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.

if you have used different keywords between Detachments, there must be a clear visual difference between each Detachment

I quite like this part of the requirements, it'd sure cut down on a lot of confusion and mental book-keeping.

On the specific colour schemes being played with their specific keywords thing, I can understand the reservations and that it could get a bit iffy, but is anyone really that mad that they might be expected to play their Salamanders army as Salamanders?

Greywing wrote:Player A has a space marine army lovingly and skillfully painted in Salamanders livery.
Player B has a space marine army jokingly and hastily painted pink. He calls them the Pink Weirdos and plays them with different chapter traits every game (or every tournament, as the case may be).

The rule discussed in this thread imposes a new and meaningful in-game restriction on Player A. Player B, meanwhile, is explicitly and completely exempted from that restriction and may continue on as he always has. I'd love to understand how all the "this is fine" and "good for the fluff" crowd manages to internally justify that.

The player who loving chose Salamanders then obviously chose Salamanders, and wouldn't mind if they had slightly different rules in game. If they cared that much, then they wouldn't play Salamanders.

Player B can do what he likes with his Pink Weirdos, and wouldn't care about the fluff anyways. Player A clearly cares more about the fluff than Player B, and so prioritises that over some in-game advantage.

Maelstrom808 wrote:So I guess new IG players that want to run Tallarn or Mordian in a GW event are just screwed unless they have excellent ebay-fu.

Well, except where it says that only models in Parade uniform can be Mordians, or models in cloth wraps are always Tallarn.

The Astra Militarum Codex outright says that many Regiments adopt different uniforms depending on locations, and many Regiments wear the armour of more famous ones - Brimlock Dragoons and Vendoland wear Cadian style flak armour, despite not being Cadian.

Now, if you rolled up with "TALLARN" on the side of your Chimera, or had the symbol of the Cadian Gate on the shoulder pad of your infantry, then those guys are clearly Tallarn or Cadian respectively. But if you show up with Cadian Shock Trooper models, but there's nothing "Cadian specific" about them, then go wild. They could be Catachan for all I care, and this ruleset too.

It's about how you PAINT them, not how you model them.

tneva82 wrote:This is what happens when you start giving out free special rules for everything...Gone are days when chapters were picked for fluff/colour scheme. And top of that all it creates is unfluffy armies. Hell even now it can be seen with raven guard described as assault specialists yet rules encourage gun lines. And less said the fluff abomination that was all bike white scars the better...Or how people think Iyanden force needs to be 100% wraiths to be fluffy.

You still can pick Chapters based on colour scheme. But clearly for some people, they care more about getting a handful of bonuses in game. And that's fine too. Just don't try and play the "I WISH PEOPLE CARED ABOUT THE FLUFF" card when you clearly care more about the rules than that fluff.

Raven Guard can still be played as assault specialists. Nothing's forcing you to hold back and shoot. Nothing's stopping Iyanden players from taking Guardians. But if people want to prioritise rules over fluff, which is fine, then they will do so regardless of what rules GW put out.

If you care more about fluff? Play your Chapter how they're painted. Care more about getting some rerolls or relics? Paint over your Chapter symbol, and put something else there instead.

Blastaar wrote:What an utterly moronic rule! The color someone paints their models has no business becoming a rules issue. As long as someone makes it clear which chapter/craftworld/whatever's rules they're using, and have paid the appropriate points and so on it doesn't matter what color they are.

At the same time, what rules you get shouldn't be an issue if you painted your models a certain way. If you wanted to play Ultramarines THAT MUCH, then you shouldn't mind what rules they get.
If you do mind, that's cool, paint over the Ultramarines logo, and stick something else there. Sorted, now you're a custom Chapter, go nuts.

What exactly is this supposed to accomplish? Is this just another dumbing down by GW, because they think it's too hard for new or even existing players to face armies whose color schemes may not completely match the rules they are using? An attempt to push players to buy more models?

Clearly not the latter. It wouldn't encourage anyone to buy models, but maybe paints instead.

Even so, I still doubt it. With the increasingly narrative game design the studio is pushing for (from what I can see and from personal experience), they want to have a stronger link between how a model looks and how it's played. Colour scheme fits into this.
Frankly, at their own events, I can absolutely understand why I'd be a little put off if someone with a wonderfully painted Blood Angels list shows up, but ignores all of that to play Ultramarines. If you want to play Ultramarines, paint them like it.

Don't like that, no-one's forcing you to play there.

Peregrine wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
Its like arguing that your Mazda RX7 with chevy LS motor should be allowed to race in a Mazda factory spec event.

It's not at all the same, because GW does not require strict obedience to the fluff in a consistent manner. A bright pink army would be 100% acceptable (and could use whatever rules you want) despite being blatantly against the fluff, where in a "factory spec" event you'd be required to choose one of the GW chapters and use the paint scheme and rules for that chapter.

Show me where a bright pink Chapter is "blatantly against the fluff".

This is more like a "factory spec" event where you can use any vehicle with a Mazda logo mounted on it somewhere, except if it started as a Mazda out of the factory you must use the original factory-new configuration. An arbitrary subset of the field gets restrictions, people who bring in random non-Mazda vehicles can gain any advantage they want.

Except in your example, you can't change the fact it's always going to be a Mazda out of the factory.
In this case, you can change your army. Nothing's FORCING your models to be painted as they are. There's an easy solution to all of this - simply change something on the colour scheme. A different helmet colour, remove the Chapter logo, add to the logo, etc etc. Then it's not XYZ Chapter, and you can pick what you like.

You disagree with the obvious truth of the situation? It's not like this is a rule that came out of nowhere, GW has previously talked about how they think people should use the rules that match the paint scheme and it's bad to use a different set of rules just to gain a better chance of winning.

Yeah. That's exactly what they're saying. However, no-one's forcing you to go to this tournament. Don't like it? Leave it, and play somewhere that does it differently.

Peregrine wrote:

Process wrote:
Its just GW trying to ensure their game is played how they envisioned the game would be played.

That's hardly a compelling defense when "how they envisioned it" is stupid.

Sorry, so you're the arbiter on what's stupid for everyone?

I don't mind GW's rule here. It's certainly not "stupid", and you can't change that for me.

If you don't like how they want you to play, and you think that's stupid, then go elsewhere. No-one's forcing you to play their tournament.

You think if you turn up with an awesome painted blood angels army entirely in blue they're gonna make you play them as Ultramarines? grow up.

Uh, no, that's what the rule says. You're literally saying "it's ok that the rule exists, they won't enforce it", a clear concession that the rule is stupid.

If those models have no Ultramarines insigia, then they can absolutely be played as Blood Angels.

Just because a Marine is blue doesn't make him an Ultramarine. Think of how many "blue" Chapters there are:
Fulminators
Heralds of Ultramar
Avenging Sons
Rainbow Warriors
Imperial Paladins

None of these are Ultramarines, yet can look identical - except they all have no Ultramarine iconography.

It's simple. If it looks like that Chapter, has the symbols of that Chapter... it's probably that Chapter.

But when he rocks up with his pro painted Salamanders and tries using UM or RG chapter tactics.... just kills the thematics of the game, which is obviously something GW want to maintain at their tourneys.

I see. So having models using the "wrong" tactics (because apparently Ultramarines never use stealth units which would be appropriate with Raven Guard rules) for their paint is killing the thematic value, but having a barely-painted army that has the same rule flaws on top of looking like trash somehow doesn't? This is, to put it politely, a bizarre view of things.

An equally bizarre view of things is someone apparently loving a Chapter so much that they painted them to a pro level, but cares more about how they play on the tabletop instead of how they look or their lore.

The Ultramarines have stealth units. So take them. You don't need Raven Guard rules to have Scouts.

If you care more about the rules, change the paint scheme. If you care more about how the models look, don't complain when you need to play them like you painted them.

Peregrine wrote:Or what about Tau, where it's explicitly stated that they use colors appropriate to the environment and the sept colors are only their parade-ground formal uniforms (if they're ever used at all)?

Simple. Tau have Sept colours (T'au Sept being white), and have clearly shown that even on camouflaged models, they have Sept markings.

However, if you rocked up to a game with ochre models, you can easily point to the fluff where it says that Tau don't care about their armour colour and use it for actual camouflage if anyone says "YOU SHOULD BE THIS SEPT WAAA". Prove them wrong with the lore that says you can, if it exists.

Ice_can wrote:It's also troubling if they decide to push this out on to events they don't run but support.

If.

It's turning the competitive 40K into pay to win on an even more rediculous level.
Taking the worst Chapter tactic or not mixing and matching subfactions might fly in flgs or garage hammer but it will create a bigger gap betten those than can meta chase and have the budget/time to have a new army painted everytime GW decieds to spin the random imbalance generator around. But those that are building the best list they can out of the army they have are going to be disappointed. It will take whats already a 2 camp community and turn it into 3 camps potentially even 4.

If someone cared more about the meta chase, then they can solve all their problems permanently. Remove the Chapter sigil. Takes less than a minute per sigil. Then no-one can prove what Chapter you are.

Blue armour and gold trims? Could be Ultramarines. Could also be Avenging Sons.
Yellow armour? Could be Imperial Fists. Could be Libators.
Purple/pink armour. Could be Hawk Lords. Could be Imperial Stars.
Red armour? Could be Blood Angels. Could be Exorcists.

It's still a two camp community - those who care more about lore and fluff, and those who care more about the meta.

Blacksails wrote:Punish players for picking a colour scheme that has rules? Yeah, that sounds like a bad idea.

Alternatively, encourage players to choose a Chapter based on their playstyle, and a sense of consistency when playing against canon Chapters, with canon rules and canon combat strategies? Yes please.

The only rule needed is to make sure multiple detachments have clear visual indicators for different 'chapters'. For all the supposed freedom everyone wants in this game to do exactly what they want, this seems completely contradictory. Let players paint what they want and run what they want.

Nothing's stopping players painting what they want. If you care more about how they look, then paint how you want them. If you care about how they'll play, just don't paint any Chapter sigils on.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

CassianSol wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Punish players for picking a colour scheme that has rules? Yeah, that sounds like a bad idea.

The only rule needed is to make sure multiple detachments have clear visual indicators for different 'chapters'. For all the supposed freedom everyone wants in this game to do exactly what they want, this seems completely contradictory. Let players paint what they want and run what they want.

I'm not in favour of the rule, but the idea is that if your marines are painted as Ultramarines you can't use them as Salamanders. If you paint them as custom marines then it doesn't apply. I can understand that they want to avoid situations where opponents get confused over the paint scheme and rules being incongruent. Now, the rule kind of falls apart when someone fields a blue with gold trim custom marine chapter. Of course it only applies to GW tournaments which most of you don't attend anyway so no fuss getting stressed over it.

Blue/gold Chapters beyond the Ultramarines exist. So long as you don't give them an Ultramarine logo, then they're not actually Ultramarines.

Just because a Space Marine is blue/red/yellow/black doesn't mean they're Ultramarines/Blood Angels/Imperial Fists/Raven Guard or Iron Hands (see what I mean - even black alone has two rules associated with it).

I don't know what to say. I like faction hoping, not because I love to win but because I get bored very easely from playing the same army and the same rules again and again and again. If my codex offers me a ton of different rules I can assure you I'll try every one of them with different lists just for variety.

I'm saying this to show that not everybody that uses different factions is a WAAC that only wants to win.

CassianSol wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Punish players for picking a colour scheme that has rules? Yeah, that sounds like a bad idea.

The only rule needed is to make sure multiple detachments have clear visual indicators for different 'chapters'. For all the supposed freedom everyone wants in this game to do exactly what they want, this seems completely contradictory. Let players paint what they want and run what they want.

I'm not in favour of the rule, but the idea is that if your marines are painted as Ultramarines you can't use them as Salamanders. If you paint them as custom marines then it doesn't apply. I can understand that they want to avoid situations where opponents get confused over the paint scheme and rules being incongruent. Now, the rule kind of falls apart when someone fields a blue with gold trim custom marine chapter. Of course it only applies to GW tournaments which most of you don't attend anyway so no fuss getting stressed over it.

Oh it has zero impact on me, so I'm not bothered by it. Just remarking on how stupid it is, and there's a non-zero chance this sort of thinking will spread to other tournaments or groups.

The rule falls apart for any number of reasons, but it really boils down to a simple 'what is this fixing?'. The only real answer is confusion when a player has a single painted army, but runs it as multiple detachments with different traits, which can be fixed by the other part of this new rule, which is to have visually distinct detachments (something most people recommend or do anyways). I have no issues with an UM player running his biker detachment as WS to represent the particular skill of that company, likewise I don't have an issue with a Sallies player running with DA rules for his Firedrakes as counts as Deathwing.

Don't make paint a crunch aspect of the game. No good will come of it.

 Galas wrote:
I don't know what to say. I like faction hoping, not because I love to win but because I get bored very easely from playing the same army and the same rules again and again and again. If my codex offers me a ton of different rules I can assure you I'll try every one of them with different lists just for variety.

I'm saying this to show that not everybody that uses different factions is a WAAC that only wants to win.

True, and fair point, but you don't need to trial the other tactics in a tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
Oh it has zero impact on me, so I'm not bothered by it. Just remarking on how stupid it is, and there's a non-zero chance this sort of thinking will spread to other tournaments or groups.

Then that's the fault of those other groups. If as many people were bothered by it, as this thread seems to show, then there will be a market for people who don't want to follow that rule, and tournaments should accomodate for that.

The rule falls apart for any number of reasons, but it really boils down to a simple 'what is this fixing?'. The only real answer is confusion when a player has a single painted army, but runs it as multiple detachments with different traits, which can be fixed by the other part of this new rule, which is to have visually distinct detachments (something most people recommend or do anyways). I have no issues with an UM player running his biker detachment as WS to represent the particular skill of that company, likewise I don't have an issue with a Sallies player running with DA rules for his Firedrakes as counts as Deathwing.

From what I gather, the rule "fixes" the expectation of an army being painted a certain way to be played in a certain way. Especially for GW proper, who do encourage playing as the army you've painted, instead of picking and choosing separately.

The main crutch for me comes to "if you want them to have those rules so bad, why don't you remove the Chapter sigil" or "if you want to play that Chapter so bad, do those rules matter?" If it's a case of the latter, then what's to stop any player turning up with a brilliantly painted Space Marine list, but playing them as Guardsmen (so long as everything is the same size, weapons are easily identifiable, and you can pick out "officers" and suchlike from "infantry squads") - because after all, who cares how they look?

Don't make paint a crunch aspect of the game. No good will come of it.

If paint's not important, then how about the aesthetics of weapons and armour? So long as it's consistent and doesn't increase the size of the model in a way of MFA?
Would you say that I would be well within my rights to model every plasma gun in my army as a meltagun and vice versa? Modelling a plasma cannon as a plasma gun and vice versa? Every Vindicator with Predators, and vice versa?

Why shouldn't paint be a crunch aspect, but modelling (not MFA) isn't?

I like playing melee marines. 20 years ago when I started playing Black Templars were melee marines. Once our codex got squatted I stopped playing.

Now I want to play my melee marines. Which are all painted in traditional BT colors. BT might be the worst melee marine option due to rule changes beyond my control.

You really expect me to repaint thousands of points of my models, invalidating hundreds of hours of work because you don't like that my black marines are using red marine rules?

You're right. I shouldn't attend this tournament but if this type of thinking goes beyond this single tournament (which I don't think it will because most rational people who enjoy tournament play think this rule is STUPID) it will effectively end my ability to attend tournaments (not that marines of any color are doing well at any competitive event regardless of color...)

bananathug wrote:
I like playing melee marines. 20 years ago when I started playing Black Templars were melee marines. Once our codex got squatted I stopped playing.

Now I want to play my melee marines. Which are all painted in traditional BT colors. BT might be the worst melee marine option due to rule changes beyond my control.

You really expect me to repaint thousands of points of my models, invalidating hundreds of hours of work because you don't like that my black marines are using red marine rules?

You're right. I shouldn't attend this tournament but if this type of thinking goes beyond this single tournament (which I don't think it will because most rational people who enjoy tournament play think this rule is STUPID) it will effectively end my ability to attend tournaments (not that marines of any color are doing well at any competitive event regardless of color...)

BTs are about as good as my Slaanesh daemons in melee, I would say. Re-roll charges is pretty neat, while my Slaanesh get charging after advancing. I'm a bit faster (fitting) but you're Marines and hit much harder. (Str 4 vs Str 3).

I play casually, it's true, but Black Templars being 0.2% less efficient doesn't make them bad.

This is one of those rules that pops up but always leads to tears. We've had several new paint schemes introduced in this edition, creating problems for at least a few Tyranid players who found their custom paint scheme is suddenly locked into a certain hive fleet.

It just can't be applied evenly, which is the first sign its a problematic rule. Then you have to rely on the TO's best judgement (between green dark angels and green slamanders for example)

When I ran codex marines all my detachments used a black base color to tie them together. That's good for the Iron hands and dark angels, since those are already codex colors for them (Thanks HH!) but the Ultramarines and Space Wolves suddenly become heretical depending on the TO's whims.

When a rule is justified with "Nah, this will only punish the abusers, not the good people, for them they'll make exceptions!" you know its a very, very bad rule.

When a rule/law is justified in the asumption that people will make exceptions for the "good" people... you are adding a human factor to not screw people.

bananathug wrote:I like playing melee marines. 20 years ago when I started playing Black Templars were melee marines. Once our codex got squatted I stopped playing.

Now I want to play my melee marines. Which are all painted in traditional BT colors. BT might be the worst melee marine option due to rule changes beyond my control.

You really expect me to repaint thousands of points of my models, invalidating hundreds of hours of work because you don't like that my black marines are using red marine rules?

Absolutely not. Because you're not just playing "black marines". Your marines are clearly Black Templars.
For the sake of this, all you'd need to do is remove the Black Templar sigil, and then they ARE just black marines - which is fine.

However, if being 0.2% effective in melee is suddenly "the worst melee marine option" (which isn't - Imperial Fists have absolutely no melee bonuses), then maybe how you've painted the models isn't your primary concern.

You're right. I shouldn't attend this tournament but if this type of thinking goes beyond this single tournament (which I don't think it will because most rational people who enjoy tournament play think this rule is STUPID) it will effectively end my ability to attend tournaments (not that marines of any color are doing well at any competitive event regardless of color...)

If your only ability to play 40k is based in tournaments (which is absolutely valid, your way to play and all that), then as above, does how you've painted them really matter? What's more important - painting a white blob over your Chapter sigil, or taking the slightly less good tactic?

 Galas wrote:
I don't know what to say. I like faction hoping, not because I love to win but because I get bored very easely from playing the same army and the same rules again and again and again. If my codex offers me a ton of different rules I can assure you I'll try every one of them with different lists just for variety.

I'm saying this to show that not everybody that uses different factions is a WAAC that only wants to win.

To add to that GW keeps changing what the chapter tactics (and their non SM equivalents) do so you don't even have a consistent playstyle for an army. Ultras for example where the tactically flexable ones in 7th with their access to rerolls (one of the decent ways to have melee focused SMs work) but now they can run away and shoot which might be ok for units like tacticals that don't want to be stuck in melee but its next to useless for assault units. Same with Imperial Fists who use to be ideal for bolter focused playstyles (and tank hunting) but now they ignore cover (in the edition where cover is the least plentiful or useful) and still have that useless anti building stuff. In order to play your preferred playstyle you might have to change chapter tactics because GW isn't consistent with the theme of each army/faction.

In general though i think making paint schemes force certain playstyles is extremely disrespectful to the players because its potentially punishing somebody who decisions made years ago (what color to paint their army) and after they have sunk hundreds of hours and possibly hundreds to thousands of dollars into getting these models painted. The people who aren't punished are those who created their own chapter (although they might not be able to use special characters) and those who have such a bare bones paint scheme that it isn't really definitive enough to say those are ultramarines or those are just blue marines. There are better ways to improve communication about which unit is in what detachment and the rules they use. Paint the side walls of the base to be color coded and give your oppoent a sheet that says which color scheme/base marker is for which detachment and what faction rules they use. Painting the sides of a base and typing up such a document would take maybe 10 hours for even a horde army but repainting a high model count army would take an insane amount of time. I get that its their event so they can technically do whatever the feth they want but if I was a tourney player I wouldn't patron such an event and I use almost all custom paint schemes (except my Orks who are deathskullz).

Also good luck enforcing this mess with Orks because a proper fluffy Ork army would be a mix of all different clans because individual Orks associate themselves with clans but most WAAAGHS! aren't mono clan.

I get where the requirement is coming from and I get why they want to do it. Unfortunately, its just another problem the game created for itself when it got into the business of reselling the Imperium dozens of times. There's not a great answer either way at this point.

Certain, the frustration comes from the fact that most people have a good sense of what color scheme applies to which chapter, but there's zero retention of Xenos schemes. Pick your rules, pick your colors is what people want and that works everywhere except Space Marines.

If the Space Marine codex gets an update, what I'd like to see is a super minor change to how the tactics are presented. Give us a list of Chapter Tactics and then in the fluff presentation of each chapter, list their "Preferred Tactic" as a guideline. That keeps the fluff, but lets players change it to make the most in gameplay. You can even make it so certain special characters (Guilliman) force a tactic upon a detachment.

If you guys really think that Black Templar marines are 0.2% (defined as marginally I guess) worse at melee combat than blood angels/slaanesh we are playing two entirely different games.

It's not just removing decals (some of us actually use the upgrade kits that GW sells...) I'm pretty sure the rules don't say "if you model has chapter icons" but "painted in a certain way" you know, black with white shoulders (or black with red depending on role).

I could see if this was at the narrative event at the tournament. Makes total sense. But at a competitive tournament I don't see the merit outside of punishing a section of hobbyist for a fluffy choice.

Either way, it's really not that big of a deal. I doubt this will leak into any other tournaments and if it does I'll just paint a red dot on a foot or something and call them the red-foot chapter (which is the perfect example of why this rule is stupid)

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


The main crutch for me comes to "if you want them to have those rules so bad, why don't you remove the Chapter sigil" or "if you want to play that Chapter so bad, do those rules matter?" If it's a case of the latter, then what's to stop any player turning up with a brilliantly painted Space Marine list, but playing them as Guardsmen (so long as everything is the same size, weapons are easily identifiable, and you can pick out "officers" and suchlike from "infantry squads") - because after all, who cares how they look?

Counts as has long been a thing in this hobby. If everything you field is consistent and logical, then most people are for it. Lots of Ork armies out there who pretend to be other codices through excessive looting, and that's all good in my books. If its consistent and logical, I don't much care what's across from me.

If paint's not important, then how about the aesthetics of weapons and armour? So long as it's consistent and doesn't increase the size of the model in a way of MFA?
Would you say that I would be well within my rights to model every plasma gun in my army as a meltagun and vice versa? Modelling a plasma cannon as a plasma gun and vice versa? Every Vindicator with Predators, and vice versa?

Why shouldn't paint be a crunch aspect, but modelling (not MFA) isn't?

As I said above, consistency is key. And rule of cool of course.

There is, however, a significant different between models and the thin coat of paint you slap on them, so its not a great example. This particular rule really only harms people who paint their models in a small handful of specific ways, which isn't a particularly good rule. I could paint my marines in blue and gold trim, but have zero markings, and run them however I want. Who's to tell me I'm playing Ultramarines, and not the Aquamarines, which use a different set of traits. This really encourages people not to use 'official' paint schemes, or at least complete the paint scheme. Plus, how similar does the paintjob have to be to the official one to lock it in? It'd be a nightmare to enforce. Are official successor chapter paint schemes included?

The wording is vague and non specific too, which doesn't help define how close I need to look like an official chapter to be forced into their trait. Do marines painted predominantly blue with no iconography automatically turn into ultramarines? What colour trim? Minimum iconography?

Its just silly. If your opponent hands you a list and has models that are clearly what the list represents, then it shouldn't matter if the blue marines are using yellow marine rules. You should just be thankful to play against a painted army.

bananathug wrote:
If you guys really think that Black Templar marines are 0.2% (defined as marginally I guess) worse at melee combat than blood angels/slaanesh we are playing two entirely different games.

0.2% is not an accurate number, I just made it up. The point is that it's not so drastic as you're making it out to be - balance in 8th in general is much closer. I can succeed with mono-Slaanesh this edition, who aren't very good. Black Templars are just fine - their special units are pretty rad, and re-roll charges armywide is actually pretty huge. I would trade in Quicksilver Swiftness (the slaanesh army-wide trait - always going first in the fight phase) for re-roll charges 100% no questions asked.

bananathug wrote:If you guys really think that Black Templar marines are 0.2% (defined as marginally I guess) worse at melee combat than blood angels/slaanesh we are playing two entirely different games.

It's not just removing decals (some of us actually use the upgrade kits that GW sells...) I'm pretty sure the rules don't say "if you model has chapter icons" but "painted in a certain way" you know, black with white shoulders (or black with red depending on role).

Nothing says you can't paint the icon a different colour, or that you can't paint an additional marking on the shoulder pad. Considering that that the Death Spectres literally have the same logo as the Scythes of the Emperor, but with a skull superimposed on it, there's no reason that putting a circle or other motif around the templar cross would be an issue.

But hey, if keeping the colour is more important, that's fine. Just don't complain when you miss out on a marginal ability.

I could see if this was at the narrative event at the tournament. Makes total sense. But at a competitive tournament I don't see the merit outside of punishing a section of hobbyist for a fluffy choice.

Which matters more? Fluff, or crunch? I'd love for my Marines to have grav guns, and have big fluffy ten man squads of infantry in my Battle Company. I'd love for my fluffy elite Guardsman army to have power weapons and plasmas on all the sergeants, representing their homeworld's advanced resources and easier access to rarer equipment due to an alliance with Mechanicus outposts nearby. Doesn't mean that my army isn't horribly unoptimised because power weapons (swords especially) on Infantry Squad Sergeants is quite bad, and a waste of points.

Should I be allowed to either not count those extra models/weapons because they're fluffy? Or should I prioritise the crunch for a tournament (you know, where competitive is the main selling point, from what I gather) and treat the fluff as a secondary concern?

Either way, it's really not that big of a deal. I doubt this will leak into any other tournaments and if it does I'll just paint a red dot on a foot or something and call them the red-foot chapter (which is the perfect example of why this rule is stupid)

Red Foot Chapter's fine. I hope you have fun with them, if it gets you that 0.2% buff.

Blacksails wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


The main crutch for me comes to "if you want them to have those rules so bad, why don't you remove the Chapter sigil" or "if you want to play that Chapter so bad, do those rules matter?" If it's a case of the latter, then what's to stop any player turning up with a brilliantly painted Space Marine list, but playing them as Guardsmen (so long as everything is the same size, weapons are easily identifiable, and you can pick out "officers" and suchlike from "infantry squads") - because after all, who cares how they look?

Counts as has long been a thing in this hobby. If everything you field is consistent and logical, then most people are for it. Lots of Ork armies out there who pretend to be other codices through excessive looting, and that's all good in my books. If its consistent and logical, I don't much care what's across from me.

Count as is usually frowned upon in tournaments. So while you might be fine for it, it needs to be fine with everyone at the event, or else I could be in a lot of bother.

So, can you tell me that I'd be fine in nearly any tournament taking a fully Space Marine army, counting as Guard?

If paint's not important, then how about the aesthetics of weapons and armour? So long as it's consistent and doesn't increase the size of the model in a way of MFA?
Would you say that I would be well within my rights to model every plasma gun in my army as a meltagun and vice versa? Modelling a plasma cannon as a plasma gun and vice versa? Every Vindicator with Predators, and vice versa?

Why shouldn't paint be a crunch aspect, but modelling (not MFA) isn't?

As I said above, consistency is key. And rule of cool of course.

There is, however, a significant different between models and the thin coat of paint you slap on them, so its not a great example. This particular rule really only harms people who paint their models in a small handful of specific ways, which isn't a particularly good rule. I could paint my marines in blue and gold trim, but have zero markings, and run them however I want. Who's to tell me I'm playing Ultramarines, and not the Aquamarines, which use a different set of traits. This really encourages people not to use 'official' paint schemes, or at least complete the paint scheme. Plus, how similar does the paintjob have to be to the official one to lock it in? It'd be a nightmare to enforce. Are official successor chapter paint schemes included?

As I imagine, if it clearly is the Chapter's main colour, and has their heraldry, then it is that Chapter. A blue/gold Chapter is not necessarily Ultramarines if they lack the white U sigil. A green/black Chapter with the white U sigil isn't Ultramarines OR Salamanders, because it has aspects of both, that are mutually exclusive.

If people don't want to be locked into a Chapter, than they shouldn't paint their guys as that Chapter. If you want to look like that Chapter, then you should probably be expected to use their rules too, in my books. Sure, that might lead to more "custom" colour schemes. That's fine by me, I don't have an issue with that.

How similar does it have to be? Well, if someone can look at it, and it matches the armour colour and sigil of the original, then it's official. Successor Chapters, due to how the game says it doesn't specify them, means that you could take the Heralds of Ultramar (clearly Ultramarine successors) and play them as Raven Guard. Plus, it avoids cases of things like the Sons of the Phoenix, an Imperial Fist Chapter who are most likely Emperor's Children gene-stock, being locked in as IF.

If you care more about the paintjob, then the rules don't matter. If you want those rules, then you know how to change the paintjob. You're not forced into anything you can't change.

However, I fail to see your point about why the modelled upgrades are any different to a count of paint. If anything, the model is harder to change, because I need to disassemble them, repaint any areas where the glue rips paint off, etc etc. You can just repaint over paintjobs. And yet, you think that me needing to change all the meltagun models for plasma gun ones is more acceptable than just painting over the flat Ultramarine symbol on them?

The wording is vague and non specific too, which doesn't help define how close I need to look like an official chapter to be forced into their trait. Do marines painted predominantly blue with no iconography automatically turn into ultramarines? What colour trim? Minimum iconography?

As I said. If they're just blue, no, they're absolutely not Ultramarines. I dislike when people say "oh, it's yellow, it must be an Imperial Fist!". If it has the iconography of that Chapter? Not necessarily even then - the Crimson Fists and Imperial Fists have the same icon. But if they have the same icon and colour scheme? Yeah, you're probably that official Chapter, and should play like them. Not too much to ask.

Its just silly. If your opponent hands you a list and has models that are clearly what the list represents, then it shouldn't matter if the blue marines are using yellow marine rules. You should just be thankful to play against a painted army.

But why shouldn't I expect that painted army to play like the faction they have been painted to play like? Same as if I'm seeing models with proxy weapons at a tournament (which I personally am fine with, but I know lots of people are not) - according to you, I should just be happy that those models are assembled, and not that every meltagun is now a plasma gun and every plasma gun is now a multimelta.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

bananathug wrote:
If you guys really think that Black Templar marines are 0.2% (defined as marginally I guess) worse at melee combat than blood angels/slaanesh we are playing two entirely different games.

0.2% is not an accurate number, I just made it up. The point is that it's not so drastic as you're making it out to be - balance in 8th in general is much closer. I can succeed with mono-Slaanesh this edition, who aren't very good. Black Templars are just fine - their special units are pretty rad, and re-roll charges armywide is actually pretty huge. I would trade in Quicksilver Swiftness (the slaanesh army-wide trait - always going first in the fight phase) for re-roll charges 100% no questions asked.

This. 0.2% is hyperbolic, but the point stands - it's not a MASSIVE difference that changes the entire list. It's a small buff, that frankly, won't make your army unplayable if you don't have it.

If you think that missing out on that makes your army unplayable, does the paintjob matter more than that?

Really, daemons marginally better than marines in combat?

Hmm, 70 points for 21 s3 attacks @ -1ap vs
65 points for 11 s4 attacks no ap.

You also have the option of running big units and getting +1 attack on all models.

Death company vs assault marines.I won't even go into those numbers but it's not marginal.

Come on people. You're reaching.

At a tournament, with an already underpowered army, yes that 20-50% drop in offensive efficiency does matter if I want to give my opponents a fun competitive game vs. a max point stomp which puts the other competitors who had to play against competitive armies at a disadvantage (and hurts the entire tournament IMHO because it turns into who gets the lucky draws against the terrible marine lists). Swiss pairing does help this but I'm not sure that's the point.

Smudge the rule is a bad rule to enforce on anything other than fluffy narrative games where the mechanics of the army you are playing doesn't really matter as hopefully you are with like-minded folks trying to tell a story.

As for your WYSIWYG, I magnetize all of my weapon options just for this reason, which is so much easier than having to repaint (at least for me).

Either way. At this point we are just arguing to argue. It's obvious you feel you have more stake in telling me what rules I can and can't use with my army than I do in choosing what rules to use with my models.

Your "but why can't I just use barbies as grots" argument is crazy and you seem to be just trying to win an argument rather than honestly looking at the situation and coming to some sort of accord. The difference between a plasma gun and a bolt pistol is more material for records keeping, ease of identifying models and honest game play than a black marine vs a black marine with a red foot.

Same way I agree that different chapters should be easily identifiable in an army, if you wanted to say all my models armed with bolt pistols really have bolt guns (common problem for death company) sure, because it is easy to identify, has little bearing on game play. If you wanted to go, the guys with silver guns have thunder hammers and the guys with black guns have multi-meltas that's a bit too far for tournament play (would probably be fine in a friendly game and I probably wouldn't care at my local as long as you are not TFG).

At this point I'm not going to change your mind and I don't think you are going to change mine.

bananathug wrote:
Really, daemons marginally better than marines in combat?

Hmm, 70 points for 21 s3 attacks @ -1ap vs
65 points for 11 s4 attacks no ap.

You also have the option of running big units and getting +1 attack on all models.

Death company vs assault marines.I won't even go into those numbers but it's not marginal.

Come on people. You're reaching.

At a tournament, with an already underpowered army, yes that 20-50% drop in offensive efficiency does matter if I want to give my opponents a fun competitive game vs. a max point stomp which puts the other competitors who had to play against competitive armies at a disadvantage (and hurts the entire tournament IMHO because it turns into who gets the lucky draws against the terrible marine lists). Swiss pairing does help this but I'm not sure that's the point.

My point's not about Daemons vs Marines. I'm talking Black Templars vs Blood Angels. However, considering that it's technically a completely different codex, and not just a different Chapter Tactic, I think that it would be fairer to compare Black Templars with another Chapter from their book - White Scars, or Raven Guard, say.

Smudge the rule is a bad rule to enforce on anything other than fluffy narrative games where the mechanics of the army you are playing doesn't really matter as hopefully you are with like-minded folks trying to tell a story.

In your opinion. If you've painted the models a certain way, why shouldn't you play them that way? Which matters more? Painting or playing?

Story doesn't come into this.

As for your WYSIWYG, I magnetize all of my weapon options just for this reason, which is so much easier than having to repaint (at least for me).

And what about the people who haven't? Plus, do you believe that it's okay for someone with glued on weapons to count their plasma guns as meltaguns, their meltaguns as plasma cannons, etc etc?

Either way. At this point we are just arguing to argue. It's obvious you feel you have more stake in telling me what rules I can and can't use with my army than I do in choosing what rules to use with my models.

I don't have a stake in it. GW do. I probably won't ever play you. However, you saying that GW's rule is stupid is your opinion, and thus I'm entitled to share my view on it.

Your "but why can't I just use barbies as grots" argument is crazy and you seem to be just trying to win an argument rather than honestly looking at the situation and coming to some sort of accord. The difference between a plasma gun and a bolt pistol is more material for records keeping, ease of identifying models and honest game play than a black marine vs a black marine with a red foot.

"Your argument is crazy" - in your opinion. Plus, nowhere did I say using Barbies as grots was okay. I said about using Space Marines as Guardsmen because guardsmen are better than Space Marines.

And exactly - identifying models. If I see a model painted as an Ultramarine, I'm identifying it as an Ultramarine. If you see a model with a plasma gun, you'll identify it as a model with a plasma gun. What's the difference?

Same way I agree that different chapters should be easily identifiable in an army, if you wanted to say all my models armed with bolt pistols really have bolt guns (common problem for death company) sure, because it is easy to identify, has little bearing on game play. If you wanted to go, the guys with silver guns have thunder hammers and the guys with black guns have multi-meltas that's a bit too far for tournament play (would probably be fine in a friendly game and I probably wouldn't care at my local as long as you are not TFG).

In a friendly game, I wouldn't care about how you've painted your guys. That's a friendly game, and you can experiment how you like, so long as you're not being TFG, as you said. I'm talking tournaments here.

At this point I'm not going to change your mind and I don't think you are going to change mine.

I doubt it, however, for anyone reading, being able to bounce opinions and views on things may be helpful.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Count as is usually frowned upon in tournaments. So while you might be fine for it, it needs to be fine with everyone at the event, or else I could be in a lot of bother.

So, can you tell me that I'd be fine in nearly any tournament taking a fully Space Marine army, counting as Guard?

Depends entirely on the tournament.

As I imagine, if it clearly is the Chapter's main colour, and has their heraldry, then it is that Chapter. A blue/gold Chapter is not necessarily Ultramarines if they lack the white U sigil. A green/black Chapter with the white U sigil isn't Ultramarines OR Salamanders, because it has aspects of both, that are mutually exclusive.

My point is that there's no standard, no metric, and no template for this rule. Its unenforceable anyways. Your idea may be radically different than someone else's interpretation.

If people don't want to be locked into a Chapter, than they shouldn't paint their guys as that Chapter. If you want to look like that Chapter, then you should probably be expected to use their rules too, in my books. Sure, that might lead to more "custom" colour schemes. That's fine by me, I don't have an issue with that.

Considering the main marine chapters cover most of the basic colours people would use, it becomes a ridiculous game of determining how similar or not to a well known chapter you look, which is completely arbitrary and has no universal standard to judge against. It also strikes me as a really non important thing to concern yourself with; its their army, not yours. If they want blue marines with gold trim but not ultramarines, they should run them however they want.

How similar does it have to be? Well, if someone can look at it, and it matches the armour colour and sigil of the original, then it's official. Successor Chapters, due to how the game says it doesn't specify them, means that you could take the Heralds of Ultramar (clearly Ultramarine successors) and play them as Raven Guard. Plus, it avoids cases of things like the Sons of the Phoenix, an Imperial Fist Chapter who are most likely Emperor's Children gene-stock, being locked in as IF.

Again, the official rule has no standard. Its great that you have a metric, but its specific to you and only you.

If you care more about the paintjob, then the rules don't matter. If you want those rules, then you know how to change the paintjob. You're not forced into anything you can't change.

Because changing the paintjob of you army is soooo easy and simple.

However, I fail to see your point about why the modelled upgrades are any different to a count of paint. If anything, the model is harder to change, because I need to disassemble them, repaint any areas where the glue rips paint off, etc etc. You can just repaint over paintjobs. And yet, you think that me needing to change all the meltagun models for plasma gun ones is more acceptable than just painting over the flat Ultramarine symbol on them?

I never once said you need to change all meltaguns in plasma guns. Not even close, not even implied. Literally the opposite. I said consistency is what matters. And rule of cool.

As I said. If they're just blue, no, they're absolutely not Ultramarines. I dislike when people say "oh, it's yellow, it must be an Imperial Fist!". If it has the iconography of that Chapter? Not necessarily even then - the Crimson Fists and Imperial Fists have the same icon. But if they have the same icon and colour scheme? Yeah, you're probably that official Chapter, and should play like them. Not too much to ask.

Until the tournament rule expands what their definition of a matching paint job is, there is no standard, which is a problem. Its great that you have a (sensible) metric, but we don't know what they'll do at the tournament. It could just be two matching colours, or just icons, or requiring icons and matching colours. We don't know, so until then, its unenforceable.

But why shouldn't I expect that painted army to play like the faction they have been painted to play like? Same as if I'm seeing models with proxy weapons at a tournament (which I personally am fine with, but I know lots of people are not) - according to you, I should just be happy that those models are assembled, and not that every meltagun is now a plasma gun and every plasma gun is now a multimelta.

There are inifnite reasons why someone might have a Salamanders army running another trait. All it takes is a little imagination.

Proxies and counts as are tournament specific rules, and most of the ones I've seen only require that it looks good, is consistent, and attempts to match common aesthetic conventions (plasma looking plasma guns that we all know and love).

This whole thing leads down a slippery slope for GW tournaments (assuming no one else adopts this). Do Guard players need to have the official models of the regiment they're running? Are red Cadians good enough as Vostroyans? What about red Catachans? Can Catachan models be used as Cadian models, and vice versa? What if I have Vostroyan models painted in Cadian schemes and iconography? According to the tournament rules, the paintjob matches Cadian, therefore I have to run Cadian despite being obviously Vostroyan models.

Not to mention most players couldn't tell you the official colours of Eldar Craftworlds, Hive Fleets, Warbands, or Covens. Its a time consuming, punishing rule that is incredibly difficult to impossible to enforce, will drive people away all to feed into some very specific and niche idea of what 'Forging a Narrative' means.

Anyone going to address the elephant in the room of:

I field 2 Battalions of Eldar, both 100 points.

I'm lazy and don't want to repaint my entire biel-tan army because Alaitoc suddenly got better and means something now.

Half of my army can do well with Biel-tan, and I actually like the craftworld, so I take that trait.

The other Battalion I fill with rangers and grav tanks and reapers... you know, stuff that absolutely does not benefit from biel-tan, but significantly benefits from Alaitoc. So I tell my opponent: you see these models here, they're Alaitoc.

Sure, no big deal right? We're classy guys, we can keep our rules straight.

But over the course of the game I start slipping up and applying the Alaitoc bonus to my Wave Serpent that was previously Biel-tan and had also benefited from that.

I didn't mean to do it, my opponent and I both laugh it off as an "oops" and keep playing.

But something in fact did happen, and I may be a "less than savory" type of fellow who was seeking to sneak in that -1 to be hit for a turn...

Other than that... it is just an issue for clarity. I don't think rigid enforcement of something blue being Ultramarine... but if it CLEARLY identified as Ultramarine with regalia and colors and all... just make it consistent. But that's more courtesy and should only be enforced in the most specific of instances.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Count as is usually frowned upon in tournaments. So while you might be fine for it, it needs to be fine with everyone at the event, or else I could be in a lot of bother.

So, can you tell me that I'd be fine in nearly any tournament taking a fully Space Marine army, counting as Guard?

Depends entirely on the tournament.

As does this. So, what you're telling me is that I can't go into nearly any tournament with a fully Space Marine modelled army, and count them as Guardsmen.

As I imagine, if it clearly is the Chapter's main colour, and has their heraldry, then it is that Chapter. A blue/gold Chapter is not necessarily Ultramarines if they lack the white U sigil. A green/black Chapter with the white U sigil isn't Ultramarines OR Salamanders, because it has aspects of both, that are mutually exclusive.

My point is that there's no standard, no metric, and no template for this rule. Its unenforceable anyways. Your idea may be radically different than someone else's interpretation.

Well, there is a metric. Ultramarines are only Ultramarines if they're blue, and have the Ultramarine sigil. That's what GW's art suggests, and I've not seen anything else claiming otherwise.

There's clearly a standard as to what an Ultramarine is. It's absolutely enforceable. It's enforceable to what the TO says, and no matter what anyone else claims, it's their call - if GW follow what I've said, which is, in my opinion, the definitive way to determine an Ultramarine, then yes, it's absolutely enforceable.

If people don't want to be locked into a Chapter, than they shouldn't paint their guys as that Chapter. If you want to look like that Chapter, then you should probably be expected to use their rules too, in my books. Sure, that might lead to more "custom" colour schemes. That's fine by me, I don't have an issue with that.

Considering the main marine chapters cover most of the basic colours people would use, it becomes a ridiculous game of determining how similar or not to a well known chapter you look, which is completely arbitrary and has no universal standard to judge against. It also strikes me as a really non important thing to concern yourself with; its their army, not yours. If they want blue marines with gold trim but not ultramarines, they should run them however they want.

Again, just being X colour does not make you X Chapter.

Having X Chapter's colour and X Chapter's heraldry makes you X Chapter.

If someone wants blue marines with gold trim, that isn't Ultramarines. I agree. Having blue marines with gold trim and the white U logo ARE Ultramarines. There's absolutely a universal standard. Blue-ish marines with the Ultramarine logo makes you an Ultramarine. Having blue armour and the Imperial Fist logo makes you a custom Chapter.

You say "it's not your army, so it's not your concern" - so if my opponent rocks up with, as I've said before, plasma guns as meltaguns, meltaguns as plasma cannons at a tournament, that's not my problem as it's their army? If they want plasma guns to be their meltaguns, that's fine?

Don't think that really holds up much, personally, and considering later, you say that many places expect plasma guns to "look like the plasma guns we know and love", what if the opponent doesn't? It's okay, because it's their army?

How similar does it have to be? Well, if someone can look at it, and it matches the armour colour and sigil of the original, then it's official. Successor Chapters, due to how the game says it doesn't specify them, means that you could take the Heralds of Ultramar (clearly Ultramarine successors) and play them as Raven Guard. Plus, it avoids cases of things like the Sons of the Phoenix, an Imperial Fist Chapter who are most likely Emperor's Children gene-stock, being locked in as IF.

Again, the official rule has no standard. Its great that you have a metric, but its specific to you and only you.

It absolutely has standards, as I've said above. Even if MY metric isn't used, GW do have a metric, and they'll hold competing armies to it. That's not mine to hold to, but if they follow mine, which I feel is the most accurate and simple way to do it, then there's no ambiguity.

If you care more about the paintjob, then the rules don't matter. If you want those rules, then you know how to change the paintjob. You're not forced into anything you can't change.

Because changing the paintjob of you army is soooo easy and simple.

Yeah? Putting a bit of paint over the painted insigina isn't hard.

No-one said you needed to repaint the entire model. Just remove any Chapter specific logos, and they're anonymous.

However, I fail to see your point about why the modelled upgrades are any different to a count of paint. If anything, the model is harder to change, because I need to disassemble them, repaint any areas where the glue rips paint off, etc etc. You can just repaint over paintjobs. And yet, you think that me needing to change all the meltagun models for plasma gun ones is more acceptable than just painting over the flat Ultramarine symbol on them?

I never once said you need to change all meltaguns in plasma guns. Not even close, not even implied. Literally the opposite. I said consistency is what matters. And rule of cool.

You said that modelling was different to the paint, and I got the impression you were implying it was easier to remodel them instead of painting something.

I know you didn't say I needed to change it. But I still don't see a difference between modelling and painting, and you've not stated why there's a difference, so I went on with my metaphor.
Plus, consistency isn't always a thing that's counted upon in tournaments, considering many do not allow proxies or count as.

Rule of cool is absolutely unenforceable, unlike paint (which as I've proved, can be enforced - if GW will use my idea of it, I don't know, but I could easily enforce it).

As I said. If they're just blue, no, they're absolutely not Ultramarines. I dislike when people say "oh, it's yellow, it must be an Imperial Fist!". If it has the iconography of that Chapter? Not necessarily even then - the Crimson Fists and Imperial Fists have the same icon. But if they have the same icon and colour scheme? Yeah, you're probably that official Chapter, and should play like them. Not too much to ask.

Until the tournament rule expands what their definition of a matching paint job is, there is no standard, which is a problem. Its great that you have a (sensible) metric, but we don't know what they'll do at the tournament. It could just be two matching colours, or just icons, or requiring icons and matching colours. We don't know, so until then, its unenforceable.

There's a standard which they have. However, it's unknown until people ask or enter their lists.

But why shouldn't I expect that painted army to play like the faction they have been painted to play like? Same as if I'm seeing models with proxy weapons at a tournament (which I personally am fine with, but I know lots of people are not) - according to you, I should just be happy that those models are assembled, and not that every meltagun is now a plasma gun and every plasma gun is now a multimelta.

There are inifnite reasons why someone might have a Salamanders army running another trait. All it takes is a little imagination.

There's infinite reasons my plasma guns might look like meltaguns. All it takes is a little imagination. Unfortunately, many places don't hear those reasons out.

Proxies and counts as are tournament specific rules, and most of the ones I've seen only require that it looks good, is consistent, and attempts to match common aesthetic conventions (plasma looking plasma guns that we all know and love).

Exactly - so why are "plasma looking plasma guns we all know and love" any different from the "Ultramarine looking Ultramarines we all know and love"? Why does a plasma gun need to look like a plasma gun, but an Ultramarine looking model doesn't need to be an Ultramarine?

This whole thing leads down a slippery slope for GW tournaments (assuming no one else adopts this). Do Guard players need to have the official models of the regiment they're running? Are red Cadians good enough as Vostroyans? What about red Catachans? Can Catachan models be used as Cadian models, and vice versa? What if I have Vostroyan models painted in Cadian schemes and iconography? According to the tournament rules, the paintjob matches Cadian, therefore I have to run Cadian despite being obviously Vostroyan models.

The Guardsmen codex makes this very clear. Many guardsmen regiments wear uniform similar to more famous regiments, but aren't necessarily part of that regiment. Examples are the Brimlock Dragoons or Vendoland, who wear Cadian pattern armour, but are not Cadians.

So, according to that lore:
Red Cadians (assuming you mean Cadian models with no Cadian iconography, ie the Cadian Gate symbol) could absolutely be Vostroyan.
Red Catachans (assuming they have no Catachan only iconography such as the word CATACHAN) could be Vostroyan.
Catachan models can absolutely be treated as Cadian in game, and vice versa.
Vostroyan models in Cadian schemes, with symbols of the Cadian Gate, could be anything, because the paintjob features Cadian iconography and colour schemes. If you want them to be Vostroyan, remove the symbol of the Cadian Gate.

Simple.

Not to mention most players couldn't tell you the official colours of Eldar Craftworlds, Hive Fleets, Warbands, or Covens. Its a time consuming, punishing rule that is incredibly difficult to impossible to enforce, will drive people away all to feed into some very specific and niche idea of what 'Forging a Narrative' means.

I could. GW could.

It's absolutely enforceable, and frankly, Forging a Narrative TM is the last thing that's on a lot of people's minds at a tournament where Guilliman shows up to nearly every small skirmish.

This is probably throwing fuel on the fire, but we just saw these guidelines hinted at for AOS:

Worry not! While these rules are designed to represent the unique tactics of the most iconic groupings of Stormcast Eternals, you can use them however you’ve painted your models – just choose the rules that you think best represent how YOUR army fights.

So it looks like GW isn't even willing to enforce this across all their games, just 40k.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

As I imagine, if it clearly is the Chapter's main colour, and has their heraldry, then it is that Chapter. A blue/gold Chapter is not necessarily Ultramarines if they lack the white U sigil. A green/black Chapter with the white U sigil isn't Ultramarines OR Salamanders, because it has aspects of both, that are mutually exclusive.

My point is that there's no standard, no metric, and no template for this rule. Its unenforceable anyways. Your idea may be radically different than someone else's interpretation.

Well, there is a metric. Ultramarines are only Ultramarines if they're blue, and have the Ultramarine sigil. That's what GW's art suggests, and I've not seen anything else claiming otherwise.

There's clearly a standard as to what an Ultramarine is. It's absolutely enforceable. It's enforceable to what the TO says, and no matter what anyone else claims, it's their call - if GW follow what I've said, which is, in my opinion, the definitive way to determine an Ultramarine, then yes, it's absolutely enforceable.

Wasn't part of the lore that there was a case of two Space Marine Chapters having the same colour sand the same insignia but different names, at the same time in the galaxy, without knowing of the other existence?

 Galas wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

As I imagine, if it clearly is the Chapter's main colour, and has their heraldry, then it is that Chapter. A blue/gold Chapter is not necessarily Ultramarines if they lack the white U sigil. A green/black Chapter with the white U sigil isn't Ultramarines OR Salamanders, because it has aspects of both, that are mutually exclusive.

My point is that there's no standard, no metric, and no template for this rule. Its unenforceable anyways. Your idea may be radically different than someone else's interpretation.

Well, there is a metric. Ultramarines are only Ultramarines if they're blue, and have the Ultramarine sigil. That's what GW's art suggests, and I've not seen anything else claiming otherwise.

There's clearly a standard as to what an Ultramarine is. It's absolutely enforceable. It's enforceable to what the TO says, and no matter what anyone else claims, it's their call - if GW follow what I've said, which is, in my opinion, the definitive way to determine an Ultramarine, then yes, it's absolutely enforceable.

Wasn't part of the lore that there was a case of two Space Marine Chapters having the same colour sand the same insignia but different names, at the same time in the galaxy, without knowing of the other existence?

Neither of them were the Ultramarines. Or any other First Founding (or Black Templars) Chapter for that matter.

 ChargerIIC wrote:
This is probably throwing fuel on the fire, but we just saw these guidelines hinted at for AOS:

Worry not! While these rules are designed to represent the unique tactics of the most iconic groupings of Stormcast Eternals, you can use them however you’ve painted your models – just choose the rules that you think best represent how YOUR army fights.

So it looks like GW isn't even willing to enforce this across all their games, just 40k.

No just the AoS team actually have a tournament player amongst them so they understand that fluff shouldn't be part of a tournament. Keep fluffy rules for narrative events, don't screw up tournaments by making people repaint their entire collection to not bring a sandbag list.

And yes this rule is effecting more than just the player with the army. It effects his opponents and almost everyone else as it screws up the scoring aswell as positions of the people they play against. Resulting in people beating the army effected by this rule get matched way over the level they should and other people being placed below players they should have been above but they got a lower score because someone got a runaway victory against a hobbled list.
Tournament results (one of the big appeals, finding out if your really as good as you think) shouldn't be screwed up just so someone's fluff radar might get offended. If that stuff is important to you narrative events are probably more your thing.

Playing different subfactions for bonuses without them.being visually distinctive is an issue but just painting one subfactions base red and thr other blue would be enough for most tournamanet people. Aslong as it's clear and not gameable they are there for the game, not an art exhibition. A nicely painted army on good terrain looks amazing but I'll take blue marines with red shoulder pads are raven guard and blue marines with green shoulder pads are iron hands over actually trying to tell black with raven vrs black with fist icons appart. And don't even start me on nids or crons. Heck mono painted crons with diffrent bases I could tell apart, I couldn't tell the dynasties apart for the life of me.

Ice_can wrote:
Tournament results (one of the big appeals, finding out if your really as good as you think) shouldn't be screwed up just so someone's fluff radar might get offended. If that stuff is important to you narrative events are probably more your thing.

If winning and making sure your list is "really as good as you think" is important to you, then repainting them to get that extra power is more your thing.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Tournament results (one of the big appeals, finding out if your really as good as you think) shouldn't be screwed up just so someone's fluff radar might get offended. If that stuff is important to you narrative events are probably more your thing.

If winning and making sure your list is "really as good as you think" is important to you, then repainting them to get that extra power is more your thing.

And if you bothered to read and understand the rest of the post.

Screwing up even a mildly competitive player who doesn't have the time/money to meta chase so his army is hamstrung by weak subfaction rules screws up more than their results and placement.
It effects everyones results as people get more points than they otherwise should have because of that player being forced to play a weaker subfaction, so his opponents get more point's. If I win against another opponent but its closer I place lower depite having won against higher placing opponents.

Tournament player's want good competitive games over fluffy games. If it offends you go to a narrative event not a tournament, stop trying to justify that tournament players should conform to a fluff junkies vision of the 40k universe to the detriment of the competitiveness of the event.

Ice_can wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Tournament results (one of the big appeals, finding out if your really as good as you think) shouldn't be screwed up just so someone's fluff radar might get offended. If that stuff is important to you narrative events are probably more your thing.

If winning and making sure your list is "really as good as you think" is important to you, then repainting them to get that extra power is more your thing.

And if you bothered to read and understand the rest of the post.

Screwing up even a mildly competitive player who doesn't have the time/money to meta chase so his army is hamstrung by weak subfaction rules screws up more than their results and placement.
It effects everyones results as people get more points than they otherwise should have because of that player being forced to play a weaker subfaction, so his opponents get more point's. If I win against another opponent but its closer I place lower depite having won against higher placing opponents.

Tournament player's want good competitive games over fluffy games. If it offends you go to a narrative event not a tournament, stop trying to justify that tournament players should conform to a fluff junkies vision of the 40k universe to the detriment of the competitiveness of the event.

I did read it.

It affects EVERYONE'S possible result, yeah. No more so than a player not being allowed to proxy units and weapons. No more so than a player being unable to play because they only painted two colours instead of three. Are you advocating that proxies should be allowed in official tournaments, and the restriction on painting be lifted too? After all, those players who can't proxy are "forced to play a weaker list, so his opponents get more point's."

If tournament players care so much about getting "good competitive games over fluffy games", then it shouldn't bother them painting over the little insignias on their models.

It doesn't offend me, because personally I don't go to tournaments. I've done it a few times, and I've had my fill for some time. However, I disagree with a lot of the "tournament" players on GW's ruling here. I think it's absolutely fine. If you hate fluffy things in tournaments, that's cool - you go play your custom army with no insignias to get your 1% bonuses. I don't have an issue with that. I do think the people saying "GW ARE FORCING US TO BUY MODELS/PLAY A CERTAIN WAY" are wrong. No-one's forcing you to do anything. It's not like they're forcing players to stop using the Imperium/Aeldari/Chaos Keywords, invalidating entire lists. No army is illegal. You're just going to have to deal with losing a tiny portion of your optimal strength, or do the minimum amount of effort (obscuring any faction specific insignia) to count as custom.

What's stopping you?

Ice_can wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Tournament results (one of the big appeals, finding out if your really as good as you think) shouldn't be screwed up just so someone's fluff radar might get offended. If that stuff is important to you narrative events are probably more your thing.

If winning and making sure your list is "really as good as you think" is important to you, then repainting them to get that extra power is more your thing.

And if you bothered to read and understand the rest of the post.

Screwing up even a mildly competitive player who doesn't have the time/money to meta chase so his army is hamstrung by weak subfaction rules screws up more than their results and placement.
It effects everyones results as people get more points than they otherwise should have because of that player being forced to play a weaker subfaction, so his opponents get more point's. If I win against another opponent but its closer I place lower depite having won against higher placing opponents.

Tournament player's want good competitive games over fluffy games. If it offends you go to a narrative event not a tournament, stop trying to justify that tournament players should conform to a fluff junkies vision of the 40k universe to the detriment of the competitiveness of the event.

You seem very offended about some non existent offence being taken. A common disorder these days..

 ChargerIIC wrote:
This is probably throwing fuel on the fire, but we just saw these guidelines hinted at for AOS:

Worry not! While these rules are designed to represent the unique tactics of the most iconic groupings of Stormcast Eternals, you can use them however you’ve painted your models – just choose the rules that you think best represent how YOUR army fights.

So it looks like GW isn't even willing to enforce this across all their games, just 40k.

This whole thing could have been avoided if GW wrote the traits with phrasing along the lines of:

Codex Adherent: Chapters like the Ultramarines follow the Codex Astartes to the letter. Detachments with this trait gain X
Shadow War: Chapters like the Raven Guard heavily employ stealth tactics. Detachments with this trait gain X

etc, etc.

That way they could indicate what trait suited a chapter/faction in the fluff without limiting players to certain rules through the colour scheme or whatever. I still think people are getting a little too worked up over this, it's incredibly unlikely to become mandatory in the majority of games, especially when so few people seem to finish (or even start ) painting their armies anyway!