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.

Once I watch one of those 30k battle reports on YouTube, it was A battle between Luna Wolves and either Orks or Iron Warriors (can't recall). But before the battle started the guy with The LW army said He also uses them to represent the White Scars in other games and tournaments. This got Me thinking, does anyone else do this? Using One HH legion (specifically traitor ones as I think you can use some HH figures for the first founding chapters like IF and BA) and using them in 40k to represent A similar colored SM chapter? Lore deviancy, aside I think it would be A good way of saving money since Warhammer 40k and Horus Heresy can be some pricey games.

Here's A few mixes I could come up with.

Emperor's Children + Soul Drinkers (Both have purple color schemes)
World Eaters + Storm Wardens (Once heard A theory of the wardens being descendants of the Eaters)
Word Bearers + Exorcists (Both are dark red and have demon iconography)
Thousand Sons + Blood Ravens or some Blood Angels successor.
Luna Wolves + Any primarily White SM like Star Phantoms.
Dark Angels legion + Fallen Angels or Angels of Vengeance


It's just something I've been thinking about now that I'm making A traitor legion for Horus Heresy (My Loyalist Legion is the Iron Hands)

Over the years, other than my SW, all of my various marine forces have fought using multiple chapter rules = regardless of color scheme.

Pretty common ever since free rules came depending on chapter. Forget fluff, forget what\s cool. Just take what's most powerful free rules for the units in field.

As long as there's at least common decency that you don't have multiple chapters with identical colour scheme at the same time on field it's okay. But when you need to start tracking which identical model X is actually Y it gets annoying and potential for cheating opens up as well.

In a single army? No. That’s borderline tfg behaviour there (oh, those blue guys are Ultras, but those other identical blue guys are Raven Guard. No).

As different armies in different games? Go for it.

Iv tried during like 6th. turns out Yellow fits a very large amount of different chapters (successors). though painting yellow is a pain so dont.

just make your own chapter with unknown origin and do whatever chapter you want when you want.

The easiest way is to make your own chapter, or one with an unknown "parent" legion and just say it's a Successor Chapter of X. Then X can be any 1st Founding Chapter (with accompanying rules) that you want them to be.

BloodRavens are a good choice if you are looking for something "official". They don't even know what founding and Primarch they hail from. Could be Blood Angels, could be Raven guard, might even be from Thousand Sons (my guess/hope).
But because it is unknown, that gives you license to use whatever Chapter rules you want to use for them, even Chaos Marines Legions

Edit: Ninja'd by Desubot

-

Personally, I draw an impassable line on this topic. I've dealt with too much bs to be anything but strict.

If it's painted like an Ultramarine, it's an Ultramarine. If it's painted like Mars Forge World, you don't get to play them as Stygies VIII. No, your Farseer painted in Iyanden livery cannot pretend he's from Beil-Tan.

If the army is a custom color palette, but the whole army is all painted the same, you don't get to choose 2+ faction special rules by detachment, you get one.

 oni wrote:
Personally, I draw an impassable line on this topic. I've dealt with too much bs to be anything but strict.

Personally, I specifically paint my CSM generically so that I can call them whatever I want to avoid pedantry like this.

 oni wrote:
If it's painted like an Ultramarine, it's an Ultramarine. If it's painted like Mars Forge World, you don't get to play them as Stygies VIII. No, your Farseer painted in Iyanden livery cannot pretend he's from Beil-Tan.

And this kids, is why you should never put iconography on or paint to a traditional color scheme on your marines.

 oni wrote:
If the army is a custom color palette, but the whole army is all painted the same, you don't get to choose 2+ faction special rules by detachment, you get one.

Additionally folks, especially if playing Chaos, buy some pre-painted stuff, from garage sales, random game store flea markets. Then you can have your consistently painted stuff and call it whatever and a bunch of motley randomly painted models. Then you can distinguish them as 'the uniformly painted' squad vs the 'motley' squad.

Sure, it might annoy some people ^^^, but that's why the Germans have a word called schadenfreude.

All the time. GW made it so, that monomarine army unplayable. So part of my army (long fangs with some support) are SW, part are death watct, all the same color. If the ultramarines will become a hit again, my SW will become gray smurfs, easy.

 Yougottapaythetrolltoll wrote:


Here's A few mixes I could come up with.

Emperor's Children + Soul Drinkers (Both have purple color schemes)
World Eaters + Storm Wardens (Once heard A theory of the wardens being descendants of the Eaters)
Word Bearers + Exorcists (Both are dark red and have demon iconography)
Thousand Sons + Blood Ravens or some Blood Angels successor.
Luna Wolves + Any primarily White SM like Star Phantoms.
Dark Angels legion + Fallen Angels or Angels of Vengeance

Iron Warriors and Silver Skulls are a pretty good fit.

Honestly who cares if someone proxies their Ultramarines colors as Raven Guard or White Scars or even both in the same game? Make sure everything is designated correctly for an honest game, have a decent interpretation of weapons, and you're good to go.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Honestly who cares if someone proxies their Ultramarines colors as Raven Guard or White Scars or even both in the same game? Make sure everything is designated correctly for an honest game, have a decent interpretation of weapons, and you're good to go.

Agreed.

Provided the weapons/models are WYSIWYG, even then, if a space marine has a blood angel logo on its shoulder, you want to use it as an ultramarine, provided the weapons are correct, points paid, etc all correct, it wouldn't bother me.

Same as how I'm building a Chaos Space marine army with two detachments, black legion and renegade (or whatever it's called) I'm still painting them all black legion colours, even the Khorne berzerkers are in black legion colours.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Honestly who cares if someone proxies their Ultramarines colors as Raven Guard or White Scars or even both in the same game? Make sure everything is designated correctly for an honest game, have a decent interpretation of weapons, and you're good to go.

I agree wholeheartedly. I don't mind how my opponent's army is painted as long as its composition is described to me before the game and during, if necessary.

Silver144 wrote:
All the time. GW made it so, that monomarine army unplayable. So part of my army (long fangs with some support) are SW, part are death watct, all the same color. If the ultramarines will become a hit again, my SW will become gray smurfs, easy.

This is the TFG behaviour I was referring to. Just, no. It may be legal in game, but it is just disrespectful to your opponent for you to expect them to remember what chapter everything belongs to whilst also having the same colour scheme and them trusting you to do the same.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Silver144 wrote:
All the time. GW made it so, that monomarine army unplayable. So part of my army (long fangs with some support) are SW, part are death watct, all the same color. If the ultramarines will become a hit again, my SW will become gray smurfs, easy.

This is the TFG behaviour I was referring to. Just, no. It may be legal in game, but it is just disrespectful to your opponent for you to expect them to remember what chapter everything belongs to whilst also having the same colour scheme and them trusting you to do the same.

You have your right to put you PA army on shelf after every rules change to buy the new PA guys and color them in different shade of blue, but I'll say no thanks.

Just curious, do you expect eldar to have different colors for all the craft worlds and cabals they use, or it is solo marine handicap? I mean I never saw an DE who play just one cabal, or have multiple colors for different detachment.

In my opinion it isn't at all unfriendly or disrespectful, if at any point you become unsure about any unit you can just ask your opponent. If you don't trust them to be honest the game becomes untenable regardless of paint schemes. I can however certainly understand that people would be more strict on this than I am, just the same as people can be more particular than me about WYSIWYG. I don't think it's fair to say it's TFG behaviour though as before this edition there's been no requirement or incentive to paint your models in any certain way.

Now this guy should demand all ork players to shelve their boyz and buy new ones, if they expect to use more than one kultur in their army.

Silver144 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Silver144 wrote:
All the time. GW made it so, that monomarine army unplayable. So part of my army (long fangs with some support) are SW, part are death watct, all the same color. If the ultramarines will become a hit again, my SW will become gray smurfs, easy.

This is the TFG behaviour I was referring to. Just, no. It may be legal in game, but it is just disrespectful to your opponent for you to expect them to remember what chapter everything belongs to whilst also having the same colour scheme and them trusting you to do the same.

You have your right to put you PA army on shelf after every rules change to buy the new PA guys and color them in different shade of blue, but I'll say no thanks.

Just curious, do you expect eldar to have different colors for all the craft worlds and cabals they use, or it is solo marine handicap? I mean I never saw an DE who play just one cabal, or have multiple colors for different detachment.

Yes, you have one army. You represent their differences in some way. What has this game become when it is seen as acceptable to have two otherwise identical-looking units have different rules and also expect your opponent to keep track of this and you to be honest about it? Several years ago that would have got you basically made a pariah in your gaming community. That is textbook TFG behaviour.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Silver144 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Silver144 wrote:
All the time. GW made it so, that monomarine army unplayable. So part of my army (long fangs with some support) are SW, part are death watct, all the same color. If the ultramarines will become a hit again, my SW will become gray smurfs, easy.

This is the TFG behaviour I was referring to. Just, no. It may be legal in game, but it is just disrespectful to your opponent for you to expect them to remember what chapter everything belongs to whilst also having the same colour scheme and them trusting you to do the same.

You have your right to put you PA army on shelf after every rules change to buy the new PA guys and color them in different shade of blue, but I'll say no thanks.

Just curious, do you expect eldar to have different colors for all the craft worlds and cabals they use, or it is solo marine handicap? I mean I never saw an DE who play just one cabal, or have multiple colors for different detachment.

Yes, you have one army. You represent their differences in some way. What has this game become when it is seen as acceptable to have two otherwise identical-looking units have different rules and also expect your opponent to keep track of this and you to be honest about it? Several years ago that would have got you basically made a pariah in your gaming community. That is textbook TFG behaviour.

Just to be sure, that I understand you logic correctly:

Timmy has 100 orc boyz and 50 lootas in his ork army, all painted red.

8ed, new ork codex, new rules. Now to play he need this boyz to be goffs and lootas should be snake bites. But they already all are painted red.

By your logic - should the Timmy buy new 100 boyz and paint them black to play them as goffs?

Timmy should pick one clan and stick to it.

Oh my gosh, now I wonder, do you actually play the game?
I never saw this level of WYSIWYG expectation.

Silver144 wrote:
Oh my gosh, now I wonder, do you actually play the game?
I never saw this level of WYSIWYG expectation.

OMG, you should really read my OP.

I couldn't give a wet gak what colour they're painted. What I (and a couple other ITT have pointed out) are opposed to is taking two otherwise identically painted minis and using them to represent different Klans/Chapters/Craftworlds/whatever in the same army (much like you said you did). You can use them as different armies in different games to your heart's content, that is completely different to what you're doing.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Silver144 wrote:
Oh my gosh, now I wonder, do you actually play the game?
I never saw this level of WYSIWYG expectation.

OMG, you should really read my OP.

I couldn't give a wet gak what colour they're painted. What I (and a couple other ITT have pointed out) are opposed to is taking two otherwise identically painted minis and using them to represent different Klans/Chapters/Craftworlds/whatever in the same army (much like you said you did). You can use them as different armies in different games to your heart's content, that is completely different to what you're doing.

This is 8ed, GW force soup (subfaction soup too) in player's throat. You can't expect a player to play mono-kultur ork army, or mono-sept tau army in 8ed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And in 7ed it was even worse. You had many formations with same units with super different rules. Is this dron from dronnet formation, or is it from farsight enclave? They are the same drones, but one have better BS.

The guys entitled to his opinion.

By the way Grimstuff, out of curiosity would you find different coloured base rims acceptable to distinguish Detachment?

Also what if the units were different model types in different detatchments. I.e. detatchment A has an autarch with wings and dire avengers and detatchment B has allwraithguard and spirit seer. All painted same scheme for asthetic reasons but ones t3 -1to hit and one is t6 FNP.

If you want to mix factions in one army, but keep the same overall scheme, there are a few ways to do that.

Easy one is base rims, or distinctive basing elements/styles
Shoulder trim is another one. You could have a 100% blue ultramarine force composed of red trimmed 3rd company with BA rules, and gold trimmed 2nd company as actual ultras. Other clear, distinctive painting cues can also work here.
If you have ALL of one specific type of distinctive unit, that’s a little fuzzier, but can be OK. Like all bikes/wraith constructs being one craftworld, while the rest of the army is another. You need to be careful with this because not everyone might be able to tell the difference between a tankbusta or a loota, and a shot up tac squad and dev squad can start to look alike.

Just a whole army swap I don’t have a problem with. Why should I be penalized for actually painting my army, when someone just fielding an unpainted grey horde gets a free pass to jump ship as needed? Not that I’ve actually taken advantage of this; I paint my Ultras and field them as such. Wrote a WS list once, but events conspired to keep me away from the FLGS when I was going to play it.

My general rule of thumb is that for non-WYSWYG things about your army, try to keep it to three or less things, and keep them sweeping generalizations. "All of X is Y” is fine as one of those things, be that flamers=plasma guns, or red base=BA

Just repaint the base trim in a different colour? That should work to differentiate between detachment.

There is nothing wrong in let's say, play an ultramarine army as salamanders, as long as the models and different detachment are recognizable. Someone don't enjoy being forced in a custom colour scheme.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Honestly who cares if someone proxies their Ultramarines colors as Raven Guard or White Scars or even both in the same game? Make sure everything is designated correctly for an honest game, have a decent interpretation of weapons, and you're good to go.

How you separate different trait models? Very important for both sides to ensure there's absolutely no cheating or mistakes so that conveniently the trait that's benefitial in this position is the correct one and not from the unit that died.

Clear visual cue is good for both sides. You do not want opponent to cheat and you don't want to be suspected cheating either.

Let's say you have an army of White Scars, or maybe Goffs, or Tau sept. You want to play the entire army as SW, Bad Moons och Viorla? Go ahead. However, if you want to play your White Scars as a batallion of SW AND a batallion of Smurfs, then there's a problem. You need to somehow represent one or the other. Put a piece of tape on the head of all SW or Smurfs, put a huge bamboo skewer sticking up from the base of each SW, just something that makes them easily identifiable on the battlefield. If I have to ask my opponent what everything is all the time, then just no. You could even use some other completely different to represent the other chapter(s) in your proxied army. Use Orks! The key is "easy to identify".

No, Timmy doesn't need to buy new Orks. Just paint the Lootas' helmets the correct colour. SOMETHING to make them stand out.

 Grimtuff wrote:
In a single army? No. That’s borderline tfg behaviour there (oh, those blue guys are Ultras, but those other identical blue guys are Raven Guard. No).

As different armies in different games? Go for it.

I take it you're also applying the comment of "borderline TFG behavior" to people who play with unpainted armies using different faction rules? I mean, I'm all in favor of shaming people for unpainted armies, I just want to be clear on this.

I wouldn't refuse a game with some one doing that but they better have a dam good way to help both of us keep trac of what is what and the minute a mistake is made, intentional or not I'm out.

If you want to run an army painted in SW colors as UMs i'm good with that cause its not hard to follow what is what.