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.

No one is saying that you can't run a uniform army and play it how you want, I just try not to associate my precious hobby time with people obsessed with making the game a pure numbers grind. If I wanted to do that I would play chess.

The military example is an especially awful straw man. The 82nd is the 82nd. Saying your machine gunners with 82 patches are now 101st because it gives you a small statistical advantage in a game of toy soldiers is just sad really.

If your play style doesn't fit the models, it fits say another, say "hey, mind if this entire army is valhalla? I love wave attacks" that's totally cool, that's not going to the regimental buffet for each battalion just so you have a slight edge in a dice game.

Be honest, the reason the army of TFG is so mad is because no one likes to be called out on being him. This isn't about casuals, it's about you milking every statistical advantage you can and sacrificing all else and hoping to confuse the issue with whataboutism and a myriad of other logical fallacies,

If you want to experiment, switch regiments, etc eventually, great! Talk to your opponent beforehand. If you want to huff and puff your mighty plastic army to its mind bending limits of performance, all we are asking is you play like minded individuals, and don't be offended when we decline.

I'm currently planning to run an IG detachment alongside my admech, and I'm not going to deny it's a power gaming thing. I don't mind admitting that I enjoy building hyper competitive lists and playing them against other hyper competitive armies. I will say I do tend to run deliberately weaker lists if my opponent has a weaker list/army or just wants a friendly game. Optimized armies are for other optimized armies, friendly lists are for other friendly lists.

What's bothering us isn't even you tbh, it's the other guy. Who is insisting no one ever uses an alternate CT for any reason but power gaming. Which is, as you pointed out, not the case. So yeah, I think we all get you Carl. You are being fairly reasonable about it.

I always enjoy the people who resort to name-calling and whining to assert their vision of how the game should function also being the people who think they're the fun, casual players everyone really enjoys playing. I know I like to be insulted and aspersions cast on my character based on what coats my tiny men are wearing and what colour they are, and those are definitely the games I seek out as opposed to people who just get on and play the game without applying a purity test first.

I just like that the whole issue basically revolves around what colour your paint your toy soldiers. It's *really* important!

 Carl wrote:
I think people need to check the emotions. I race cars, I'm not "fun" to race against. I play to win, I hedge every bet, milk every milk second, and am not upset if you made a mistake, I will ruthlessly exploit it. I honestly don't have any problem if you play the way I race, I just like to banter. I just don't understand why someone would be so offended by a casual player not wanting to play them. I don't get upset when joe blow doesn't want to race me in his mustang gt or stock corvette.

I think it's fair enough to say 'I play casually, never attend tournaments and just put the toys I like on the table, so I probably wouldn't accept a game with someone who clearly brought an optimised army.' But rarely does anyone actually say that - the overwhelming response from supposedly casual players is from people who are clearly very invested in the game, who do care deeply about it, and their very strong feelings about how other people play and what it apparently says about them.

Like, to complete your analogy (and bear in mind I know nothing about car racing) - it's more like if someone showed up in the Mustang and insisted that driving one was the only appropriate way to race, and if you have a faster car it makes you a bad person. That's the point of all the 'TFG', 'WAAC', 'power gamer' stuff - you aren't taking a different approach, you have the wrong approach, and you suck because of it.

Once again, just say you are playing to win. I don't mind shaking my finger at a young kid on the street who thinks he's going to prove something, it's a waste of gas, just like you crushing a casuals list is a waste of time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Corrode wrote:

 Carl wrote:
I think people need to check the emotions. I race cars, I'm not "fun" to race against. I play to win, I hedge every bet, milk every milk second, and am not upset if you made a mistake, I will ruthlessly exploit it. I honestly don't have any problem if you play the way I race, I just like to banter. I just don't understand why someone would be so offended by a casual player not wanting to play them. I don't get upset when joe blow doesn't want to race me in his mustang gt or stock corvette.

I think it's fair enough to say 'I play casually, never attend tournaments and just put the toys I like on the table, so I probably wouldn't accept a game with someone who clearly brought an optimised army.' But rarely does anyone actually say that - the overwhelming response from supposedly casual players is from people who are clearly very invested in the game, who do care deeply about it, and their very strong feelings about how other people play and what it apparently says about them.

Like, to complete your analogy (and bear in mind I know nothing about car racing) - it's more like if someone showed up in the Mustang and insisted that driving one was the only appropriate way to race, and if you have a faster car it makes you a bad person. That's the point of all the 'TFG', 'WAAC', 'power gamer' stuff - you aren't taking a different approach, you have the wrong approach, and you suck because of it.

The approach is totally fine, just don't be offended if someone isn't interested in playing you. The Mrs drives a Volkswagen Beetle, I don't frown and poopoo her because she is sharing the roadway, but not interested in throwing down at the stop light. Just race in your own class.

 Carl wrote:
Be honest, the reason the army of TFG is so mad is because no one likes to be called out on being him.

And it says a lot about you, none of it good, that you consider optimizing a list to be TFG behavior.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Carl wrote:
Be honest, the reason the army of TFG is so mad is because no one likes to be called out on being him.

And it says a lot about you, none of it good, that you consider optimizing a list to be TFG behavior.

I said you are TFG if you are salty about casuals and fluff players not wanting to get pub stomped by you. It has nothing to do with the list lol. Play it all you want, just play people in your class.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reads: 11+ posts per day.


(Backs away, slowly)


We got us a live one!

My IG are a unique regiment with giant feathers and gaudy golden guns.
They gonna be whatever I think works best.
Likely they are gona be cadians cause I like rerolls

This is why the best advice is to make your own chapter. I enjoy the Ultramarines fluff, so i play with their tactics since it suits their fluff. I also feel a bit obligated, since Ive painted tens of thousands of points in models, and have plastered the reverse omega over a bunch of models. I dont hold other people to the same standard, but some people do.

Just play a cool unknown founding, or make your own, and olay whatever strikes your fancy that day.

 Carl wrote:
I said you are TFG if you are salty about casuals and fluff players not wanting to get pub stomped by you. It has nothing to do with the list lol. Play it all you want, just play people in your class.

In your own words:

Saying your machine gunners with 82 patches are now 101st because it gives you a small statistical advantage in a game of toy soldiers is just sad really.

You're whining about someone gaining a "small statistical advantage". That is not the kind of thing that "pub stomps" a player who doesn't make the same optimization. Small advantages give small margins of victory.

 Corrode wrote:

 Carl wrote:
I think people need to check the emotions. I race cars, I'm not "fun" to race against. I play to win, I hedge every bet, milk every milk second, and am not upset if you made a mistake, I will ruthlessly exploit it. I honestly don't have any problem if you play the way I race, I just like to banter. I just don't understand why someone would be so offended by a casual player not wanting to play them. I don't get upset when joe blow doesn't want to race me in his mustang gt or stock corvette.

I think it's fair enough to say 'I play casually, never attend tournaments and just put the toys I like on the table, so I probably wouldn't accept a game with someone who clearly brought an optimised army.' But rarely does anyone actually say that - the overwhelming response from supposedly casual players is from people who are clearly very invested in the game, who do care deeply about it, and their very strong feelings about how other people play and what it apparently says about them.

Like, to complete your analogy (and bear in mind I know nothing about car racing) - it's more like if someone showed up in the Mustang and insisted that driving one was the only appropriate way to race, and if you have a faster car it makes you a bad person. That's the point of all the 'TFG', 'WAAC', 'power gamer' stuff - you aren't taking a different approach, you have the wrong approach, and you suck because of it.

Actually the car example isn't too bad. This is the equivalent of going to the race track and registering your motorcycle as a mustang. Its clear that you are simply trying to game the system by being in a class that clearly your not in. Regardless of how many times you say you identify as a car you simply are not one. Its clear to everyone there that your just saying you are a car but you have two wheels and are a bike. If you wanna race as a car simply show up with a car or dont get mad when some people dont wanna race you. If you have a Cadia army with all the colors and the stickers and are clearly that army just play it as such. It funny to me that everyone freaks out about being called a power gamer but couldn't possibly see themselves using their army the way its painted against a fluff player because it might preform worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Carl wrote:
I said you are TFG if you are salty about casuals and fluff players not wanting to get pub stomped by you. It has nothing to do with the list lol. Play it all you want, just play people in your class.

In your own words:

Saying your machine gunners with 82 patches are now 101st because it gives you a small statistical advantage in a game of toy soldiers is just sad really.

You're whining about someone gaining a "small statistical advantage". That is not the kind of thing that "pub stomps" a player who doesn't make the same optimization. Small advantages give small margins of victory.

Yeah if you are going up against someone thats interested in a fun fluffy game and you are doing things like running 101st guys as 82nd to gain a small statistical advantage then yeah you are being TFG IMO. I would never want an opponent to deliberately weaken themselves to throw a game (if a Russ was 500 points and a baneblade was 400 i would completely understand him taking bane blades). But i also dont want to play the guy running Black Templar's as salamanders because they are 12% more efficient in the shooting phase and will give him a 22.85% better chance to win the game. Immersion into the game is important for some people and playing something your army clearly isn't is just ruining my experience as its clear why you are doing it. Not sure why you seem so upset that some people wouldn't want to play you if this is what your clearly doing

Asmodios wrote:
This is the equivalent of going to the race track and registering your motorcycle as a mustang. Its clear that you are simply trying to game the system by being in a class that clearly your not in.

It isn't at all the same, because in this hypothetical race situation no motorcycles are allowed in the Mustang class. The race classes are set based on performance and physical configuration, not by what you label your vehicle or what color you paint it. If the race was run by the 40k rules you're trying to impose it would be unacceptable to go to the track and register your motorcycle as a Mustang, but it would be just fine to show up with a motorcycle and enter the exact same race as long as you call it a motorcycle. You're obsessing over irrelevant differences in how a model is painted instead of the relative strengths of each army. If you're willing to play against a set of Catachan models using the Catachan rules, and consider it a balanced enough game to be enjoyable, then it is not reasonable to object to playing against an army using the exact same rules (and therefore having the exact same strength and chances of winning) but with Cadian symbols painted on the models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:
Immersion into the game is important for some people and playing something your army clearly isn't is just ruining my experience as its clear why you are doing it.

And despite how important immersion supposedly is for you, and how much you obsess over barely visible details like what symbol is painted on a model's shoulder pad, your entire argument is based on utter ignorance of the IG fluff.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
This is the equivalent of going to the race track and registering your motorcycle as a mustang. Its clear that you are simply trying to game the system by being in a class that clearly your not in.

It isn't at all the same, because in this hypothetical race situation no motorcycles are allowed in the Mustang class. The race classes are set based on performance and physical configuration, not by what you label your vehicle or what color you paint it. If the race was run by the 40k rules you're trying to impose it would be unacceptable to go to the track and register your motorcycle as a Mustang, but it would be just fine to show up with a motorcycle and enter the exact same race as long as you call it a motorcycle. You're obsessing over irrelevant differences in how a model is painted instead of the relative strengths of each army. If you're willing to play against a set of Catachan models using the Catachan rules, and consider it a balanced enough game to be enjoyable, then it is not reasonable to object to playing against an army using the exact same rules (and therefore having the exact same strength and chances of winning) but with Cadian symbols painted on the models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:
Immersion into the game is important for some people and playing something your army clearly isn't is just ruining my experience as its clear why you are doing it.

And despite how important immersion supposedly is for you, and how much you obsess over barely visible details like what symbol is painted on a model's shoulder pad, your entire argument is based on utter ignorance of the IG fluff.

The car example works fine
>a car has 4 wheels and an engine
> bike has 2 wheels and an engine
>this 2 wheel and an engine vehicle is a car and you are rediculouse if you won't let me use it as such
>Cadia have green and tan armor and the proper transfers
>Catachan guys look like Rambo and where green and red with even certain specific patterns for things like sentinels
>my guys are the Cadia models painted as such with everything that makes a model from Cadia as per this and every other codex but you better not point this out or your TFG
Once again it's fine if you feel the need to butcher the fluff to gain a small statistical advantage just don't get mad when some people don't want to play you for it. This conversation is clearly not going anywhere though as they are both personal opinions over toy soldiers. Play your units how you like but don't expect everyone to want to play that way.

All my Catachans have the Cadian symbol tattooed on their shoulders.

Checkmate!

Asmodios wrote:
The car example works fine
>a car has 4 wheels and an engine
> bike has 2 wheels and an engine
>this 2 wheel and an engine vehicle is a car and you are rediculouse if you won't let me use it as such

You're ignoring the most important part of why your comparison is terrible:

>This 2 wheel and an engine vehicle is a motorcycle, and I get to race it against your car as long as I call it a motorcycle

That's the argument you're making. You're willing to play against an army if it has the "correct" models, but if it has the exact same rules (and therefore the exact same chances of winning) with "incorrect" models you whine about WAAC POWERGAMING TFGs and refuse to play. Your policy has nothing to do with list strength or how much a player is trying to win, it's all about rivet counting taken to such an absurd extreme that you seem like a parody instead of a real person.

Once again it's fine if you feel the need to butcher the fluff to gain a small statistical advantage just don't get mad when some people don't want to play you for it.

It's only "butchering the fluff" because of your utter ignorance of the IG fluff. Regiments with the same uniform colors and shoulder markings can use completely different tactics.

Yaknow, I think maybe using cadia as the example is what caused issues.

Because cadia is both the default, and the easily acquired models.

Let's go another path.
Assuming catachan are superior, running your clearly tallaran models as catachan is obviously done to power game.

Having cadian painted and marked infantry and cadian painted and marked tanks as two different regiments is also clearly power gaming.

Having all-cadian models who are NOT marked as all-valhallan? Maybe powergaming, can't really tell by mere glance.

If your choice of regiment was by its rules, at the slightest, you are at some level powergaming.

The mentioned group from Armageddon who fight nothing like steel legion? I assume they got thier own look, at least in markings. If you have thier looks, obviously you match the looks to what you play, if they look like steel legion, you are power gaming.


Now, repeat after me, POWER GAMING IS NOT AN INSULT
I at times power game as well, there is a time and a place for it, but not always. I won't bother optimizing against a newbie, or players I know run unoptimised armies.

But I damn well raise an eyebrow on someone who's model appearance does not match rules,and outright refuse soup regiment optimization.

Asmodios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

And despite how important immersion supposedly is for you, and how much you obsess over barely visible details like what symbol is painted on a model's shoulder pad, your entire argument is based on utter ignorance of the IG fluff.

>Cadia have green and tan armor and the proper transfers
>Catachan guys look like Rambo and where green and red with even certain specific patterns for things like sentinels
>my guys are the Cadia models painted as such with everything that makes a model from Cadia as per this and every other codex but you better not point this out or your TFG
Once again it's fine if you feel the need to butcher the fluff to gain a small statistical advantage just don't get mad when some people don't want to play you for it. This conversation is clearly not going anywhere though as they are both personal opinions over toy soldiers. Play your units how you like but don't expect everyone to want to play that way.

Your understanding is utterly shallow.

Cadians will be whatever color is appropriate to where they are fighting, as will regiments from other worlds. Lots of examples of this. Why do you think FW always notes the campaign against example color schemes?

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Why do you think FW always notes the campaign against example color schemes?

Exactly. Different color schemes, different equipment, etc. A Catachan regiment that gets resupplied with Cadian-pattern equipment from one of the many forge worlds that produces Cadian-pattern equipment will have Cadian-style uniforms/lasguns/etc. A Valhallan regiment fighting in a desert region will paint their tanks the same sand color as a Tallarn regiment. Etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BoomWolf wrote:
If your choice of regiment was by its rules, at the slightest, you are at some level powergaming.

That's an absurd thing to say. If most players are guilty of at least some level of powergaming then the term "powergaming" has no meaning. It only makes sense as a term if you limit its use to the highest levels of choosing list optimization over anything else.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
If your choice of regiment was by its rules, at the slightest, you are at some level powergaming.

That's an absurd thing to say. If most players are guilty of at least some level of powergaming then the term "powergaming" has no meaning. It only makes sense as a term if you limit its use to the highest levels of choosing list optimization over anything else.

Apparently you have to select your army with absolutely zero thought to effectiveness or you are powergaming.

I dread to think what the CAAC mafia would say about someone who cut off some guns and replaced them with different ones for the new edition.

I mean, hey, since we're throwing "TFG" all willy-nilly in this thread, it's pretty TFG to tell me I can't play my models how I choose simply because I painted them in a nice scheme that I like.

"TFG" is not a list-building term, it's a personality term.

 Carl wrote:

If your play style doesn't fit the models, it fits say another, say "hey, mind if this entire army is valhalla? I love wave attacks" that's totally cool, that's not going to the regimental buffet for each battalion just so you have a slight edge in a dice game.

And more back pedalling from you. What happened to:
"My models where steel legion through thick and thin. I could of played them in another setting and made up some story to power game but why would I, It's terribly unfluffy, unfun and power gamer-ish. If you want to magically make a new army and expect me to look past all the cadia transfers and standards fine, just don't play me."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jacksmiles wrote:
I mean, hey, since we're throwing "TFG" all willy-nilly in this thread, it's pretty TFG to tell me I can't play my models how I choose simply because I painted them in a nice scheme that I like.

"TFG" is not a list-building term, it's a personality term.

Yep. "How dare you pick rules to match your fluff that doesn't match my shallow and small-minded understanding of the fluff, I refuse to play you." is definitely pretty TFG. As for "I refuse to play you because you applied even the smallest amount of effort to making a good army" - that's just bizarre. (what this usually means, although the CAAC-types are loathe to admit it, is "I don't like that you put more effort than me into making a good army")

Asmodios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
This is the equivalent of going to the race track and registering your motorcycle as a mustang. Its clear that you are simply trying to game the system by being in a class that clearly your not in.

It isn't at all the same, because in this hypothetical race situation no motorcycles are allowed in the Mustang class. The race classes are set based on performance and physical configuration, not by what you label your vehicle or what color you paint it. If the race was run by the 40k rules you're trying to impose it would be unacceptable to go to the track and register your motorcycle as a Mustang, but it would be just fine to show up with a motorcycle and enter the exact same race as long as you call it a motorcycle. You're obsessing over irrelevant differences in how a model is painted instead of the relative strengths of each army. If you're willing to play against a set of Catachan models using the Catachan rules, and consider it a balanced enough game to be enjoyable, then it is not reasonable to object to playing against an army using the exact same rules (and therefore having the exact same strength and chances of winning) but with Cadian symbols painted on the models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:
Immersion into the game is important for some people and playing something your army clearly isn't is just ruining my experience as its clear why you are doing it.

And despite how important immersion supposedly is for you, and how much you obsess over barely visible details like what symbol is painted on a model's shoulder pad, your entire argument is based on utter ignorance of the IG fluff.

The car example works fine
>a car has 4 wheels and an engine
> bike has 2 wheels and an engine
>this 2 wheel and an engine vehicle is a car and you are rediculouse if you won't let me use it as such
>Cadia have green and tan armor and the proper transfers
>Catachan guys look like Rambo and where green and red with even certain specific patterns for things like sentinels
>my guys are the Cadia models painted as such with everything that makes a model from Cadia as per this and every other codex but you better not point this out or your TFG
Once again it's fine if you feel the need to butcher the fluff to gain a small statistical advantage just don't get mad when some people don't want to play you for it. This conversation is clearly not going anywhere though as they are both personal opinions over toy soldiers. Play your units how you like but don't expect everyone to want to play that way.

Your example is dumb as feth.

Bringing a motorcycle to the car race is like brining tyranids and calling them IG.

Brining a blue mustang or a green mustang to the car race would be like bringing catachans or cadians. They are both fething mustangs. One just got painted differently.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Carl wrote:
I said you are TFG if you are salty about casuals and fluff players not wanting to get pub stomped by you. It has nothing to do with the list lol. Play it all you want, just play people in your class.

In your own words:

Saying your machine gunners with 82 patches are now 101st because it gives you a small statistical advantage in a game of toy soldiers is just sad really.

You're whining about someone gaining a "small statistical advantage". That is not the kind of thing that "pub stomps" a player who doesn't make the same optimization. Small advantages give small margins of victory.

And you are whining that you can't larp your new soldiers as whatever you want to validate your insecurities. If only the win margins was as bariatric and grandiose as your schemes and person.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
This is the equivalent of going to the race track and registering your motorcycle as a mustang. Its clear that you are simply trying to game the system by being in a class that clearly your not in.

It isn't at all the same, because in this hypothetical race situation no motorcycles are allowed in the Mustang class. The race classes are set based on performance and physical configuration, not by what you label your vehicle or what color you paint it. If the race was run by the 40k rules you're trying to impose it would be unacceptable to go to the track and register your motorcycle as a Mustang, but it would be just fine to show up with a motorcycle and enter the exact same race as long as you call it a motorcycle. You're obsessing over irrelevant differences in how a model is painted instead of the relative strengths of each army. If you're willing to play against a set of Catachan models using the Catachan rules, and consider it a balanced enough game to be enjoyable, then it is not reasonable to object to playing against an army using the exact same rules (and therefore having the exact same strength and chances of winning) but with Cadian symbols painted on the models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:
Immersion into the game is important for some people and playing something your army clearly isn't is just ruining my experience as its clear why you are doing it.

And despite how important immersion supposedly is for you, and how much you obsess over barely visible details like what symbol is painted on a model's shoulder pad, your entire argument is based on utter ignorance of the IG fluff.

The car example works fine
>a car has 4 wheels and an engine
> bike has 2 wheels and an engine
>this 2 wheel and an engine vehicle is a car and you are rediculouse if you won't let me use it as such
>Cadia have green and tan armor and the proper transfers
>Catachan guys look like Rambo and where green and red with even certain specific patterns for things like sentinels
>my guys are the Cadia models painted as such with everything that makes a model from Cadia as per this and every other codex but you better not point this out or your TFG
Once again it's fine if you feel the need to butcher the fluff to gain a small statistical advantage just don't get mad when some people don't want to play you for it. This conversation is clearly not going anywhere though as they are both personal opinions over toy soldiers. Play your units how you like but don't expect everyone to want to play that way.

Your example is dumb as feth.

Bringing a motorcycle to the car race is like brining tyranids and calling them IG.

Brining a blue mustang or a green mustang to the car race would be like bringing catachans or cadians. They are both fething mustangs. One just got painted differently.

Bring your motorcycle to race me from a dig, let me know how you do. Ps, wind resistance and Wright are huge factors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
> I just want everyone to have fun
> stop hurting my feelings bc people who want to play for fun won't play me

Pick exactly one, you sad, sad NEETs


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In b4 "Muh dice rolls and hurt feelings"

The racing example gets weird because you will be excluded from the race if you don't have the correct stickers.

I was wondering how long before Carl decided to double down on the stupid but there we go. Lots of projection in that post.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
The racing example gets weird because you will be excluded from the race if you don't have the correct stickers.

You mean it's the perfect example? I don't puff my chest out by putting bus lengths on beginners but "omggggg this hobby is so expensive I can't change armies!!!" If I end up in a lane next to a scrub I don't ag him on, and give him the
Matt. I encourage him.

You guys are just....so...dakka?

 Carl wrote:
And you are whining that you can't larp your new soldiers as whatever you want to validate your insecurities. If only the win margins was as bariatric and grandiose as your schemes and person.
Bring your motorcycle to race me from a dig, let me know how you do. Ps, wind resistance and Wright are huge factors.
> I just want everyone to have fun
> stop hurting my feelings bc people who want to play for fun won't play me
Pick exactly one, you sad, sad NEETs
In b4 "Muh dice rolls and hurt feelings"

text removed.

reds8n

Well, this thread has certainly become a trainwreck...

Scott-S6. Peregrine, Carl, Asmodios wrote:More and more ridiculous examples for three entire pages to see who can stretch the argument the furthest so the other person looks stupid.

You're never going to find some sort of hard 'line' one person thinks is totally fair without being able to make it seem ridiculous. It's a grey area based entirely on what other people would do with their models, and what you think their intent was.

A lot of people on the thread seem to agree that taking the same models and running them as three different regiments in the same army is power-gaming because, rather than just 'picking a good list' you're deliberately making it confusing for your opponent, which makes the game unfair.

The question about 'where the line is' for other regiment/model mix-ups, for me, is also about confusion. If you're using models with counterintuitive rules, I don't want, at ANY point to look at your models and have to remind myself that they're not actually playing as the regiment they look like. This is exactly the same as not running plasma guns as flamers, etc etc.

The benchmark for me (and for when I do my own converted armies) is: Anyone should be able to look at the army and immediately know what they represent, without having to ask. Or, they should be so unlike anything else that there's no potential for confusion

Your Cadians, in Hostile Environment Gear, on snow bases, painted white and green, as Valhallans? Yeah, that'll probably wash.
Your Cadians, with a slightly different paint scheme, as Catachans? Dunno, do they obviously look like hardened death world CC fighters?
Your Cadians, in giant units, with WW2 Russian- style caps, with loads of commissars and a big red banner, as Valhallans? fething brilliant!
Your Cadians, painted in the GW scheme apart from one shoulder pad different, as Mordians. Ummm... no. They still look like Cadians. Confusing.
Your models, make of so many crazy parts they look like no current regiment, played as whatever you want? Yeah, go ahead.

.