a Successor Chapter specifically so they aren't tied to a specific trait.

How could you foresee multiple codices and game editions into the future that the army you chose to build would end up crap?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:


Maybe they should put a little foresight into it before committing to a Chapter, then. Or possibly make up a Successor Chapter specifically so they aren't tied to a specific trait.

How could you foresee multiple codices and game editions into the future that the army you chose to build would end up crap?

By using the emperors tarrot, probably.

Or you actually paint a chapter you like instead of just chasing rules?

If you only care about the rules you will get burned eventually. Power rises and falls often in 40k.

I think it should be generally accepted when somebody comes with an army of Ultramarines and play them all as Iron Hands, for example. Outside of tournaments...

No mixing, though, as OP described.

Also, be awarded for creativity.

 Nazrak wrote:
A sort of related question for all the people saying "oh it's fine as long as they stick something on them to distinguish units, or paint all the bases differently" or whatever – does it not bug you how terrible that would look?

IT depends on how it is done marines for example have various types of squad markings, company markings etc, so if it is "all my 10th company guys are x chapter, and 4th company guys are y chapter" it could look perfectly fine.

I would just like to say I have only ever seen this with Space Marines. Both the spikey style, and the loyalists. I'm just sick of playing soup meta in non-competitive local games. Those are not Rubrics, and those Pink Horrors are not blue horrors, and I need you to differentiate for me which of your 3 daemon princes are which faction.

 Just Tony wrote:
Maybe they should put a little foresight into it before committing to a Chapter, then. Or possibly make up a Successor Chapter specifically so they aren't tied to a specific trait.

Two of my regular Marine opponents picked their Chapter twenty-five years ago. Enlighten us, what will the chapter tactics of Ultramarine be in 2044?

Sterling191 wrote:

Reemule wrote:

But go back to the OP... he doesn't want to play you to avoid this situation... so why is he being the jerk?

By agreeing to a game, then throwing a fit regarding the outcome of said game. The situation hasnt changed.

Reemule wrote:

And realistically, it just created a bad experience for both, and now maybe neither ones is playing 40K anymore. How was this good for the hobby?

You're absolutely right, you throwing a fit is bad for the hobby and is a very effective way to get someone to not like you.

My interpretation of his post is he is going to not play people who are not WYSIWYG. Not throw a fit.

Actually, I played all the games, and didn't say anything before or after the game, because I was unsure if it was me being in the wrong, and this is acceptable. Whether I won or lost is irrespective of my concern.

And this is also not relevant, but the only person I have ever declined to play was based on their list being a flat out thematic list that included GSC w/ Baneblades. I did it respectfully, and stated I feel that would not be fun for me to play against, declined. The end.

 Ishagu wrote:
Or you actually paint a chapter you like instead of just chasing rules?

Yepppppp 100% this. Glad to see it's not just me who feels like this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Maybe they should put a little foresight into it before committing to a Chapter, then. Or possibly make up a Successor Chapter specifically so they aren't tied to a specific trait.

Two of my regular Marine opponents picked their Chapter twenty-five years ago. Enlighten us, what will the chapter tactics of Ultramarine be in 2044?

My view of this is "Who cares? Play them as Ultramarines no matter what."