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.

Colour scheme does not, and should not, affect gameplay. Like others have said, I'd like someone who plays multiple regiments/craftworlds/whatever to distinguish between them in some way, but I would never force them to. Heck, I'm fine even if your Pink Horrors are teal.

Most of the people in my group run armies of their own invention anyway. My craftworld clearly doesn't have one of the official paint schemes, and if you said I should play Ulthwé rules just because the main colour is black I'd look at you funny and slowly walk away.

Even if you do have an official colour scheme and want to play as fluffily as possible, you still may not want to run the official army rules. You can run a fluffy Biel-Tan list with very few shuriken weapons, yet the Biel-Tan trait does very little for that army. Better run another trait (like Ulthwé) that actually works with your forces.

I wanna now field an Ultramarine squad armed with a Heavy Flamer just for this (this is normally a BA-only option).

I will be doubly pleased if this is actually effective, as it effectively kronks two birds with one stone.

 Cream Tea wrote:
Colour scheme does not, and should not, affect gameplay. Like others have said, I'd like someone who plays multiple regiments/craftworlds/whatever to distinguish between them in some way, but I would never force them to. Heck, I'm fine even if your Pink Horrors are teal.

Most of the people in my group run armies of their own invention anyway. My craftworld clearly doesn't have one of the official paint schemes, and if you said I should play Ulthwé rules just because the main colour is black I'd look at you funny and slowly walk away.

Even if you do have an official colour scheme and want to play as fluffily as possible, you still may not want to run the official army rules. You can run a fluffy Biel-Tan list with very few shuriken weapons, yet the Biel-Tan trait does very little for that army. Better run another trait (like Ulthwé) that actually works with your forces.

This may be a fault of GW's, but that last sentence bothers me.

Whenever it is more fluffy to play a trait other than the one designed to be fluffy with your army, then something is wrong, either with GW's rules writing or with the player who believes something to be fluffy when it isn't.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, the most painful thing I would do to someone who says "I'm Alatoic" painted as Ulthwe or someone who says "I'm Tallarn" with Cadian decals on the sides of their tanks (or even "I'm Ultramarines" with BA models) is a gentle ribbing about army loyalty.

While I honestly believe you when you say "gentle ribbing," try to keep in mind your opponent (who may not know you) may not always appreciate the comment. Make sure there's context to it or something. I brought my space marines to a local tournament, and their main armor color is green. I have a very nicely painted Guilliman in official Ultramarines colors to do him justice, but my other marines are a "successor chapter" of varying chapters, depending on the day. In the tournament, I decided to run them as Ultramarines to take the most advantage of the primarch, because tournament. When I told one of my opponents which chapter tactics I was using, he said "Oh, even though they look like Salamanders?" No context, no grin, nothing else, just that straightfaced question. I have no idea if he was kidding me or what. It pretty much instantly soured me a little on the guy because I couldn't figure it out.

Not saying that's how you would do it, just be aware if you give a good natured ribbing that there needs to be clear indication of it being good natured

To be fair I'm not sure your opponent's question was that uncalled for. It doesn't seem like a gentle ribbing, more like an honest question. It would be a perfect time to explain your fluff about how your successor chapter differs from the Ultramarines in whatever slight way, and why they might have chosen green as their heraldic colours.

I answered it as an honest question, because there was no context to put it into, but it still annoyed me, because they're purposefully not painted like salamanders or any other main chapter - they just have a lot of green on them. As cool as it is that it could have been an honest question, there's literally no need for it, because it came after being told they're an Ultramarine successor - the guy could have accepted that at face value as well, and is why the only reason that question really could have come up was him trying to "rib" me for it, or flat out imply he disapproved. I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt, though

I'm not really that interested in exchanging fan-fiction in a tournament, who's got time for that?

Plus I don't have any, and I'm not really that interested in creating any. Saying "After the fall of Made-Up-Planet IX the surviving [Imperial Fists successor chapter name]s added blue to their right should pads in homage to the sacrifice of their Ultramarines allies" doesn't add much to my gameplay. Although damn that's actually not a bad start to some fan-fiction, is it?

I play the game and paint colors I think look good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Cream Tea wrote:
Colour scheme does not, and should not, affect gameplay. Like others have said, I'd like someone who plays multiple regiments/craftworlds/whatever to distinguish between them in some way, but I would never force them to. Heck, I'm fine even if your Pink Horrors are teal.

Most of the people in my group run armies of their own invention anyway. My craftworld clearly doesn't have one of the official paint schemes, and if you said I should play Ulthwé rules just because the main colour is black I'd look at you funny and slowly walk away.

Even if you do have an official colour scheme and want to play as fluffily as possible, you still may not want to run the official army rules. You can run a fluffy Biel-Tan list with very few shuriken weapons, yet the Biel-Tan trait does very little for that army. Better run another trait (like Ulthwé) that actually works with your forces.

This may be a fault of GW's, but that last sentence bothers me.

Whenever it is more fluffy to play a trait other than the one designed to be fluffy with your army, then something is wrong, either with GW's rules writing or with the player who believes something to be fluffy when it isn't.

I heavily agree with this. There's no reason a given chapter/company/regiment can't know how to fight in a different way to what we're told is the only way to run them in a "fluffy" environment. There's no reason an Ultramarines successor can't have needed to be trained in stealth, and it would make perfect sense that a chapter like that uses the "Raven Guard" rules instead of "Ultramarines."

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, the most painful thing I would do to someone who says "I'm Alatoic" painted as Ulthwe or someone who says "I'm Tallarn" with Cadian decals on the sides of their tanks (or even "I'm Ultramarines" with BA models) is a gentle ribbing about army loyalty.

While I honestly believe you when you say "gentle ribbing," try to keep in mind your opponent (who may not know you) may not always appreciate the comment. Make sure there's context to it or something. I brought my space marines to a local tournament, and their main armor color is green. I have a very nicely painted Guilliman in official Ultramarines colors to do him justice, but my other marines are a "successor chapter" of varying chapters, depending on the day. In the tournament, I decided to run them as Ultramarines to take the most advantage of the primarch, because tournament. When I told one of my opponents which chapter tactics I was using, he said "Oh, even though they look like Salamanders?" No context, no grin, nothing else, just that straightfaced question. I have no idea if he was kidding me or what. It pretty much instantly soured me a little on the guy because I couldn't figure it out.

Not saying that's how you would do it, just be aware if you give a good natured ribbing that there needs to be clear indication of it being good natured

To be fair I'm not sure your opponent's question was that uncalled for. It doesn't seem like a gentle ribbing, more like an honest question. It would be a perfect time to explain your fluff about how your successor chapter differs from the Ultramarines in whatever slight way, and why they might have chosen green as their heraldic colours.

I answered it as an honest question, but it still annoyed me, because they're purposefully not painted like salamanders or any other main chapter - they just have a lot of green on them.

I'm not really that interested in exchanging fan-fiction in a tournament, who's got time for that?

Plus I don't have any, and I'm not really that interested in creating any. Saying "After the fall of Made-Up-Planet IX the surviving [Imperial Fists successor chapter name]s added blue to their right should pads in homage to the sacrifice of their Ultramarines allies" doesn't add much to my gameplay. Although damn that's actually not a bad start to some fan-fiction, is it?

I play the game and paint colors I think look good.

I'm sorry it annoyed you. Not everyone knows the fluff well enough to distinguish between, say, the Aurora Chapter (who are green) and Salamanders (who are green). Everyone just thinks green = salamanders. It's something green armies will have to deal with.

And I'm sorry you're not interested in exchanging fan-fiction at a tournament, but if you're not into the fluff of your own army enough to explain it when someone asks about it, you'll forgive me for wondering why you didn't just paint them Ultramarines.

I suppose I've never met anyone who paints their army just 'because it looks good' instead of having some fluff that explains the paint scheme (or following a GW one).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Cream Tea wrote:
Colour scheme does not, and should not, affect gameplay. Like others have said, I'd like someone who plays multiple regiments/craftworlds/whatever to distinguish between them in some way, but I would never force them to. Heck, I'm fine even if your Pink Horrors are teal.

Most of the people in my group run armies of their own invention anyway. My craftworld clearly doesn't have one of the official paint schemes, and if you said I should play Ulthwé rules just because the main colour is black I'd look at you funny and slowly walk away.

Even if you do have an official colour scheme and want to play as fluffily as possible, you still may not want to run the official army rules. You can run a fluffy Biel-Tan list with very few shuriken weapons, yet the Biel-Tan trait does very little for that army. Better run another trait (like Ulthwé) that actually works with your forces.

This may be a fault of GW's, but that last sentence bothers me.

Whenever it is more fluffy to play a trait other than the one designed to be fluffy with your army, then something is wrong, either with GW's rules writing or with the player who believes something to be fluffy when it isn't.

I heavily agree with this. There's no reason a given chapter/company/regiment can't know how to fight in a different way to what we're told is the only way to run them in a "fluffy" environment. There's no reason an Ultramarines successor can't have needed to be trained in stealth, and it would make perfect sense that a chapter like that uses the "Raven Guard" rules instead of "Ultramarines."

Yes, this is true of successors. I'd definitely poke fun if I saw straight up Ultramarines with Raven Guard tactics though.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
[you'll forgive me for wondering why you didn't just paint them Ultramarines.

Might not like blue. Pretty simple, obvious answer.

I suppose I've never met anyone who paints their army just 'because it looks good' instead of having some fluff that explains the paint scheme (or following a GW one).

Literally every person I've gamed with paints based on the colours they like and what looks good.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
[you'll forgive me for wondering why you didn't just paint them Ultramarines.

Might not like blue. Pretty simple, obvious answer.

I suppose I've never met anyone who paints their army just 'because it looks good' instead of having some fluff that explains the paint scheme (or following a GW one).

Literally every person I've gamed with paints based on the colours they like and what looks good.

You and I have different life experiences then.

Maybe I go out of my way to find other fluffy players, I dunno.

EDIT: I'm just saying if you have green marines and call them Ultramarines, don't be surprised if people ask questions. There are some chapters (like the aforementioned Aurora Chapter) that are 'GW Regulation' that might even earn this question.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Cream Tea wrote:
Colour scheme does not, and should not, affect gameplay. Like others have said, I'd like someone who plays multiple regiments/craftworlds/whatever to distinguish between them in some way, but I would never force them to. Heck, I'm fine even if your Pink Horrors are teal.

Most of the people in my group run armies of their own invention anyway. My craftworld clearly doesn't have one of the official paint schemes, and if you said I should play Ulthwé rules just because the main colour is black I'd look at you funny and slowly walk away.

Even if you do have an official colour scheme and want to play as fluffily as possible, you still may not want to run the official army rules. You can run a fluffy Biel-Tan list with very few shuriken weapons, yet the Biel-Tan trait does very little for that army. Better run another trait (like Ulthwé) that actually works with your forces.

This may be a fault of GW's, but that last sentence bothers me.

Whenever it is more fluffy to play a trait other than the one designed to be fluffy with your army, then something is wrong, either with GW's rules writing or with the player who believes something to be fluffy when it isn't.

Yeah, I think GW missed the mark on some traits, fluffwise. Biel-Tan should be fluffy with Biel-Tan rules.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
[you'll forgive me for wondering why you didn't just paint them Ultramarines.

Might not like blue. Pretty simple, obvious answer.

I suppose I've never met anyone who paints their army just 'because it looks good' instead of having some fluff that explains the paint scheme (or following a GW one).

Literally every person I've gamed with paints based on the colours they like and what looks good.

I really don't care for the Ultramarines colors, hit the nail on the head. Plus, to reiterate something that may have been missed, I don't only play them as ultras, so it'd be a lot of work to paint them Ultramarines for one tournament.

Jacksmiles wrote:

I really don't care for the Ultramarines colors, hit the nail on the head. Plus, to reiterate something that may have been missed, I don't only play them as ultras, so it'd be a lot of work to paint them Ultramarines for one tournament.

I wear blue and green every day.

Guess which colours I don't want to paint my minis?

Odd, because I otherwise love Salamanders.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I'm sorry it annoyed you. Not everyone knows the fluff well enough to distinguish between, say, the Aurora Chapter (who are green) and Salamanders (who are green). Everyone just thinks green = salamanders. It's something green armies will have to deal with.

And I'm sorry you're not interested in exchanging fan-fiction at a tournament, but if you're not into the fluff of your own army enough to explain it when someone asks about it, you'll forgive me for wondering why you didn't just paint them Ultramarines.

I suppose I've never met anyone who paints their army just 'because it looks good' instead of having some fluff that explains the paint scheme (or following a GW one).

I mean, you don't need to apologize for anything, it's a little awkward that you are

I get that people may not know "regulation chapters" that use similar colors to main dudes, and that's okay. It's not like I'm raging over the comment, I just don't understand it. Especially from someone who was minmaxing with soup harder than me just using guilliman with my standard arrangement of not-optimized marines.

I'll always paint my armies colors that look good to me instead of what GW official fan-fiction states. I value the creative license to do so

I won't begrudge people for assuming I'm playing Salamanders, but after I tell you they're not is not the time to ask if they are


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

I really don't care for the Ultramarines colors, hit the nail on the head. Plus, to reiterate something that may have been missed, I don't only play them as ultras, so it'd be a lot of work to paint them Ultramarines for one tournament.

I wear blue and green every day.

Guess which colours I don't want to paint my minis?

Odd, because I otherwise love Salamanders.

I absolutely understand all of the above

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I suppose I've never met anyone who paints their army just 'because it looks good' instead of having some fluff that explains the paint scheme (or following a GW one).

Aesthetics is my primary concern. I chose my craftworld colour scheme before I even knew about GW's craftworld colours (hey, I didn't even know what a craftworld was).

Most people I play with paint what they like, and come up with fluff afterwards. The 40k universe is a big place, with many unknown corners. Almost any colour scheme you come up with can be fluffy, it's just up to you to invent that fluff. This is a large part of what I like with 40k, there's a lot of room for creativity.

Frankly, I don't think I'd ever enjoy painting an official colour scheme. It just wouldn't feel right.

 Cream Tea wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I suppose I've never met anyone who paints their army just 'because it looks good' instead of having some fluff that explains the paint scheme (or following a GW one).

Aesthetics is my primary concern. I chose my craftworld colour scheme before I even knew about GW's craftworld colours (hey, I didn't even know what a craftworld was).

Most people I play with paint what they like, and come up with fluff afterwards. The 40k universe is a big place, with many unknown corners. Almost any colour scheme you come up with can be fluffy, it's just up to you to invent that fluff. This is a large part of what I like with 40k, there's a lot of room for creativity.

Frankly, I don't think I'd ever enjoy painting an official colour scheme. It just wouldn't feel right.

Right, this is a fine way to do it. I think I mentioned earlier that it'd be a perfect time to explain the 'in-universe' reason why those colours were chosen by the army.

I'm just baffled that people haven't thought about narrative at all - I recognize the validity of the position; I just always assumed the 'game' part of 40k wasn't good enough to keep people around and most hinged on the narrative. Clearly my mistake!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Right, this is a fine way to do it. I think I mentioned earlier that it'd be a perfect time to explain the 'in-universe' reason why those colours were chosen by the army.

I'm just baffled that people haven't thought about narrative at all - I recognize the validity of the position; I just always assumed the 'game' part of 40k wasn't good enough to keep people around and most hinged on the narrative. Clearly my mistake!

Like anything, its a spectrum.

I really enjoy 40k fluff and background. I'm fairly knowledgeable about the universe, and I've read a few of the novels and have a few of the RPG books for background material. I've written custom marine fluff for a chapter I was gearing up to build.

With my current Guard, I don't care enough to write out a whole lot of fluff. I'm gonna paint em all up white, and say they're posted on a winter world. I might name my commander and track heroic deeds, but not much more.

Most of the people I know are somewhere around that level of commitment. Good background knowledge with either an established paint scheme/faction or a made up one with no real background. Both are simple and easy; the established one is easy because GW provides the characters and iconography, so there's no extra effort for writing fluff, while the second option is similarly easy because its just a matter of picking your favourite colours and world theme.

Do you think that if an army is using a specific strategy or ruleset, it should be mandatory to paint them of that colour?

Absolutely not.
Nothing much more to contribute

My biggest reason to play Dark Angels is because all the cool feathered winged-helmets, hoods, and marines with robes had Dark Angel Ichonography. The same goes with Ultramarines, all the cool Roman looking miniatures have Ultramarines symbols, but I have painted mine Red, and I call them Zeta Marines. They literally use the Ultramarine Omega inverted symbol but painted black.

I follow in a very loose manner the Dark Angel oficial paint scheme, full of personal deviations based in my tastes (For example I paint my Scouts black as Ravenwing, even when they shouldn't, or I put my Tacticals marines a Red Crest just because I like it, or painting Terminators in Caliban Green instead of Deathwing Bone White).

I don't play historicals for a reason. I don't like to "copy" "historically accurate" paint schemes, I want to do my own thing, even if I take inspiration for a real or official source that I like.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, the most painful thing I would do to someone who says "I'm Alatoic" painted as Ulthwe or someone who says "I'm Tallarn" with Cadian decals on the sides of their tanks (or even "I'm Ultramarines" with BA models) is a gentle ribbing about army loyalty.

army "loyalty" went RIGHT out the window the second subfactions got special rules!

if some1 has issues playing agasint an army that is painted different then what the subfaction recommends, then that some1 should politely deny the request and find like minded fluff players.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I'm just baffled that people haven't thought about narrative at all - I recognize the validity of the position; I just always assumed the 'game' part of 40k wasn't good enough to keep people around and most hinged on the narrative. Clearly my mistake!

For me, it's the reverse. The game has its issues, but outside of explicitly doing a campaign of some kind, I don't believe the narrative part of the hobby to be good at all. I've read a few of the books, and maybe I'm a snob when it comes to fiction, but they really just read as poor fan-fiction from an official source. I've always recognized people are in this for the story, though. I'm just not one of them

I'm not opposed to doing some kind of campaign, but it's not anything that's come up for me, and I'm perfectly happy just getting games in.

Weirdly, when I would try to incorporate a little story into the beginnings of my games, I would pretty much get shut down by opponents - not in any literal way, but they just never seemed to care to try to do that with me. Even a friend who recommends I get a story for my marine chapter - when I was mostly playing tyranids against his blood angels, I kept trying to talk him up about the Shield of Baal and trying to incorporate a story of that in our ongoing games, but he just didn't seem interested. It was a bit discouraging and then eventually I stopped trying or caring, I still have fun playing the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:


army "loyalty" went RIGHT out the window the second subfactions got special rules!

Army loyalty is such a weird concept to me anyway. Like, these models don't do anything for me. A model is a model is a model. A space marine with a bolter is a space marine with a bolter. Painting it a certain color doesn't make it more real to me, or instill a sense of loyalty to the color I put on it. Just an alien concept to my mind.

If my friend with almost fully painted blood angels started using them as white scars, I wouldn't care at all. I'd honestly be excited I get to fight different tactics! The more opponents I have, the better, even if some are just the same army with different ways of playing it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
As long as it's not confusing as to what is what then paint anyway you like.

No, it literally does not matter. If you want to use Ultramarine rules for your Golden Daemon level painted Blood Angels army, you have every right to do so.

Absolutely. But if they're all painted as ultramarines while some are blood angels and some are dark angels then that's confusing. Same as inconsistent proxies.

back when they released Craftworld Eldar in 3rd edition it was noted that there were certain detachments that were very fluffy and common to each craftworld. So you had some Wild Rider hosts and some swordwinds etc.

WHAT THIS MEANT and was explained was that there are indeed wraith units in Ulthwe and if they wanted to use a wraith unit detachment it did not have to be Iyanden. Same ways that Iyanden does and can use warlocks and farseers in Conclaves.

So when the craftworld codex releases these new traits next week.... Those are traits that are commonly seen to the big 5 craftworlds armies....but that doesn't mean that they don't use detachments that are more common on other craftworlds...it is just not the 'big thing' you see when you face them on the average battle field.

So in 8th ed There is nothing wrong with a Iyanden Army bringing in their seers to have a Foresight detachment and then setting up all their bikers/vypers in a WildHost detachment and then making their rangers make the use of a FieldCraft force. It is about how you use your units.

Will a Ranger unit in a SwordWind be able to maximize like a Field Craft force....no as the army has prepared differently and is focusing on a different method of war. They are the same unit but using a different scheme.

Paint has nothing to do with it. It is ridiculous to think that a massive craftworld with thousands of units only fight in one style...just like it is silly to think that every elder battle has units from multiple craftworlds fighting side by side. (which has happened but not often and not when they battle each other)

Admironheart, I don't know what a Foresight detachment, a Swordwind or a Fieldcraft force are, but I think I agree. Blood Angels are assault loving maniacs right? But I can still rock up with a Spearhead detachment full of Devastators and Tactical squads and no close combat specialists.

That doesn't change the rules for Blood Angels. If I'm calling them Blood Angels I still can't have an allied squad of Wulfen getting buffs off my BA Captain, Chaplain and Ancient because of the chapter keyword, no matter how grey I paint them.

OMG.... i want someone to do 10 tournaments with SM and just spare them Blue for UM, then next one spare Grey for GK, etc.. etc.. and see how thick and bad the paint looks when all done with all 10

 Amishprn86 wrote:
OMG.... i want someone to do 10 tournaments with SM and just spare them Blue for UM, then next one spare Grey for GK, etc.. etc.. and see how thick and bad the paint looks when all done with all 10

There once was a legend someone went to a tournament with an intricately painted Marine force that looked like they had runic etchings painted onto their armor. The TO forbid them from using it...because he technically only had 2 colors.

The next day he showed up with the same army, now successively dipped into three buckets of paint.

The TO had no problem with him in the tournament. They apparently called his army the cotton candy swirls.

The problem with being strict on the colors is when you have overlapping models.

Should you be unable to use your red tactical blood angels squads as ultramarines if you wanted to? The models are the same... why should you have to collect double the tac squads, or repaint every week if you want to try something new?

I'm a stickler for WYSIWYG in my *own* army, but i don't hold others to that standard. I also take pride in my force and even though i'm not the best painter, I take my time and put my best foot forward.

Ribbing aside, I generally agree. If a unit physically shares the same model (or at least close enough that I need to get it at eye level to see differences in the grey plastic) then I have no problem with the color on it and which rules it's using.

But if you have different detachments with different rules, you should at least make an effort to make them distinguishable from a distance. Even just a painted kneecap. If you have Ultra-BAs with Space Wolf-BAs in the same army, I should not have to stop and ask "Are these tactical marines or grey hunters?"

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
OMG.... i want someone to do 10 tournaments with SM and just spare them Blue for UM, then next one spare Grey for GK, etc.. etc.. and see how thick and bad the paint looks when all done with all 10

There once was a legend someone went to a tournament with an intricately painted Marine force that looked like they had runic etchings painted onto their armor. The TO forbid them from using it...because he technically only had 2 colors.

The next day he showed up with the same army, now successively dipped into three buckets of paint.

The TO had no problem with him in the tournament. They apparently called his army the cotton candy swirls.

A good story but I can't imagine it to be true, that would be a terrible combination of wastefulness and lawyering.

I agree with the people who say "Paint schemes don't matter, just make sure it's clear what's what."

So long as your opponent is clear about what you're playing I don't see why it should matter in friendly games. (For tournaments, I guess it's down to the TO?)

Personally I like coming up with my own paint schemes, so I just decided that my Blood Angels were actually a made-up successor chapter. Job done, I get to paint them however I like.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
But if you have different detachments with different rules, you should at least make an effort to make them distinguishable from a distance. Even just a painted kneecap. If you have Ultra-BAs with Space Wolf-BAs in the same army, I should not have to stop and ask "Are these tactical marines or grey hunters?"

So do you have a problem with a Cadian traited Demolisher and a Mordian traited Leman Russ and a Catachan traited Basilisk? Lets say they are all painted 3 colors and look good but have the exact same paint scheme......grey with black trim and some wonderful brown mud with some flashes of color for the lights and such. And lets say it looooookss sooo cool.

Do you tell the IG player that he is not making them distinguishable from a distance with his 3 different detachments.

Because I see a lot of IG/AM players doing just that and for some reason they don't get judge by the same standards as SM or Eldar. Heck I never seen a Tyranid force ever chastised for its painting. so why some hate for some armies but not others?

Not pointing you out Mecha....just you summed up what the other side seems to collectively say as an objection.

 admironheart wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
But if you have different detachments with different rules, you should at least make an effort to make them distinguishable from a distance. Even just a painted kneecap. If you have Ultra-BAs with Space Wolf-BAs in the same army, I should not have to stop and ask "Are these tactical marines or grey hunters?"

So do you have a problem with a Cadian traited Demolisher and a Mordian traited Leman Russ and a Catachan traited Basilisk? Lets say they are all painted 3 colors and look good but have the exact same paint scheme......grey with black trim and some wonderful brown mud with some flashes of color for the lights and such. And lets say it looooookss sooo cool.

Do you tell the IG player that he is not making them distinguishable from a distance with his 3 different detachments.

Because I see a lot of IG/AM players doing just that and for some reason they don't get judge by the same standards as SM or Eldar. Heck I never seen a Tyranid force ever chastised for its painting. so why some hate for some armies but not others?

Not pointing you out Mecha....just you summed up what the other side seems to collectively say as an objection.

There was an enormous thread after the AM codex dropped with people bitterly complaining about the potential of IG players using Cadian models as any other regiment.