Codex usage with models painted from other codexes

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.

**cerbrus2**

undertow wrote:
Drager wrote:
I really don't get it. I've been in the same position you describe with my DE, which I've been playing since their first release. I got labelled a bandwagon jumper, but so what?

I just don't get why people like to tell others what is OK to play or what isn't or why it is OK to do something that doesn't affect them or their own choices. That, I find to be in bad taste, as it tells someone they are a worse person for liking to play with the most powerful stuff, when its just a difference in motivation for playing.

I agree. The way I see it there are a few different facets of this hobby. Three of the more obvious ones are:

- Painting and modeling
- Background lore and fluff
- Actually playing the game

I've never been into the fluff. I don't really read the non-rules portions of any codex I've bought, personally I think a lot of it reads like bad fan fiction. I've never read a Black Library book. For me the fluff takes a distant back seat to anything else. When I look at picking up a new army I only really want to know if that army has cool models and rules that'll be fun on the table.

However, I know people that will stop playing an army they've used for years just because a new Codex came out and the new fluff doesn't sit well with them. One player at my local store traded away his Necrons because he couldn't get behind the fluff. I think that's a bit silly, but to each his own.

Its just the role play aspect, some people are really into it. I personaly love the horus heresy storeys so for me, a chaos army is my first love.

**Drager**

cerbrus2 wrote:
undertow wrote:
Drager wrote:
I really don't get it. I've been in the same position you describe with my DE, which I've been playing since their first release. I got labelled a bandwagon jumper, but so what?

I just don't get why people like to tell others what is OK to play or what isn't or why it is OK to do something that doesn't affect them or their own choices. That, I find to be in bad taste, as it tells someone they are a worse person for liking to play with the most powerful stuff, when its just a difference in motivation for playing.

I agree. The way I see it there are a few different facets of this hobby. Three of the more obvious ones are:

- Painting and modeling
- Background lore and fluff
- Actually playing the game

I've never been into the fluff. I don't really read the non-rules portions of any codex I've bought, personally I think a lot of it reads like bad fan fiction. I've never read a Black Library book. For me the fluff takes a distant back seat to anything else. When I look at picking up a new army I only really want to know if that army has cool models and rules that'll be fun on the table.

However, I know people that will stop playing an army they've used for years just because a new Codex came out and the new fluff doesn't sit well with them. One player at my local store traded away his Necrons because he couldn't get behind the fluff. I think that's a bit silly, but to each his own.

Its just the role play aspect, some people are really into it. I personaly love the horus heresy storeys so for me, a chaos army is my first love.

And that's cool too, I'm happy you enjoy that (I'm a fan of everyone enjoying stuff for whatever reason).

**undertow**

cerbrus2 wrote:
undertow wrote:
Drager wrote:
I really don't get it. I've been in the same position you describe with my DE, which I've been playing since their first release. I got labelled a bandwagon jumper, but so what?

I just don't get why people like to tell others what is OK to play or what isn't or why it is OK to do something that doesn't affect them or their own choices. That, I find to be in bad taste, as it tells someone they are a worse person for liking to play with the most powerful stuff, when its just a difference in motivation for playing.

I agree. The way I see it there are a few different facets of this hobby. Three of the more obvious ones are:

- Painting and modeling
- Background lore and fluff
- Actually playing the game

I've never been into the fluff. I don't really read the non-rules portions of any codex I've bought, personally I think a lot of it reads like bad fan fiction. I've never read a Black Library book. For me the fluff takes a distant back seat to anything else. When I look at picking up a new army I only really want to know if that army has cool models and rules that'll be fun on the table.

However, I know people that will stop playing an army they've used for years just because a new Codex came out and the new fluff doesn't sit well with them. One player at my local store traded away his Necrons because he couldn't get behind the fluff. I think that's a bit silly, but to each his own.

Its just the role play aspect, some people are really into it. I personaly love the horus heresy storeys so for me, a chaos army is my first love.

Right, I get that, and there's nothing wrong with that. There's something in this hobby for almost everyone.

**jeffersonian000**

I have a 2nd Ed Legion of the Damned army that I still enjoy fielding in all its flame and bones glory. Yet, they do not have a current codex entry beyond a single elite unit. So what do I do?

Well, when the mood hits me, I field them as: Codex Marines, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, or Chaos Marines. Because I can, WYSIWYG is fully modeled, and I state to my opponent before the game which codex I'm using, which units are which, and I keep the codex in question on hand for review in case a question comes up. Never had an issue.

Won't run then is GKs, though, because my Ghostwing is awesome all on its own!

SJ

**undertow**

I play Daemons and Eldar (mostly Daemons right now though). I haven't painted my Eldar to be specific to any particular craftworld, I wonder if I'll get grief if I 'supplement hop' if GW releases more than Iyanden books.

**MasterSlowPoke**

6^ wrote:
Polecat wrote:
This is basically the main reason why I started playing Space marines. I just pant them whatever colour I want, and whenever a new marine codex comes out, I just switch to that newer, usually more powerful codex without having to buy new models.

That seems in poor taste.

Does it not seem in poor taste to want someone to play with their models in a way that they don't want to, simply because the men are painted green instead of red?

**Eldarcannon**

I would appreciate your opinion on what Undertow made me think.

I run Alaitoc Eldar (blue and yellow scheme). Suppose a Saim-hann supplement (red and white scheme) is released. Would you mind me playing the supplement using Alitoc models? Do you think a TO will let it pass or not?

I don't like Saim-hann scheme though i love Eldar Jet Bikes, yes even that '90s model! And wave serpents just look great, as much as any other a-grav. It's just that I don't like red-white.

**cowmonaut**

Anpu42 wrote:
1st was in 2nd Edition to were I was the only one in the local Meta and then when the Space Wolf Codex came out, then there were 5-6 of them, some just exploit Wolf Guard in Terminator Armor with both Assault Cannons and Cyclone Launcher on the same models. I even had one player whom had just started playing Space Wolves a month before tell me my Space Wolves were not Space Wolves because they were Primer Grey not Space Wolf Grey.
The second time is when the 5th Edition came out. it was almost 3 months before I got to the local Game Store with my Space Wolves and the first thing I heard when I started pulling out my army was.
“Great another ing Space Wolf player, jumping on the Bandwagon!”

Heh. I've had similar experiences. I had played W40K a few times at my friends house, but didn't start really getting into it and collecting an army until the release of the 3rd Edition SW Codex. Still have the White Dwarf with all the Index Astrates and upcoming release stuff for the new Space Wolves from back then.

3E/4E was fine. Suddenly there's a 5E Codex and I'm a "bandwagon hopper" simply for playing an army that just got an update.

I shudder to think of what some of the older Eldar players, or even Tau players, are going through right now. Some people are just dumb and like to whine.

But yea, bandwagon hopping is always in bad taste. Doesn't mean its a bad move from a competitive standpoint, but there is more to the hobby than just winning tournaments (though if you play a game, it still is all about trying to win).

**MasterSlowPoke**

I'd be surprised if any TO were to disallow you from using Codex Saim-Hann. I'd certainly not mind.

**Quark**

The only issue I see is if you're using it specifically as a vessel to always be on top of a competitive scene. If this is encouraged too much, than non-Space Marine armies are heavily penalized for not having nearly the amount of options that marines have.

A Xenos could be waiting 5 years for an update while a Space Marine is never more than a year out of sync with the current scene.

**kronk**

I've been using my Black Templar as Codex: Space Marines for about a year. Mainly because GW hates me as much as Sisters of Battle players.

**Happyjew**

SInce we are talking about using models for a different army, one of the local players runs Kroots as Guardsmen. They are equipped correctly, and no one has yet to have a problem.

**jeffersonian000**

Happyjew wrote:
SInce we are talking about using models for a different army, one of the local players runs Kroots as Guardsmen. They are equipped correctly, and no one has yet to have a problem.

That sounds like a sweet opponent to play! I'd actually look forward to going against that.

SJ

**clively**

First off, I'm not entirely sure why this is in YMDC. Seems more of a general game question or whatever, not a rules discussion.

However,

6^ wrote:
My room-mates and I are pretty strict fluff adherents. We were talking about list building and I brought up the idea of him using the Dark Angels codex to represent his Iron Hands. I felt that the 'grim resolve' rule better represented the Iron Hands obstinance in battle than 'combat tactics' rule does.

He feels uncomfortable because the book says Dark Angels on it and not Iron Hands. This is somewhat my fault as I have trained him to play with the fluff in mind. My second room-mate of course said that no one should ever use a different codex for anything, but I think he was just saying that because he always has to disagree with everything I say. For instance I shouldn't be using Codex Blood Angels to represent Raven Guard just like I shouldn't use it to represent Eldar.

Thoughts or opinions on the matter? What can I do or say to convince him it's ok?

It is his army. If he wants to use Codex: Space Marines for his Iron Hands, which, incidentally, has zero named HQ representation in the SM book, then I'd say that's his choice.

To convince him: Pound his army into dust. Repeatedly and without mercy. After more than a bit of that bring the topic up again. When faced with getting stomped again and again, opinions of what's acceptable or not tend to change.

**Polecat**

Quark wrote:
The only issue I see is if you're using it specifically as a vessel to always be on top of a competitive scene. If this is encouraged too much, than non-Space Marine armies are heavily penalized for not having nearly the amount of options that marines have.

A Xenos could be waiting 5 years for an update while a Space Marine is never more than a year out of sync with the current scene.

The issue there is all about money and not so much about any options that marines have.

The fact is that every marine codex is a different army as far as rules go. BA players will have to wait that same 5 years for an update just like any Xenos player.

But marine players don't have to buy new models when they change to a different army, if that new army is a marine army.

Of course Xenos players could do this too, like using Kroot with lasguns as a Guardsmen, it's just that people don't tend to do this a lot for whatever reason.

**Hansisaf**

I am currently making a Grey Knights army in which all models are painted like Thousand Sons.

No one I met has any problems with it. They even said they wouldn't mind if I use the allies chart of Choas Space Marines to make it work with the fluff.

I'm sure I can't take the army to a tournament, but I don't care.

**jeffersonian000**

Grey Knights are pre-heresy Thousand Sons, so they'd still be loyalists. : P

SJ

**nosferatu1001**

Theyre really not PH 1kSons....no mutated geneseed causing the CHange.

**jeffersonian000**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Theyre really not PH 1kSons....no mutated geneseed causing the CHange.

Pre-Heresy Thousand Sons were all sorcerers (like the GK), each school had its own specialty (like the GK), pyromancy was a dominate school (like the GK), some Thousand Sons could control robots the size of Titans with their minds (the Nemesis DreadKnight), all Thousand Sons were armed with special force weapons and wore specially crafted power armor suits with built in psychic hoods (nemesis force weapons, Aegis armor). The only real difference is that TS were colored red and bone with scarab devices, while GK are silver and gold with book devices. Functionally, both armies are identical.

SJ

**nosferatu1001**

Not entirely true in your first assertion; 1Ksons were *true* sorcerors, i.e. they derived their power partly through the daemon helpers they were (unwittingly, knowingly) using

The GK do not use the help of daemons and are therefore not sorcerors

Yes, that is being pedantic in the source of their powers, but it is quite a key one.

**jeffersonian000**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Not entirely true in your first assertion; 1Ksons were *true* sorcerors, i.e. they derived their power partly through the daemon helpers they were (unwittingly, knowingly) using

The GK do not use the help of daemons and are therefore not sorcerors

Yes, that is being pedantic in the source of their powers, but it is quite a key one.

Actually, you need to re-read the GK codex if you think the GK are not sorcerers. However, my point that the two are functionally the same still stands.

SJ