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.

 Purifier wrote:
They do however apparently force you to start name-calling straight off the bat!

It's only name calling if you're identifying as that guy 'minmaxing detachments to get the juiciest combination of buffs'.

Are you that guy? If so, I feel the name-calling is totally justified.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
They do however apparently force you to start name-calling straight off the bat!

It's only name calling if you're identifying as that guy 'minmaxing detachments to get the juiciest combination of buffs'.

Are you that guy? If so, I feel the name-calling is totally justified.

So what's the difference between someone who plays a bunch of Cadians as different regiments in order to minmax, and someone who legitimately models their army to represent that same mixture of regiments?

Also, what's the problem with having the most efficient and effective list possible, and why is it preferable that people intentionally play lists that are less than optimal?

I have a bunch of Cadian models. I think I will usually end up playing them as Cadians, but if feel like using a different doctrine I wouldn't twice.

Personally I won't use different doctrine across multiple detachments unless I had clearly different looking models to fill then.

This is exactly how I have treated space marines. Did you paint your guys as white scars but want to use dark angel rules? Go right ahead. Want to play them as ultramarines next week? no problem. I would be a little lest crazy about those same white scars simultaneously forming a Dark angels detachment and an ultramarines detachment on the same table.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
They do however apparently force you to start name-calling straight off the bat!

It's only name calling if you're identifying as that guy 'minmaxing detachments to get the juiciest combination of buffs'.

Are you that guy? If so, I feel the name-calling is totally justified.

eh... I mean, what you're doing is judging people on their effort and intent, which is difficulty and judgmental, so I'm not sure I can endorse it.

Where do you draw the line? What if you use the same models, but some are veterans from a different regiment in Chimeras? Or Valkyries? What if you want to run a cadian Heavy Weapon squad Spearhead detachment with Mordian line infantry? Drawing the line between fairly common sense application of rules and being over the top is super subjective.

Keep in mind that right now, there is really no way, outside of asking, for my opponent to know whether a model is a member of an infantry squad, a veteran squad, or heavy/special weapon squad. I have the exact same model (lascannon team) in three different units. Yes, they have different squad markings in the epalleutaes, but that's hard to read across the table. I think keeping Valhallan Conscripts and Cadian Heavy Weapon Squads separate is not going to make things too much different.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
They do however apparently force you to start name-calling straight off the bat!

It's only name calling if you're identifying as that guy 'minmaxing detachments to get the juiciest combination of buffs'.

Are you that guy? If so, I feel the name-calling is totally justified.

Yes, I like to minmax to get juicy combinations of buffs. And then you feel namecalling is justified. Because I enjoy a game differently than you do. And you don't see a problem with that kind of attitude?

8th needs to kill the "Your maries are blue so they need to use Ultramarines rules!"

I'll use whatever rules I think I can like, and if I play 5 games with X rules and then after those games I want to try other rules to change a little the feel of my army and don't play the same thing over and over again, you can be sure that I'm gonna do it.

As my Tau have a custom paintjob I can have this with no problem. And my Dark Angels will have just one "chapter tactic" to choose so...
But nonetheless, I think that is stupid to force people to keep some kind of playstile or rules that have been arbitrarily sticked to their army aesthetic by GW.

"Oh man!,Iron Hands need that 6++, IF THEY HAD "IGNORE COVER" THEY'LL STOP TO FEEL LIKE IRON HANDS, YEAH. Muh inmersion! Ferrus Manus died to Fulgrim because he failed his 6++ roll save!" Stupid ,and I say this as a narrative player.
My narrative is my army, his history and their aesthetics, not some random bonuses GW think are appropiate for my army color scheme.

And if someone wants to do some slippery slope of "Omg but if you use Ultramarines as White Scars why don't you use Tyranids as orks?". Don't bother, is a stupid thing to say. Theres obvious lines and limits, this is no white or black.

Why can't all marines use Ultramarines chapter tactics anyway? All the Ultramarines do is follow the Codex Astartes to the letter. You know, the book every marine chapter supposedly has to abide by?

I wouldn't have a problem with it. Not all guard regiments are the exact same even if they come from the same world. The Cadian XVI Light Recon regiment likely fights very differently than the Cadian IX Tank Regiment. Then you have the case of chimeric regiments scraped together from the remnants of a bunch of depleted units! They should've gone with calling them generic doctrines and called it a day.

You can play and proxy however the hell you like as long as I can easily tell what I'm playing against.

If you have one conscript squad that's Valhalla becuase you want to use send in the next wave and another conscript squad mordian because you want 30in lasguns and they are all Cadian models unpainted and all look the same and then you jumble them all up in the center of the table and switch regiments whenever you feel like it! I reserve the right to flip the damn table and destroy your precious models......in other words don't be a douche!!! Make sure your opponent can easily tell what they are playing against. It takes 5 minutes to prime 10 dudes white and the other dudes black. I don't care what you do as long as I can tell what models represent Cadian and what represents valahallan.

Plus, Warhammer is all about "Your Dudes", not some kind of "Follow the dots" book for kindergardens. I can respect people that like to be totally sci-fi historically accurate. But trying to force that into others? No no, thanks.

Its a Marine only issue for me.
I wouldn't not play you, or get upset, but its a bit sad to see someone who has clearly spent a lot of time painting up say White Scars or Night Lords to then go "no no no, its Ultramarines/Alpha Legion for me."

When they get to Eldar Craftworlds I might get judgemental too.

Less of an issue with Imperial Guard. There have only plastic Cadians for ages (and I guess a few Catachans floating around). I don't think its reasonable to expect people to have scoured ebay for the past two decades picking up Valhallans.

Tyel wrote:
Its a Marine only issue for me.
I wouldn't not play you, or get upset, but its a bit sad to see someone who has clearly spent a lot of time painting up say White Scars or Night Lords to then go "no no no, its Ultramarines/Alpha Legion for me."

When they get to Eldar Craftworlds I might get judgemental too.

Less of an issue with Imperial Guard. There have only plastic Cadians for ages (and I guess a few Catachans floating around). I don't think its reasonable to expect people to have scoured ebay for the past two decades picking up Valhallans.

I still don't really get it, though. Like, White Scars are fast, mobile, known for hit and runs, etc. Surely being able to fall back from CC and then shoot you with the twin bolters on their bikes is a pretty fitting Chapter Tactic. Or maybe they're so evasive that they're hard to hit at long range. It seems to me that a person who really likes White Scars, and has a great, painted White Scars army, might 100% justifiably look at the codex and say "these rules really feel to me like how my White Scars should operate" and be looking at the Ultramarines or Raven Guard rules.

Now, maybe they've got a bunch of infantry painted up as White Scars and then Guilliman painted up as a White Scar, and so on. Not a very White Scars-y composition. But, like, surely this person isn't thinking of themselves as playing White Scars. They just like the color scheme.

It's a weird situation. Honestly, it ruins the game for me... Someone spends weeks painting an army, reading the lore and writing their own lore. Suddenly it's the meta to be this regiment so you ruin all the fluff you worked on just to win a friendly game at a club.... I play freebooter orks though so I see it as my clan can be what ever they like (and I write my lore that they're a mix of all clans so would know the tactics) so i'm probably a hypocrite.

 lolman1c wrote:
It's a weird situation. Honestly, it ruins the game for me... Someone spends weeks painting an army, reading the lore and writing their own lore. Suddenly it's the meta to be this regiment so you ruin all the fluff you worked on just to win a friendly game at a club.... I play freebooter orks though so I see it as my clan can be what ever they like (and I write my lore that they're a mix of all clans so would know the tactics) so i'm probably a hypocrite.

Special Characters are normally the better of their kind in the fluff, but many times they have totally unfitting rules, are many times underpowered or unusable. This "chapter/legion/regiment" tactics are in many, many cases, random bonuses that can fit perfectly various chapter/craftworls, etc... as the previous poster explained about White Scars with Ravenguard or Ultramarine rules.
So, why are those kind of normally very random rules, actually important to the fluff of an army? The models are the models, the narrative is the narrative, and the rules are the rules.

 Galas wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
It's a weird situation. Honestly, it ruins the game for me... Someone spends weeks painting an army, reading the lore and writing their own lore. Suddenly it's the meta to be this regiment so you ruin all the fluff you worked on just to win a friendly game at a club.... I play freebooter orks though so I see it as my clan can be what ever they like (and I write my lore that they're a mix of all clans so would know the tactics) so i'm probably a hypocrite.

Special Characters are normally the better of their kind in the fluff, but many times they have totally unfitting rules, are many times underpowered or unusable. This "chapter/legion/regiment" tactics are in many, many cases, random bonuses that can fit perfectly various chapter/craftworls, etc... as the previous poster explained about White Scars with Ravenguard or Ultramarine rules.
So, why are those kind of normally very random rules, actually important to the fluff of an army? The models are the models, the narrative is the narrative, and the rules are the rules.

I'm saying it is gw fault for not leaving it open for you to decide what is more fluffy for your army. Orks for example! My army lord is that they use tactics but I paint them red like evil sunz because I like tgat colour. So they should just have an open system thst says "if you like to go fast pick this but if you like sneaky tactics pick this". I get annoyed if someone brings dar angels and says they're grey knight for example because to me it just feels likd they're doing that to win the game rather than what I do which is tonhave fun. They might as well bring lollypop sticks and say they're what they want at that point. I know people in my club abuse these rules and mix their keywords just to have the most efficient army... in that way you should just be able to pick one bonus and that is it.

I agree, and even if Purifier insist in that it doesn't matter, the mere existence of something like this thread (And threads in other forums), proof that theres people that has very strong opinions about this kind of things.

Thats why I think they should have generic names to avoid all of this kind of problems.

Dionysodorus wrote:

I still don't really get it, though. Like, White Scars are fast, mobile, known for hit and runs, etc. Surely being able to fall back from CC and then shoot you with the twin bolters on their bikes is a pretty fitting Chapter Tactic. Or maybe they're so evasive that they're hard to hit at long range. It seems to me that a person who really likes White Scars, and has a great, painted White Scars army, might 100% justifiably look at the codex and say "these rules really feel to me like how my White Scars should operate" and be looking at the Ultramarines or Raven Guard rules.

Now, maybe they've got a bunch of infantry painted up as White Scars and then Guilliman painted up as a White Scar, and so on. Not a very White Scars-y composition. But, like, surely this person isn't thinking of themselves as playing White Scars. They just like the color scheme.

There's definitely a line not to be crossed though, for me anyway. There's a difference between playing your Cadians as different regimental detachments because you want to mix buffs or try something out and just basically making up your own rules for army composition. You want to play your White Scars as Dark Angels? Fine, as long as I know exactly what everything is supposed to be. You want to play your White Scars as Ravenwing that get Guilliman and cherry pick units and buffs from any chapter you want? Uh, no.

The doctrines really should have been based around a regiment type rather than a homeworld. That said, use the regiment doctrine you want, just be consistent and/or clear with your opponent. Life's too short to be worried about what colour your regiment is forcing you to use a specific set of rules you may not want.

Play what you want.

I won't be strict, and I certainly wouldn't expect my opponent to be strict. Be clear and upfront.

lolman1c wrote:I'm saying it is gw fault for not leaving it open for you to decide what is more fluffy for your army.

They have left it open for you to decide what is fluffy. You can create your own regiment, or chapter or whatever. They're even providing examples in the book of how to make a unique-looking regiment so that it doesn't confuse people by looking like X and playing like Y. You're totally free to make up your own regiment.

Galas wrote:The models are the models, the narrative is the narrative, and the rules are the rules.

It seems to me like this is most definitely not what GW think. One of the big selling factors if the game is that all three of those things are intertwined. This can be seen in things like the successor chapters rules - Novamarines are, in the fluff, an Ultramarine successor, so if you paint them as Novamarines you use specific rules. That's literally the rules of the game.

None of this stops you making up your own chapter. It just means that armies that look like Novamarines (or Cadians, or Mordians, or Tyranids) consistently play the way opponents would expect them too, whole still leaving room for players to make up their own stuff.

Polonius wrote:eh... I mean, what you're doing is judging people on their effort and intent, which is difficulty and judgmental, so I'm not sure I can endorse it.

Keep in mind that right now, there is really no way, outside of asking, for my opponent to know whether a model is a member of an infantry squad, a veteran squad, or heavy/special weapon squad.

Absolutely. The most important rule is the Rule of Cool, and in a game which can be abused so easily, the intent of your opponent is massively important. The OP asked for an opinion on if I would be strict or not. The answer can only be subjective, and my answer is based very much in the intent of my opponent, which is signalled by how much effort he puts in.

Plus, you could easily make it clear which units are infantry squads and which are veteran squads if you wanted to, through clear paint schemes, different models, conversions. Again, it's entirely up to you.

Luciferian wrote:So what's the difference between someone who plays a bunch of Cadians as different regiments in order to minmax, and someone who legitimately models their army to represent that same mixture of regiments?

Well, one person has put loads of effort into their army, presumably because they want to make it really clear to their opponent what is going on, or they have an amazing backstory, or their primary reason to play is because it's a cool army, and the other is trying to beat you by minmaxing. That's the difference. It's fuzzy, but you acknowledge that there IS a difference.


.

No I'm gonna be a dick about it because I can you want to use the rules better have models to match muwhahahahaha!!!!!!!!

Different detachements need different models. Otherwise it is okay with me if you want to run your Cadians with Valhallan rules or vice versa. Just make it clear before the game.

hobojebus wrote:
No I'm gonna be a dick about it because I can you want to use the rules better have models to match muwhahahahaha!!!!!!!!

Where in the rules does it specify which models are required to use those rules? Please cite a rule saying that, for example, you can't have Catachans equipped with Cadian-pattern equipment or a Valhallan "successor regiment" that uses Mordian colors. Until you can then "being a dick about it" is right, you're making up your own special version of 40k and expecting everyone else to comply with it.

A problem of rules lacking models, or in this case, not enough inexpensive models for infantry that are more available, in production, and for the love of God plastic. I got my Cadian armed troops of the Karevi 25th "Hell Sharks" trained by Mordians of 97th.

I think most people will allow it. Its pretty unrealistic for most people to try to collect 8 different IG regiments. Even if one had the money to do so, the amount of physical space it would take up would be insane. Many of the pewter metal models are completely OOP, which grants a little more justification for doing so. If GW actually updated all the IG regiments in plastic, I would feel differently about it. Its kind of a WAAC move, but given the rarity/cost of collecting some of these armies I think most reasonable people will overlook it.

I imagine Valhallans that are sent to fight on a jungle world would look a lot like Cadians, or some random higher gravity planet might make stronger guys, and get issued Cadian like gear. Heck, FW makes Cadian hostile environment gear, which could make a good looking Steel Legion knock off (though i bet in a less hostile environment even the Steel Legion might eschew the greatcloaks and environmental masks...)

At the end of the day, the Cadian models are pretty much your baseline, munitorum issued look, so they can pretty much fit into any planet if you want.

My Tallarn will be Tallarn, regardless of if the Regiment rules don't match the fluff or go well with how I built my army. I have too much pride in the collection of Tallarn I have struggled to complete with the actual models to run them as anything else.

I don't care what somebody else does with their army as long as it is consistent though. Your Cadian Drab painted Cadian models (shoot, if they are painted in the first place I am impressed) are going to be Steel Legion? Go for it, as long as they are all Steel Legion, or there are marking/different paint on models to represent another regiment. The galaxy is a big place, these regiments are likely to develop a specialty on the field of battle, or pick up stuff while being transported with other regiments.

I would hate to limit somebody else's enjoyment of their toy soldiers while we roll dice and make pew pew noises.

Anyone not playing because the models aren't "correct" need to be shunned and ignored. WYSIWYG is not a rule anymore.

And those of us with Praetorian armies are winners anyways as we can legit pick any of em \o/

 ArbitorIan wrote:
There are doctrines for certain model ranges. There are model ranges to match certain doctrines. This is no different to using your Space Wolves as Iron Hands to gain an advantage.

As far as I'm concerned, if you want to play Mordians, buy Mordians, or beautifully convert up your plastics to look like something that feels like it should play as Mordians. Everyone has the internet, third party bits are colossally available for Guard, and an actual box of real life Mordians costs only £2 more than a box of Cadians. It's all about making an effort to play to the fluff.

If you have an army of stock cadians, and you're minmaxing your detachments with different regimental rules to get the juiciest combination of buffs, you're a power gaming dick, and I won't be playing you. What the rules allow you to do is irrelevant - the rules don't force me to play you.

This. My Ultramarines are blue, have Ultramarine Chapter Markings and will always be played as Ultramarines no matter what Chapter Tactic is the current flavor of the month.
My Elysian Drop Troops are, well, Elysian Drop Troops. They will not magicaly become Catachan Junglefighters because I'd like to have S4.
I expect you to do the same.

I wouldn't mind cadian or catachan used as others much, as they are the "default easily acquired" models.
Using specialized models as something else, is a bit crooked.

Using cadian/catachan in a mixed way (these guys are iron guard, these are Valhallan, and they are tallaran) is right out.
You want multiple regiments, actually have multiple regiments.

My AdMech are painted in the space wolf blue (no one would call my army grey... ) colours. What kind of ridiculous ideas would you have about forcing me to play?

And if you think it's fine for me then to choose any forgeworld because none fits my colour scheme, that means you want to punish people for having painted an official scheme in the past? Ridiculous. Let people enjoy the game the way they want within the rules of the game instead of being so elitist about it. Name-calling and belittling people for choosing some of their absolutely legal rules is just petty behaviour.