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.

My friends and I are interested in attending tourneys and are in the process of going from casual lists to competitive lists. One of the issues facing our marine player is everything he has is modeled as ultramarines, but wants to play them as imperial fists or salamanders. Is this legal on tourneys? His blue guys being ran as a different chapter? Or is it based on specific tourneys and their rules?

Usually this is specific to tournaments. Most will let it slide / players won't overly complain (As it certainly happens) so long as everything is consistent. If you have Tigurius in an allied Ultra detachment alongside a bunch of Imperial Fists painted also as Ultramarines in your Primary Detachment, folks will start to get touchy. If every single marine in blue on the tabletop is part of the same chapter rules wise ... well, folks complain less.

RAW there is no rule at all about what color your models have to be painted or what symbols they can use. If you have blue marines that just means you're playing an Imperial Fists or Salamanders successor chapter with a chapter symbol that just happens to look kind of like the ones the Ultramarines use. You can also have blue models in the same detachment as yellow models, two detachments with blue models and different rules, etc. As long as all of their weapons and equipment are properly modeled then you've satisfied WYSIWYG and you have a perfectly legal army according to GW's rules.

Now, individual TOs may choose to add house rules governing how your models have to be painted and require marine models using a particular set of rules to be painted according to that chapter's fluff. The only way to find out is to read the rules for the individual tournament and see if there are any additional painting requirements. And of course if they don't mention any additional painting requirements in the rules but complain about your army then they're TFG and you should probably not attend their events.

MVBrandt wrote:
Usually this is specific to tournaments. Most will let it slide / players won't overly complain (As it certainly happens) so long as everything is consistent. If you have Tigurius in an allied Ultra detachment alongside a bunch of Imperial Fists painted also as Ultramarines in your Primary Detachment, folks will start to get touchy. If every single marine in blue on the tabletop is part of the same chapter rules wise ... well, folks complain less.

I'd like to second this. As long as everything is consistent (all the marines with the same color scheme follow the same Chapter Tactics), you should be fine. Disregard anyone who complains about it. They probably aren't people you want to be friends with anyway.

Also, unlike what Peregrine said, if you field a bunch of Ultramarines with bolters and say "those 10 over there are Imperial fists and those 10 over there are Salamanders," you're actually TFG. He is correct that GW's rules do not make any statement saying you cannot do this, but most TOs would take umbrage the moment a player complained that there was no way to clearly delineate which squad was which.

MVBrandt wrote:
Also, unlike what Peregrine said, if you field a bunch of Ultramarines with bolters and say "those 10 over there are Imperial fists and those 10 over there are Salamanders," you're actually TFG. He is correct that GW's rules do not make any statement saying you cannot do this, but most TOs would take umbrage the moment a player complained that there was no way to clearly delineate which squad was which.

So why don't similar rules apply to other armies? For example, am I TFG if I bring an IG army with stormtroopers and an allied detachment from the stormtrooper codex? They're the exact same models (even according to GW) and have the same unit rules, but their army-wide rules (orders, etc) are different. So I have two squads that look exactly identical on the table but have different rules. Am I TFG if I don't paint them differently or use alternative models for one squad? If so, what colors should be used with each squad given that there is no fluff difference between the two units? Or what about a HQ command LRBT and a heavy support LRBT? Am I required to use the official GW fluff for painting identification numbers on my tanks, or is the extra radio antenna on the command tank (a tiny detail you probably won't notice from across the table) sufficient?

The simple fact is that in the standard rules of the game there is no requirement for any specific colors of paint. In fact, GW even encourages you to use the rules for chapter/character/etc to represent a different one (which may have a different color scheme/symbols/etc). If you as a TO want to establish additional rules governing color choices and clearly define what is and isn't allowed then that's your right. But if you don't establish those rules up front you have no right to complain about a player's color choices.

 Peregrine wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
Also, unlike what Peregrine said, if you field a bunch of Ultramarines with bolters and say "those 10 over there are Imperial fists and those 10 over there are Salamanders," you're actually TFG. He is correct that GW's rules do not make any statement saying you cannot do this, but most TOs would take umbrage the moment a player complained that there was no way to clearly delineate which squad was which.

So why don't similar rules apply to other armies? For example, am I TFG if I bring an IG army with stormtroopers and an allied detachment from the stormtrooper codex? They're the exact same models (even according to GW) and have the same unit rules, but their army-wide rules (orders, etc) are different. So I have two squads that look exactly identical on the table but have different rules. Am I TFG if I don't paint them differently or use alternative models for one squad? If so, what colors should be used with each squad given that there is no fluff difference between the two units? Or what about a HQ command LRBT and a heavy support LRBT? Am I required to use the official GW fluff for painting identification numbers on my tanks, or is the extra radio antenna on the command tank (a tiny detail you probably won't notice from across the table) sufficient?

The simple fact is that in the standard rules of the game there is no requirement for any specific colors of paint. In fact, GW even encourages you to use the rules for chapter/character/etc to represent a different one (which may have a different color scheme/symbols/etc). If you as a TO want to establish additional rules governing color choices and clearly define what is and isn't allowed then that's your right. But if you don't establish those rules up front you have no right to complain about a player's color choices.

Not a very good comparison, but I'll bite. Yes - you should in that case out of politeness for your opponents do something to make it easy enough for them to know which units of identical models are going to follow materially different rules on the tabletop.

In my mind, TFG is the kind of guy who wins at all costs, or the guy who takes whatever liberties the rules allow without any regard for his opponent, the TO, or other people in general. So, if someone refuses to do anything to make 10 ultramarines on same-color bases with Imperial Fists rules distinguishable from 10 ultramarines on same-color bases with Salamanders rules ... well, consider that TFG has meaning beyond how hard someone tries to win a game. It's a social experience, warhams ... it isn't masturbatory. This is why TO have rules that do their best to arbitrate what otherwise would be an experience dependent upon the equivalently good will and astute social acumen of all attendees.

Said in short, NO, the rules do not force you to distinguish the marines. YES, most reasonable TOs will have a rule in place of some sort to protect those you play against from a situation where they cannot make sense of your army as it relates to your army list. We do this because it is unreasonable to assume all players will go out of their way to watch out for the fun and comfort of their opponents, so we do our best to soften the extremes. This is, of course, subjective, and everyone has to be comfy with it. I am of course not comfortable with the above scenario, so I have some light rules in place to prevent that kind of extreme.

At the same time, if you can get through at least my own tournament without your opponents minding how you've modeled and painted your rules, that also works - most TOs do not go table to table and make judgments based upon their OWN idea of what is OK. It's really just that they have guidelines to help make judgments should any given opponent object.

 Peregrine wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
Also, unlike what Peregrine said, if you field a bunch of Ultramarines with bolters and say "those 10 over there are Imperial fists and those 10 over there are Salamanders," you're actually TFG. He is correct that GW's rules do not make any statement saying you cannot do this, but most TOs would take umbrage the moment a player complained that there was no way to clearly delineate which squad was which.

So why don't similar rules apply to other armies? For example, am I TFG if I bring an IG army with stormtroopers and an allied detachment from the stormtrooper codex? They're the exact same models (even according to GW) and have the same unit rules, but their army-wide rules (orders, etc) are different. So I have two squads that look exactly identical on the table but have different rules. Am I TFG if I don't paint them differently or use alternative models for one squad? If so, what colors should be used with each squad given that there is no fluff difference between the two units? Or what about a HQ command LRBT and a heavy support LRBT? Am I required to use the official GW fluff for painting identification numbers on my tanks, or is the extra radio antenna on the command tank (a tiny detail you probably won't notice from across the table) sufficient?

The simple fact is that in the standard rules of the game there is no requirement for any specific colors of paint. In fact, GW even encourages you to use the rules for chapter/character/etc to represent a different one (which may have a different color scheme/symbols/etc). If you as a TO want to establish additional rules governing color choices and clearly define what is and isn't allowed then that's your right. But if you don't establish those rules up front you have no right to complain about a player's color choices.

In short yes you would be TFG. In tournaments it is the responsibility of the player to insure squads can be easily differentiated. Including which units belong to which transports etc. It should be clearly defined and most codices, and the internet, can provide plenty of examples of how to differentiate between squads.

Sure, in a perfect world. This is a thread specifically about the tournament format so arguing about what is or is not in the rule book about squad markings etc isn't really relevant. In this case the only thing relevant is the established tournament format.

It really depends on the level of competitiveness at the event. As anyone who plays in tournaments can tell you; a full blown GT level tournament player at a GT would expect your army to be modeled and painted clearly so that he/she can easily differentiate between units from across the table. For example:



My current tournament army. The shoulder pads of the tactical squads correspond to the edges of the drop pod doors when open. Furthermore the drop pods that are objective secured, meaning purchased with a troops choice, have doors that open. Drop pods that are not ObjSec have doors that are glued shut. The 2 assault squads have different colored markings on their shoulder pads. The allied Space Wolves are clearly painted with a different color scheme, including the Rune Priest being predominantly red rather than the traditional colors of the librarius so my silver marines librarians won't be mistaken for the rune priest and vice versa in games that use both. This is the level of effort that is expected of tournament players at bigger events. Local events tend to be more lax since most of those are used as testing ground type events.

As far as chapter goes, my silver marines in this case were silver Salamanders. I have a WYSIWYG kitbashed Vulkan for the army which clearly stands out as being Vulkan. Not pictured is the allied Space Wolf drop pod that is red with glued shut doors, again following the theme outlined above. Basically check with the players who are playing in the events you're interested in and the guy(s) running the event(s).

As a player who focuses a lot on tournament play i take this sort of care with all the armies I paint/play. Looking through my gallery images you'll find examples of this clearly. It's just what's expected.

The shoulder pad gems and the gems on the front of the Waveserpents match up and are different from squad to squad.

The heads of the warrior squads were all painted with a different scheme.



With my old Salamanders it was easy to tell the Sternguard, Assault Squad, and Tactical squads apart. It takes just a little effort.

MVBrandt wrote:
Yes - you should in that case out of politeness for your opponents do something to make it easy enough for them to know which units of identical models are going to follow materially different rules on the tabletop.

So what about the second half of that question: what should those differences be? Keep in mind that, unlike space marine chapters, there is no official method for separating the two units and "the command tank is the one with 811 on the side of the turret" isn't really any better than "the Salamanders squad is the one with the helmetless sergeant".

So, if someone refuses to do anything to make 10 ultramarines on same-color bases with Imperial Fists rules distinguishable from 10 ultramarines on same-color bases with Salamanders rules

And this is a straw man argument. The OP mentions having blue marines using two different sets of chapter tactics rules, it doesn't say anything about refusing to make any distinguishing features at all. You're inventing the idea of same-color bases and assuming that the player would refuse to paint different-color marks on the base for each squad (if they were notified in advance that this was expected). In fact, this would be a pretty reasonable solution to the problem that even the lazy marine player shouldn't have any problem with.

YES, most reasonable TOs will have a rule in place of some sort to protect those you play against from a situation where they cannot make sense of your army as it relates to your army list. We do this because it is unreasonable to assume all players will go out of their way to watch out for the fun and comfort of their opponents, so we do our best to soften the extremes. This is, of course, subjective, and everyone has to be comfy with it. I am of course not comfortable with the above scenario, so I have some light rules in place to prevent that kind of extreme.

And I have no problem with this. If it's clearly stated up front that marine detachments with different chapter tactics rules must be painted with obviously different color schemes then that's a fair rule to make. I can understand why a player might refuse to attend an event that applies additional rules to their painting options, but at least it's stated up front and everyone who does choose to attend knows that the rule will be enforced.

The only problem I have with rules about color schemes is the hypothetical situation where the TO doesn't say anything about painting rules but then the TO or players make a big deal about an army that doesn't follow some arbitrary unwritten rule about how to paint your models. If you fail to communicate your rules then you don't get to complain when people don't follow them.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
Also, unlike what Peregrine said, if you field a bunch of Ultramarines with bolters and say "those 10 over there are Imperial fists and those 10 over there are Salamanders," you're actually TFG. He is correct that GW's rules do not make any statement saying you cannot do this, but most TOs would take umbrage the moment a player complained that there was no way to clearly delineate which squad was which.

So why don't similar rules apply to other armies? For example, am I TFG if I bring an IG army with stormtroopers and an allied detachment from the stormtrooper codex? They're the exact same models (even according to GW) and have the same unit rules, but their army-wide rules (orders, etc) are different. So I have two squads that look exactly identical on the table but have different rules. Am I TFG if I don't paint them differently or use alternative models for one squad? If so, what colors should be used with each squad given that there is no fluff difference between the two units? Or what about a HQ command LRBT and a heavy support LRBT? Am I required to use the official GW fluff for painting identification numbers on my tanks, or is the extra radio antenna on the command tank (a tiny detail you probably won't notice from across the table) sufficient?

The simple fact is that in the standard rules of the game there is no requirement for any specific colors of paint. In fact, GW even encourages you to use the rules for chapter/character/etc to represent a different one (which may have a different color scheme/symbols/etc). If you as a TO want to establish additional rules governing color choices and clearly define what is and isn't allowed then that's your right. But if you don't establish those rules up front you have no right to complain about a player's color choices.

In short yes you would be TFG. In tournaments it is the responsibility of the player to insure squads can be easily differentiated. Including which units belong to which transports etc. It should be clearly defined and most codices, and the internet, can provide plenty of examples of how to differentiate between squads.

Sure, in a perfect world. This is a thread specifically about the tournament format so arguing about what is or is not in the rule book about squad markings etc isn't really relevant. In this case the only thing relevant is the established tournament format.

It really depends on the level of competitiveness at the event. As anyone who plays in tournaments can tell you; a full blown GT level tournament player at a GT would expect your army to be modeled and painted clearly so that he/she can easily differentiate between units from across the table. For example:



My current tournament army. The shoulder pads of the tactical squads correspond to the edges of the drop pod doors when open. Furthermore the drop pods that are objective secured, meaning purchased with a troops choice, have doors that open. Drop pods that are not ObjSec have doors that are glued shut. The 2 assault squads have different colored markings on their shoulder pads. The allied Space Wolves are clearly painted with a different color scheme, including the Rune Priest being predominantly red rather than the traditional colors of the librarius so my silver marines librarians won't be mistaken for the rune priest and vice versa in games that use both. This is the level of effort that is expected of tournament players at bigger events. Local events tend to be more lax since most of those are used as testing ground type events.

As far as chapter goes, my silver marines in this case were silver Salamanders. I have a WYSIWYG kitbashed Vulkan for the army which clearly stands out as being Vulkan. Not pictured is the allied Space Wolf drop pod that is red with glued shut doors, again following the theme outlined above. Basically check with the players who are playing in the events you're interested in and the guy(s) running the event(s).

To the OP: Be aware that this is head-and-shoulders above what is expected. Since your new, just focus on basic 'color vs. rules' consistency. Assigning a specific scheme or detail to show that something is ObSec or not probably isn't a good idea for you right now, and that level of detail isn't really required. It's awesome when players do this, but don't feel obligated to. You can always go back and do this later on.

I just wanted to point out: there's no less then 4 different Storm trooper models made by GW, and a host of 3rd party options. So in that specific instance, I would say that you should have different looking squads to represent what's part of the IG force, and which belong to the MT detachment.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
and most codices, and the internet, can provide plenty of examples of how to differentiate between squads.

And here's the problem: those examples only apply to one particular bit of fluff. If I invent my own chapter then why should I be obligated to follow the Ultramarines fluff on squad symbols?

This is a thread specifically about the tournament format so arguing about what is or is not in the rule book about squad markings etc isn't really relevant. In this case the only thing relevant is the established tournament format.

Yes, which is why I explicitly mentioned the difference between an event with no painting rules and one where house rules on painting have been imposed.

This is the level of effort that is expected of tournament players at bigger events.

Which is fine, as long as it's clearly stated up front that this is the expected level of effort. If you expect squads to have different color shoulder pads then the rules need to explicitly state "space marine squads must each have their own distinct shoulder pad color". If you fail to include such a rule then you have no right to complain if a player doesn't follow it, and you're TFG if you make a big deal about it. Your only reasonable option is to accept that you failed to communicate properly and try to do a better job with the next event that you run.

 Peregrine wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
and most codices, and the internet, can provide plenty of examples of how to differentiate between squads.

And here's the problem: those examples only apply to one particular bit of fluff. If I invent my own chapter then why should I be obligated to follow the Ultramarines fluff on squad symbols?

This is a thread specifically about the tournament format so arguing about what is or is not in the rule book about squad markings etc isn't really relevant. In this case the only thing relevant is the established tournament format.

Yes, which is why I explicitly mentioned the difference between an event with no painting rules and one where house rules on painting have been imposed.

This is the level of effort that is expected of tournament players at bigger events.

Which is fine, as long as it's clearly stated up front that this is the expected level of effort. If you expect squads to have different color shoulder pads then the rules need to explicitly state "space marine squads must each have their own distinct shoulder pad color". If you fail to include such a rule then you have no right to complain if a player doesn't follow it, and you're TFG if you make a big deal about it. Your only reasonable option is to accept that you failed to communicate properly and try to do a better job with the next event that you run.

Where did I say anything like that? I edited my last post to show examples from two non-imperial armies I played at tournaments to show how this is done easily. Colors are the easiest way to go about this, nothing to do with UM markings.

That is simply the standard at major events. People who are planning to play in a major GT or even a serious competitive small event should already be doing this regardless of what the event organizers said as it is good sportsmanship to not appear to dupe your opponent. If I am playing any sort of serious event I expect my opponents to have properly painted and/or modeled armies for transparency in the game.

Again, Ultramarines being played as Salamanders is fine IMO as long as you can easily differentiate between units and any potential allies.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Where did I say anything like that? I edited my last post to show examples from two non-imperial armies I played at tournaments to show how this is done easily.

You said it when you referenced the codex as a source for how to mark different squads. The codex is only a way to mark different squads if you're using "official" paint schemes and fluff. If you're using your own fluff or paint scheme then the codex page showing Ultramarines squad markings isn't much help.

That is simply the standard at major events. People who are planning to play in a major GT or even a serious competitive small event should already be doing this regardless of what the event organizers said as it is good sportsmanship to not appear to dupe your opponent. If I am playing any sort of serious event I expect my opponents to have properly painted and/or modeled armies for transparency in the game.

And, again, that's fine if the event makes it absolutely clear what things are required. If they don't then neither you nor the TO have any right to complain if someone doesn't follow those rules. And I don't think it's very clear given that the post immediately after yours contained the following advice:

To the OP: Be aware that this is head-and-shoulders above what is expected.

So you might think that it's the standard, but clearly other people disagree with you. That's a sign that your supposedly "standard" expectations aren't really a standard.

Peregrine - I haven't attacked the OP. I actually think I pretty much told him, from the NOVA's perspective at least, bringing his Ultramarines as Salamanders is totally legit.

The caveat is more toward your own "I'll do what I want." Differentiating squads by even naked sarge heads is better than "I don't have to differentiate them at all" (if, in the minds of some, not sufficient regardless).

 Cortez667 wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
Also, unlike what Peregrine said, if you field a bunch of Ultramarines with bolters and say "those 10 over there are Imperial fists and those 10 over there are Salamanders," you're actually TFG. He is correct that GW's rules do not make any statement saying you cannot do this, but most TOs would take umbrage the moment a player complained that there was no way to clearly delineate which squad was which.

So why don't similar rules apply to other armies? For example, am I TFG if I bring an IG army with stormtroopers and an allied detachment from the stormtrooper codex? They're the exact same models (even according to GW) and have the same unit rules, but their army-wide rules (orders, etc) are different. So I have two squads that look exactly identical on the table but have different rules. Am I TFG if I don't paint them differently or use alternative models for one squad? If so, what colors should be used with each squad given that there is no fluff difference between the two units? Or what about a HQ command LRBT and a heavy support LRBT? Am I required to use the official GW fluff for painting identification numbers on my tanks, or is the extra radio antenna on the command tank (a tiny detail you probably won't notice from across the table) sufficient?

The simple fact is that in the standard rules of the game there is no requirement for any specific colors of paint. In fact, GW even encourages you to use the rules for chapter/character/etc to represent a different one (which may have a different color scheme/symbols/etc). If you as a TO want to establish additional rules governing color choices and clearly define what is and isn't allowed then that's your right. But if you don't establish those rules up front you have no right to complain about a player's color choices.

In short yes you would be TFG. In tournaments it is the responsibility of the player to insure squads can be easily differentiated. Including which units belong to which transports etc. It should be clearly defined and most codices, and the internet, can provide plenty of examples of how to differentiate between squads.

Sure, in a perfect world. This is a thread specifically about the tournament format so arguing about what is or is not in the rule book about squad markings etc isn't really relevant. In this case the only thing relevant is the established tournament format.

It really depends on the level of competitiveness at the event. As anyone who plays in tournaments can tell you; a full blown GT level tournament player at a GT would expect your army to be modeled and painted clearly so that he/she can easily differentiate between units from across the table. For example:



My current tournament army. The shoulder pads of the tactical squads correspond to the edges of the drop pod doors when open. Furthermore the drop pods that are objective secured, meaning purchased with a troops choice, have doors that open. Drop pods that are not ObjSec have doors that are glued shut. The 2 assault squads have different colored markings on their shoulder pads. The allied Space Wolves are clearly painted with a different color scheme, including the Rune Priest being predominantly red rather than the traditional colors of the librarius so my silver marines librarians won't be mistaken for the rune priest and vice versa in games that use both. This is the level of effort that is expected of tournament players at bigger events. Local events tend to be more lax since most of those are used as testing ground type events.

As far as chapter goes, my silver marines in this case were silver Salamanders. I have a WYSIWYG kitbashed Vulkan for the army which clearly stands out as being Vulkan. Not pictured is the allied Space Wolf drop pod that is red with glued shut doors, again following the theme outlined above. Basically check with the players who are playing in the events you're interested in and the guy(s) running the event(s).

To the OP: Be aware that this is head-and-shoulders above what is expected. Since your new, just focus on basic 'color vs. rules' consistency. Assigning a specific scheme or detail to show that something is ObSec or not probably isn't a good idea for you right now, and that level of detail isn't really required. It's awesome when players do this, but don't feel obligated to. You can always go back and do this later on.

I just wanted to point out: there's no less then 4 different Storm trooper models made by GW, and a host of 3rd party options. So in that specific instance, I would say that you should have different looking squads to represent what's part of the IG force, and which belong to the MT detachment.

I agree the quoted section of mine from above is head and shoulders above the basic expectation. The basic expectation is that squads can easily be picked out on the table top by your opponent. I apologize if it came across as my trying to say my silver army is the standard for all events. The Necron army I edited in is more along the lines of what would be considered baseline by most tournaments even some major GTs. The heads of the necron warriors being different by squad is both easy to do and easy to see. It is expected by most tournament players that you put some effort into making it easy to pick out different squads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Where did I say anything like that? I edited my last post to show examples from two non-imperial armies I played at tournaments to show how this is done easily.

You said it when you referenced the codex as a source for how to mark different squads. The codex is only a way to mark different squads if you're using "official" paint schemes and fluff. If you're using your own fluff or paint scheme then the codex page showing Ultramarines squad markings isn't much help.

That is simply the standard at major events. People who are planning to play in a major GT or even a serious competitive small event should already be doing this regardless of what the event organizers said as it is good sportsmanship to not appear to dupe your opponent. If I am playing any sort of serious event I expect my opponents to have properly painted and/or modeled armies for transparency in the game.

And, again, that's fine if the event makes it absolutely clear what things are required. If they don't then neither you nor the TO have any right to complain if someone doesn't follow those rules. And I don't think it's very clear given that the post immediately after yours contained the following advice:

To the OP: Be aware that this is head-and-shoulders above what is expected.

So you might think that it's the standard, but clearly other people disagree with you. That's a sign that your supposedly "standard" expectations aren't really a standard.

I have a right to expect my opponents army be WYSIWYG at a major event. Being able to differentiate between squads and models is expected, my example with the silver marines is near the extreme but the necrons with different color heads is not.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
I have a right to expect my opponents army be WYSIWYG at a major event.

You're right, you do. But paint color is not part of WYSIWYG in the rules published by GW. So, in the absence of explicit house rules about painting requirements, you have no right to expect any particular paint choices from your opponent.

Being able to differentiate between squads and models is expected, my example with the silver marines is near the extreme but the necrons with different color heads is not.

It's nice that you expect it, but that's just your personal preference. If the event does not have a house rule requiring different colors for different squads then you are guilty of TFG behavior if you make a big deal about your opponent not complying with your arbitrary demands. In that situation you're the equivalent of the person who goes to a no-comp event and complains endlessly about how people took powerful units and didn't follow their personal rules for "fair" armies.

Radikus wrote:My friends and I are interested in attending tourneys and are in the process of going from casual lists to competitive lists. One of the issues facing our marine player is everything he has is modeled as ultramarines, but wants to play them as imperial fists or salamanders. Is this legal on tourneys? His blue guys being ran as a different chapter? Or is it based on specific tourneys and their rules?

Peregrine wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
I have a right to expect my opponents army be WYSIWYG at a major event.

You're right, you do. But paint color is not part of WYSIWYG in the rules published by GW. So, in the absence of explicit house rules about painting requirements, you have no right to expect any particular paint choices from your opponent.

Being able to differentiate between squads and models is expected, my example with the silver marines is near the extreme but the necrons with different color heads is not.

It's nice that you expect it, but that's just your personal preference. If the event does not have a house rule requiring different colors for different squads then you are guilty of TFG behavior if you make a big deal about your opponent not complying with your arbitrary demands. In that situation you're the equivalent of the person who goes to a no-comp event and complains endlessly about how people took powerful units and didn't follow their personal rules for "fair" armies.

The thing is Peregrine, the OP is asking about what to expect when they attend tournaments. While you're absolutely right that GW has no official rules about squad markings, that has no bearing here. The OP wants to know about tournaments and what to expect from them modeling/painting wise and gave a specific example question. It's all well and good for you to state your opinion on how things at tournaments should be, and why you feel that way, but that isn't what the OP is asking for. The OP wanted to know about actual tournament expectations from, as stated in the title, TO and player experience at tournaments around a specific issue which is something that MVBrandt and I, as a TO (Brandt) and veteran Tournament Player (Me)*, have been attempting to give the OP actual answers to. The continuous back and forth you're providing isn't really adding substance to this discourse, it being merely academic.

While what I expect may seem like mere personal preference from your perspective; what I expect is far more indicative of the real world experience Radikus and his friends will encounter at tournaments. You're of course welcome to your opinion on anything but it still comes down to you don't play in these tournaments; so while you're entitled to your opinion it's hard to sit and listen to you talk about something you have little experience with or stake in. The OP came to this section with a specific question about what he and his friends can expect from attending real tournaments, and I hate to bring it up again and again, but having these academic debates with you does a disservice to members attempting to get actual answers about how tournaments are run, not how they should operate in your opinion.

This thread has, once again like so many others, been pulled way off topic so unless something else relevant is posted I have said my peace. Radikus, the best piece of advice I have is check with people who actually play in the tournament(s) you're looking at attending, and talk to the TO(s) actually running the events and see what they have to say. That's, unfortunately, become a better course of action than a general post here.

*Other posters have been attempting to give real world answers as well I don't mean to slight anyone by leaving them out.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
The thing is Peregrine, the OP is asking about what to expect when they attend tournaments.

Oh FFS, did you miss the part where I said "individual tournaments may have different rules" and answered the question entirely in a tournament context? I know you like to take any opportunity you can get to post your "Peregrine shouldn't talk about tournaments" vendetta, but please just stop. You don't know what tournaments I have attended, will attend in the future, or may attend depending on their policy decisions. You've already been warned once by a moderator to stop doing this, and it's getting really annoying.

While you're absolutely right that GW has no official rules about squad markings, that has no bearing here.

It absolutely does matter, because in the absence of a specific house rule by an individual TO the rules published by GW are what tournament players have to follow. That's why I gave a two-part answer: if the tournament has a policy, you follow that policy. If the tournament doesn't have a policy, you follow the rules published by GW.

The problem here is that you keep trying to act like your personal opinions about how squads should be painted are rules that every tournament player is expected to follow instead of just your opinion. And that's simply not true. If a tournament's rules don't explicitly say "each squad must be painted a different color to identify them" then no such requirement exists, no matter how many times you try to insist that "everyone knows you're supposed to do it".

Let's look at the NOVA Open as an example of a tournament (I think you'll agree that it's a legitimate major event). Your "each squad must have a different color to identify them" policy is not found anywhere in their rules. In fact, you can take a completely unpainted army if you don't care about having a zero for your painting score. So YOU are the one who is misleading people and giving them incorrect information about how tournaments work.

I've received no official warnings from a moderator.

Lol I feel bad for the OP.

OP: Hey I have a mostly reasonably newb question for-
Internets: RABBLERABBLERABBLEWELLTECHNICALLYRABBLERABBLESALTSALTSALT
OP: -silence-



As a TO, to echo earlier sentiments, you're not beholden to any particular color scheme and as long as your opponents are clear on what's what it's generally no problem. As a personal preference, if the models look cool that usually helps smooth over any concerns people may have. And if an event organizer doesn't specify anything about the issue in their format rules, and then gives you unreasonable grief about it then that's bad on them. We can only hope our contrived truculent TO learns from his simulated mistake and changes his ways in the future (though we all know he won't, damnable contrived truculent TOs and their only existing in academic discussions as foils for particular viewpoints!

In the end, in the absence of any official tournament format from GW then everything that happens within the sphere of organized play is totally voluntary, from the TOs to the players. Each individual tournament gets to do things they way they want, and players are free to support those events or not. It's your free time, you get to spend it how you choose, whether modelling and painting, playing casually, playing in tournaments, or just being involved online.

 Peregrine wrote:
You've already been warned once by a moderator to stop doing this, and it's getting really annoying.

My god, he must be the only person in this argument who has ever been warned by a moderator...

To the thread in general, simmer the hell down

Radikus,

There's been a lot of discussion of what TOs will do at tourneys concerning your models and WYSIWYG. Actually, I don't recall a TO *ever* asking me anything about which model is this or that, Elite or FA or Troops.

Now that I think about it, I've only had a TO give me the stink eye on one item, and it was prior to the day of the tourney. My 1989 - 1991 era termies needed to be on 40mm, after GW had had Termies on 40 mm for a few years (2008 09?).

"C'mon, man. It's time. Put 'em on some forty bases" And this wasn't during the tourney, but well before.

-----------------
My main point is that it is my opponents who have been concerned. Before I took measures to differentiate squads :

He: "How can I tell which squad of dire avengers / wyches / fire warriors / marines ... got shot up /are Sternguard / tactical ... and which one is fresh?"
Me: "Oh, well, I faced them one way and the ones that just disembarked are faced the other way."
He : "You had two in one squad, but now eleven are faced to the right. Well?"
Me : "Derp."

Afterwards, I would take a few minutes to put one colored dot on the base for one unit and a different dot for another. A practice I'd seen from a tourney stomper who used to wreck and rule the 3e and 4e editions, here in So Cal. Darrian has retired from 40k (and the guy who turned me onto dakka!).

Later, not having shoulder pad decal or paint skills (tactical arrows?) I used colors on shoulder pads or helmets because opponents asked for it not TOs. Pictures will come, after wife & kid give up the powerbook.

I am giving you a slice of southern California, 40k tourney culture, which given your profile, is where you are at. Opponents will be glad of differentiation as I never have had a TO ask me about my models.

Mostly TOs give my models a smirk, cuz of my poor paint skillz.

 disdainful wrote:
Lol I feel bad for the OP.

OP: Hey I have a mostly reasonably newb question for-
Internets: RABBLERABBLERABBLEWELLTECHNICALLYRABBLERABBLESALTSALTSALT
OP: -silence-

This gave me a good laugh. When I checked on this thread there were a few replies, all saying basically the same thing, and answering the question I presented. Then BOOM, it blew up.

I thank everyone who participated and provided answers and insight into this for myself, and for my group. It seems a fairly simple task of being able to easily (and visually) identify different marine detachments painted the same color. It seems like there is a variety of ways to do this and I know our marine player can just slap a small sticker or something like that on the model or base. We are just glad he isn't out of luck because he has all his marines painted one way.

Pretty sure every major event I have been to has had explicit instruction in their rule packet that you need 'VISUAL REPRESENTATION OF SQUAD DIFFERENCES' even if you show up with unpainted models, you can't have 80 identical slugga boys and 60 grots with zero way to distinguish them into 7 different units.

It gets even worse when you play against an 'all one type of model' army like all Grey nights in terminator armor or all bikers and all 40 models are virtually the same and could be in any unit at any time.

I personally put base markings which mark on my army sheet. It allows me to take 'generic boy' and make him purple squad or blue squad without committing to paint markings which make him a trukk boy of 12 for life vs a footslogger. It is just colored electrical tape, comes off easily with no damage to the model.


Considering I have played against armies which had jetbikes count as bikes and TWC in the same army and the models were virtually indistinguishable, the 'everymarine' armies with allies with no distinction but different rules is a problem and smacks of 'I don't have to tell you what is my transports' type attitude. It causes 'calculated confusion' to be a factor which is part of the outcome of the game which isn't appropriate.

 Peregrine wrote:
So why don't similar rules apply to other armies? For example, am I TFG if I bring an IG army with stormtroopers and an allied detachment from the stormtrooper codex? They're the exact same models (even according to GW) and have the same unit rules, but their army-wide rules (orders, etc) are different. So I have two squads that look exactly identical on the table but have different rules. Am I TFG if I don't paint them differently or use alternative models for one squad? If so, what colors should be used with each squad given that there is no fluff difference between the two units? Or what about a HQ command LRBT and a heavy support LRBT? Am I required to use the official GW fluff for painting identification numbers on my tanks, or is the extra radio antenna on the command tank (a tiny detail you probably won't notice from across the table) sufficient?

You should make some sort of effort to distinguish two different armies, even for storm troopers. It's common courtesy.

Radikus wrote:

 disdainful wrote:
Lol I feel bad for the OP.

OP: Hey I have a mostly reasonably newb question for-
Internets: RABBLERABBLERABBLEWELLTECHNICALLYRABBLERABBLESALTSALTSALT
OP: -silence-

This gave me a good laugh. When I checked on this thread there were a few replies, all saying basically the same thing, and answering the question I presented. Then BOOM, it blew up.

I thank everyone who participated and provided answers and insight into this for myself, and for my group. It seems a fairly simple task of being able to easily (and visually) identify different marine detachments painted the same color. It seems like there is a variety of ways to do this and I know our marine player can just slap a small sticker or something like that on the model or base. We are just glad he isn't out of luck because he has all his marines painted one way.

Glad I could be of service.

If you're in SoCal come to the Game Empire Pasadena tournament, we run them every second Saturday (and have, successfully, for the last 8 years #shamelessplug). The next one is in May on the 9th, you can find the thread here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/629731.page

I'm the non-contrived, generally un-truculent TO and the group is very nice.You might even see Overwatch's needlessly over-wrought army in person!

A bit ninja'd and a day late but ....

The grey, white and purple sets are color based differently and the squad helmets easily lent themselves to variance, too (black on one side, blue or purple on another). The green guys are how I'm repainting the whole army and I'll vary their left arm shields this time around.




Two different sets of Nurgle Marines:





When Sternguard became a thing I wanted to distinguish them and did so with the codex's own recommendations, white helmets. I put on extra Purity Seals, usually on the bolters. Subtle, maybe, but enough for my opponents. The guys on the right are tacticals and the boys on the left, Elites.




My DAs have a couple different colored hats.



Girls have different hair, or skin suits, purple and purple/white for the other.



I got lazy on the Kabalites, and only did their shoulders, dark colors too.


Hope that is *even* more helpful.

Generally this'll be up to the TO. I don't care as long as everything is WYSIWYG.

 disdainful wrote:

Radikus wrote:

 disdainful wrote:
Lol I feel bad for the OP.

OP: Hey I have a mostly reasonably newb question for-
Internets: RABBLERABBLERABBLEWELLTECHNICALLYRABBLERABBLESALTSALTSALT
OP: -silence-

This gave me a good laugh. When I checked on this thread there were a few replies, all saying basically the same thing, and answering the question I presented. Then BOOM, it blew up.

I thank everyone who participated and provided answers and insight into this for myself, and for my group. It seems a fairly simple task of being able to easily (and visually) identify different marine detachments painted the same color. It seems like there is a variety of ways to do this and I know our marine player can just slap a small sticker or something like that on the model or base. We are just glad he isn't out of luck because he has all his marines painted one way.

Glad I could be of service.

If you're in SoCal come to the Game Empire Pasadena tournament, we run them every second Saturday (and have, successfully, for the last 8 years #shamelessplug). The next one is in May on the 9th, you can find the thread here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/629731.page

I'm the non-contrived, generally un-truculent TO and the group is very nice.You might even see Overwatch's needlessly over-wrought army in person!

Pasadena is not very far from me at all, I plan to come play in one of the tourneys in a month or two!

Needlessly overwrought, indeed. I look forward to seeing you at an event in the future Radikus!