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.

We're on the brink of chaos. It's long been accepted that marine players *must* paint their armies the right colours, but now everyone is getting options? Madness! People will implode! And/or carry around magnifying glasses to ensure that colour schemes are applied *just* right.

For all marine players that don't give a crap about their colour scheme: you are no longer alone
For all other players that are suddenly getting told you painted your army the wrong colour: welcome to the marines

This discussion comes up every so often and it always boils down to personal opinion (like most things).

I've been playing the game for 25+ years at this point, my first love was for the Blood Angels and I have many thousand of points of space marines all painted red. That said though I don't always use them as blood angels, over the years I've played them as more or less every chapter (except Space wolves - can't bring myself to pretend to be a puppy) I have most of the space marine character models including Bobby G all painted in my red and gold scheme.

I can understand peoples point of view when they say"you're painted as blood angels why not play as blood angels!" but I disagree with them. I've played this game alot, I like to get a game in every week if I am able and unless I'm playing in a tournament I like to field a different list every time I play. I like the variety, one of the things I enjoy about the game is the ability to use my models to represent completely different forces that play in a different way and utilise different (chapter) tactics, I feel it gives me more enjoyment for the money I spend and makes the game more varied and diverse.

I know some people enjoy playing the same force game after game, developing certain tactics and a feel for their specific army, good on them but that's not me. I find the idea of someone telling me that I can't play my army the way I want because of the colour it is paint laughable, I can choose how I want to enjoy my hobby just as they could choose not to play me because of the colour of the models, silly as that sounds.

Telling others how they should gain enjoyment from their hobby is a bad idea, in the vast 40K galaxy it is very easy to invent a fluff reason for more or less anything (my bobby G has painted his armour solid gold in deference to his fathers internment in the golden throne) so if you need to do similar to appease your internal fluff then do so and get on with playing a good game :-)

I for one am really excited by the fact that I can now use my large IG army with various different regimental doctrines - It will make it a more varied and interesting army to play which is a win win in my book. My IG are of course painted red, they are the Baal PDF :-)

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

Really the laugh and 8 exclamation marks didn't give it away?

And what about a custom made Chapter / Regiment / Forge World / Legion ?

That means you can change each time wich "mainstream" faction rules you use, right (expect if you are chaos, you might be stuck with "Renegades") ? So you get an advantage over, say, a Iron Hand or Mordian player right ? Does not that sound stupid ?

I plan to start a new army, either eldar or guard, and I wanted to choose an "official" subfaction for my paintjob / style of play.
But truth is, as I don't want to deal with "eye-rolls" I will just make my own subfaction and will be able to choose whatever rules I feel like.

hobojebus wrote:
Really the laugh and 8 exclamation marks didn't give it away?

Well, no, not in a thread with several people saying the same thing but (apparently) 100% seriously.

IronSlug wrote:
And what about a custom made Chapter / Regiment / Forge World / Legion ?

That means you can change each time wich "mainstream" faction rules you use, right (expect if you are chaos, you might be stuck with "Renegades") ? So you get an advantage over, say, a Iron Hand or Mordian player right ? Does not that sound stupid ?

I plan to start a new army, either eldar or guard, and I wanted to choose an "official" subfaction for my paintjob / style of play.
But truth is, as I don't want to deal with "eye-rolls" I will just make my own subfaction and will be able to choose whatever rules I feel like.

Totally feel you. While it shouldn't need to be done, it's just easier to not have to deal with eye-rolls from elitists. Here's a suggestion though: Use the colour scheme from your favourite army, and then paint one arm in some contrasting colour. Mordians with one white sleeve are both your special Mordian regiment but also, if anyone asks, Definitely-Not-Mordians

It's the standard in gaming these days. Use what rules give most benefit with models in board. Just another reason why special snowflake rules for different chapters etc are bad as it is apart from quite likely promoting unfluffy armies.

Has the current marine codex even fixed the unfluffy biker horde being de facto for white scars when fluff wise that's very unfluffy?

tneva82 wrote:
Has the current marine codex even fixed the unfluffy biker horde being de facto for white scars when fluff wise that's very unfluffy?

What? I've re-read this a few times, and I still don't follow.

 Purifier wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Has the current marine codex even fixed the unfluffy biker horde being de facto for white scars when fluff wise that's very unfluffy?

What? I've re-read this a few times, and I still don't follow.

The answer is yes, i believe. You can't take biker marines as troops anymore. Also, fluff is transitory. Way back when i was knee-high to a grasshopper, my army got overcharged engines. And the first thing i thought was - why are we getting this and not whitescars?

White Scars fluff was always more about mounted Infantry with the bikes as support, but since the Khan mde bikes troops back in the day, and the unique white scars models were all bike related, its how they ended up being fixed in peoples minds.

 Purifier wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Has the current marine codex even fixed the unfluffy biker horde being de facto for white scars when fluff wise that's very unfluffy?

What? I've re-read this a few times, and I still don't follow.

Core of white scars is TACTICAL marines. White scars employ bikes lots yes but note they are still codex chapter which means basic combat unit is battle company(companies 2-5) that's 6xtactical marine squads, 2xassault squads(and these are the guys riding bikes) and 2xdevastators.

Thus for white scars it's tacticals on rhinos or drop pods that should be the core of army. Not biker swarm.

tneva82 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Has the current marine codex even fixed the unfluffy biker horde being de facto for white scars when fluff wise that's very unfluffy?

What? I've re-read this a few times, and I still don't follow.

Core of white scars is TACTICAL marines. White scars employ bikes lots yes but note they are still codex chapter which means basic combat unit is battle company(companies 2-5) that's 6xtactical marine squads, 2xassault squads(and these are the guys riding bikes) and 2xdevastators.

Thus for white scars it's tacticals on rhinos or drop pods that should be the core of army. Not biker swarm.

Biker swarm A) Looks cooler on the tabletop and B) gives an interesting alternative tactical space to play with instead of forcing everyone into the same exact setup "because Codex Astartes."
Plus, the biker swarm might only be the forward patrol of the White Scars in any given battle played between players. Fluff-wise, the rest of the army is a few hours behind, if that kind of stuff bothers you.

 Crazyterran wrote:
White Scars fluff was always more about mounted Infantry with the bikes as support, but since the Khan mde bikes troops back in the day, and the unique white scars models were all bike related, its how they ended up being fixed in peoples minds.

While I agree that theyre more flexible than 'just bikes', White Scars special rules had bikers as troops and bike command squads as far back as the 3ed Index Astartes books, before which there was very little fluff on scars at all. That's two editions before anyone invented Kor'sarro Khan.

Plus, you can take an all-bike army by using the Outrider detachment, they just don't score as well.

I can't believe people would say "I won't play you because your models are painted as cadians and want to use a different regiment" Like.. it's just toy soldiers.

 AaronWilson wrote:
I can't believe people would say "I won't play you because your models are painted as cadians and want to use a different regiment" Like.. it's just toy soldiers.

IKR? But yeah it's a thing. Originally a marine thing, but now it looks like it's going to apply to everyone. I won't judge (publicly). But yeah, its a thing.

Just wait for the threads about people using Behemoth rules when they are painted as Kraken, or Goff rules when painted as Speed Freakz.

Or, in Bizzaro world where we actually get Sisters, Ebon Chalice as Our Martyred Lady! :p

 Crazyterran wrote:
Just wait for the threads about people using Behemoth rules when they are painted as Kraken, or Goff rules when painted as Speed Freakz.

Or, in Bizzaro world where we actually get Sisters, Ebon Chalice as Our Martyred Lady! :p

Implying anyone knows what those paint schemes look like.

It's like a worse version of Ad Mech. Everyone knows Mars, Metalica and Ryza. The rest, most people would need to look up (until you realise they're all basically black and grey with red details.)

 Purifier wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
Just wait for the threads about people using Behemoth rules when they are painted as Kraken, or Goff rules when painted as Speed Freakz.

Or, in Bizzaro world where we actually get Sisters, Ebon Chalice as Our Martyred Lady! :p

Implying anyone knows what those paint schemes look like.

It's like a worse version of Ad Mech. Everyone knows Mars, Metalica and Ryza. The rest, most people would need to look up (until you realise they're all basically black and grey with red details.)

Ork clans paint schemes are a well known and quite old.

Behemoth are Red/Blue nids, Kraken is red/whiteish, Ebon Chalice is black/white, Our Martyred Lady is the baseline black/red. Goffs are Black, Speed Freakz are red (typically).

IronSlug wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
Just wait for the threads about people using Behemoth rules when they are painted as Kraken, or Goff rules when painted as Speed Freakz.

Or, in Bizzaro world where we actually get Sisters, Ebon Chalice as Our Martyred Lady! :p

Implying anyone knows what those paint schemes look like.

It's like a worse version of Ad Mech. Everyone knows Mars, Metalica and Ryza. The rest, most people would need to look up (until you realise they're all basically black and grey with red details.)

Ork clans paint schemes are a well known and quite old.

I was thinking of Sisters specifically.

I support the follow the rules arguments.

In that there are none.

No rule exists that requires you to model or paint any of your models any particular way. If every game you want to play your green guardsmen as different types of guardsmen to try out or mix up the rules then do it. There is no rule requiring people to paint their SM any way to get the rules. There is likewise no rule requiring you to paint or build your guardsmen a certain way use the rules of a regiment. Just make clear what regiment your detachment is to your opponent and play a good game. Anyone who gives you gak for it is dragging their idiotic house rules into the actual rules and trying to drag everyone down with them.

I think no matter the argument we can all agree cherry picking is the worst. I don't mind if you want an army to be cadian or what every but pick one! Don't have an entire army of cadian gaurds men and start to state that one unit is from cadia, the other is blah blah blah. The only case I would allow this is if the models were painted like that so I know exsactly what I am fighting (so if you had ultramarine with dark angels you have half your army green and the other half blue). Imagine if the player doesn't even state it and you attack something you think has short range or T3 but actually it is 30" range or T4 even though they're the exsact same models as the other squad. This is a clear advantage a player would have over another army who has painted all their squads correctly or stuck to one set of rules. I said earlier, it don't mind proxy models but if you start to give every single squad different rules that I can't even keep up with then you're abusing the game just to win.

With my Orks being a custom clan painted dark red I will be picking what I feel most fits my army. But I will only pick one for that game and not start saying my units are goff while my trukks are blood axes... or this will just get confusing and seem like I'm abusing the game to get the most effective army.

As always, it simply comes down to who you're playing. I get no joy in facing someone who will likely show up with a grey plastic Cadian army (maybe primed if I'm lucky) and says "Okay, this tank detachment is Valhallan, this heavy support detachment is Catachan, the troops are Mordian, and this elite detachment is Tallarn". etc.

If that's how you're interested in playing 40K, in a mathhammer-driven-unit-of-the-month method...I'm out. I don't say that in a hateful or spiteful way, we're just not going after the same things in our game of toy soldiers. No big deal.

 lolman1c wrote:
I think no matter the argument we can all agree cherry picking is the worst.

No, I think that's perfectly fine. If you want to hamstring yourself, go ahead, but don't go thinking everyone else will.

 lolman1c wrote:
if you start to give every single squad different rules that I can't even keep up with then you're abusing the game just to win.

First of all, there has to be some sort of marking to help your opponent know what is what. Second of all, what you call abusing the game, I call following the rules of the game.

 von Hohenstein wrote:

 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.

Well all the models I use as my veterans are a cadian/scion kit bash, so are you expecting me to run them as cadians and scions at the same time benefitting from both doctrines?

I know the ITC has been planning on ruling about needing to make your detachments identifiably different. I don't really care what doctrine you use for your models, you want cadian-catachans, sure that is fine. What I don't want is one detachment of cadian catachans, and an identically painted detachment of cadian mordians. I want to be able to look at the models and be able to identify which detachment, and benefits they will receive. So if it is my detachment all infantry is catachans, and my detachment of all tanks (including tank commander) is mordians. I'd be fine with that because I can look at the models and say - ok that is a tank so mordian and vice versa. What I don't want is having say leman russes in both detachments that are painted the same, and one has one rule, and the other a different rule.

I will say this is one reason I wish that "chapter tactics" and chapter specific benefits were only available if your whole army (not detachment) was made up of models with that keyword.

 Purifier wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
I think no matter the argument we can all agree cherry picking is the worst.

No, I think that's perfectly fine. If you want to hamstring yourself, go ahead, but don't go thinking everyone else will.

 lolman1c wrote:
if you start to give every single squad different rules that I can't even keep up with then you're abusing the game just to win.

First of all, there has to be some sort of marking to help your opponent know what is what. Second of all, what you call abusing the game, I call following the rules of the game.

Ahh... so you're that player who everyone avoids in the club and jokes about behind their back? The amount of times I've heard people make fun of the phrase "I call following the rules of the game" and avoid the players who say it... sometimes they're is more than just rules to this game. It's also about community and friendship.

Wouldn’t bother me. Hell, I’d even play against someone using bolt action models as guardsmen as long as I know what is what.

 edbradders wrote:
Wouldn’t bother me. Hell, I’d even play against someone using bolt action models as guardsmen as long as I know what is what.

This is what I'm expressing. People who use identical models as different troops just confuses other players. You can play what ever you want with what ever you want but just make it clear! If it's complicated it just seems like they're doing it to gain an advantage.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Behemoth are Red/Blue nids, Kraken is red/whiteish, Ebon Chalice is black/white, Our Martyred Lady is the baseline black/red. Goffs are Black, Speed Freakz are red (typically).

Goffs are actually black and white checked, so by your reasoning an ork army with black colors shouldn't be able to be goffs....Speed Freakz aren't even a Klan (they are called Evil Suns).

How you paint your army should never force your rules upon you unless you chose to.