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.

Asmodios wrote:
Simple that don't have painted them steel legion with all the markings. If you have they are steel legion and the codex says how they fight. No different than saying "this Black Templar crusade was fighting over on this world so they are separate now and fight like salamanders" it would be equally lame and i wouldnt want to play the person who did it

Wait so now we are arguing the "Armageddon" tactics don't apply to every regiment from Armageddon? Just to steel legion? That's not what you said before....

Why though? Cadians are from all across the entire zoggin galaxy, not just from Cadia. Theres literally more Cadians fighting on worlds light years from Cadia, much more than the planet could have ever held.

To me it doesn't seem like you know the IG fluff very well.

TL;DR: "I have no idea how IG fluff works, but let me tell you all about how your fluff is wrong and you're a WAAC TFG powergamer, but don't be offended be proud of being TFG."

Asmodios wrote:
Its not their fluff. If you have a Cadia army your fluff is represented by the Cadia rule...... its very simple

So now Armageddon ork hunters do have to use steel legion rules, despite it obviously not being their fluff, because they are from the same world?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
TL;DR: "I have no idea how IG fluff works, but let me tell you all about how your fluff is wrong and you're a WAAC TFG powergamer, but don't be offended be proud of being TFG."

That's basically what I'm getting. Someone with no idea about another army's fluff trying to tell other players what their fluff is.

 Peregrine wrote:
TL;DR: "I have no idea how IG fluff works, but let me tell you all about how your fluff is wrong and you're a WAAC TFG powergamer, but don't be offended be proud of being TFG."

One of the only times I have agreed 100% with you! Exalted!

Actually I'm more casual than candy crush, and I only play narrative and campaing driven games. But I respect people that want to compete, even people that want to compete with the most OP hotness out there. Is not with people that normally I'll play, at least not with a "narrative" army.

But basically you are insulting them. I can say that you adderence to a sathirical invented universe made from a bunch of British guys in their hobby time is equally absurd than they desire to win in a game of toys. But I don't, because theres nothing bad about that. And I'm not gonna insult you and tell you to not be offended when I do because "Is on point".

Well then why would they be offended? My will to play my army as per fluff is as laughable to them as me thinking this game is any sort of real test of skill. We are diametrically opposed. Becoming all apoplectic and feeling the need to stick up for them is obviously just the opposite end of the spectrum of me sticking up for casual players/fluff players. We are opposite ends of the spectrum. Diversity is our strength and all that.

 Carl wrote:
Well then why would they be offended? My will to play my army as per fluff is as laughable to them as me thinking this game is any sort of real test of skill. We are diametrically opposed. Becoming all apoplectic and feeling the need to stick up for them is obviously just the opposite end of the spectrum of me sticking up for casual players/fluff players. We are opposite ends of the spectrum. Diversity is our strength and all that.

Mostly because you are screwing over casual players far more than the power gamer sort?

I'm personally more of a competitive type person myself, which is why my armies don't follow official paint schemes. Partially for flexibility, which has been very helpful this edition, and partially because I'm more invested in the game side and don't feel the need to get something 100% lord accurate. Hell, I'm considering using multiple color schemes in the future just so I can mix different chapter equivalents as needed. I'm function over form through and through.

Which is why none of these weird stipulations are going to effect me, but that guy who just really liked the vahlallan or cadian models and color scheme? It'll be an issue with him.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Carl wrote:
Well then why would they be offended? My will to play my army as per fluff is as laughable to them as me thinking this game is any sort of real test of skill. We are diametrically opposed. Becoming all apoplectic and feeling the need to stick up for them is obviously just the opposite end of the spectrum of me sticking up for casual players/fluff players. We are opposite ends of the spectrum. Diversity is our strength and all that.

Mostly because you are screwing over casual players far more than the power gamer sort?

I'm personally more of a competitive type person myself, which is why my armies don't follow official paint schemes. Partially for flexibility, which has been very helpful this edition, and partially because I'm more invested in the game side and don't feel the need to get something 100% lord accurate. Hell, I'm considering using multiple color schemes in the future just so I can mix different chapter equivalents as needed. I'm function over form through and through.

Which is why none of these weird stipulations are going to effect me, but that guy who just really liked the vahlallan or cadian models and color scheme? It'll be an issue with him.

Do you think I would have a issue with a player who preferred Valhalla models, chose a snow theme, and then ran uniform cadian regimental rules? Why wouldn't he just run...idk, Valhalla? im not sure how you think the casual player and myself couldn't come to a understanding. The issue isn't casual players, it's. Tfg looking to pub stomp casuals.

Oh oops I got you and the other guy confused my apologies ignore that.

Considering that only Cadians, Catachans, and Militarum Tempestus have plastic models, I will not be offended if someone uses those models for the rest of those armies.

It was real nice of GW to have regiment rules for all of those old factions, but the fact of the matter is that Valhallan, Vostroyan, Steel Legion, Mordian, and Tallarn models are all old, metal, and don't have all of the options available to fill out an IG army. If someone wants to go and collect those, power to them.

The other factor is experimenting. People are going to use what models they have to figure out what works on the table before buying/painting something a certain way. I won't ever fault someone for doing that.

But if I see someone cheeseballing with multiple detachments of different regiments to milk the best out of each one, I might not be too thrilled to participate in that game, just to get my poor Space Sharks slaughtered again and again for the sake of his cheese.

SilverAlien wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Simple that don't have painted them steel legion with all the markings. If you have they are steel legion and the codex says how they fight. No different than saying "this Black Templar crusade was fighting over on this world so they are separate now and fight like salamanders" it would be equally lame and i wouldnt want to play the person who did it

Wait so now we are arguing the "Armageddon" tactics don't apply to every regiment from Armageddon? Just to steel legion? That's not what you said before....

Sorry that's my bad i often interchange "steel Legion" and "Armageddon" as I've never seen a table top Armageddon army that wasn't steel legion. But yes i would expect all of Armageddon forces to use their rules. So quick to attack in your other posts i'm not sure why you guys are freaking out over someone deciding not to play you. Sorry that all the WWAC players speed painted 200 Cadia conscripts and now want to run them as something else. Like i said a million times in this thread its not just IG i would have issue with magically changing space SM too. Just play with what you have painted or dont be surprised when some people dont want to play you

drbored wrote:
Considering that only Cadians, Catachans, and Militarum Tempestus have plastic models, I will not be offended if someone uses those models for the rest of those armies.

It was real nice of GW to have regiment rules for all of those old factions, but the fact of the matter is that Valhallan, Vostroyan, Steel Legion, Mordian, and Tallarn models are all old, metal, and don't have all of the options available to fill out an IG army. If someone wants to go and collect those, power to them.

The other factor is experimenting. People are going to use what models they have to figure out what works on the table before buying/painting something a certain way. I won't ever fault someone for doing that.

But if I see someone cheeseballing with multiple detachments of different regiments to milk the best out of each one, I might not be too thrilled to participate in that game, just to get my poor Space Sharks slaughtered again and again for the sake of his cheese.

Right and I think this is the point being made. It's going to come down to a judgement call on a case by case basis. Just can't blame people for being hesitant against tfg. If it's looks fishy, and smells fishy, it's probably fish.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Carl wrote:
Well then why would they be offended? My will to play my army as per fluff is as laughable to them as me thinking this game is any sort of real test of skill. We are diametrically opposed. Becoming all apoplectic and feeling the need to stick up for them is obviously just the opposite end of the spectrum of me sticking up for casual players/fluff players. We are opposite ends of the spectrum. Diversity is our strength and all that.

Mostly because you are screwing over casual players far more than the power gamer sort?

I'm personally more of a competitive type person myself, which is why my armies don't follow official paint schemes. Partially for flexibility, which has been very helpful this edition, and partially because I'm more invested in the game side and don't feel the need to get something 100% lord accurate. Hell, I'm considering using multiple color schemes in the future just so I can mix different chapter equivalents as needed. I'm function over form through and through.

Which is why none of these weird stipulations are going to effect me, but that guy who just really liked the vahlallan or cadian models and color scheme? It'll be an issue with him.

The issue isnt Casual players aka a casual player would just say "look what my army (insert specific army here lets say blood angels) got cool" Not "wow Salamanders are way better then my Blood angels now looks like these are different Blood Angels now that actually use Salamanders Rules". Im fine with you being competitive and would have no problem you playing your custom theme as whatever.... Id play you no problem just let me know whats what. What i have issue with is people having a specific army and saying its something its not because of a rules change.

I can understand that view. But don't go around throwing blanket statements like the tfg argument at every player who may want to try out some of the new flavors from the codex.

 Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:
I can understand that view. But don't go around throwing blanket statements like the tfg argument at every player who may want to try out some of the new flavors from the codex.

Read my previous post I said i have 0 issue with "hey man I wanna try this out to see if I like it for a game" and yeah this Cadia army is no longer Cadia as of a day ago because this specific rule is slightly better

Asmodios wrote:

 Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:
I can understand that view. But don't go around throwing blanket statements like the tfg argument at every player who may want to try out some of the new flavors from the codex.

Read my previous post I said i have 0 issue with "hey man I wanna try this out to see if I like it for a game" and yeah this Cadia army is no longer Cadia as of a day ago because this specific rule is slightly better

but somehow it's ok as long as they're wealthy enough to buy a whole second army ? Uh huh.

 argonak wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:
I can understand that view. But don't go around throwing blanket statements like the tfg argument at every player who may want to try out some of the new flavors from the codex.

Read my previous post I said i have 0 issue with "hey man I wanna try this out to see if I like it for a game" and yeah this Cadia army is no longer Cadia as of a day ago because this specific rule is slightly better

but somehow it's ok as long as they're wealthy enough to buy a whole second army ? Uh huh.

No need to buy a new army just play the perfectly good one you have thats 2% less effective then the Flavor of the month

If there was plastics and models not OOP or so expensive for maybe we wouldn't have this problem.

As well, there are plenty of Cadian "Armed" regiments.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
If there was plastics and models not OOP or so expensive for maybe we wouldn't have this problem.

As well, there are plenty of Cadian "Armed" regiments.

There's a million of amazing alternative not metal models out there or you can use the original. I use these for Valhalla https://puppetswar.eu/product.php?id_product=336

 Carl wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Carl wrote:
Well then why would they be offended? My will to play my army as per fluff is as laughable to them as me thinking this game is any sort of real test of skill. We are diametrically opposed. Becoming all apoplectic and feeling the need to stick up for them is obviously just the opposite end of the spectrum of me sticking up for casual players/fluff players. We are opposite ends of the spectrum. Diversity is our strength and all that.

Mostly because you are screwing over casual players far more than the power gamer sort?

I'm personally more of a competitive type person myself, which is why my armies don't follow official paint schemes. Partially for flexibility, which has been very helpful this edition, and partially because I'm more invested in the game side and don't feel the need to get something 100% lord accurate. Hell, I'm considering using multiple color schemes in the future just so I can mix different chapter equivalents as needed. I'm function over form through and through.

Which is why none of these weird stipulations are going to effect me, but that guy who just really liked the vahlallan or cadian models and color scheme? It'll be an issue with him.

Do you think I would have a issue with a player who preferred Valhalla models, chose a snow theme, and then ran uniform cadian regimental rules? Why wouldn't he just run...idk, Valhalla? im not sure how you think the casual player and myself couldn't come to a understanding. The issue isn't casual players, it's. Tfg looking to pub stomp casuals.

So a player with Cadian models using Cadian tactics is OK but if the same player has Valhallan models for exactly the same list with Cadian tactics suddenly you're upset? Its the same player with the same list.

How can you have an issue with a player with Imperial Guard models who plays with Imperial Guard rules? Maybe his Valhallan Regiment was trained by a cadre of Cadians? Maybe its his list and not yours. The difference between the Regiments is not going to be the cause of a curb stomp.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Carl wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Carl wrote:
Well then why would they be offended? My will to play my army as per fluff is as laughable to them as me thinking this game is any sort of real test of skill. We are diametrically opposed. Becoming all apoplectic and feeling the need to stick up for them is obviously just the opposite end of the spectrum of me sticking up for casual players/fluff players. We are opposite ends of the spectrum. Diversity is our strength and all that.

Mostly because you are screwing over casual players far more than the power gamer sort?

I'm personally more of a competitive type person myself, which is why my armies don't follow official paint schemes. Partially for flexibility, which has been very helpful this edition, and partially because I'm more invested in the game side and don't feel the need to get something 100% lord accurate. Hell, I'm considering using multiple color schemes in the future just so I can mix different chapter equivalents as needed. I'm function over form through and through.

Which is why none of these weird stipulations are going to effect me, but that guy who just really liked the vahlallan or cadian models and color scheme? It'll be an issue with him.

Do you think I would have a issue with a player who preferred Valhalla models, chose a snow theme, and then ran uniform cadian regimental rules? Why wouldn't he just run...idk, Valhalla? im not sure how you think the casual player and myself couldn't come to a understanding. The issue isn't casual players, it's. Tfg looking to pub stomp casuals.

So a player with Cadian models using Cadian tactics is OK but if the same player has Valhallan models for exactly the same list with Cadian tactics suddenly you're upset? Its the same player with the same list.

How can you have an issue with a player with Imperial Guard models who plays with Imperial Guard rules? Maybe his Valhallan Regiment was trained by a cadre of Cadians? Maybe its his list and not yours. The difference between the Regiments is not going to be the cause of a curb stomp.

Same as why I would have issue with black templars being used as Salamanders. You are using a unit chapter with a specific rul wrong just to min max a board game and increase your chance of winning by 5%. Someone with that mentality is someone I just don't want to play against. If you have Black templars play them as Black templars

There is functionally no difference between an army that is modeled as Cadians but is comprised of several detachments of various regiments, and an army where those regiments are correctly modeled. The rules are the same, the dice are the same, the game is the same. Assuming it's possible to tell what everything is, of course. When it comes time to play, they are exactly the same. Saying that you would play one and not the other is plainly illogical.

If you don't care about losing, why not accept a bit of challenge?

WAAC types and "power gamers" get a lot of flack, but they don't deserve it nearly as much as boundary-policing gatekeepers, in my opinion. Maybe such people also hunger for the win, but are insecure in their ability to do so. Or maybe they just can't be bothered to put in the effort when it comes to building lists and working out strategies. Who knows.

You (edit - Asmodias) are really worried about winning.

Its not your list. As long as its clear what you are facing (all these Black Templars are actually Salamanders) then build a bridge and get over yourself. In a tournament it would be fine to ding him somewhat for his army composition/painting score, and I would fully expect to be scored down if I brought such a list. The difference in Imperial Guard units, though, is nothing at all like that between Space Marines. Who is to say that a Catachan unit was re-supplied on a long campaign with new uniforms? They aren't Space Marines. Worry less about your opponents motives and focus on how he plays the game.

I understand (but don't necessarily agree with) people getting salty about facing mixed forces, but painting/fluff snobbery is just that. Worry about your own paint/model schemes.

 Luciferian wrote:
There is functionally no difference between an army that is modeled as Cadians but is comprised of several detachments of various regiments, and an army where those regiments are correctly modeled. The rules are the same, the dice are the same, the game is the same. Assuming it's possible to tell what everything is, of course. When it comes time to play, they are exactly the same. Saying that you would play one and not the other is plainly illogical.

If you don't care about losing, why not accept a bit of challenge?

WAAC types and "power gamers" get a lot of flack, but they don't deserve it nearly as much as boundary-policing gatekeepers, in my opinion. Maybe such people also hunger for the win, but are insecure in their ability to do so. Or maybe they just can't be bothered to put in the effort when it comes to building lists and working out strategies. Who knows.

There is no functional difference between running empty bases with "unit x" written on each base. Modeling is a large part of the game, simply play what you have and you will never have an issue. If you want to completely change what it is just to gain an advantage don't be surprised when people don't want to play you. Power gamers are fine I have no problem with them but don't expect a fluff player to ruin their time just so you can try to gain an advantage in what should be a fun game

Asmodios wrote:

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
If there was plastics and models not OOP or so expensive for maybe we wouldn't have this problem.

As well, there are plenty of Cadian "Armed" regiments.

There's a million of amazing alternative not metal models out there or you can use the original. I use these for Valhalla https://puppetswar.eu/product.php?id_product=336

So I'd never be able to play at a GW tourney.

The problem is what exactly constitutes a "WAAC" player or "TFG" varies from person to person.

Say Timmy has a Salamanders Army for a long time and has recently bought a ton of Dreadnoughts. He wants to use the Iron Hands rules for them and thinks it's appropriate.

Johnny might agree with Timmy, since it is a good approximation of the Salamander's craftsmanship. Johnny thinks this is a rather clever way of using the rules to represent something that the main rules won't let you. He agrees to play with Timmy

Hunter might not agree with Timmy, as Iron Hands rules benefit Dreadnoughts way more than Salamanders rules. Hunter thinks that Timmy is simply choosing the most optimal rules for his models so that he can win, rather than trying to play the army for the sake of having fun. He thinks Timmy is a WAAC.

Timmy's real reason? It could honestly be either. It could even be that someone told him he "should" use Iron hands rules for Dreadnoughts and have no idea that it's strong.

There are WAAC players and generally when we think of them, they're the kind that argues "it's technically written in the rules" and go on to do something ridiculous, like saying Grey Knight Terminators with Two Falchions in 5th edition gained +3 attacks, since he's wielding 2 weapons (+1 attack) each of which grants +1 attack (+2). Stuff like this, more of a grey area. Someone could have lovingly collected a whole Vostroyan Army, only to realize that due to facing CC all the time (and hence the enhanced range being moot) he's better off using the Mordian rules to utterly obliterate his local meta. Or someone could have a Tallarn tank army that are heavily modified with reactive armor, which he feels the Vahallan rules are a better fit (due to the tanks being less likely to weaken due to damage).

Again, grey area.

Asmodios wrote:

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

Dont have to read a mind when you painted an army a specific theme and have now changed it the second a new codex is released to gain a specific statistical advantage. There is no mind reading, no pre conceved notions or anything like that. They simply painted an army to match a specific one in a book and now are switching it purley based on statistics..... its the definition of power gaming.

Total nonsense.

The game play of the army changes with each major update. Necron players didn't become TFG because they were the first to gain a Decurion and started to build their strategies around the rules they have access to.

A player who has built and painted a Cadian force for the last 10 years suddenly gets a codex and it turns out that while for the last decade they have had the full range of models to adjust their play style in a pure list building way now they have these doctrines to help nudge them towards different play styles. Maybe the Valhalans best represent the way he has been playing forever. Maybe it's Armagedon. A player isn't throwing away anything for the sake of statistical advantages and power gaming. They are using the rules to build and play the army they enjoy in the play style they enjoy most.

With all doctrines/chapter tactics/whatever being balanced all any player is doing when picking one over the others is choosing how they enjoy the game most. If they are not balanced then you are picking the powerful ones and calling THEM power gamers. But not if they are "painted correctly". Apparently colors dictates the difference between power gaming or not. Again. Nonsense.

What a total pile of gak

What I find insane is how heated people are getting over running your Cadian models with the Steel Legion or Catachan trait is. Unlike Space Marines who are implanted with the traits of their Primarch, the IG are a bunch of shlubs who are a product of their training, and who it is that is training them.

Just take a look at the real world militaries that the IG is based on for examples of this. The battalion of Paratroopers I was in is a prime example. I was in A Co, and of the companies in our battallion, we were the best at reforming up quickly after a combat jump, nobody could match how quickly we could move out as a unit after being scattered to fhe winds in our parachutes. B Co had the best MG gun crews, if you wanted your gunners to learn from the best, you sent them to B Co for some cross training. HHC had the best mortar men, they were insanely accurate with their mortar tubes. C Co had the best marksmen, and D Co were the best at urban warfare.

We were all members of the 82nd Airborne, and we were all paratroopers, but each company in our battalion specialized in a different aspect of warfare as infantrymen based off of the experiences of our superiors. And a single battalion of Paratroopers in the 82nd is laughably small compared to how the IG hoes to war. The fact that an example as small as what I provided can show how diverse humans can be in their approach to warfare should show how using different traits for your Cadians shouldn't be an issue.

The IG fights on thousands/millions of different worlds, and fight beside an untold number of allies from different worlds, and a large amount of varied enemies, forcing them to adopt different methods of fighting to survive the campaign they are on.

Thank goodness I don't have to play against some of the people raging on about traits in this thread. I would have no problem playing against a "Cadian" mechanized infantry army that uses the Steel Legion traits, come up with something cool to match your army and I am even more game for it.

You could say that your Company Commander was at one time the the leader of an armored company that was destroyed in combat, and after gathering the survivors of the tanks crews in his company, and the routed infantry from another company, they were able to mix their experiences in combat together to come up with a new method of fighting that suited them, and their leadership the best.

There's so many better ways to handle it besides just raging at your opponent or being pissy and saying you won't them because they aren't using the Cadian trait for their models.

I also think it's odd how people keep insisting the only reason you'd ever not want to use your assigned trait is power gaming. That's idiotic. So many people chose traits based on what they think will be fun rather than what they think is competitive.

I keep hearing the constant complaint about BT as salamanders, but what if a salamander player thought his CT was really boring if powerful. Instead, they want to use the white scars tactic and spam melta and flamer weapons and just run up the field screaming with fire, because they think that's a more fun way to play their army.

Is it weaker than an optimized salamander's list using the CT? Oh yeah, white scars is generally considered the weakest CT. But it's what they think will be fun to do.

This is a game, fun is the important bit. Restricting other's fun because you are paranoid someone might be gaining the most minor of advantages, without stopping to even confirm whether or not they are, makes you one of the most obnoxious people I could ever imagine.