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.

I used to play flames Of War and even they, many of whom are extreme history buffs, never hated on anyone because their troops weren't painted perfect, or for using late war schemes with early war models.

Anyone who won't play against legal rules because of the paint job probably would be fun to play against anyway.

 Elbows wrote:
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.

I think it started as an attempt to explain the thought process behind "do whatever, it's your army" and ended in angry protests at the misapplication of terms like "That Guy" and "powergame".

Asmodios wrote:
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.

Because your line is absurd rivet counting and paranoia about "WAAC powergamers", except you can't even have the decency to be right about your rivet counting. Your whole position is based on ignorance of the IG fluff. It's like if you were playing a WWII game and refused to play against anyone who didn't paint their German tanks bright pink to match the "fluff" of the German army.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
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.

Because your line is absurd rivet counting and paranoia about "WAAC powergamers", except you can't even have the decency to be right about your rivet counting. Your whole position is based on ignorance of the IG fluff. It's like if you were playing a WWII game and refused to play against anyone who didn't paint their German tanks bright pink to match the "fluff" of the German army.

Or suggesting that grey panthers is Germans and any other colour is homebrew (when germans painted their tanks brown, tan, white, etc. as required for the environment like everyone else).

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
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.

Because your line is absurd rivet counting and paranoia about "WAAC powergamers", except you can't even have the decency to be right about your rivet counting. Your whole position is based on ignorance of the IG fluff. It's like if you were playing a WWII game and refused to play against anyone who didn't paint their German tanks bright pink to match the "fluff" of the German army.

Or suggesting that grey panthers is Germans and any other colour is homebrew (when germans painted their tanks brown, tan, white, etc. as required for the environment like everyone else).

Or that if you paint your Hetzers tan/green they have to use German rules. Despite the Hungarians having them.

 Elbows wrote:
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.

There is indeed a GW gaming community. Its a big tent, but its still a community. I have travelled the world and played 40K while doing so. Not everybody sees the game exactly the same way, but most can find a way to get a game in against somebody else with a 40K army.

There is a world of difference between you declining a large Apocalypse Game because you were not feeling it and somebody refusing a game against somebody else at 40K Night because they don't like the guy's army. Surely you realize that, just like you realize that declining a game because of somebody's gender, height etc, etc is ridiculous. Declining a game because you have played that person and found them to be overbearing/cheating etc is a different story.

So, I have a question. Is this just usual forum talk, or is this actually happening in stores?

I started out twenty years ago, and haven't been able to play for the past ten or so. I've kept up with fluff and peeked in on forums, even bought a few Forge World items. With 8th I've been prepping my army to get back in and start playing. Hearing this kind of stuff online-if this kind of mindset is actually happening in public, that's just scary.

I understand wanting to avoid WAAC players if that's not your cup of tea. It's certainly not mine. They were there twenty years ago, I'm sure they're there today, and you can bet they'll be there twenty years from now. There are hundreds of ways that someone can show you what type of player they are by how they conduct themselves and treat you during the game, and I understand wanting to avoid those people after you learn who they are. But making arbitrary rules to pre-judge someone before they've even rolled their first dice? Come on now. This does nothing for our hobby. Well, nothing good anyways.

I play a mix of Mordians and Praetorians. According to some of the arguments on here, the fact that I liked those models and chose to use the same shade of blue that GW did means that I'm stuck using Mordian traits, and if I don't, I'm the most horrible type of player-desperately trying to manipulate the odds to get whatever little advantage I can. Nevermind the fact that every Guard Codex that I'm aware of has shown these models representing different planetary forces with completely different names. Nevermind that my play style has been influenced by what models I thought were fun before these traits were invented. Nevermind that I want to use official rules to find a play style that I enjoy.

What irks me the most is that the two most vocal people have created a list of rules that conveniently don't apply to them.
One person says that using certain models with certain paint schemes dictates what rules I have to use, and then proceeds to post about using third party models-meaning he can pick whatever traits he wants. Another actually made a list of conversions that he would find "allowable" to reflect what force you would be allowed to play. Again, the rules don't apply to him, he already converted his army. These are examples from this thread! Do you realize how you sound? Whats to stop everyone else adopting the mindset of "since you don't use the exact models and paint schemes, you don't get to use any traits?" Its the exact same argument, and by that I mean its an absolutely horrible one.


Is the hobby still enjoyable if you find that you aren't able to withhold judgement on someone until after you've started playing the game with them?

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
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.

Because your line is absurd rivet counting and paranoia about "WAAC powergamers", except you can't even have the decency to be right about your rivet counting. Your whole position is based on ignorance of the IG fluff. It's like if you were playing a WWII game and refused to play against anyone who didn't paint their German tanks bright pink to match the "fluff" of the German army.

Except no one is saying that, at any point of time, this is a total straw man.


The point is, and always was "if your dudes look like X and play like Y, and you are using the OBVIOUSLY X scheme, than you have thrown fluff completely off and are just gaming for advantage here with the pieces being irrelevant"

Because TECHNICALLY, no rule forbids me from using SW rules with CSM models, or ork models with GSC rules, or even fantasy skinks for guardsmen. none of these is different from playing tallaran as cadian (random example). the two each has thier own "correct" models and apperance, using another's is straying, and if you stray and don't look your part and you do it "just because rules X are better", its definition powergaming. you collect army X but you play army Y.

You want to be tallaran, there are official models for it. expensive, and harder to get (and at some cases require hard wepon conversions), so its far more forgivable and easy to navigate around than most "count as" out there. (like marine "imperial fists who happen to be salamandars with iron hand tech dreads" cases)
Don't want/cant afford/don't like the models/whatever issue-well at the very least bother making your cadians not obvious cadians with cadian paint and cadian unit marking following all the cadian standard appearance, because that's no different from playing CSM models using SW codex. its technically legal, but that's defiantly not the spirit of a friendly game.
And not every game is a money-on-the-table tournament, if you can't bring yourself into having an army that matches appearances and play it says something about your personality, attitude towards the game, and how the match is going to play, and knowing I'll probably not have any fun I'll find another opponent. no biggie. not like I am confiscating your stuff and burning it down.

And before you jump back to the "but not every cadian is the same" shtick, well yea. they also don't all LOOK the same.
Bother making your appearance match your choice of off-standard ruleset, and not even the most carrot loving fluff bunny would bat an eye.
Do a decent conversion of something, and you'd probably be praised, assuming said conversion looks the part.

The soup however, outside an outright tournament, I see as rather unforgiveable.
Yea, in the tiny local engagement out of the massive war going all around, there just so happens to be a bland of units from different regiments who each has a distinct fighting style and each just happens to have the very unit they excel at as the units they have right here right now.
Sorry, its just being cheesy. its just as technically legal as spamming the same unit over and over, but its annoying and I'd rather play somebody else.
And for the love of god, souping different regiments while using a SINGLE UNIFORM APPEARANCE for all of them, that's crossing the path form a healthy doze of powergaming to an unhealthy doze of TFG.


And I'm saying this as someone who is on both sides of this bridge.
I min-max and go into powergaming when the opponent and setting is right, squessing every bit of power available with cherry picking units, upgrades, etc. but I also have a large number of not-quite-usual models, outright conversions and count-as models.

Good god. If you don't want to play someone who has the nerve to use a different army/regiment/chapter's rules from the army they modeled, that is of course your prerogative. But can we knock it off with making sweeping generalizations about other players based on the notion that you can look into their soul through a coat of paint on their miniatures?

Yeah, if I want to play my Ravenwing as White Scars that certainly does say something about me alright... what that is I couldn't tell you though. Maybe I just wanted to try it out. Maybe I was bored with my army but didn't want to paint a wholly new one just to satisfy you. Maybe *GASP* I wanted to play the game to the best of my strategic ability including making an optimal and efficient list!

THE HUMANITY! What kind of gak for a soul monster could ever conceive of doing something like that! Who, when playing a board game, doesn't adhere to fluff first and foremost, even at the possible expense of a challenging and stimulating match!?

A few people have already said this, but it really is the only solution to this problem you'll ever need: god forbid you talk to people and be forthcoming with your expectations about what is and is not a fun game before you judge the very fiber of their character based on the congruence between their army's paint job and the list they're using that day!

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
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.

Because your line is absurd rivet counting and paranoia about "WAAC powergamers", except you can't even have the decency to be right about your rivet counting. Your whole position is based on ignorance of the IG fluff. It's like if you were playing a WWII game and refused to play against anyone who didn't paint their German tanks bright pink to match the "fluff" of the German army.

Except no one is saying that, at any point of time, this is a total straw man.


The point is, and always was "if your dudes look like X and play like Y, and you are using the OBVIOUSLY X scheme, than you have thrown fluff completely off and are just gaming for advantage here with the pieces being irrelevant"

Because TECHNICALLY, no rule forbids me from using SW rules with CSM models, or ork models with GSC rules, or even fantasy skinks for guardsmen. none of these is different from playing tallaran as cadian (random example). the two each has thier own "correct" models and apperance, using another's is straying, and if you stray and don't look your part and you do it "just because rules X are better", its definition powergaming. you collect army X but you play army Y.

You want to be tallaran, there are official models for it. expensive, and harder to get (and at some cases require hard wepon conversions), so its far more forgivable and easy to navigate around than most "count as" out there. (like marine "imperial fists who happen to be salamandars with iron hand tech dreads" cases)
Don't want/cant afford/don't like the models/whatever issue-well at the very least bother making your cadians not obvious cadians with cadian paint and cadian unit marking following all the cadian standard appearance, because that's no different from playing CSM models using SW codex. its technically legal, but that's defiantly not the spirit of a friendly game.
And not every game is a money-on-the-table tournament, if you can't bring yourself into having an army that matches appearances and play it says something about your personality, attitude towards the game, and how the match is going to play, and knowing I'll probably not have any fun I'll find another opponent. no biggie. not like I am confiscating your stuff and burning it down.

And before you jump back to the "but not every cadian is the same" shtick, well yea. they also don't all LOOK the same.
Bother making your appearance match your choice of off-standard ruleset, and not even the most carrot loving fluff bunny would bat an eye.
Do a decent conversion of something, and you'd probably be praised, assuming said conversion looks the part.

The soup however, outside an outright tournament, I see as rather unforgiveable.
Yea, in the tiny local engagement out of the massive war going all around, there just so happens to be a bland of units from different regiments who each has a distinct fighting style and each just happens to have the very unit they excel at as the units they have right here right now.
Sorry, its just being cheesy. its just as technically legal as spamming the same unit over and over, but its annoying and I'd rather play somebody else.
And for the love of god, souping different regiments while using a SINGLE UNIFORM APPEARANCE for all of them, that's crossing the path form a healthy doze of powergaming to an unhealthy doze of TFG.


And I'm saying this as someone who is on both sides of this bridge.
I min-max and go into powergaming when the opponent and setting is right, squessing every bit of power available with cherry picking units, upgrades, etc. but I also have a large number of not-quite-usual models, outright conversions and count-as models.

Really? What is so hard to accept about an Imperial Guard player wanting his collection to have some flexibility? Being able to go between Valhallan one week and Catachan the next does not make somebody a bad person.

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
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.

Because your line is absurd rivet counting and paranoia about "WAAC powergamers", except you can't even have the decency to be right about your rivet counting. Your whole position is based on ignorance of the IG fluff. It's like if you were playing a WWII game and refused to play against anyone who didn't paint their German tanks bright pink to match the "fluff" of the German army.

Except no one is saying that, at any point of time, this is a total straw man.


The point is, and always was "if your dudes look like X and play like Y, and you are using the OBVIOUSLY X scheme, than you have thrown fluff completely off and are just gaming for advantage here with the pieces being irrelevant"

Except that's not throwing fluff completely out the window. Not all Imperial Guard regiments fight identically. Even those from the same world.

You want to be tallaran, there are official models for it. expensive, and harder to get (and at some cases require hard wepon conversions), so its far more forgivable and easy to navigate around than most "count as" out there. (like marine "imperial fists who happen to be salamandars with iron hand tech dreads" cases)
Don't want/cant afford/don't like the models/whatever issue-well at the very least bother making your cadians not obvious cadians with cadian paint and cadian unit marking following all the cadian standard appearance, because that's no different from playing CSM models using SW codex. its technically legal, but that's defiantly not the spirit of a friendly game.

So, do you require the official models for the official rules or not? You're contradicting yourself here.

And before you jump back to the "but not every cadian is the same" shtick, well yea. they also don't all LOOK the same.
Bother making your appearance match your choice of off-standard ruleset, and not even the most carrot loving fluff bunny would bat an eye.
Do a decent conversion of something, and you'd probably be praised, assuming said conversion looks the part.

You can't just ignore that. Why do Cadian mechanized regiments need conversions to use Steel Legion rules even if they are more appropriate? To satisfy some arbitrary requirement to look different?

The soup however, outside an outright tournament, I see as rather unforgiveable.
Yea, in the tiny local engagement out of the massive war going all around, there just so happens to be a bland of units from different regiments who each has a distinct fighting style and each just happens to have the very unit they excel at as the units they have right here right now.

The Imperial Guard is a vast and diverse fighting force drawn from across the galaxy. A regiment on this part of the line may be completely different from a regiment just a few feet over down the line. Even if they are from the same planet! And your second point is irrelevant as list tailoring is a separate issue.

Sorry, its just being cheesy. its just as technically legal as spamming the same unit over and over, but its annoying and I'd rather play somebody else.
And for the love of god, souping different regiments while using a SINGLE UNIFORM APPEARANCE for all of them, that's crossing the path form a healthy doze of powergaming to an unhealthy doze of TFG.

I think I would rather play someone who didn't police other people's modelling choices with a half baked understanding of Imperial Guard lore.

ConvincingJohn wrote:
So, I have a question. Is this just usual forum talk, or is this actually happening in stores?

The forums are a conglomerate of different people and ideas from around the world. Everyone's local meta will be different, and require knowledge of it to make that determination. But is this actually happening somewhere in 'real life'? Yes. Without a shadow of a doubt.

ConvincingJohn wrote:
I started out twenty years ago, and haven't been able to play for the past ten or so. I've kept up with fluff and peeked in on forums, even bought a few Forge World items. With 8th I've been prepping my army to get back in and start playing. Hearing this kind of stuff online-if this kind of mindset is actually happening in public, that's just scary.

Welcome to humanity. I have a low opinion of it, but at least it's not too harmful in the grand scheme of things. Scary is the sort of nutbag stuff people are willing to kill and be killed for.

ConvincingJohn wrote:
I understand wanting to avoid WAAC players if that's not your cup of tea. It's certainly not mine. They were there twenty years ago, I'm sure they're there today, and you can bet they'll be there twenty years from now. There are hundreds of ways that someone can show you what type of player they are by how they conduct themselves and treat you during the game, and I understand wanting to avoid those people after you learn who they are. But making arbitrary rules to pre-judge someone before they've even rolled their first dice? Come on now. This does nothing for our hobby. Well, nothing good anyways.

It's interesting to note, that there's a subset of WAAC players called CAAC (casual at all costs). They're just as interested in winning, but require their own little subset of the game to be adhered to in order to do so. Failure to follow their 'vision' of the game is a clear sign that you're a 'bad' person. Their vision of the game may be based on fluff, the colour you paint your army, or something *really* out there. But they hate 'those WAACers' and are clearly better than them. Apparently.

ConvincingJohn wrote:
I play a mix of Mordians and Praetorians. According to some of the arguments on here, the fact that I liked those models and chose to use the same shade of blue that GW did means that I'm stuck using Mordian traits, and if I don't, I'm the most horrible type of player-desperately trying to manipulate the odds to get whatever little advantage I can. Nevermind the fact that every Guard Codex that I'm aware of has shown these models representing different planetary forces with completely different names. Nevermind that my play style has been influenced by what models I thought were fun before these traits were invented. Nevermind that I want to use official rules to find a play style that I enjoy.

Yep.

ConvincingJohn wrote:
What irks me the most is that the two most vocal people have created a list of rules that conveniently don't apply to them.
One person says that using certain models with certain paint schemes dictates what rules I have to use, and then proceeds to post about using third party models-meaning he can pick whatever traits he wants. Another actually made a list of conversions that he would find "allowable" to reflect what force you would be allowed to play. Again, the rules don't apply to him, he already converted his army. These are examples from this thread! Do you realize how you sound? Whats to stop everyone else adopting the mindset of "since you don't use the exact models and paint schemes, you don't get to use any traits?" Its the exact same argument, and by that I mean its an absolutely horrible one.

Yep.

ConvincingJohn wrote:
Is the hobby still enjoyable if you find that you aren't able to withhold judgement on someone until after you've started playing the game with them?

Depends what you define as the hobby.

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
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.

Because your line is absurd rivet counting and paranoia about "WAAC powergamers", except you can't even have the decency to be right about your rivet counting. Your whole position is based on ignorance of the IG fluff. It's like if you were playing a WWII game and refused to play against anyone who didn't paint their German tanks bright pink to match the "fluff" of the German army.

Except no one is saying that, at any point of time, this is a total straw man.


The point is, and always was "if your dudes look like X and play like Y, and you are using the OBVIOUSLY X scheme, than you have thrown fluff completely off and are just gaming for advantage here with the pieces being irrelevant"

Because TECHNICALLY, no rule forbids me from using SW rules with CSM models, or ork models with GSC rules, or even fantasy skinks for guardsmen. none of these is different from playing tallaran as cadian (random example). the two each has thier own "correct" models and apperance, using another's is straying, and if you stray and don't look your part and you do it "just because rules X are better", its definition powergaming. you collect army X but you play army Y.

You want to be tallaran, there are official models for it. expensive, and harder to get (and at some cases require hard wepon conversions), so its far more forgivable and easy to navigate around than most "count as" out there. (like marine "imperial fists who happen to be salamandars with iron hand tech dreads" cases)
Don't want/cant afford/don't like the models/whatever issue-well at the very least bother making your cadians not obvious cadians with cadian paint and cadian unit marking following all the cadian standard appearance, because that's no different from playing CSM models using SW codex. its technically legal, but that's defiantly not the spirit of a friendly game.
And not every game is a money-on-the-table tournament, if you can't bring yourself into having an army that matches appearances and play it says something about your personality, attitude towards the game, and how the match is going to play, and knowing I'll probably not have any fun I'll find another opponent. no biggie. not like I am confiscating your stuff and burning it down.

And before you jump back to the "but not every cadian is the same" shtick, well yea. they also don't all LOOK the same.
Bother making your appearance match your choice of off-standard ruleset, and not even the most carrot loving fluff bunny would bat an eye.
Do a decent conversion of something, and you'd probably be praised, assuming said conversion looks the part.

The soup however, outside an outright tournament, I see as rather unforgiveable.
Yea, in the tiny local engagement out of the massive war going all around, there just so happens to be a bland of units from different regiments who each has a distinct fighting style and each just happens to have the very unit they excel at as the units they have right here right now.
Sorry, its just being cheesy. its just as technically legal as spamming the same unit over and over, but its annoying and I'd rather play somebody else.
And for the love of god, souping different regiments while using a SINGLE UNIFORM APPEARANCE for all of them, that's crossing the path form a healthy doze of powergaming to an unhealthy doze of TFG.


And I'm saying this as someone who is on both sides of this bridge.
I min-max and go into powergaming when the opponent and setting is right, squessing every bit of power available with cherry picking units, upgrades, etc. but I also have a large number of not-quite-usual models, outright conversions and count-as models.

Great post! So great I exalted it. This is exactly what I've been saying this entire time. You covered it so well there's no need for me to even post.

The person complaining about using space wolf rules with CSM models is apparently unaware of one of the more popular model options for thunder wolves was khornste bezerkers on bloodcrushers. Saw quite a few of those when I was first getting into the hobby actually. One fellow in my area had an entire khornate space wolf army, wonderfully converted and painted. Was actually one of the best armies I've ever seen overall.

It really does amuse me the sort of weird gatekeeping people try to justify at times. I'm sure my GSC being run as mutated chaos cultists would cause some people around here to have a stroke.

Actually, I'm curious how many people do convert models to a small or large degree, vs using them out of the box? I always considered myself lazy in that regard compared to everyone in my area, but I'm feeling positively cutting edge going by the lack of variety some people in this thread seem to have been exposed to.

SilverAlien wrote:
The person complaining about using space wolf rules with CSM models is apparently unaware of one of the more popular model options for thunder wolves was khornste bezerkers on bloodcrushers. Saw quite a few of those when I was first getting into the hobby actually. One fellow in my area had an entire khornate space wolf army, wonderfully converted and painted. Was actually one of the best armies I've ever seen overall.

It really does amuse me the sort of weird gatekeeping people try to justify at times. I'm sure my GSC being run as mutated chaos cultists would cause some people around here to have a stroke.

Actually, I'm curious how many people do convert models to a small or large degree, vs using them out of the box? I always considered myself lazy in that regard compared to everyone in my area, but I'm feeling positively cutting edge going by the lack of variety some people in this thread seem to have been exposed to.

The absolute state of tfg

 Carl wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
The person complaining about using space wolf rules with CSM models is apparently unaware of one of the more popular model options for thunder wolves was khornste bezerkers on bloodcrushers. Saw quite a few of those when I was first getting into the hobby actually. One fellow in my area had an entire khornate space wolf army, wonderfully converted and painted. Was actually one of the best armies I've ever seen overall.

It really does amuse me the sort of weird gatekeeping people try to justify at times. I'm sure my GSC being run as mutated chaos cultists would cause some people around here to have a stroke.

Actually, I'm curious how many people do convert models to a small or large degree, vs using them out of the box? I always considered myself lazy in that regard compared to everyone in my area, but I'm feeling positively cutting edge going by the lack of variety some people in this thread seem to have been exposed to.

The absolute state of tfg

Absolutely. Fluff and conversions and the weapons of TFG.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Carl wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
The person complaining about using space wolf rules with CSM models is apparently unaware of one of the more popular model options for thunder wolves was khornste bezerkers on bloodcrushers. Saw quite a few of those when I was first getting into the hobby actually. One fellow in my area had an entire khornate space wolf army, wonderfully converted and painted. Was actually one of the best armies I've ever seen overall.

It really does amuse me the sort of weird gatekeeping people try to justify at times. I'm sure my GSC being run as mutated chaos cultists would cause some people around here to have a stroke.

Actually, I'm curious how many people do convert models to a small or large degree, vs using them out of the box? I always considered myself lazy in that regard compared to everyone in my area, but I'm feeling positively cutting edge going by the lack of variety some people in this thread seem to have been exposed to.

The absolute state of tfg

Absolutely. Fluff and conversions and the weapons of TFG.

I think he's referring to how cool custom schemes, paint jobs, conversions have all been discussed as generally fine in this thread. But you are purposefully using a straw man that nobody is referring to to try to make a point. We're not saying some beautifully painted and converted x model can be used in army Y. What people are saying is X model painted as X model should not be used for Y model. For example a black templar painted as a black templar should not be used as a salamander. If you had a black templar emperors champion model converted and painted as a salamander to use as a commander or something nobody would care

Why do people even care? How does it affect you that someone else is using Salamander's rules for Black Templars? Does it really break the game that the Black Templars can reroll a single to hit/wound die now?

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Why do people even care? How does it affect you that someone else is using Salamander's rules for Black Templars? Does it really break the game that the Black Templars can reroll a single to hit/wound die now?

Why does it matter that I don't want to play against it? The thread was asking if people were going to be strict about people using there models as in and simply it is for me and clearly several other people. I simply stated that yes it would matter to me and wouldn't be playing against people that do that. It's that simple and there's really no need to get upset about it. I'm sure everyone who agrees with me has different reasons as to why as I stated there are a couple reasons personally for me.
1. What I feel like the type of person who feels the need to play a black templar army as Salamanders to gain a small advantage is going to be like to play against (I could be wrong by my judgments but as I ushually only get a game or so I'm a week if I feel like right off the bat someone is power gaming and bending fluff/ codex entry's to gain an advantage I don't want to play it)
2. It ruins my immersion
3. I'm a stickler for the rules. When there is a book with black templars that says this is how black templars fight. They don't fight like ultra marines or Salamanders or space wolves. Just use them for what they are

Once again these are all personal. If you wanna use black templars as Salamanders that's fine I really do hope you have no problems finding a game. I just really don't want to be part of that game and I don't see why that matters to you so much

So, did you get stomped into the ground by black templars being run as salamanders or something? Because you come back to that example really often. Or you are just hoping someone will make a "just because they are black doesn't make them salamanders" joke if you bring it up often enough?

i also never did get an answer on whether or not using salamanders with white scars tactics to better model an army of pyromaniacs running down the field with flamer and melta weapons was alright, as it was clearly inferior to just playing salamanders normally.

Honestly, the best solution to this problem? Buy RG and paint him up in whatever color the rest of your army is. Clearly RG indicates your army is a ultramarines successor or the ultramarines themselves in camouflage, and they all have one paint job as well. What are you going to do, tell them they painted a 100$ model wrong and can never use it?

SilverAlien wrote:
So, did you get stomped into the ground by black templars being run as salamanders or something? Because you come back to that example really often. Or you are just hoping someone will make a "just because they are black doesn't make them salamanders" joke if you bring it up often enough?

i also never did get an answer on whether or not using salamanders with white scars tactics to better model an army of pyromaniacs running down the field with flamer and melta weapons was alright, as it was clearly inferior to just playing salamanders normally.

Honestly, the best solution to this problem? Buy RG and paint him up in whatever color the rest of your army is. Clearly RG indicates your army is a ultramarines successor or the ultramarines themselves in camouflage, and they all have one paint job as well. What are you going to do, tell them they painted a 100$ model wrong and can never use it?

Seriously why the need for personal attacks? Is someone not wanting to play you that upsetting? Nope I actually haven't fought Salamanders or Black Templars yet this edition but one day will have a Black templar army of my own.

If I understand your question correctly you want to know if I'm ok with using one chapter as a different chapter? That's a silly question as I've stated just use what you painted. If it's unique/ doesn't have a designated rule you choose what applies. If it has specific rules use those.

Seriously relax man I'm sure plenty of people will gladly play against your Black templars that are Salamanders now :p

Asmodios wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Why do people even care? How does it affect you that someone else is using Salamander's rules for Black Templars? Does it really break the game that the Black Templars can reroll a single to hit/wound die now?

Why does it matter that I don't want to play against it? The thread was asking if people were going to be strict about people using there models as in and simply it is for me and clearly several other people. I simply stated that yes it would matter to me and wouldn't be playing against people that do that. It's that simple and there's really no need to get upset about it. I'm sure everyone who agrees with me has different reasons as to why as I stated there are a couple reasons personally for me.
1. What I feel like the type of person who feels the need to play a black templar army as Salamanders to gain a small advantage is going to be like to play against (I could be wrong by my judgments but as I ushually only get a game or so I'm a week if I feel like right off the bat someone is power gaming and bending fluff/ codex entry's to gain an advantage I don't want to play it)
2. It ruins my immersion
3. I'm a stickler for the rules. When there is a book with black templars that says this is how black templars fight. They don't fight like ultra marines or Salamanders or space wolves. Just use them for what they are

Once again these are all personal. If you wanna use black templars as Salamanders that's fine I really do hope you have no problems finding a game. I just really don't want to be part of that game and I don't see why that matters to you so much

It matters to me because you've been expressing this viewpoint throughout the thread. It just seems like a weird hangup because it's a really minor rules difference. Especially something to judge your opponent for.

And for the record I collect Salamanders and I'll run them using Salamanders/Ultramarines chapter tactics. I figure since the Salamanders are a Codex Compliant chapter, and the only thing notable about the Ultramarines is that they follow the codex and nothing else, it's totally fluffy to run Ultras CTs.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Why do people even care? How does it affect you that someone else is using Salamander's rules for Black Templars? Does it really break the game that the Black Templars can reroll a single to hit/wound die now?

Why does it matter that I don't want to play against it? The thread was asking if people were going to be strict about people using there models as in and simply it is for me and clearly several other people. I simply stated that yes it would matter to me and wouldn't be playing against people that do that. It's that simple and there's really no need to get upset about it. I'm sure everyone who agrees with me has different reasons as to why as I stated there are a couple reasons personally for me.
1. What I feel like the type of person who feels the need to play a black templar army as Salamanders to gain a small advantage is going to be like to play against (I could be wrong by my judgments but as I ushually only get a game or so I'm a week if I feel like right off the bat someone is power gaming and bending fluff/ codex entry's to gain an advantage I don't want to play it)
2. It ruins my immersion
3. I'm a stickler for the rules. When there is a book with black templars that says this is how black templars fight. They don't fight like ultra marines or Salamanders or space wolves. Just use them for what they are

Once again these are all personal. If you wanna use black templars as Salamanders that's fine I really do hope you have no problems finding a game. I just really don't want to be part of that game and I don't see why that matters to you so much

It matters to me because you've been expressing this viewpoint throughout the thread. It just seems like a weird hangup because it's a really minor rules difference. Especially something to judge your opponent for.

And for the record I collect Salamanders and I'll run them using Salamanders/Ultramarines chapter tactics. I figure since the Salamanders are a Codex Compliant chapter, and the only thing notable about the Ultramarines is that they follow the codex and nothing else, it's totally fluffy to run Ultras CTs.

I'm sure it seems weird to you.... we have different opinions. That's great I hope you have great games and tons of fun running your Salamanders who are really ultra mariens. I'll simply be playing against Salamanders who are Salamanders. I've got to duck out though if you have any pressing questions about my viewpoints I'll check in tomorrow.

Asmodios wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Why do people even care? How does it affect you that someone else is using Salamander's rules for Black Templars? Does it really break the game that the Black Templars can reroll a single to hit/wound die now?

Why does it matter that I don't want to play against it? The thread was asking if people were going to be strict about people using there models as in and simply it is for me and clearly several other people. I simply stated that yes it would matter to me and wouldn't be playing against people that do that. It's that simple and there's really no need to get upset about it. I'm sure everyone who agrees with me has different reasons as to why as I stated there are a couple reasons personally for me.
1. What I feel like the type of person who feels the need to play a black templar army as Salamanders to gain a small advantage is going to be like to play against (I could be wrong by my judgments but as I ushually only get a game or so I'm a week if I feel like right off the bat someone is power gaming and bending fluff/ codex entry's to gain an advantage I don't want to play it)
2. It ruins my immersion
3. I'm a stickler for the rules. When there is a book with black templars that says this is how black templars fight. They don't fight like ultra marines or Salamanders or space wolves. Just use them for what they are

Once again these are all personal. If you wanna use black templars as Salamanders that's fine I really do hope you have no problems finding a game. I just really don't want to be part of that game and I don't see why that matters to you so much

It matters to me because you've been expressing this viewpoint throughout the thread. It just seems like a weird hangup because it's a really minor rules difference. Especially something to judge your opponent for.

And for the record I collect Salamanders and I'll run them using Salamanders/Ultramarines chapter tactics. I figure since the Salamanders are a Codex Compliant chapter, and the only thing notable about the Ultramarines is that they follow the codex and nothing else, it's totally fluffy to run Ultras CTs.

I'm sure it seems weird to you.... we have different opinions. That's great I hope you have great games and tons of fun running your Salamanders who are really ultra mariens. I'll simply be playing against Salamanders who are Salamanders. I've got to duck out though if you have any pressing questions about my viewpoints I'll check in tomorrow.

I guess you missed the part where I said I'd be using Salamanders CTs. And just disregarded my lore explanation for it. But I guess rules trumps fluff, right?

Asmodios wrote:
Seriously why the need for personal attacks? Is someone not wanting to play you that upsetting? Nope I actually haven't fought Salamanders or Black Templars yet this edition but one day will have a Black templar army of my own.

If I understand your question correctly you want to know if I'm ok with using one chapter as a different chapter? That's a silly question as I've stated just use what you painted. If it's unique/ doesn't have a designated rule you choose what applies. If it has specific rules use those.

Seriously relax man I'm sure plenty of people will gladly play against your Black templars that are Salamanders now :p

Me joking around isn't me making personal attacks, I'm in a good mood right now actually. This is me being friendly even.

Again, the point I was driving at is that, as far as it goes, unless they are running their army as ultramarines with a RG parking lot they aren't picking a chapter because they want to win. They just think those tactics would be fun. If they wanted to win the chapter tactic for a marine army would be largely irrelevant because if you are taking many units that benefit from your chapter tactic, as in infantry, bikers and dreadnoughts, you clearly aren't playing to win. Playing salamanders to gain an advantage is like sawing off your leg to run faster.

That's really all I want you to admit. It isn't about limiting power gaming, as you claimed multiple times.

We've already established nothing in the thread applies to me, because I don't have enough patience to paint my armies in an official color scheme and generally find the most minimal and quick option. Which honestly should annoy a fluff player as well and it's weird to me it doesn't.

Asmodios wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Why do people even care? How does it affect you that someone else is using Salamander's rules for Black Templars? Does it really break the game that the Black Templars can reroll a single to hit/wound die now?

Why does it matter that I don't want to play against it? The thread was asking if people were going to be strict about people using there models as in and simply it is for me and clearly several other people. I simply stated that yes it would matter to me and wouldn't be playing against people that do that. It's that simple and there's really no need to get upset about it. I'm sure everyone who agrees with me has different reasons as to why as I stated there are a couple reasons personally for me.
1. What I feel like the type of person who feels the need to play a black templar army as Salamanders to gain a small advantage is going to be like to play against (I could be wrong by my judgments but as I ushually only get a game or so I'm a week if I feel like right off the bat someone is power gaming and bending fluff/ codex entry's to gain an advantage I don't want to play it)
2. It ruins my immersion
3. I'm a stickler for the rules. When there is a book with black templars that says this is how black templars fight. They don't fight like ultra marines or Salamanders or space wolves. Just use them for what they are

Once again these are all personal. If you wanna use black templars as Salamanders that's fine I really do hope you have no problems finding a game. I just really don't want to be part of that game and I don't see why that matters to you so much

It matters to me because you've been expressing this viewpoint throughout the thread. It just seems like a weird hangup because it's a really minor rules difference. Especially something to judge your opponent for.

And for the record I collect Salamanders and I'll run them using Salamanders/Ultramarines chapter tactics. I figure since the Salamanders are a Codex Compliant chapter, and the only thing notable about the Ultramarines is that they follow the codex and nothing else, it's totally fluffy to run Ultras CTs.

I'm sure it seems weird to you.... we have different opinions. That's great I hope you have great games and tons of fun running your Salamanders who are really ultra mariens. I'll simply be playing against Salamanders who are Salamanders. I've got to duck out though if you have any pressing questions about my viewpoints I'll check in tomorrow.

It only matters for 2 reasons.

1) Over the course of this conversation it has been mentioned many times that using painted black templar as salamanders is a way for a player to be min maxing. Which is insane. Because by the same token black templars painted orange could be played as any chapter tactic and everyone would be cool with it. It's never considered that a player might be looking for variety or trying out different lists. Or just doing something different on a lark. It's min maxing and that guy is now TFG. This point is bull gak.

2) When a player is not breaking the rules you are denying them games because of arbitrary crap. Granted... you could deny any player games for any reason! You are free to do that. You can choose the color of the models. Whether or not they are painted. The color of their skin/eyes/hair. You can deny a player games for ANY reason. But none of those reasons are valid and all of them are equally petty reasons. (Petty... I am not saying denying a person a game because they have red hair is as equally as bad as for paint scheme. I am saying it's equally petty and insignificant.)

You are free to be as big of a dick as you want to be. But there is something wrong with people being dicks for the sake of pettiness. There always is. In every situation where someones petty garbage is the reason they decide to make someone elses day worse. In a very similar way that you accuse people of attempting to min max and power game without any evidence for it, I say any person who shows up to play games and then denies their opponents purely on the grounds of this nonsensical BS there is absolutely something wrong with it.

It's poor sportsmanship. It's a crap attitude. It penalizes people while they follow the rules. It very easily can make a persons day worse because of pettiness. Can you really see nothing wrong with that?

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

Nothing in the rules tell you whether or not you actually require the correct models to use doctrines, but then again, nothing in the rules require you to play the game. If someone does not want to play with your Winter Cadians, then they don't have to.

FWIW, I would allow anything as long as its perfectly clear who is who (Blue Cadians are Catachans, White are Valhallans, Red are Vostroyans...).

 Aenarian wrote:
Nothing in the rules tell you whether or not you actually require the correct models to use doctrines, but then again, nothing in the rules require you to play the game. If someone does not want to play with your Winter Cadians, then they don't have to.

FWIW, I would allow anything as long as its perfectly clear who is who (Blue Cadians are Catachans, White are Valhallans, Red are Vostroyans...).

This game more than others is about compromise, and how much you want others to compromise for you. The more you want to dictate your opponents army choices the more issues come up, and it does go both ways.

The way GW has done it is kinda bleh to me, Regiments of the IG are supposed to be huge and on the tabletop is a small part of this bigger war and battle. It is not hard to think that a Commander would send specialist units to different positions if they have them available.
Really as long as the player themselves can keep there units in order, it shouldn't be more than a problem than most marine units that can look similar but have different rules(or any other army for that matter)

This would likely be less of an issue if all the models were as available as the Cadians are.