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.

You're never going to get a consensus on this issue. It used to be debated when people would jump between codexes (DA, BA, SW etc) and it will be debated again with chapter tactics. I don't thing either side is more right than the other, it's an opinion, nothing more. The only thing a given player should do is discuss it with their regular opponents so they don't waste a bunch of time/money either way.

Having said that! Personally it has never bothered me one bit. I don't care if you've meticulously painted your whole army as Ultramarines and decide to play them as White Scars, Space Wolves or literally as Ultramarines. As long as you're clear which rules you're using, you've told me, and you built the list in a way we have agreed on, I'm good with it. To be fair, I do have my own marine army, and I've always played them to suit how I feel, not tied at all to their paint scheme (which is Crimson Fist). Part of the attraction of building a marine army was that I had such options.

Having said that, my gaming buddies do not care at all about codex/chapter hopping, we also regularly proxy things, so that's what we're comfortable with. If we were all right into the fluff, and more interested in 'forging a narrative' then perhaps we'd have a different opinion on the matter.

This question has been directed at marine players for years, even decades, though. I wonder... do, say, Eldar players get the same grief? Are there any Ulthwe players that get told they are doing it wrong because they didn't field any guardians, for example?

I've used Night Lords models for my slaanesh chaos chosen and have had conversations about why they shouldn't ever be marked and I'm doing it wrong.

It's like a Tau player with the T'au ochre color scheme playing Codex Tau one day, and Farsight Enclaves the other.

 Cryogen wrote:
I wonder... do, say, Eldar players get the same grief? Are there any Ulthwe players that get told they are doing it wrong because they didn't field any guardians, for example?

This used to be relevant about 8 years ago during the time of the pre-previous Eldar codex, where its Craftworlds supplement allowed you to field Biel-Tan, Alaitoc, Iyanden, Saim-Hann or Ulthwé armies. Yes, players who switched between BS 4 Guardians (Ulthwé), Rangers and Pathfinders as troops (Alaitoc), or Aspect Warriors as troops (Biel-Tan) from game to game were indeed abusers in my eyes. Then came the previous eldar codex and streamlined all those buffs into the Eldar army as a whole - only Biel-Tan and Ulthwé got chucked out as both the dual Farseer Seer Council, the BS 4 Guardians and the Aspect Warriors as troops went the way of the dodo.

So yeah...if we're allowed to switch CTs from game to game, nobody would run SM vehicle heavy lists without using Iron Hands Chapter Tactics; people having ranged infantry heavy armylists including Centurion Devastators wouldn't run them without Imperial Fist chapter tactics etc.

I for example am a Black Templar player who runs a vehicle heavy armylist, but I stick to my BT chapter tactics because my army is painted this way and I do have Crusader squads making up my troops choices although they aren't large by any means. Similarly, I'm sure there are players out there who have been collecting White Scars without having disproportionately large amounts of bikes, and I'm sure many of them will stick to White Scats CTs without going to GW and buying four boxes of bikers because that's how they've painted their army.

 Sir Arun wrote:
It's like a Tau player with the T'au ochre color scheme playing Codex Tau one day, and Farsight Enclaves the other.

Or an Eldar player with a black army playing Ulthwe one day, and Iyanden another...

Else nobody would run SM vehicle heavy lists without using Iron Hands Chapter Tactics; people having ranged infantry heavy armylists including Centurion Devastators wouldn't run them without Imperial Fist chapter tactics etc.

I for example am a Black Templar player who runs a vehicle heavy armylist, but I stick to my BT chapter tactics because my army is painted this way and I do have Crusader squads making up my troops choices although they aren't large by any means.

Well nothing says Farsight Enclaves have to be painted red because Tau still join up with the Enclaves and some generals still admire Farsight. Also Farsight practices a type of Tau war fare. So it would be like telling somebody they couldn't use "The Art Of War" because they are not a Chinese Dynastic. Therefore I see no issue to it at all.

Ulthwe still has wraith constructs and can/could field them in battle in large amounts. So why not use the Iyanden rules?

Yes if you have mech heavy or centurions why wouldn't you use the CT you are obviously building for?

.....Ahhhhh, so because you stick to one route then others should. You might of just jumped straight to the case and saved everyone time.

How is switching CT any different from switching codex? I play not-Ultramarines one day and Eldar the next, why can't I use my not-Ultramarine models as Crimson Fists next week?
The models don't change, but the army does.

I always change the chapter tactic to match the list I am trying to create. I don't see it as a big deal at all since 1) The Chapter Tactics aren't that game changing and 2) A Boltgun wielding psychopath wearing armor is just as good as another. Just because he's the red psychopath doesn't mean he can be just as crazy as the blue one.

If anyone makes a fuss I'll just say the Blood Ravens stole their tactics.

 Blacksails wrote:
Have at it. I'd go one step further and use a single Marine army to play most of the MEQ codices, obviously with appropriate wargear. Heavy use of magnets required.

So, yes, switch your CTs as often as you like. Just tell your opponent before hand and have it clearly written on the army list you present them.

In fact, I'd buy a marine army with the intention of using it to play C: DA, C: BA, C: SW, and C: SM. They're all marine with bolters anyways, with one or two minor changes on some specific units.

This!

I have a HUGE collection of painted SW and I use them for whatever codex/chapter tactics I feel like. For tournaments I sometimes use the SW 'dex, but I've recently been playing events using the SM 'dex with Iron Hands Chapter Tactics (I take 2-3 Land Raider Crusaders). My models are always WYSIWYG and my chosen codex and/or Chapter Tactics is always clearly represented on my army list, so there really isn't much of an argument against what I do... I'm not breaking any rules, lol. I just like variety.

EDIT:
SM Terminators with TH/SS are 18 points cheaper than similarly equipped SW Terminators. Why wouldn't I play with the SM 'dex?

The overwhelming majority of players find this behavior acceptable. Personally, I see nothing wrong with it.