Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I ran a unit of SM bikers (RTB001 bodies on mk1 space marine bikes) and was told "they aren't space marine bikes".

I called up the catalog (stuff of legends) and showed them. Yes, I HAVE had them for almost 25 years (at the time, I stopped playing 40k in 2013).

edwardmyst wrote:
Just more examples of people who can't think for themselves IMO. "GW made these mini's to be Cadians, so you MUST use them that way!"
As someone who converts heavily (even to sculpting my own minis with bits for details) I run into this occasionally. At the last tournament at the FLGS I played a kid (I'm old, he was probably in high school) who said something about my roughriders not being the GW models...this came after 20 had run down his Knight. If you know anything about roughriders and GW you understand how insanely ridiculous it is to comment on roughrider models in general.

Quite a lot of assumptions you've made there mateybobs.

You assume I cannot think for myself. Nope. I just don't like people putting a half-arsed effort into this game. You want your Catachans to have carapace armour? Fine. But a bare chest or a t shirt is not that. The whole point of WYSIWYG is literally you can look at an army and more or less work out what it's supposed to be. Now, there are exceptions to this such as "counts-as" armies (even then there are limits though) but if you see a bunch of unconverted Cadians in the fatigues of the VIII then sue me for assuming I'm playing against a Cadian army and not a Mordian or Tallarn one. Especially if said person hops from one to another each week.

This is exactly what my aforementioned SM player did. It was around the time of Index Astartes and one month he'd be playing DA, complete with the box set that came out for them- painted as DA, but with a load of half assembled stuff (oh, that guy with no weapons has a Plasma Gun. But the other guy with no weapons there has a Bolter ). Another month, the WS bits had been added to this conglomerate, but they weren't WS later on; yet still bearing the DA colours though.

You assume I don't convert heavily and sculpt. You could not be more wrong. It's the very fact that I do and put in the effort that this grinds my gears. I've played this game long enough to know when you're going to play someone that's going to be a chore as they're inter faction hopping (or worse still, in this edition- mixing up chapters/regiments/hive fleets in a single army yet retaining the same colour scheme) onto the FOTM. I've seen it many times over the years. UM players suddenly playing as SW in 5th complete with half arsed conversions of TWC that looks like the SM equivalent of me sitting on a Chihuahua.

Sorry, but experience has taught me here to be on alert whenever I encounter a player like this.

Edit: saw the previous post and smiled. I have also been accused of modeling for advantage because I cut my wraithlord's legs up and posed him kneeling like a sniper for my Ailiotoc army.

Well, it is MFA. The "crouching Wraithlord" is like the OG MFA example. Back in 3rd ed. you could block LOS to something if it was 51%+ the size of the thing behind it. So Wraithguard could block LOS to a Wraithlord as 2 WG on top of one another were taller than a WL but a WL surrounded by guardians could totally be shot at.

Thus certain people modelling their WL's crouching.

Even today, it's still a bit sketchy (assuming you haven't bulked it back up to more or less it's regular height with an elevated base) as it is far easier for it to gain cover and hide it out of LOS.

We recently had a new member at our club ask if it was OK to use his Guard models that were using non-GW parts. These are really nicely painted, characterful models and it saddened me that GW's attitudes to conversions and non-GW parts has become so all-pervasive. As long as something isn't confusing I'm fine with it, Cadians as Catachans? Sure, no problem. It's only an issue if I have to start remembering that half your guys with melta actually have plasma, but every heavy flamer is a heavy bolter, except this one, which is an autocannon, etc.

I see this becoming an issue with using primaris models as none primaris units.

I have multiple Primaris character conversions that ill use as either Captains or Lieutenants depending on what load out i need/can afford, I use one as an Emperors champion, thinking of building a primaris Honour guard.

I dont expect this should ever be an issue for my opponent- if the model/loadout doesnt exist then its clear that my primaris marine with thunder hammer is not a primaris character. I state this clearly before the game and its never been an issue.

I can see it being an issue when i use the primaris librarian model as a standard librarian, so would never do this at an event, but with friends and in relaxed games this has never been issue.

I think its about recognizing what could be a problem for your opponent/game play itself and what is a clear representation that has no effect other than aesthetic.

For example is it a problem that i use a Primaris Gravis Captain modelled with an axe, a shield and night lords head? no, because its a single loadout model- so its clear how it should be used.
Is it a problem that im using a WW2 German Troop transport with completely different dimensions as a taurox? maybe- because now we're changing LOS arguments, movement distances etc.

Just be consistent.


If you're "competitive" and super-strict about the game rules, be the same about paint-job and models.

If you're mostly"whatever goes" about the miniatures, don't suddenly start nickle-and-diming the game rules.

If some effort has gone into it, I really don't mind if it's not the official model! Also don't care what colour your marines are. Be creative!

This is my Azrael proxy, for my counts-as Dark Angels successor chapter.

If you're using what are clearly Ultramarines as Raven Guard just to power game the rules, then you have to expect a little banter...

However, people being genuinely grumpy or angry about you using a different paint scheme or fielding some cool converted models is bonkers!

 Kroem wrote:


However, people being genuinely grumpy or angry about you using a different paint scheme or fielding some cool converted models is bonkers!

Counts-as and cool conversions are not the problem. I'm all for both. It's half arsed lazy codex hopping and thrown together conversions to take advantage of the newest hot gak FOTM rules I despise.

edwardmyst wrote:

Edit: saw the previous post and smiled. I have also been accused of modeling for advantage because I cut my wraithlord's legs up and posed him kneeling like a sniper for my Ailiotoc army.

So presumably you will play for LOS and cover as if he was standing? Not the model as it is...If not then that IS modeling for advantage by very definition. You gained advantage by modeling choise. You can't build wraithlord like that stock.

Now if you play him for LOS/cover as if he was standing fine but if not don't get surprised/offended by being called for what you did.

So here is my WYSIWYG arguments…

This is a game and game is competitive. Your there to have fun in the spirit of competition. Arguments are not fun. Winning because your opponent had the wrong information is not fun.

I try to make sure all of my stuff is modeled, painted and clear to the highest standard as what it is to avoid arguments and to make sure that if I win, my opponent had every chance to win, and that I couldn’t do anything else to help make the game better. And that make the game more fun for me.

tneva82 wrote:

edwardmyst wrote:

Edit: saw the previous post and smiled. I have also been accused of modeling for advantage because I cut my wraithlord's legs up and posed him kneeling like a sniper for my Ailiotoc army.

So presumably you will play for LOS and cover as if he was standing? Not the model as it is...If not then that IS modeling for advantage by very definition. You gained advantage by modeling choise. You can't build wraithlord like that stock.

Now if you play him for LOS/cover as if he was standing fine but if not don't get surprised/offended by being called for what you did.

Imo there's a grey area around things like this. A kneeling Wraithlord can gain cover a bit better, but at the same time can't draw LOS as easily. Of course, being able to more easily gain cover is slightly more advantageous, however it becomes a matter of degree-of-height-variation vs. effort-applied/rule-of-cool. Like a kneeling Wraithlord might only be an inch shorter, and look nicely done, and I'm totally cool with that. But say the Wraithlord was in a prone position, making it 3" shorter, and sorta sloppily done; I'm much less cool with that.

When I do conversions I try to be sensitive to this sort of thing, and try to overcome it in some way just to keep things smooth. Like for the kneeling Wraithlord I would consider putting a back banner on it just to make up the height difference. I might even magnetize or long-pin it so it was optional on the model, and ask the opponent how they wanted to play it.

I can only speak for myself, but if my opponent said, pre-game, "these guys use the Catachan doctrine even though I used Cadian models" I wouldn't have too much difficulty remembering that.

YMMV.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Kroem wrote:


However, people being genuinely grumpy or angry about you using a different paint scheme or fielding some cool converted models is bonkers!

Counts-as and cool conversions are not the problem. I'm all for both. It's half arsed lazy codex hopping and thrown together conversions to take advantage of the newest hot gak FOTM rules I despise.

Eh, don't worry - most of the folks who do that are playing marines, and those haven't been FOTM for quite a bit.

I personally have no problems with different coloured marines playing something else, even if its a week to week change. I think that's really healthy for people to be able to explore what they like without having to commit to an entirely new army just because they happened to paint their starter marines blue when they actually kind of want to try the green flavour.

But that's largely because I have a very supportive, very understanding local gaming scene that loves to experiment and has no problem with proxying different coloured models for entirely different marine armies, as long as the wargear is clear.

Basically, my favourite FLGS owner put it best. He said "I'm colour blind, so I can't even tell what flavour marine it is until you tell me. But I'm not actually blind, so a plasma gun better be a plasma gun "

 Excommunicatus wrote:
I can only speak for myself, but if my opponent said, pre-game, "these guys use the Catachan doctrine even though I used Cadian models" I wouldn't have too much difficulty remembering that.

YMMV.

Yes. It's all about how much burden you're putting on your opponent.

If someone says 'everything is WYSIWYG, except this one storm bolter is actually a combi-plasma' then cool, no probs!

If instead it's 'all these Melta guns are actually plasma guns, except this one which is a flamer, and all the plasma cannons my Devs have are Lascannons....' it starts to get a bit much to ask.

Right.

I have a vested interest, however, as I use Cadians as R&H for reasons both fluff-based and financial.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Right.

I have a vested interest, however, as I use Cadians as R&H for reasons both fluff-based and financial.

No problem there. I'd appreciate if their gear was WYSIWYG, but if it's a chaos army I'm not going to think they're actually Cadian!

 Stux wrote:

If someone says 'everything is WYSIWYG, except this one storm bolter is actually a combi-plasma' then cool, no probs!
If instead it's 'all these Melta guns are actually plasma guns, except this one which is a flamer, and all the plasma cannons my Devs have are Lascannons....' it starts to get a bit much to ask.

I agree. Only if that is the only stormbolter in his army. Either all stormbolters are stormbolters, or all stormbolters are combi-plasma. Not "the weapon on this guy is that, but the same weapon on that other guy is this."
That is how I approach gear and WYSIWYG at least. The occasional proxy is fine, but there must be consistency.

For Space Marine armies, I get really annoyed when Horus Heresy armies aren't in the proper period-accurate equipment and colour schemes That is because I approach HH as a historical game.
But in 40k, I don't see a lot of issues. As long as you are consistent in chapter tactics I don't really care what colour they are. And as long as each unit is still clearly identifiable as to which unit they represent then I don't care what parts you used in converting them. On the contrary, I love conversions (I do a lot myself) and I can't really criticise painted armies because my own armies are only half-painted.

 Stux wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Right.

I have a vested interest, however, as I use Cadians as R&H for reasons both fluff-based and financial.

No problem there. I'd appreciate if their gear was WYSIWYG, but if it's a chaos army I'm not going to think they're actually Cadian!

Ayuh.

Their Command Squad has a Banner that they don't pay for (and obviously don't use in-game), but that's consistent across my Daemons and will be across my CSM, too. Nobody has ever cared. I'm very much like you in that I think asking my oppo to remember individual armaments is a liberty too far, so everything is and will be armed WYSIWYG.

As far as I'm concerned all that matters is they're in power or terminator armour and holding the correct weapons. Personally I hate the sternguard models, so I just use MKIII usually or tacticals with some combi-plasmas modelled on. They're the right size model, the right size base, the right range, the right armour and the right weapons.

edwardmyst wrote:"GW made these mini's to be Cadians, so you MUST use them that way!"

Guardsmanwaffle wrote:Yeah I’ve had a few people comment about my cadian guardsmen using the catachan doctrine.

The painting section of the AM codex shows three non-Cadian regiments using Cadian models. The doctrines section says if your regiment has no doctrine, you get to pick one.

So those Cadian models aren't Cadians, they're Vresh Grenadiers. Vresh Grenadiers don't have a doctrine, so you pick Catachan. Boom, Cadian models using Catachan doctrine, RAW/RAI/fluff-compliant.

I've only recently come back to the hobby, and I never saw this strict enforcement of model identity when I left back in 2010 or so. I get that part of it is the confusion when people mix and match doctrines in super-competitive lists while using Cadian models for eveything, but if you're running an entire army using one set of rules there is no justification for this kind of pedantry. It really just rubs me the wrong way to see creative, fluffy homebrew regiments of 'your dudes' getting straitjacketed into only representing the GW-official identity of those models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Imo there's a grey area around things like this. A kneeling Wraithlord can gain cover a bit better, but at the same time can't draw LOS as easily. Of course, being able to more easily gain cover is slightly more advantageous, however it becomes a matter of degree-of-height-variation vs. effort-applied/rule-of-cool. Like a kneeling Wraithlord might only be an inch shorter, and look nicely done, and I'm totally cool with that. But say the Wraithlord was in a prone position, making it 3" shorter, and sorta sloppily done; I'm much less cool with that.

When I do conversions I try to be sensitive to this sort of thing, and try to overcome it in some way just to keep things smooth. Like for the kneeling Wraithlord I would consider putting a back banner on it just to make up the height difference. I might even magnetize or long-pin it so it was optional on the model, and ask the opponent how they wanted to play it.

Personally (and I recognize that this may be contentious), I hate TLOS for exactly this reason. I'd like the game to be designed such that it doesn't matter whether you're playing with official models, proxies, or blank bases with 'raythlurd' scrawled on them in crayon, because the rules would have a LOS system that doesn't use the physical, static pose of the model to represent a dynamic combatant. Then you could do alternate modeling to your heart's content, without having to be worried that someone's going to cry foul because your creatively-posed Wraithlord is harder to hit because it's scooting around the battlefield on its knees.

Way back when I played at my school club during 4th ed we played a small, low point tournament and I decided to run my normal tac marines as deathwatch, this was long before there was a codex so I had the PDF from the GW website. I okayed it and my list with everyone before I played a single game. The only person I had a problem with was a kid who ran an unpainted Tau army who always "left his codex at home" and claimed that the Hammerhead rail gun always has a 72" Str 10 Ap1 large blast.
As soon as that got challenged and everyone backed me up he decided Deathwatch wasn't a real faction that I couldn't use and that I couldn't play normal marines as Deathwatch as they looked like Ultramarines.

Templarted wrote:
Way back when I played at my school club during 4th ed we played a small, low point tournament and I decided to run my normal tac marines as deathwatch, this was long before there was a codex so I had the PDF from the GW website. I okayed it and my list with everyone before I played a single game. The only person I had a problem with was a kid who ran an unpainted Tau army who always "left his codex at home" and claimed that the Hammerhead rail gun always has a 72" Str 10 Ap1 large blast..

Erm, it did, though he mixed up the rules, whether by accident or "forgetting" his codex.

The HH had 2 shot types. The S10 ap1 one and lower strength Submunitions which used the large blast.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Templarted wrote:
Way back when I played at my school club during 4th ed we played a small, low point tournament and I decided to run my normal tac marines as deathwatch, this was long before there was a codex so I had the PDF from the GW website. I okayed it and my list with everyone before I played a single game. The only person I had a problem with was a kid who ran an unpainted Tau army who always "left his codex at home" and claimed that the Hammerhead rail gun always has a 72" Str 10 Ap1 large blast..

Erm, it did, though he mixed up the rules, whether by accident or "forgetting" his codex.

The HH had 2 shot types. The S10 ap1 one and lower strength Submunitions which used the large blast.

I know it did and never denied that. It was pointed out that the large blast only applied to the weaker attack which he denied and pointed out he was the only one with a Tau Codex that none of us actually saw.

I've got no problem with people using Ultramarines with say Ravenguard tactics (so long as they're using the appropriate stratagems) but what I dislike is when someone has 3 detachments of Astra Militarum all using Cadian models all in the same colour scheme with no defining squad markings or conversions and using a different trait for each one.

I once played in a tournament against a guy who had a mechanied Imperial Guard army using the old Squat models for all his infantry.

I personally thought it was amazing and by far the coolest army at the tournament, but I remember reading that he had some complaints about not using proper IG models!

The squats wiped the floor with my Tau by the way.

 Grimtuff wrote:

edwardmyst wrote:
Just more examples of people who can't think for themselves IMO. "GW made these mini's to be Cadians, so you MUST use them that way!"
As someone who converts heavily (even to sculpting my own minis with bits for details) I run into this occasionally. At the last tournament at the FLGS I played a kid (I'm old, he was probably in high school) who said something about my roughriders not being the GW models...this came after 20 had run down his Knight. If you know anything about roughriders and GW you understand how insanely ridiculous it is to comment on roughrider models in general.

Quite a lot of assumptions you've made there mateybobs.

You assume I cannot think for myself. Nope. I just don't like people putting a half-arsed effort into this game. You want your Catachans to have carapace armour? Fine. But a bare chest or a t shirt is not that. The whole point of WYSIWYG is literally you can look at an army and more or less work out what it's supposed to be. Now, there are exceptions to this such as "counts-as" armies (even then there are limits though) but if you see a bunch of unconverted Cadians in the fatigues of the VIII then sue me for assuming I'm playing against a Cadian army and not a Mordian or Tallarn one. Especially if said person hops from one to another each week.

This is exactly what my aforementioned SM player did. It was around the time of Index Astartes and one month he'd be playing DA, complete with the box set that came out for them- painted as DA, but with a load of half assembled stuff (oh, that guy with no weapons has a Plasma Gun. But the other guy with no weapons there has a Bolter ). Another month, the WS bits had been added to this conglomerate, but they weren't WS later on; yet still bearing the DA colours though.

You assume I don't convert heavily and sculpt. You could not be more wrong. It's the very fact that I do and put in the effort that this grinds my gears. I've played this game long enough to know when you're going to play someone that's going to be a chore as they're inter faction hopping (or worse still, in this edition- mixing up chapters/regiments/hive fleets in a single army yet retaining the same colour scheme) onto the FOTM. I've seen it many times over the years. UM players suddenly playing as SW in 5th complete with half arsed conversions of TWC that looks like the SM equivalent of me sitting on a Chihuahua.

Sorry, but experience has taught me here to be on alert whenever I encounter a player like this.

Edit: saw the previous post and smiled. I have also been accused of modeling for advantage because I cut my wraithlord's legs up and posed him kneeling like a sniper for my Ailiotoc army.

Well, it is MFA. The "crouching Wraithlord" is like the OG MFA example. Back in 3rd ed. you could block LOS to something if it was 51%+ the size of the thing behind it. So Wraithguard could block LOS to a Wraithlord as 2 WG on top of one another were taller than a WL but a WL surrounded by guardians could totally be shot at.

Thus certain people modelling their WL's crouching.

Even today, it's still a bit sketchy (assuming you haven't bulked it back up to more or less it's regular height with an elevated base) as it is far easier for it to gain cover and hide it out of LOS.

This is kinda silly when running a cadian detachment vs say Mordians is significantly more expensive and requires a ton more hobby work. If you want your cadian models to fight a different way for a game then F it, go for it. As long as I can clearly see what model is using what tactic for this game go for it.

If anything, I get the opposite reaction at my LGS. I've only recently gotten back into the game so I don't have any old legacy models to worry about and I decided up-front that I was going to commit to WYSIWYG when assembling models and when building lists, and apparently it confuses people.

The common stance around here is to treat every heavy/special weapon in an army as the same peice of gear to make play easier (or because someone has decided to only use the "best" available weapon), and at least once a week I get someone reminding me "hey, you do know we don't care if you proxy stuff right?"

Fhanados wrote:
I've got no problem with people using Ultramarines with say Ravenguard tactics (so long as they're using the appropriate stratagems) but what I dislike is when someone has 3 detachments of Astra Militarum all using Cadian models all in the same colour scheme with no defining squad markings or conversions and using a different trait for each one.

Yeah, that's awful.

Apply Dreadsock to affected area.

My gaming group has an informal rule that you what ever you pull from a given codex has all the same type. So if you want to run three space marine detachments, they all better be the same chapter. Obviously DE get a pass since they work quite differently.

This is why i never use a stock paint scheme, but i also make sure that i paint stuff in a way theres minimal confusion.

That said, i have mever turned down a game based on models; and rarely is there a wysiwyg debate as long as its spelled out.