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.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
I know DG fell pretty quickly but taking 40k models and plopping them in 40k makes little sense. Their armour marks and general aesthetic would be far off, hence why they have 2 separate model lines and game systems.

I'm curious as to where my DG would fall in this -- quite a bit of the army is converted from the WHFB Lord of Plagues kit along with various Mark IV, SM and CSM bits. So the core of the miniature isn't recognizably any particular armour pattern, and given that the "present day" Mark VII armour was in use before the end of the heresy, my DG could be from any particular period of 30k-40k history from the Heresy onwards.

Also how would the matching proper paint scheme and miniatures to appropriate rules idea work with successor chapters? Some successor chapters are relatively obscure, even to long time players. How would you feel about someone using say the Blood Angels codex to field a successor chapter that may not be immediately recognizable? Or even things like the previously mentioned Space Wolves 13th company or Guy Haley's Relictors, which were kitbashed from CSM and SM kits but used the SW and SM codex respectively?

I'd have no issue playing against CSM using loyalist rules as long as it's easy to see what is what, but I'd be reluctant to do it myself because when CSM do get a major update I could end up having to completely change my army to fit the new (hopefully improved) rules

 Talizvar wrote:
I have enough CSM's for them to fight amongst themselves for each chaos god.
I think this was my favorite codex:

The 3rd edition.
That had so much choice it was almost confusing.
It has been rather bland / useless ever since.

To think my original intentions for fielding Inquisition Daemon Hunters was to have an army to fight CSM for fun.
Now they are my go-to army... oh wait... Inquisition is one codex, grey knights another.
Any people who tried to tell me they were "cheese" can heft my mainly metal figures.

Then to field Black Templar since I guess my CSM's needed a similarly gimped SM army to play against.

Bah, anyone saying that they "prefer / demand / require" I use a CSM codex over a chosen "close enough" SM codex I could say is looking for a win rather than a fair match.

That was my first ever codex. I played an all Death Guard army (plague marine troops, Nurgle daemons and the rest just painted to look Nurgle) and had that T5 GUO that got nuked by vindicators every now and then. Good times.

Aren't you referring to the 3.5 ed codex though? The one after this was the codex with all of the options for characters, USR's for chaos marine units and legion rules. That was the best codex I've ever played with- so much choice you could build more or less whatever you wanted

A couple of scenarios below, which does SB consider acceptable?

1) New player buys C:SM. Later decides to use CSM models as tactical marines with boltguns.

2) New player buys the CSM codex. Later decides to use a tactical marine box as his CSM infantry with boltguns.

3) Player has an army of marines painted red and green. Uses IF chapter tactics.

4) New player buys a CSM box. Later buys C:SM to represent those models wielding boltguns.

5) New player buys a tactical marine box. Later buys the CSM codex to represent them wielding boltguns.

I'd have no issue playing against CSM using loyalist rules as long as it's easy to see what is what, but I'd be reluctant to do it myself because when CSM do get a major update I could end up having to completely change my army to fit the new (hopefully improved) rules

Its a conversion opportunity. You can always keep playing marines. Inversely marines could also keep playing chaos rules, or even other codex rules as long as they are WYSIWYG. Thats one advantage of your own chapter-there's no issue here. Do what you want.

Or even better use the rules for your Squat Army...

 Snake Tortoise wrote:
Aren't you referring to the 3.5 ed codex though? The one after this was the codex with all of the options for characters, USR's for chaos marine units and legion rules. That was the best codex I've ever played with- so much choice you could build more or less whatever you wanted

You may be right, I will have to check my "archives".
I think it was where they first tried to define just having a "mark" of chaos vs. being the actual "cult" units like "noise marines".
Honestly, that codex tried to do with one army what the BRB's are doing now: to create the flavor of army you like with few restrictions (at least many that made sense).

Getting a bit more on topic, other than opinion of if it was not the actual official model associated with a particular codex: I do not see any rules reason where the colour or shape of your models prevent you from using any codex you wish. I forced my friend to put a blob of red paint on his unpainted model when he tried to claim the "go fasta red" rule but that is about it (That was so funny when he said "And 1" extra for go fasta red!" I said "Where??"... that was awesome).

 nurgle5 wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
I know DG fell pretty quickly but taking 40k models and plopping them in 40k makes little sense. Their armour marks and general aesthetic would be far off, hence why they have 2 separate model lines and game systems.

I'm curious as to where my DG would fall in this -- quite a bit of the army is converted from the WHFB Lord of Plagues kit along with various Mark IV, SM and CSM bits. So the core of the miniature isn't recognizably any particular armour pattern, and given that the "present day" Mark VII armour was in use before the end of the heresy, my DG could be from any particular period of 30k-40k history from the Heresy onwards.

Also how would the matching proper paint scheme and miniatures to appropriate rules idea work with successor chapters? Some successor chapters are relatively obscure, even to long time players. How would you feel about someone using say the Blood Angels codex to field a successor chapter that may not be immediately recognizable? Or even things like the previously mentioned Space Wolves 13th company or Guy Haley's Relictors, which were kitbashed from CSM and SM kits but used the SW and SM codex respectively?

I've stated several times paint jobs do not restrict your codex. However, if you are clearly swapping codices, rules, and models, I dislike that. (I also dislike unrealistic paintjobs, but you guys don't care) 13th company is cool and Guy Haley's relictors would be the only thing I have an issue with because he's not using the SM or CSM dex. (I usually pin them to one dex but they are in a grey area of renegade and non-renegade, so I would accept using either or) And from my knowledge, there is no need for chaos parts, they were just called renegades by Dante for refusing help on Armageddon because they were looking for the monolith?

And about your DG, it would also be a grey area. I'm short on heresy fluff for the DG but if what you say is true then you probably could get away with playing them in both 40k and heresy, but I'd be unimpressed (as stated before) if someone came to a 30k game with 40k models.

#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

 nurgle5 wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
I know DG fell pretty quickly but taking 40k models and plopping them in 40k makes little sense. Their armour marks and general aesthetic would be far off, hence why they have 2 separate model lines and game systems.

I'm curious as to where my DG would fall in this -- quite a bit of the army is converted from the WHFB Lord of Plagues kit along with various Mark IV, SM and CSM bits. So the core of the miniature isn't recognizably any particular armour pattern, and given that the "present day" Mark VII armour was in use before the end of the heresy, my DG could be from any particular period of 30k-40k history from the Heresy onwards.

Also how would the matching proper paint scheme and miniatures to appropriate rules idea work with successor chapters? Some successor chapters are relatively obscure, even to long time players. How would you feel about someone using say the Blood Angels codex to field a successor chapter that may not be immediately recognizable? Or even things like the previously mentioned Space Wolves 13th company or Guy Haley's Relictors, which were kitbashed from CSM and SM kits but used the SW and SM codex respectively?

I've stated several times paint jobs do not restrict your codex. However, if you are clearly swapping codices, rules, and models, I dislike that. (I also dislike unrealistic paintjobs, but you guys don't care) 13th company is cool and Guy Haley's relictors would be the only thing I have an issue with because he's not using the SM or CSM dex. (I usually pin them to one dex but they are in a grey area of renegade and non-renegade, so I would accept using either or) And from my knowledge, there is no need for chaos parts, they were just called renegades by Dante for refusing help on Armageddon because they were looking for the monolith?

And about your DG, it would also be a grey area. I'm short on heresy fluff for the DG but if what you say is true then you probably could get away with playing them in both 40k and heresy, but I'd be unimpressed (as stated before) if someone came to a 30k game with 40k models.

Selym wrote:A couple of scenarios below, which does SB consider acceptable?

1) New player buys C:SM. Later decides to use CSM models as tactical marines with boltguns.

2) New player buys the CSM codex. Later decides to use a tactical marine box as his CSM infantry with boltguns.

3) Player has an army of marines painted red and green. Uses IF chapter tactics.

4) New player buys a CSM box. Later buys C:SM to represent those models wielding boltguns.

5) New player buys a tactical marine box. Later buys the CSM codex to represent them wielding boltguns.

Plz answer on a case-by-case basis

 Selym wrote:
A couple of scenarios below, which does SB consider acceptable?

1) New player buys C:SM. Later decides to use CSM models as tactical marines with boltguns.

2) New player buys the CSM codex. Later decides to use a tactical marine box as his CSM infantry with boltguns.

3) Player has an army of marines painted red and green. Uses IF chapter tactics.

4) New player buys a CSM box. Later buys C:SM to represent those models wielding boltguns.

5) New player buys a tactical marine box. Later buys the CSM codex to represent them wielding boltguns.

1. De-chaos them.

2. Chaos them.

3. Go right ahead.

4. De-chaos them.

5. Chaos them.

I want models and rules to correspond with their respective codex and units.

(and just called the space marine codex SM, if I'm flicking through a post I sometimes don't notice the colon so I confuse it with CSM, just a pet peeve )

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

 Selym wrote:

3) Player has an army of marines painted red and green. Uses IF chapter tactics.

3. Go right ahead.

I want models and rules to correspond with their respective codex and units.

So how does this fit in then?

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
Like I said, as long as you don't paint ultramarines pink,

It was more of a joke than anything. Guess that's hard to detect on the internet though.

And yes, I know I combated SW being black but that was strictly in the case of swapping codices and rules with iron hands. If that person painted their SW black and called them SW, that'd be ok. (as much as I dislike it)

ShieldBrother is entitled to his opinion. No matter how much you question or berate him, you are not likely to change his stance on the matter.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

 Selym wrote:
A couple of scenarios below, which does SB consider acceptable?

1) New player buys C:SM. Later decides to use CSM models as tactical marines with boltguns.

2) New player buys the CSM codex. Later decides to use a tactical marine box as his CSM infantry with boltguns.

3) Player has an army of marines painted red and green. Uses IF chapter tactics.

4) New player buys a CSM box. Later buys C:SM to represent those models wielding boltguns.

5) New player buys a tactical marine box. Later buys the CSM codex to represent them wielding boltguns.

1. De-chaos them.

2. Chaos them.

3. Go right ahead.

4. De-chaos them.

5. Chaos them.

I want models and rules to correspond with their respective codex and units.

(and just called the space marine codex SM, if I'm flicking through a post I sometimes don't notice the colon so I confuse it with CSM, just a pet peeve )

Define "Chaos" and what you mean by de-chaosing the models. Are you saying that loyalist marines will never have spikes on their armour? What advantage do these chaos apsects on a chaos model give in the game that requires their removal?

You know that I mean by chaos. The arrows, horns, daemon faces, spiky bits, trophy racks, everything that makes CSM CSM.

And what loyalist marines have daemon faces, horns, marks of chaos, and arrows on their armour? I don't think many.

It gives no advantage in game. That's not why I want them removed.

However what does give an advantage is swapping codices. Proxying models is merely the luggage that comes with it.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
I want models and rules to correspond with their respective codex and units.

So then, we have established you would not do this.
You have made the criteria / law rather clear and the motivation as not being "true' to the codex and is "wrong".

Rather than being unhappy, would you still play someone with an army as the OP proposed?

Yes, I would play it.

 Selym wrote:
A couple of scenarios below, which does SB consider acceptable?

1) New player buys C:SM. Later decides to use CSM models as tactical marines with boltguns.

2) New player buys the CSM codex. Later decides to use a tactical marine box as his CSM infantry with boltguns.

3) Player has an army of marines painted red and green. Uses IF chapter tactics.

4) New player buys a CSM box. Later buys C:SM to represent those models wielding boltguns.

5) New player buys a tactical marine box. Later buys the CSM codex to represent them wielding boltguns.

6) New player writes his own fluff regarding an Eldar Craftworld fallen to Slaanesh, utilizes Dire Avengers as CSM (playing their shuriken catapults as counts-as bolters or just replacing the weapons with bolters), models Dark Reapers with the master blaster (or whatever it's called, I don't play CSM, my friend does), models a Daemon Prince with Wraithlord bits (this I did for my Slaanesh DP for Daemons, Wraithlord head, warp vanes, and sword put on a DP body), and so on and so forth. Would be 95% WYSIWYG (possibly 100% depending on replacing guns or using "counts-as").

7) New player likes the spikes of CSM and knows that there are successor chapters that are loyalist but bloodthirsty as all get-out, and decides those models better represent his custom chapter that are violent yet disciplined using Ultramarine chapter tactics.

But really, because I know they're my models, if I did anything like this I just probably wouldn't get to play games with the 7% that have a problem with it (looking at poll at time of posting). Some people think GW models are the only acceptable way to play, and that's fine. Game with other people.

@SB, though - you do know there's a difference between WAAC and looking at rules and believing they fit your army better, right? In this instance, yeah he's going to a top tier codex from a bottom tier, but WAAC is an attitude. It's not necessarily TFG, you're absolutely right, but it's still an attitude, and one I'm honestly not getting from the OP. Wanting to win some games is not the same as WAAC. It's an expectation gamers are allowed to have. He's not bending any rules to make a super strong army, he's using rules that exist for an army that is how he now wants to play the game. Reading your posts, it doesn't even seem like you have a problem that he's going to be using SM rules, you don't like that he's using models (that actually represent legionaries from 30k IIRC, so they're essentially any flavor of marine) that were first used as CSM (even though the paint scheme matches an SM chapter, or can be considered a custom chapter) to do it. Or that he's using the same army to do two different forces depending on how he feels like playing. In both cases, though, he's WYSIWYG and good to roll. Honestly, with how he says they're painted, if he came to game with you and said "Here's my Silver Skulls army," you wouldn't even know they were originally meant as CSM (but I haven't seen them so can't confirm).

My point is, sure you didn't say TFG, but WAAC is still an attitude that people have, and wanting to win games or be able to put up more of a fight with the models you already possess isn't really all of it.

EDIT: I took so long to post that I missed so much!

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
.

It gives no advantage in game. That's not why I want them removed.

However what does give an advantage is swapping codices. Proxying models is merely the luggage that comes with it.

Except that in scenarios 1 and 2, no codex swapping is involved, and in 5 the player has nerfed themselves.

 adamsouza wrote:
ShieldBrother is entitled to his opinion. No matter how much you question or berate him, you are not likely to change his stance on the matter.

Also very true. So like I said, if ~7% of people have an issue with it, play with the other ~93%.

Everyone has a right to voice their opinion, and everyone else has an equal right to challenge it. That is the nature of discussion.

Arguing =/= inherent evil

If a craftworld fell to slaanesh, wouldn't it get eaten?

You can still represent savages with the SM kits. Apply liberal blood spatter and use the more brutal weapons SM have. (power axes, chainswords, etc) World Eaters managed to do it in the HH line without mass spikes, daemons, and horns.

Yes, I know the difference of WAAC and flavour. And I get that he's not a WAAC player, he seems like a fine person. I just have an issue with people mixing models rules, and codices. (whether for power gain or not)

And since they are heresy why doesn't OP just play 30k? But, since AoD all that stuff is considered legal so yeah, if he showed up and said, "Hey, these are my silver skulls, they got the pre heresy stuff from close ties to the minitorum" or something like that I'd be cool with it.

When he says, "Hey, these are my iron warriors, but I use the SM dex." That's what I dislike (nothing against OP, just using as an example)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Selym wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
.

It gives no advantage in game. That's not why I want them removed.

However what does give an advantage is swapping codices. Proxying models is merely the luggage that comes with it.

Except that in scenarios 1 and 2, no codex swapping is involved, and in 5 the player has nerfed themselves.

He was asking what advantage it gives, in OP's scenario it gives an advantage. That's what I was referring to. And 1 and 2 has model swapping, another thing I'm not fond of. In 5, yes, they do nerf themselves but power gain/loss is not my main gripe. (once again, just the baggage that comes with changing codices, and models.)

I gotcha. So @OP, just tell your Pick-up opponent what they're representing that game! Hide the other codex

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

And from my knowledge, there is no need for chaos parts, they were just called renegades by Dante for refusing help on Armageddon because they were looking for the monolith?

The Relictors also like to used things like Daemonweapons, in a Radical Ordo Malleus way. Plus they were excommunicated and fled to the Eye of Terror and it's unknown whether they remain Radicals fighting chaos or have gone fully renegade and thrown in their lot with Chaos. For those reasons some people like to kitbash them with some chaos gear to represent their misguided, possible fallen, nature along with the warping influence of the, erm, warp. And I guess there could be a case made for using either the SM or CSM codex to represent them on the table depending on which path you'd like to think they took.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
And about your DG, it would also be a grey area. I'm short on heresy fluff for the DG but if what you say is true then you probably could get away with playing them in both 40k and heresy, but I'd be unimpressed (as stated before) if someone came to a 30k game with 40k models.

As the Imperium is rather technologically regressive, a lot of the standard tech used during the Heresy would be the same or nigh identical to the "present day" gear used by marines. There are exceptions like the MKVIII armour you see on sergeants, but most of the core gear is pretty much the same. Even the unique looking chaos backpacks are just a variant of imperial tech that would have been used by loyalist marines. I'm just curious in this instance, because, with the exception of newer tech like Defilers, it is case where codex swapping is possible because the army is essentially the same in both periods. Don't get me wrong, it's not like I'd be rocking up to a 30k game with Obliterators or Defilers, but merely using Death Guard plague marines as Death Guard during the heresy (during which they were turning into plague marines).

 Selym wrote:
Arguing =/= inherent evil

Evil, no.
Unproductive, Yes.

It's akin to a priest and atheist sitting in pub trying to convice each other that they are wrong, and it's gone on long enough that the other people in the pub are getting uncomfortable.

 nurgle5 wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

And from my knowledge, there is no need for chaos parts, they were just called renegades by Dante for refusing help on Armageddon because they were looking for the monolith?

The Relictors also like to used things like Daemonweapons, in a Radical Ordo Malleus way. Plus they were excommunicated and fled to the Eye of Terror and it's unknown whether they remain Radicals fighting chaos or have gone fully renegade and thrown in their lot with Chaos. For those reasons some people like to kitbash them with some chaos gear to represent their misguided, possible fallen, nature along with the warping influence of the, erm, warp. And I guess there could be a case made for using either the SM or CSM codex to represent them on the table depending on which path you'd like to think they took.

Ah, yes. I liked the Chapter Master's screaming flail

I've seen Orks with shuriken cannons used as sluggaz, clearly they must be banned from use as they aren't wyswyg.

Seriously, they're all Marines. Doesn't matter if there's different colors on them, or perhaps an extra spike, wire, or wolf pelt, they're just marines in the end. I don't see a reason why there's a need to make a big deal out of which marine dex is used.

Hell I did far more to alter my Orks than anyone here has suggested for their marines.

 adamsouza wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Arguing =/= inherent evil

Evil, no.
Unproductive, Yes.

It's akin to a priest and atheist sitting in pub trying to convice each other that they are wrong, and it's gone on long enough that the other people in the pub are getting uncomfortable.

And they discussion can be brought outside the pub, and continued harmlessly. Or the audience can choose not to be around as an audience.

Seriously, if we're about to have someone say that the arguing should stop, despite it being on topic, then I'm going to have to start an entire thread disagreeing with that.

==============================================

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

He was asking what advantage it gives, in OP's scenario it gives an advantage. That's what I was referring to. And 1 and 2 has model swapping, another thing I'm not fond of. In 5, yes, they do nerf themselves but power gain/loss is not my main gripe. (once again, just the baggage that comes with changing codices, and models.)

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
If anything switching codex is the TFG thing, get a godly codex with no downsides by still being chaos, sounds pretty WAAC to me.

I'm not sure these statements tally.

Emphasis on "not my main gripe". Still a gripe.

Trying very hard not to throw out a "strawman" to the mix.
Trying to convince #1ShieldBrother3++ he is "wrong" on not liking the CSM miniatures used with SM codex's is like convincing me to like sauerkraut.
I hate the stuff for no good reason.
"But it is only pickled cabbage, do you like cabbage?"
"Yes"
"Do you like vinegar or pickles?"
"Yes"
"Then you have no good reason to hate it!"
"No, I almost vomit when eating it, you cannot say I can like the stuff."

So yeah, folding a map wrong in front of me can offend my delicate sensibilities luckily we have smart phones / GPS's rapidly replacing them.

We have at least established the guy may not agree with the list but he will play against it... that is all the OP asked.

I say the OP go for it, all is well and I darn well want to see a huge Iron Warriors army on the table (send pics!!!).

@SB I guess I am still a little confused in your stance. I am a semi new player, and have played a dozen games or less. My reason for wanting to switch is purely to be able to field a large number of marines without resorting to demons or marks. IW refuse to worship the pantheon of Chaos, and have been known to use loyalist gear/geneseed as well as having their own forge world's and a good chunk of dark mechanicists from the HH setting. In my Grand Battalion fluff, my army relies heavily on plasma weapons, and attrition to win battles. I had never considered using SM codex until it was suggested by my opponent in my last game, as apparently several chapter tactics fit this theme. I had no idea these rules existed until recently, so is it wrong for me to want to try to be more fluffy by using a more fitting codex?

sturgeondtd wrote:
@SB I guess I am still a little confused in your stance. I am a semi new player, and have played a dozen games or less. My reason for wanting to switch is purely to be able to field a large number of marines without resorting to demons or marks. IW refuse to worship the pantheon of Chaos, and have been known to use loyalist gear/geneseed as well as having their own forge world's and a good chunk of dark mechanicists from the HH setting. In my Grand Battalion fluff, my army relies heavily on plasma weapons, and attrition to win battles. I had never considered using SM codex until it was suggested by my opponent in my last game, as apparently several chapter tactics fit this theme. I had no idea these rules existed until recently, so is it wrong for me to want to try to be more fluffy by using a more fitting codex?

I'm sorry? Which Chapter Tactic fits this theme?

Plasma is accessible by both Chaos and Loyalist
Loyalist gear and geneseed means nothing to Chapter Tactic.
Attrition isn't represented as a Chapter Tactic
The only one I understand could be Iron Hands, purely because of more vehicle endurance.

It's not like you're particularly stealthy (RG), good with bolters (IF), tactically flexible (UM), durable (IH), evasive (WS), good with flamers/meltas (Sallies) or combat proficient with a hatred of psykers (BT), unless you've omitted something?