Switch Theme:

Regiment Doctrines and models.......are people going to be strict or not strict  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Guard Heavy Weapon Crewman





 ArbitorIan wrote:
Scott-S6. Peregrine, Carl, Asmodios wrote:More and more ridiculous example 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 making it seem ridiculous. It's a grey area based entirely on what other people would do with their models.

A lot of people on the thread seem to agree that taking the same models and running the, as three different regiments in the same army is power-gaming because, rather than just 'picking a good list' you're deliberately making is 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, paints din the GW scheme apart from one shoulder pad different, as Mordians. Ummm... no.
Your models, make of so many crazy parts they look like no current regiment, played as whatever you want? Yeah, go ahead,


This is perfect. I'm done, I hope you blow Timmy starter box out of the water tomorrow everyone else!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apologize for my comments, things get heated. Wish you the best, after 8 years here I should know better

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/01 09:51:32


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 ArbitorIan wrote:
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.


I don't see this at all. First of all, I seriously doubt that the goal of taking multiple regiments is to make it confusing for your opponent. Any hypothetical gain in confusion would be more than offset by making list choices based on model appearance instead of rules strength, especially since your opponent can always ask what regiment rules a given unit has. People who take multiple regiment rules might be showing a lack of concern for confusion, but I don't believe at all that it's a deliberate goal.

And aside from the question of confusion in isolation, in the context of the general 40k community it's a silly claim to make. When unpainted models, proxies, etc, are common I don't think it's a reasonable argument to suggest that having the "wrong" paint scheme for some models is going to be over the line.

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.


Then 40k is not the game for you. Custom paint schemes that give no clue about the unit's regiment/chapter/etc rules are 100% legal and endorsed by GW.

Your Cadians, in Hostile Environment Gear, on snow bases, painted white and green, as Valhallans? Yeah, that'll probably wash.


And right away you contradict your own argument. Cadians with white and green paint and some snow look like Cadians in snow, not the typical Valhallan models. They're no more WYSIWYG than Cadians painted in any other color or on any other base using the Valhallan rules.

Your models, make of so many crazy parts they look like no current regiment, played as whatever you want? Yeah, go ahead.


This is also absurd. How can it possibly be less confusing to use models made out of a bunch of random parts that resemble no "official" regiment? Those models tell you absolutely nothing about what their rules are, you can't possibly hold them up as an example of clear and unambiguous WYSIWYG.
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Et In Arcadia Ego





Canterbury

There's a topic.

Stick to it.

No need for the insults, digs at each other and all the other crap we've had for the last few pages.



The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
 
   
Made in gb
Dispassionate Imperial Judge






HATE Club, East London

 Peregrine wrote:
The usual pedantry. Peregrine Is Never Wrong (or, at least, will keep arguing longer than you)


I mean, you're trying to pick specific points apart in a post which is about there being a grey area around what is acceptable. I'd buy the Hostile Environment Cadians, maybe you wouldn't. That's the danger when using counts-as. Anyway,

I'm saying that presenting something that looks like A (a clear set of models which GW tie to specific rules) and running them as B (a different set of models with different rules) is confusing. Playing unique models as A or B isn't because they're not signalling the opposite. Nobody is in danger of being misled by the appearance of the model.

And GW are a company that encourage you to paint models however you want, and then use appropriate rules. They write specific actual rules telling you that if you paint your marines as Novamarines, you use the fluff and ruleset for Novamarines.

But hey. In the spirit of the thread I'd better just state that I'm right, you're wrong and you should, apparently, get out of my game because you just don't understand it or something.



.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2017/10/01 10:36:00


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 ArbitorIan wrote:
I'm saying that presenting something that looks like A (a clear set of models which GW tie to specific rules) and running them as B (a different set of models with different rules) is confusing. Playing unique models as A or B isn't because they're not signalling the opposite. Nobody is in danger of being misled by the appearance of the model.


I don't get it. Do you just put models on the table and start playing without exchanging army lists? I can't imagine having my opponent say "I'm playing Tallarn" or "I'm playing Ultramarines" and being confused about what their models are, regardless of what color they're painted.

And GW are a company that encourage you to paint models however you want, and then use appropriate rules. That green-painted Cadian isn't listed in the Codex as a 'Cadian Jungle Fighter' and they write specific actual rule telling you that if you paint your marines as Novamarines, you use the fluff and ruleset for Novamarines,


No, but that green-painted Cadian might be a Cadain Jungle Fighter, a custom regiment that uses the Catachan regiment rules. GW actively encourages you to make up your own chapters/regiments/etc and assign them whatever rules you consider appropriate, they say nothing about "if you paint your models blue they have to be Ultramarines".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 ArbitorIan wrote:
I'd buy the Hostile Environment Cadians, maybe you wouldn't.


I don't see how you can honestly say this. You might accept a person using them, but nobody who has ever looked at the models is going to suggest that the hostile environment Cadians look anything like the Valhallan kits, no matter how they're painted or based. There's no gray area here, the models are completely different designs in pretty much every way. You're arbitrarily picking and choosing which models are "fluffy" enough without any concern for appearance, rejecting models you don't like in the name of "confusion" while accepting other models that are just as confusing.

(And, for the record, I'd allow the player to use the Valhallan rules with those models. But that doesn't change the fact that they're no closer to the Valhallan kits than a Cadian kit painted in the more common Cadian colors.)

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/10/01 10:42:33


 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

I miss generic-named doctrines and traits.

I miss GW saying 'paint your models however you like".

It avoided all this nonsense where people try and tell others how they're allowed to have fun.

I play Praetorians, converted from plastics. I have no 'set' doctrine. Even if GW had written a Praetorian one I might have picked another that suits my play-style. And I'd be dubbed all sorts of names for doing so it seems. Weird.

Each to their own. So long as it isn't confusing let people play what they want to play with their wartoys.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/01 11:23:49


 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




 ArbitorIan wrote:
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.

.


This was a very good post and a good way of putting kinda where the line is for me. There were way to many posts while i was sleeping to respond to them all but this did a good job. The funny thing is stricter then mine all i'm asking for is that you don't have a specific worlds guys and play them as something else. I understand the the Cadians armor in the 40k universe is the most common armor and that's great you tell me what they are..... except if the are literally painted as Cadian's one of the only world we have specific rules for.... just use them that way or i don't wanna play you. Im not saying you cant do this just that i wouldn't be okay with it and i would draw the line here. I have the exact same line for space marines (wow that's a cool orange color with atomic bombs on the shoulders).... oh they fight kinda like Dark Angels, cool. O hey i see you have Black Templars there.... Nope these are now Salamanders as of the last codex...... cool power to you but im gonna go play the guy over there that has Salamanders that are actually just that. Also as of your post if you have one paint scheme that is regiment i would only except one rule. "These identical orange marines over here just happen to use a totally different tactic" yeah i wouldn't want that in a game either.

I understand these are my lines and not everyone will use them but i cant understand why people are so upset that my line doesn't match theirs and that i would rather not play you if your doing this.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Obviously players are going to be all over the place on this one.

Personally I hate the way they designed these rules; just like they've done Space Marine Chapter rules for the last few books. The chapter tactics and guard doctrines should simply be generic without being tied to paint schemes.

By all means use fluff examples in the book to illustrate the rules, but leave it at that without this weird not-quite-spelled-out expectation that you're going to need to use the name-specific rules.

Bottom line - It's really, really stupid when you feel constrained to a certain rules system based solely on the color you chose to paint your guys. I've actually removed all the Ultramarine iconography off my marines and replaced it with a different one so that I don't have to deal with it. I'd never use an "official" GW chapter/guard regiment color scheme/decal system again.
   
Made in us
Storm Trooper with Maglight





The Mordians I bought cost me $50 for 10. Cadians cost me $25 for the same. Be in mind the Mordians aren't in plastic and only available online. My local game store has all the Cadians available to me for and without having to wait on shipping.

Space Marines are everywhere in the store and I can make any chapter nearly with just the basic box set of Mahreenz and with even more options than guard.

Feed the poor war gamer with money.  
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran



Canada

Asmodios wrote:
 ArbitorIan wrote:
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.

.


This was a very good post and a good way of putting kinda where the line is for me. There were way to many posts while i was sleeping to respond to them all but this did a good job. The funny thing is stricter then mine all i'm asking for is that you don't have a specific worlds guys and play them as something else. I understand the the Cadians armor in the 40k universe is the most common armor and that's great you tell me what they are..... except if the are literally painted as Cadian's one of the only world we have specific rules for.... just use them that way or i don't wanna play you. Im not saying you cant do this just that i wouldn't be okay with it and i would draw the line here. I have the exact same line for space marines (wow that's a cool orange color with atomic bombs on the shoulders).... oh they fight kinda like Dark Angels, cool. O hey i see you have Black Templars there.... Nope these are now Salamanders as of the last codex...... cool power to you but im gonna go play the guy over there that has Salamanders that are actually just that. Also as of your post if you have one paint scheme that is regiment i would only except one rule. "These identical orange marines over here just happen to use a totally different tactic" yeah i wouldn't want that in a game either.

I understand these are my lines and not everyone will use them but i cant understand why people are so upset that my line doesn't match theirs and that i would rather not play you if your doing this.


Refusing an opponent because you are pre-judging his motivations based on his very legal army list is very odd. I think that you should reflect on your reasons for excluding opponents. You should not be surprised that people are taking issue with your attitude. I think its great when people make fluffy lists and are happy win or lose. I also think its great when people tweak their lists to gain an advantage - its a wargame and not a re-enactment of a historical battle with a pre-determined outcome. I think its really great when people play the lists that they want to play. I also think its great when players communicate preferences with each other in non-judgemental ways. In a gaming community its quite an insult to refuse a game, especially when you haven't even played the guy before!

I get that the models should be clear with what they are representing. I also think that players have the capacity understand that "These models may look like plastic Cadians but they are actually Tallarans" when there are no other Cadian models on the table or they are clearly painted differently. My Veterans have the same uniforms but with a pea-dot pattern that contrasts with the line infantry. The world continues to turn and my opponents seem happy. My Leman Russ are painted in WW2 three-tone camouflage, and I will still look myself in the mirror in the morning when I shave when I try out different doctrines with them. Now, they will all be one doctrine but it might just be different than the infantry regiment.

Cheers
   
Made in us
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!





In the myraid of rules this game has, people are going to be confused if I say my Cadians are using Vostroyan regiment rules this game?

 
   
Made in sk
Fully-charged Electropriest





 Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:
In the myraid of rules this game has, people are going to be confused if I say my Cadians are using Vostroyan regiment rules this game?


Yes, unless you've painted your Cadians purple, then all's well.



“Do not ask me to approach the battle meekly, to creep through the shadows, or to quietly slip on my foes in the dark. I am Rogal Dorn, Imperial Fist, Space Marine, Emperor’s Champion. Let my enemies cower at my advance and tremble at the sight of me.”
-Rogal Dorn
 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

I don't see how people can be confused about the rules of Catachans and Valhallas regiments when those rules have existed for literally 1 week.

"Ey the army I'm using now have 1+ strenght because they are catachans even if the models are just cadians painted red"

"OMG HOW YOU EXPECT ME TO REMEMBER THAT WHEN THIS RULE HAS BEEN EXISTING IN MY BRAIN FOR LITERALLY 72 HOURS!"


 JohnnyHell wrote:
I miss generic-named doctrines and traits.

I miss GW saying 'paint your models however you like".

It avoided all this nonsense where people try and tell others how they're allowed to have fun.

I play Praetorians, converted from plastics. I have no 'set' doctrine. Even if GW had written a Praetorian one I might have picked another that suits my play-style. And I'd be dubbed all sorts of names for doing so it seems. Weird.

Each to their own. So long as it isn't confusing let people play what they want to play with their wartoys.


This always happen when the community take the universe too seriously and start gatekeeping others.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/01 17:09:29


 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





As long as each regiment is marked some how as different, I don't care. It could me markings on the bases. The whole army could be Cadian models as long as I can tell which ones are supposed to be which, its all good.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




It's funny I said about 10 times in my various posts that if you have Cadians painted a unique theme I have no issue with "hey these guys are from Planet X and this is how they fight". No different then SM painted custom. I do have an issue with "hey these Cadians painted as Caidians with Caidia markings are not Cadian because I say so and these Black Templars are now Salamanders as of the last codex update". Once again if you wanna do that stuff just don't be surprised if some people don't want to play with people that have that mentality
   
Made in no
Drop Trooper with Demo Charge




Asmodios wrote:
Once again if you wanna do that stuff just don't be surprised if some people don't want to play with people that have that mentality


Fine by me, I wouldn't want to play anyone that pedantic anyway.

On a holy crusade to save the Leman Russ Vanquisher 
   
Made in us
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot





What's weird is that none of this would be an issue if the doctrines had been named things like "Infantry Regiment", "Mechanized Regiment", "Armored Regiment", and so forth, with little fluff blurbs about famous examples - you know, the way it's described as working in the fluff. This isn't a "I want them to play fluffy" issue, it's ignoring the bulk of the background to focus on the title of a particular rule. Does it seem that unreasonable that Cadian troops trained in urban close combat would make more sense using the Catachan doctrine, or that a Vostroyan recon regiment might better be represented with the Tallarn rules?

   
Made in dk
Servoarm Flailing Magos






Metalica

Meh, they'd still go "says in the blurb your cadians are an INFANTRY regiment. Why are you not playing them as that?"

If they are silly enough that they can't accept it now, why would they not whine about what your regiment is "supposed to be" according to "fluff?"

 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






Asmodios wrote:
 ArbitorIan wrote:
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.

.


This was a very good post and a good way of putting kinda where the line is for me. There were way to many posts while i was sleeping to respond to them all but this did a good job. The funny thing is stricter then mine all i'm asking for is that you don't have a specific worlds guys and play them as something else. I understand the the Cadians armor in the 40k universe is the most common armor and that's great you tell me what they are..... except if the are literally painted as Cadian's one of the only world we have specific rules for.... just use them that way or i don't wanna play you. Im not saying you cant do this just that i wouldn't be okay with it and i would draw the line here. I have the exact same line for space marines (wow that's a cool orange color with atomic bombs on the shoulders).... oh they fight kinda like Dark Angels, cool. O hey i see you have Black Templars there.... Nope these are now Salamanders as of the last codex...... cool power to you but im gonna go play the guy over there that has Salamanders that are actually just that. Also as of your post if you have one paint scheme that is regiment i would only except one rule. "These identical orange marines over here just happen to use a totally different tactic" yeah i wouldn't want that in a game either.

I understand these are my lines and not everyone will use them but i cant understand why people are so upset that my line doesn't match theirs and that i would rather not play you if your doing this.


The reason is because your opponent is not breaking any of the rules, A guy with fully painted cadians who wants to use them as steel legion has no rule.. anywhere.... in any document, that requires him to be painted x y z colors to use a b c rules. This is you, just you, deciding to tell another perfectly legal player that you refuses to play him, because of a invented standard that does not impact the actual game at all, that he would have no way to know a head of time, because there is no rule against it.

Madness.
   
Made in us
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle






I agree that the models representing different regiments should have some kind of visual indicator in order to differentiate them easily, but for me that could be something as simple as different color base rims. It doesn't have to be fancy, but it does have to be something.

 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




I'll be using the new Astra Guard codex with my Renegades and Heretics army. Reasons, my army trait was bloody handed reaver from Siege of Vraks which has been demolished by the lazy game designers at Forgeworld. Also, back in the day, most tournaments banned Forgeword armies (hello Adepticon) so I've just gotten use to using Games Workshop rules over Forgeworld rules.

I'm old and have been playing since the RT days. Chaos Genestealer Cults where a thing back then. So yes, I do also use my R&H guardsmen with my Genestealer Cultist who are also painted up in a Chaos scheme. I enjoy spending alot of time on each model instead of trying to assembly line paint 100 guardsman that look terrible, so i'd rather multipurpose nice looking units than have to build 100's of rush job painted troops.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/01 19:15:18


 
   
Made in us
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot





 Purifier wrote:
Meh, they'd still go "says in the blurb your cadians are an INFANTRY regiment. Why are you not playing them as that?"

If they are silly enough that they can't accept it now, why would they not whine about what your regiment is "supposed to be" according to "fluff?"


Maybe if it was worded like "Cadia provided many infantry regiments" or "Armageddon is famed for its use of mechanized regiments" or something like that?

It really highlights that this is a hard-line letter of the law, rather than the spirit, approach.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Darkmind wrote:
I'll be using the new Astra Guard codex with my Renegades and Heretics army. Reasons, my army trait was bloody handed reaver from Siege of Vraks which has been demolished by the lazy game designers at Forgeworld. Also, back in the day, most tournaments banned Forgeword armies (hello Adepticon) so I've just gotten use to using Games Workshop rules over Forgeworld rules.

I'm old and have been playing since the RT days. Chaos Genestealer Cults where a thing back then. So yes, I do also use my R&H guardsmen with my Genestealer Cultist who are also painted up in a Chaos scheme. I enjoy spending alot of time on each model instead of trying to assembly line paint 100 guardsman that look terrible, so i'd rather multipurpose nice looking units than have to build 100's of rush job painted troops.


I actually am using a lot of stuff originally converted for R&H in my IG army as well. I always used mine with heretek magus, converting or proxying bits of my admech to work for it.

A couple of skitarii ranger alphas as lord commissars, tech thralls from FW as conscripts, and the various heavy guns as well.. the normal guns, just with some extra admech bits here and there. I like how it matches my main army a bit better.
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




SilverAlien wrote:
Darkmind wrote:
I'll be using the new Astra Guard codex with my Renegades and Heretics army. Reasons, my army trait was bloody handed reaver from Siege of Vraks which has been demolished by the lazy game designers at Forgeworld. Also, back in the day, most tournaments banned Forgeword armies (hello Adepticon) so I've just gotten use to using Games Workshop rules over Forgeworld rules.

I'm old and have been playing since the RT days. Chaos Genestealer Cults where a thing back then. So yes, I do also use my R&H guardsmen with my Genestealer Cultist who are also painted up in a Chaos scheme. I enjoy spending alot of time on each model instead of trying to assembly line paint 100 guardsman that look terrible, so i'd rather multipurpose nice looking units than have to build 100's of rush job painted troops.


I actually am using a lot of stuff originally converted for R&H in my IG army as well. I always used mine with heretek magus, converting or proxying bits of my admech to work for it.

A couple of skitarii ranger alphas as lord commissars, tech thralls from FW as conscripts, and the various heavy guns as well.. the normal guns, just with some extra admech bits here and there. I like how it matches my main army a bit better.


Yeah slowly adding in Dark Mechanicus to my collections. I'm sure 40k purist will be triggered when i use the new guard codex + new mechanicus with chaos convereted models.
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

 Purifier wrote:
Meh, they'd still go "says in the blurb your cadians are an INFANTRY regiment. Why are you not playing them as that?"

If they are silly enough that they can't accept it now, why would they not whine about what your regiment is "supposed to be" according to "fluff?"


You can say that, but is something similar with this unit entry for 30k

Spoiler:


You could say "But they didn't need to say that, you could already do it!" and I'll agree with you. But when you see something like this in the OFFICIAL (And for some people thats all what matters) rulebook , it gives legitimacy for the more conversion and artistic part of this hobby and game.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in gb
Dipping With Wood Stain




Sheep Loveland

Wouldn't it be prudent just to take a little bit of time to discuss the matter with your opponent? I mean is it difficult to say "I hope you don't mind, I want to use my Cadian Shock Troops as a proxy for x regiment, that OK with you?"

I mean, he could ask why, I suppose, but it boils down to whether or not your opponent agrees to your request. I personally wouldn't mind, as long as you say this army is x regiment, I'd be fine with it.

Obviously this approach would certainly not work in a tournament style setting, but for casual games I can't see the issue personally.

40k: Thousand Sons World Eaters
30k: Imperial Fists 405th Company 
   
Made in us
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle






 Dr. Mills wrote:
Wouldn't it be prudent just to take a little bit of time to discuss the matter with your opponent? I mean is it difficult to say "I hope you don't mind, I want to use my Cadian Shock Troops as a proxy for x regiment, that OK with you?"

I mean, he could ask why, I suppose, but it boils down to whether or not your opponent agrees to your request. I personally wouldn't mind, as long as you say this army is x regiment, I'd be fine with it.

Obviously this approach would certainly not work in a tournament style setting, but for casual games I can't see the issue personally.


Actually, I'm pretty sure it would fly in a tournament setting. TOs and tournament players generally don't care much about counts-as as long as it meets the painting standard and it's not egregiously modeled for an advantage.

 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





I suppose I'm more curious as to why it's a big deal to someone, if an unrelated person to them is "refusing" to play another player. How does this impact you?

Is this going to become another "think of the community!" argument? Because there isn't a GW gaming community, never has been. There's a heap of sub-sects of types of gamers who happen to play the same game. As we discussed in the "perfect zone" for playing 40K, the game is entirely dependent on who you're gaming with.

I attended an Apocalypse game yesterday. They had 13 players and wanted a 14th, but I didn't feel like playing, so I refused. Am I somehow ruining the community or breaking peoples hearts because I chose not to participate in something I didn't think I'd enjoy? No. I'm an adult and can make decisions of my own.

What does it matter if someone won't play another player? You could avoid playing someone because of their body-odour, choice of t-shirts, political affiliation, height, type of shoes they wear, gender etc....who cares? It's a hobby. Play it however you wish. If you want to cheese out as hard as possible, sure, go nuts - find someone who enjoys that type of game and have at it.

If you want to play only painted models, go nuts, do your thing. If you want to push armless grey plastic around and your opponent is game - go for it. But don't pretend to criticize someone because they want something different out of the game than you. We're not vikings, you don't come in and challenge someone and they HAVE to play you in a game of 40K, lol.

This is, I suppose, the beauty of the internet. We have the luxury of being outraged over the gaming habits of someone we don't know, likely on the other side of the planet. Genius.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Darkmind wrote:
Yeah slowly adding in Dark Mechanicus to my collections. I'm sure 40k purist will be triggered when i use the new guard codex + new mechanicus with chaos convereted models.


Sounds like a cool collection to me so I'd be all for it lol. I thought about giving my admech a chaos vibe when I first got them, decided it was a bit too much for my limited skills. Kinda wish I hadn't now.

 Luciferian wrote:
Actually, I'm pretty sure it would fly in a tournament setting. TOs and tournament players generally don't care much about counts-as as long as it meets the painting standard and it's not egregiously modeled for an advantage.


Depending on TO, particularly odd conversions might need pre approval, but paint jobs are a non issue.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





Southern California, USA

Why are people so preoccupied with other's modelling choices? If they like Mordian rules but painted up some Cadians who cares? Just say these particular Cadians came from an academy that emphasized disciplined volley fire above all else. Or if they are using Steel Legion rules say they are just mechanized infantry and are trained accordingly. Not all regiments from the same planet fights identically. That's why I think GW should've just made the regimental rules generic to not only avoid these arguments but to more accurately reflect the reality of how the Imperial Guard operates.

Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!  
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: