Galas wrote:
I'm not even that mad about WYSIWYG as long as is consisten.

Your Imperial Guardsmen don't use las-guns because they don't like them, and instead use tecno-laserbows? Thats totally fine as long as is consisten.

I'm too pretty liberal with units that only have one weapon choice. If your Black Templar Emperor Champion is model with an axe, a spear, a banner, two swords, etc... I don't care, because he only has 1 rule availible.

 Luciferian wrote:
Arbitorlan, that's a bit of a strawman as well. The only rule that truly matters to me when it comes to modelling and using proxies or count-as is WYSIWYG. Meaning that if you're going to play 10 grots as a TAC squad with a rocket launcher and 9 bolters, those grots better have a rocket launcher and bolters.

Of course, WYSIWYG is a subjective guideline, but it's been expressed in the rulebooks before as something along the lines of, "...equipment must be visually represented on the model so your opponents can clearly see what they are facing."

Now, if you want to play grots as space marines, or Cadians as Kreig or whatever, I'm fine with that. Even if you're just trying to maximize your list in specific cases. BUT - if you are going to be switching around like that for whatever reason, whether it be that you can't afford the correct models or you just can't decide on one thing, then you better at least get some magnets and a pin vice. I don't care about grots-as-SM, but I DO expect whatever you're playing to have exactly the wargear you say it does. Otherwise there's just no way to keep track of what's what for anyone.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
I'm not failing to understand it, your reasoning is just entirely based on fluff as you have no idea what balance is, and since I don't agree that anything in the rules should be dictated by fluff, I wholeheartedly disagree with your standpoint.

Basing buffs off of fluff is fine, but balancing around it is a travesty.

Plus, maybe the Tallarn are known to be great at tank warfare as a general rule, but maybe even the Tallarn defer to Pask as the one exception to the rule, because he is better than them, even being Cadian. Or maybe they don't but he is anyway.

Your reading of what is fluffy and what isn't is so narrow because if it doesn't fit your own head-cannon, you refuse it outright.

I don't know what to tell you.

You're essentially saying I'm not allowed to dislike the way things were handled because you personally don't agree with the way I view the game.

Okay then.

I disagree with your analysis of the way fluff is handled and believe fluff should not be sacrificed on the altar of balance. I also believe that having more options for an army allows players more freedom to make an army that conforms to their version of the fluff, whatever it may be, than having fewer options. Therefore, it is better to have more options, rather than fewer, if you want to satisfy a large number of fluffy players.

 xeen wrote:
Wow this thread got interesting.

To respond I would never tell someone, "Those models are painted Cadian (or Ultramarine, Black Legion or whatever), so you have to use Cadian(or Ultramarine or Black Legion) Regiment (or Chapter or Legion) or I am not playing you!!!". I am pretty liberal even with proxies as long as they are around the same size as the model, so using different tactics is fine. And if someone really wants to try something I wouldn't make a fuss.

However, I would like to say, and I am sorry if I offend, but if you have a whole army painted as Ultramarines or Cadia or whatever, and you are using them as something else solely because the rules are better, you are a power gamer. I know that they don't have plastic for many IG regiments and that really bottle necks people choices. But if you painted your whole army Cadian, put Cadian markings on vehicles etc., there is a reason. Clearly you liked the background or something. Same with Marines and Chaos. If you made an army a certain way there was a reason, where you liked the background, colors, god whatever. To change what you play just because some rules are better is power gaming. By the way, there is nothing wrong with power gaming, but don't sit there and act like your not using these rules that are better for an advantage in the game to win.

I have a few units of Tzeentch painted and marked models for Chaos Marines. I would never use them as Slannesh or Khorne just because the Marks or Stratagems or whatever are better even though I am well within my rights to do so because as someone pointed out earlier on this thread, there is no GW rule that says "this Chapter Tactic (or whatever) only applies if the model is painted this Chapter" or God or whatever. I will say that if I am trying to be competitive, I have bought my Tzeentch painted Marines and Rubrics as Alpha legion despite them not having anything that makes them more Alpha legion than Tzeentch or Thousand Sons. And when I use that list I am power gaming. I am ok doing that but not shifting gods. That is my preference and I don't begrudge anyone theirs. But again don't sit there and give me some fluff BS about how your Cadians are actually from Mordian or whatever, just say "I am using the Mordian Regiment on these models" and I will say cool and we will play. If I think you are a power gamer because of that, well that is my opinion and you really shouldn't care what I think anyway (my wife certainly doesn't lol)

 Lance845 wrote:

Why would a games companies primary market be fluffy players?

Most people will never read all the fluff. Most players will barely read their own fluff.

Their primary market is people who play the game. Which means building an enjoyable game play experience. Which happens when the 2 forces involved are closer to balanced then not.

Or would you rather synapse and shadow in the warp have no range. Just blanket the table. Nids get to reinforce for free because the hive ships are clearly there otherwise the nids wouldn't be. Shadow would provide a -1 penalty to ld for all models unless they are in any way psychic, then it's a -3 and they have to make a ld test each turn to see if they have gone mad and/or died from the shadow.

Everything should be sacrificed on the alter of balance.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
I'm not failing to understand it, your reasoning is just entirely based on fluff as you have no idea what balance is, and since I don't agree that anything in the rules should be dictated by fluff, I wholeheartedly disagree with your standpoint.

Basing buffs off of fluff is fine, but balancing around it is a travesty.

Plus, maybe the Tallarn are known to be great at tank warfare as a general rule, but maybe even the Tallarn defer to Pask as the one exception to the rule, because he is better than them, even being Cadian. Or maybe they don't but he is anyway.

Your reading of what is fluffy and what isn't is so narrow because if it doesn't fit your own head-cannon, you refuse it outright.

I don't know what to tell you.

You're essentially saying I'm not allowed to dislike the way things were handled because you personally don't agree with the way I view the game.

Okay then.

I disagree with your analysis of the way fluff is handled and believe fluff should not be sacrificed on the altar of balance. I also believe that having more options for an army allows players more freedom to make an army that conforms to their version of the fluff, whatever it may be, than having fewer options. Therefore, it is better to have more options, rather than fewer, if you want to satisfy a large number of fluffy players.

Why would a games companies primary market be fluffy players?

Most people will never read all the fluff. Most players will barely read their own fluff.

Their primary market is people who play the game. Which means building an enjoyable game play experience. Which happens when the 2 forces involved are closer to balanced then not.

Or would you rather synapse and shadow in the warp have no range. Just blanket the table. Nids get to reinforce for free because the hive ships are clearly there otherwise the nids wouldn't be. Shadow would provide a -1 penalty to ld for all models unless they are in any way psychic, then it's a -3 and they have to make a ld test each turn to see if they have gone mad and/or died from the shadow.

Everything should be sacrificed on the alter of balance.

 rhinoceraids wrote:
Sucks because some of the models look SO cool.

But I just spent so much time painting 50 cadian conscripts. Besides that I just use scions and elysians, some bullgryns.

Wont really effect me either way. Just sucks that if I use yarrick itll be kind of a waste. Maybe Ill go back to using pask. We will see when the codex comes out.

As for playing models that look different. Are people really expecting others to go out, buy completely differen regiments, build, and paint them in order to use them? No.

Unless youre playing a chimera as a leman russ. I dont see there being an issue.

If it doesnt affect how I play my army or give any kind of advantage. I wouldnt care.

 rhinoceraids wrote:
This is very true. Ill likely still just use them as cadians.

The doctrines seem nice but nothing is "unplayable" Youre right.

Im excited for the strategems. Along with the relics and some other new updates.

 Elbows wrote:
As with everything in this game, it comes down to intent. Are you trying out a new army? Are you feeling out regiments to determine which one you like. Are you doing a narrative game based around a regiment which you don't have models for...sure, whatever.

If you're just min-maxing every detachment to get the very best combination then you're not a person I'd be playing anyway - so it has little effect on me. Personally I find that limiting oneself to a specific army is part of the fun. It's more interesting to me to suffer the penalties of not cherry-picking a dozen different specialities to benefit from. That's part of the challenge. Same reason I play WYSIWYG regardless if it hinders me against a certain army.

Asmodios wrote:
If you have Cadians painted the typical color you are a Cadia player

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
Arbitorlan, that's a bit of a strawman as well. The only rule that truly matters to me when it comes to modelling and using proxies or count-as is WYSIWYG. Meaning that if you're going to play 10 grots as a TAC squad with a rocket launcher and 9 bolters, those grots better have a rocket launcher and bolters.

Of course, WYSIWYG is a subjective guideline, but it's been expressed in the rulebooks before as something along the lines of, "...equipment must be visually represented on the model so your opponents can clearly see what they are facing."

Now, if you want to play grots as space marines, or Cadians as Kreig or whatever, I'm fine with that. Even if you're just trying to maximize your list in specific cases. BUT - if you are going to be switching around like that for whatever reason, whether it be that you can't afford the correct models or you just can't decide on one thing, then you better at least get some magnets and a pin vice. I don't care about grots-as-SM, but I DO expect whatever you're playing to have exactly the wargear you say it does. Otherwise there's just no way to keep track of what's what for anyone.

Yeah, I mean, it's kind of intended to be a straw man. The purpose was to point out that, if your justification for using Cadians as Valhallans is 'there are no rules that tell me what model to use' then my grot-shaped Dreadnoughts are gonna be finding it much easier to get cover, since there are apparently no rules telling me what models to use as Dreadnoughts. It's an entire fallacy of an argument because GW make it really clear what models / paint schemes link to what rules.

It's annoying that WYSIWYG doesn't seem to be in the rule book any more, too. It makes everything your personal opinion on what is and isn't acceptable - but that's the point I've been making all thread. For me, I don't want ANY possibility that, during a game, I'll look at the sea of Cadians and forget that they're actually Mordians today. It's exactly the same logic as insisting that plasma guns look like plasma guns so you don't forget that your opponent said they were flamers an hour ago.

Almost all my armies are heavily converted/unique and I make sure that, through conversions and WYSIWYG, it's really clear what models are what for exactly that reason - I just expect the same of anyone else who is using non-standard models (like, say, Cadians for Mordians).

Panzergraf wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
If you have Cadians painted the typical color you are a Cadia player

There are a million and one different regiments in the Imperium, and the Cadian look (models and color) is probably the most generic of all. Unless you've painted the Cadian Gate motif on all their shoulder plates, there's no guarantee they're actually fron Cadia.
Not to mentian that there are a bunch of different regiments from Cadia too - including mechanized (the Armageddon doctrine) and White Shields (the Valhallan conscript doctrine). In fact, conscripts as we know them today were first introduced in the Cadian army list of Codex: Eye of Terror back in 3rd edition.


I'm using Steel Legium models for my army, but it was never supposed to be an actual Armageddon Steel Legion army - they're from a totally different planet. Will WYSIWYG-extremists sperg out if I don't use the Armageddon doctrine for my entire army, - which, being made up of Chimeras and Vanquishers, is obviously not made for power gaming?

Asmodios wrote:
Now if you had a Cadia army painted a unique theme then i would have no issue for them being from x planet and using a doctrine that mirrors y famous regiment.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Now if you had a Cadia army painted a unique theme then i would have no issue for them being from x planet and using a doctrine that mirrors y famous regiment.

So let me get this straight:

Using the Cadian models painted in Cadian colors with the Armageddon rules: NOT FUN WAAC TFG.

Using the Cadian models painted purple and green with the Armageddon rules: just fine.

Same exact rules being used for their army, but your enjoyment of the game is ruined by your paranoia about WAAC players. How exactly is this a reasonable position to hold?

Asmodios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Now if you had a Cadia army painted a unique theme then i would have no issue for them being from x planet and using a doctrine that mirrors y famous regiment.

So let me get this straight:

Using the Cadian models painted in Cadian colors with the Armageddon rules: NOT FUN WAAC TFG.

Using the Cadian models painted purple and green with the Armageddon rules: just fine.

Same exact rules being used for their army, but your enjoyment of the game is ruined by your paranoia about WAAC players. How exactly is this a reasonable position to hold?

My thought process is this

1. If you had any specific model (Cadia, Ultramarine, Black Templar,... ECT) and painted them that specific color then your intent was always to use them as that specific force in the Warhammer universe. You now deciding that the army you spent hundreds of hours painting and hundreds of dolors building like a specific regiment, chapter, ect is no longer that chapter because there is a slight statistical advantage to playing that model that way then you are clearly only using that rule because it is more powerful and thus are a power gamer. There's nothing wrong with this, different people want different things out of a board game. Someone willing to throw away that fluff and time put into an army for a slight statistical just isn't the type of person I want to play
2. If you had spent hundreds of hours painting an army that is uniquely colored (Purple Cadia with Snow bases, Bright orange Marines with a sun on their shoulders, whatever) then you clearly always envisioned that force being different from the standard regiments that the traditional paint scheme represented. If you have done this I have no problem with you saying "this is the doctrine they are using as this most closely represents how they fight on my homebrew planet. Now I would expect this player to be consistent with their choice and not be switching every time we get a new codex or an FAQ.

In my mind, if you were fine having Cadia for years then there is no reason why they now (count as x) purely outside of strictly power gaming and like I said I don't play this game competitively and thus wouldn't want to play you.

 Spinner wrote:
So what if someone doesn't see the doctrine rules as being appropriate fluff for their regiment? Say, they decided they liked the idea of playing the Brontian Longknives, a Cadian successor regiment from the FFG 40k line? They've got the same colors and armor as Cadians, so far as I can tell, but the Cadian doctrine doesn't really capture their fighting style, which is far more in-your-face; the Catachan doctrine would work a lot better, honestly. Or what if they're playing an elite Tallarn spearhead and want to use the Tempestus doctrine to represent that?

There's plenty of reasons to use a different doctrine than the models besides being That Guy.

Asmodios wrote:
1. If you had any specific model (Cadia, Ultramarine, Black Templar,... ECT) and painted them that specific color then your intent was always to use them as that specific force in the Warhammer universe. You now deciding that the army you spent hundreds of hours painting and hundreds of dolors building like a specific regiment, chapter, ect is no longer that chapter because there is a slight statistical advantage to playing that model that way then you are clearly only using that rule because it is more powerful and thus are a power gamer. There's nothing wrong with this, different people want different things out of a board game. Someone willing to throw away that fluff and time put into an army for a slight statistical just isn't the type of person I want to play
2. If you had spent hundreds of hours painting an army that is uniquely colored (Purple Cadia with Snow bases, Bright orange Marines with a sun on their shoulders, whatever) then you clearly always envisioned that force being different from the standard regiments that the traditional paint scheme represented. If you have done this I have no problem with you saying "this is the doctrine they are using as this most closely represents how they fight on my homebrew planet. Now I would expect this player to be consistent with their choice and not be switching every time we get a new codex or an FAQ.

In my mind, if you were fine having Cadia for years then there is no reason why they now (count as x) purely outside of strictly power gaming and like I said I don't play this game competitively and thus wouldn't want to play you.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Now if you had a Cadia army painted a unique theme then i would have no issue for them being from x planet and using a doctrine that mirrors y famous regiment.

So let me get this straight:

Using the Cadian models painted in Cadian colors with the Armageddon rules: NOT FUN WAAC TFG.

Using the Cadian models painted purple and green with the Armageddon rules: just fine.

Same exact rules being used for their army, but your enjoyment of the game is ruined by your paranoia about WAAC players. How exactly is this a reasonable position to hold?

My thought process is this

1. If you had any specific model (Cadia, Ultramarine, Black Templar,... ECT) and painted them that specific color then your intent was always to use them as that specific force in the Warhammer universe. You now deciding that the army you spent hundreds of hours painting and hundreds of dolors building like a specific regiment, chapter, ect is no longer that chapter because there is a slight statistical advantage to playing that model that way then you are clearly only using that rule because it is more powerful and thus are a power gamer. There's nothing wrong with this, different people want different things out of a board game. Someone willing to throw away that fluff and time put into an army for a slight statistical just isn't the type of person I want to play
2. If you had spent hundreds of hours painting an army that is uniquely colored (Purple Cadia with Snow bases, Bright orange Marines with a sun on their shoulders, whatever) then you clearly always envisioned that force being different from the standard regiments that the traditional paint scheme represented. If you have done this I have no problem with you saying "this is the doctrine they are using as this most closely represents how they fight on my homebrew planet. Now I would expect this player to be consistent with their choice and not be switching every time we get a new codex or an FAQ.

In my mind, if you were fine having Cadia for years then there is no reason why they now (count as x) purely outside of strictly power gaming and like I said I don't play this game competitively and thus wouldn't want to play you.

Do you try to read the mind and history of your opponent to check if he is truly loyal to his list and has spent years playing it? Do you also refuse to play somebody who suddenly plays a new army? How many years of total loyalty to his list does he have to display before you deem him worthy of a game with you? What are you afraid of? Losing?

Throwing the "power gamer" label around is easy to do, but its not necessarily fair. You are free to play with whomever you want, but maybe hold off on the judgements? Excluding someone based on trying different Regiments seems a little odd. Wouldn't it be more fun if your Guard opponent could come at you every month with a slightly different challenge for you to face without him having to dump hundreds of dollars and hours? Maybe he could spend that cash and time on a completely new force?

Cheers