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.

It has always felt "dirty" to me to mix different army traits in different detachments, for example with AdMech taking Cawl + Kastelans in a Mars detachment, then taking some other stuff in a Stygies detachment, when all the models are painted as Lucius. Even though it's often the most optimal, it feels like it's doing it deliberately for the powergaming, and not because it actually fits the army (especially when they are painted like X but used as Y instead). I often hear the counter-argument relating to "Do you expect people to buy multiple armies and paint them?" and I understand where that mindset comes from, but there feels like there's a point where you're purposely taking the "best" choices simply because they're the best, regardless of how your army is actually painted.

This begs a question that has bothered me for a long time now, basically since chapter/craftworld/legion/etc. traits first came out: At what point do they become ingrained traits to that group, and at what point do they just become "tactical doctrine"? For instance, in a Space Marine army it could be easily fluffed that this detachment is well-rounded so uses Ultramarine tactics, while this group is more stealthy and uses Raven Guard tactics for this battle to represent them using that specific tactic.

At what point does this become simply trying to justify powergaming? Is it just something that we should be okay with doing as long as it's clear which units are in which detachment?

Easy solution: stop caring about "powergaming" and accept that making a good list is part of playing the game. If you stop being ashamed about making good strategic decisions and stop shunning people who bring well-designed lists this whole question becomes pointless.

It's a game. Just play what you want, pick cool models, paint them and roll some dice. People really overthink the hobby sometimes.

If GW does not intend it, then they have to step up and change how they work.
Trying to rule against possible intent, and how they are painted is insanity.
Playing to the rules is the only common ground we as players have, power gaming is the same as any other game philosophy.
Players may like cadian models but prefer a mix, or different style of play. So outside of a official setting it is getting harmful to restrict it.

The rules themselves are not really anything more than tactical doctrine, short of the more supernatural ones it is very hard to think of them as anything other.

 Peregrine wrote:
Easy solution: stop caring about "powergaming" and accept that making a good list is part of playing the game. If you stop being ashamed about making good strategic decisions and stop shunning people who bring well-designed lists this whole question becomes pointless.

I normally don't agree with you, but I want to think like this, and for some reason in Warhammer (and ONLY warhammer; I had no issues with this concept in Warmachine) it feels like it's somehow wrong and not intended, and not in the "spirit of the game". Although I do think there's still a line between "well-designed list" and the type of stuff you see at tournaments. Like, it feels you can still have a well-designed list without deliberately mixing and matching traits for the "best" ones, you know? Like only 75% optimal instead of 100% optimal.

I wonder why Warhammer feels that way, and no other game does. Maybe it's just that GW ingrained the "spirit of the game" concept in me 20 years ago and it's never left.

I guess the part that feels dirty is, say, having the entire army painted like Forgeworld Lucius (except Cawl let's say) and then using Mars and Stygies detachments, in an army that's painted as neither. Mars could easily be fluffed since Cawl in charge so he's forcing his doctrines. But Stygies feels out of place and like it's being done only for being "better" than Lucius. Or another example would be having a Blood Angels army, and using them with Raven Guard tactics because it's "more optimal" for them. It just feels strange to do, for some reason.

If someone is just playing a fun game or trying a new build with armies half painted or mix and matched with proxies no problem it's just a game.

If he were in a tournament or a serious campaign I would insist things were easily discernible as different forgeworlds/regiments ect.

Edit: So I have no problem with mix and match as long as they are easily decernable at a glance and or it's just a "fun" non tournament game.

I mean, this is obviously how the game is supposed to work. This isn't some edge case or weird loophole. This is precisely why you get Chapter Tactics just for having a pure detachment rather than a pure army. I don't see any a priori reason to treat this differently than bringing lascannons instead of missile launchers because you think lascannons are more useful. The rules actually go a lot farther, as they strongly encourage not just bringing detachments from two different Forge Worlds, but even bringing an AdMech detachment and then a Grey Knights detachment. Again, this is clearly a major goal of the 8th edition rules and it's kind of bizarre to look at it as squeezing every advantage you can from the book.

But, yes, I find that it's often a lot more palatable, fluff-wise, if you don't think of these types of rules as necessarily relating to different Chapters or Regiments or whatever. Maybe you have a bunch of Infantry squads in a Battalion and they rapid-fire at 18" using the Armageddon doctrine, and then you have a Russ Spearhead that re-rolls its number of shots using the Catachan doctrine. Nothing says these actually have to be very distinct groups in your fluff; a nice thing about the game is how open it is to "counts-as" play.