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.
2019/03/16 23:12:33
Subject: Representing two space marine armies with one color 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.
The models will probably be clearly distinct. Nobody has anything to gain running Blood Angels and White Scars Tactical Marines in the same army after all.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2019/03/16 23:59:07
Subject: Representing two space marine armies with one color 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.
The models will probably be clearly distinct. Nobody has anything to gain running Blood Angels and White Scars Tactical Marines in the same army after all.
What about filling troops choices in battalion detachments? Honestly, if someone has an existing collection but is splitting it into two factions, troops are probably the most likely thing to be duplicated across different factions.
2019/03/17 07:57:26
Subject: Representing two space marine armies with one color scheme?
Kall3m0n wrote: 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.
Do you repaint/rebase you army every time GW shift the meta?
2019/03/17 08:43:07
Subject: Representing two space marine armies with one color scheme?
Kall3m0n wrote: 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.
Do you repaint/rebase you army every time GW shift the meta?
Do you think every meta shift involves splitting your army into multiple factions along completely different lines to the meta before?
2019/03/17 08:50:59
Subject: Representing two space marine armies with one color scheme?
Kall3m0n wrote: 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.
Do you repaint/rebase you army every time GW shift the meta?
Do you think every meta shift involves splitting your army into multiple factions along completely different lines to the meta before?
I'm playing since the end of 4ed, so my answer - pretty often.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There was no such things as detachments back then, ofcourse, but I know the overall pattern how much GW loves to radically shift what's good (faction and units) on the table.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/03/17 08:54:39
2019/03/17 09:02:39
Subject: Representing two space marine armies with one color scheme?
Kall3m0n wrote: 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.
Do you repaint/rebase you army every time GW shift the meta?
Do you think every meta shift involves splitting your army into multiple factions along completely different lines to the meta before?
I'm playing since the end of 4ed, so my answer - pretty often.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There was no such things as detachments back then, ofcourse, but I know the overall pattern how much GW loves to radically shift what's good (faction and units) on the table.
But this is a new problem, one which simply wasn't a thing until Formations in 7th as far as I can recall. When there was no such thing as detachments, there was no need to ensure detachments with different factions were differentiated somehow.
You did see that Kall3m0n said they had no problem with you having a force painted as Goffs but using Evil Sunz rules, as long as the army is consistent, right? It's only when mixing and matching multiple factions which use the same model line that you need to be clear what's what.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/03/17 09:08:16
2019/03/17 09:10:26
Subject: Representing two space marine armies with one color scheme?
If you approach things reasonably and delineate things neatly one scheme can work fine.
For example, all FW being tau Sept, Stealth suits and Ghostkeel being Sa’cea and all other suits being Borkan is not impossible to keep track of. Or all Genestealers and this Flyrant are Kraken, everything else is Jormangundr. Fairly easy to track, and if it’s in an army list it’s easy to check if concerned.
Having identical units painted the same next to each other that have different abilities does fall into impossible to track, and mistakes will arise. In that situation it simply makes sense to have different paint schemes, even between friends, where you’re more concerned with potential for errors than with potential for cheating. If your friends are cheating then you need to have a polite conversation about how one player cheating makes it pointless for either player to play the game, and that cheating doesn’t demonstrate any actual prowess or skill on their part. Or just play different people. It’s a social game with a basic social contract. If your mate can’t abide by that pass on game offers till they stop cheating.
If you’re a regular meta chaser then tbh you probably normally buy and paint whole new units to stay current, so I don’t see repainting as any different. You need to alter your army list to min-max, it’s just in a different way to what you’re used to. The amount of WTB STORM BOLTERS AND STORM SHIELDS posts on various forums illustrates this neatly, or Exocrines selling out at start of 8th. Or most Castellan purchases. ;-) I don’t get the complaint about repainting from people happy to rebuy an army at other times.
All in all, so long as your ‘split system’ is simple, clear and you’re honest about it it will work fine. If there isn’t trust, things aren’t clear or you obfuscate things, then it will fail hard and you should bring different paint schemes to the table.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/17 09:11:45
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
2019/03/17 09:14:06
Subject: Representing two space marine armies with one color scheme?
Kall3m0n wrote: 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.
Do you repaint/rebase you army every time GW shift the meta?
Do you think every meta shift involves splitting your army into multiple factions along completely different lines to the meta before?
I'm playing since the end of 4ed, so my answer - pretty often.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There was no such things as detachments back then, ofcourse, but I know the overall pattern how much GW loves to radically shift what's good (faction and units) on the table.
When there was no such thing as detachments, there was no need to ensure detachments with different factions were painted differently.
You did see that Kall3m0n said they had no problem with you having a force painted as Goffs but using Evil Sunz rules, as long as the army is consistent, right? It's only when mixing and matching multiple factions which use the same model line that you need to be clear what's what - and as far as I'm aware, that's not been a thing in prior editions.
First, little history lesson: it was a thing in 7ed, and it was much worse. You know, "formations", scary word. You had identically units within same subfaction with different rules. You could have two saim hann warp spider units with different ballistic skill, all painted red and that was legal.
Second: subfaction soup is a thing for a long time And GW seems to love it, so sorry, there will be souping to gain the best rules for the particular unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnnyHell wrote: If you approach things reasonably and delineate things neatly one scheme can work fine.
For example, all FW being tau Sept, Stealth suits and Ghostkeel being Sa’cea and all other suits being Borkan is not impossible to keep track of. Or all Genestealers and this Flyrant are Kraken, everything else is Jormangundr. Fairly easy to track, and if it’s in an army list it’s easy to check if concerned.
Having identical units painted the same next to each other that have different abilities does fall into impossible to track, and mistakes will arise. In that situation it simply makes sense to have different paint schemes, even between friends, where you’re more concerned with potential for errors than with potential for cheating. If your friends are cheating then you need to have a polite conversation about how one player cheating makes it pointless for either player to play the game, and that cheating doesn’t demonstrate any actual prowess or skill on their part. Or just play different people. It’s a social game with a basic social contract. If your mate can’t abide by that pass on game offers till they stop cheating.
If you’re a regular meta chaser then tbh you probably normally buy and paint whole new units to stay current, so I don’t see repainting as any different. You need to alter your army list to min-max, it’s just in a different way to what you’re used to. The amount of WTB STORM BOLTERS AND STORM SHIELDS posts on various forums illustrates this neatly, or Exocrines selling out at start of 8th. Or most Castellan purchases. ;-) I don’t get the complaint about repainting from people happy to rebuy an army at other times.
All in all, so long as your ‘split system’ is simple, clear and you’re honest about it it will work fine. If there isn’t trust, things aren’t clear or you obfuscate things, then it will fail hard and you should bring different paint schemes to the table.
Every tau army I met used at least 2 different sept. And each one has own drones and markmans. And everyone seems ok with it, never saw a post "why tau uses drones from diffetent sept?"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/17 09:18:24
2019/03/17 09:22:24
Subject: Representing two space marine armies with one color scheme?
Kall3m0n wrote: 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.
Do you repaint/rebase you army every time GW shift the meta?
Do you think every meta shift involves splitting your army into multiple factions along completely different lines to the meta before?
I'm playing since the end of 4ed, so my answer - pretty often.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There was no such things as detachments back then, ofcourse, but I know the overall pattern how much GW loves to radically shift what's good (faction and units) on the table.
When there was no such thing as detachments, there was no need to ensure detachments with different factions were painted differently.
You did see that Kall3m0n said they had no problem with you having a force painted as Goffs but using Evil Sunz rules, as long as the army is consistent, right? It's only when mixing and matching multiple factions which use the same model line that you need to be clear what's what - and as far as I'm aware, that's not been a thing in prior editions.
First, little history lesson: it was a thing in 7ed, and it was much worse. You know, "formations", scary word. You had identically units within same subfaction with different rules. You could have two saim hann warp spider units with different ballistic skill, all painted red and that was legal.
Second: subfaction soup is a thing for a long time And GW seems to love it, so sorry, there will be souping to gain the best rules for the particular unit.
I don't think you two are disagreeing on regarding detachments/formations - Aelyn is talking about there being no need for differentiation when they weren't around and, as you noted, they only became a factor in 7th. No need for the "little history lesson" jab, that was a point where you agreed.
If chasing soup for "MAXIMUM POWER!" is important to you, take the time to do something to make the models for each subfaction different. There have been a number of posts in this thread about how to do that without breaking visual cohesiveness - painting base rims is the simplest possible option, so long as the colours are sufficiently distinct (and are combinations unlikely to cause colour-blindness issues).
I'd need to check some rules packs, but I'm fairly sure most big events, for example, will state that you need to make it crystal clear which unit is which if you run multiple of them, let alone which unit is part of which detachment.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
2019/03/17 09:27:20
Subject: Representing two space marine armies with one color scheme?
I think if people want to claim the benefits of two different chapters or whatever then they should go to the effort of painting two different colour schemes, if thats done then no problem at all, kudos even. If not it’s power gaming and I’m not interested. Even better, come up with some good fluff reason for the combined force.
If you have a home brew chapter and want to say they are x chapter in one game but y chapter in another then that’s ok. But mixing would be a no from me.
As for playing against a collection of poorly painted garage sale chaos marines I’d rather play against grey plastic.
As for sticking tape or sticks on models to tell them apart, also no. Put the effort in and paint them right. I don’t expect golden demon standards but Otherwise you might as well use bits of card with a marine drawn on it or a symbol and no models at all.
2019/03/17 09:28:59
Subject: Representing two space marine armies with one color scheme?
Kall3m0n wrote: 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.
Do you repaint/rebase you army every time GW shift the meta?
Do you think every meta shift involves splitting your army into multiple factions along completely different lines to the meta before?
I'm playing since the end of 4ed, so my answer - pretty often.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There was no such things as detachments back then, ofcourse, but I know the overall pattern how much GW loves to radically shift what's good (faction and units) on the table.
When there was no such thing as detachments, there was no need to ensure detachments with different factions were painted differently.
You did see that Kall3m0n said they had no problem with you having a force painted as Goffs but using Evil Sunz rules, as long as the army is consistent, right? It's only when mixing and matching multiple factions which use the same model line that you need to be clear what's what - and as far as I'm aware, that's not been a thing in prior editions.
First, little history lesson: it was a thing in 7ed, and it was much worse. You know, "formations", scary word. You had identically units within same subfaction with different rules. You could have two saim hann warp spider units with different ballistic skill, all painted red and that was legal.
Second: subfaction soup is a thing for a long time And GW seems to love it, so sorry, there will be souping to gain the best rules for the particular unit.
I don't think you two are disagreeing on regarding detachments/formations - Aelyn is talking about there being no need for differentiation when they weren't around and, as you noted, they only became a factor in 7th. No need for the "little history lesson" jab, that was a point where you agreed.
If chasing soup for "MAXIMUM POWER!" is important to you, take the time to do something to make the models for each subfaction different. There have been a number of posts in this thread about how to do that without breaking visual cohesiveness - painting base rims is the simplest possible option, so long as the colours are sufficiently distinct (and are combinations unlikely to cause colour-blindness issues).
I'd need to check some rules packs, but I'm fairly sure most big events, for example, will state that you need to make it crystal clear which unit is which if you run multiple of them, let alone which unit is part of which detachment.
The rules changes too often, I'll not touch my painted and varnished models just because in this year's meta all bolterguys should be black and all jump pack capitans must be red. My point that every other faction players uses multifaction soup and this is ok to everyone.
Answer me, and please be honest: how many tau players you know, who repaint their drones to be part of different sept? How many ork repaint their lootas or stormboyz for their multiklan army? Because in the past orks didn't have any subfaction, so regular players paint his army all red or all black.
Silver144 wrote: First, little history lesson: it was a thing in 7ed, and it was much worse. You know, "formations", scary word. You had identically units within same subfaction with different rules. You could have two saim hann warp spider units with different ballistic skill, all painted red and that was legal.
First, I've been playing longer than you (I started in 2nd edition), so spare me your "history lesson" jabs. I actually went back and edited my post to explicitly mention Formations before you posted this.
Second: Part of the reason Formations were so bad is that, since they were the same subfaction (you mention the example of two Saim Hann warp spider units) there was no implicit expectation for them to be painted differently. When the subfactions are different, there is an expectation, set up in the codexes, that they will be painted differently. That's why I didn't think to mention them at first - because they weren't subfactions in the current sense.
The rules changes too often, I'll not touch my painted and varnished models just because in this year's meta all bolterguys should be black and all jump pack capitans must be red. My point that every other faction players uses multifaction soup and this is ok to everyone.
Answer me, and please be honest: how many tau players you know, who repaint their drones to be part of different sept? How many ork repaint their lootas or stormboyz for their multiklan army? Because in the past orks didn't have any subfaction, so regular players paint his army all red or all black.
Most Xenos armies I play against, like most Chaos and Imperium armies I play against, are mono-faction. In those cases where people use multiple factions, they differentiate - one Eldar player in my local area repainted his army so one subfaction had teal as an accent colour and the other had purple, and the local Ork player already painted different units for different Klans, so just repainted the rims of his bases to differentiate for gameplay purposes (black for Goffs, brown for Evil Sunz).
2019/03/17 10:12:06
Subject: Representing two space marine armies with one color scheme?
Kall3m0n wrote: 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.
Do you repaint/rebase you army every time GW shift the meta?
Do you think every meta shift involves splitting your army into multiple factions along completely different lines to the meta before?
I'm playing since the end of 4ed, so my answer - pretty often.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There was no such things as detachments back then, ofcourse, but I know the overall pattern how much GW loves to radically shift what's good (faction and units) on the table.
When there was no such thing as detachments, there was no need to ensure detachments with different factions were painted differently.
You did see that Kall3m0n said they had no problem with you having a force painted as Goffs but using Evil Sunz rules, as long as the army is consistent, right? It's only when mixing and matching multiple factions which use the same model line that you need to be clear what's what - and as far as I'm aware, that's not been a thing in prior editions.
First, little history lesson: it was a thing in 7ed, and it was much worse. You know, "formations", scary word. You had identically units within same subfaction with different rules. You could have two saim hann warp spider units with different ballistic skill, all painted red and that was legal.
Second: subfaction soup is a thing for a long time And GW seems to love it, so sorry, there will be souping to gain the best rules for the particular unit.
I don't think you two are disagreeing on regarding detachments/formations - Aelyn is talking about there being no need for differentiation when they weren't around and, as you noted, they only became a factor in 7th. No need for the "little history lesson" jab, that was a point where you agreed.
If chasing soup for "MAXIMUM POWER!" is important to you, take the time to do something to make the models for each subfaction different. There have been a number of posts in this thread about how to do that without breaking visual cohesiveness - painting base rims is the simplest possible option, so long as the colours are sufficiently distinct (and are combinations unlikely to cause colour-blindness issues).
I'd need to check some rules packs, but I'm fairly sure most big events, for example, will state that you need to make it crystal clear which unit is which if you run multiple of them, let alone which unit is part of which detachment.
The rules changes too often, I'll not touch my painted and varnished models just because in this year's meta all bolterguys should be black and all jump pack capitans must be red. My point that every other faction players uses multifaction soup and this is ok to everyone.
Answer me, and please be honest: how many tau players you know, who repaint their drones to be part of different sept? How many ork repaint their lootas or stormboyz for their multiklan army? Because in the past orks didn't have any subfaction, so regular players paint his army all red or all black.
I try not to know Tau players - they're sick people, and need help to get away from the anime stuff.
I would expect the same differentiation for a Tau army using multiple Sects, or an Ork army using multiple Klans - there has to be some way to differentiate the units which is clear and unambiguous. Saying "this squad of Fire Warriors uses Sept X, while this one uses Sept Y" - when both are painted and equipped the same - is the opposite of this. Your opponent should be able to tell by looking at the table which unit is from which subfaction - or, at a bare minimum, that they are different subfactions.
Why are you so resistant to taking the minimal steps required - such as painting the rims of bases - to make it clear for both parties what is what?
EDIT - Apologies, spoiler tag malfunction
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/17 10:13:44
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
2019/03/17 10:18:20
Subject: Representing two space marine armies with one color scheme?
"Why are you so resistant to taking the minimal steps required - such as painting the rims of bases - to make it clear for both parties what is what?"
Becouse should I followed your advice my army would be a motley circus in the current days. I had white scar, ultramarine, dark angel ally in th 7ed, now I have to use death watch. In 9 (or 8.5) the blood angels become a blast (or some new primaris only orden), should I rererepaint my base again?
2019/03/17 10:30:06
Subject: Representing two space marine armies with one color scheme?
Andykp wrote: I think if people want to claim the benefits of two different chapters or whatever then they should go to the effort of painting two different colour schemes, if thats done then no problem at all, kudos even. If not it’s power gaming and I’m not interested. Even better, come up with some good fluff reason for the combined force.
If you have a home brew chapter and want to say they are x chapter in one game but y chapter in another then that’s ok. But mixing would be a no from me.
As for playing against a collection of poorly painted garage sale chaos marines I’d rather play against grey plastic.
As for sticking tape or sticks on models to tell them apart, also no. Put the effort in and paint them right. I don’t expect golden demon standards but Otherwise you might as well use bits of card with a marine drawn on it or a symbol and no models at all.
Well, to be honest, I think even what you're suggesting is crap. Every single model should be painted with a GD in mind and all glowing parts of a model must have fiber optics and if you don't 100% match the fluff in both painting and army configuration, I'm not going to play with you. You are clearly a scrub who doesn't take things seriously enough to play casually. *laughs condescending in neckbeard*
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/17 10:31:03
Nurgle protects. Kinda.
2019/03/17 10:30:21
Subject: Representing two space marine armies with one color scheme?
Silver144 wrote: "Why are you so resistant to taking the minimal steps required - such as painting the rims of bases - to make it clear for both parties what is what?"
Becouse should I followed your advice my army would be a motley circus in the current days. I had white scar, ultramarine, dark angel ally in th 7ed, now I have to use death watch. In 9 (or 8.5) the blood angels become a blast (or some new primaris only orden), should I rererepaint my base again?
Maybe you should just stop chasing that proverbial dragon and have a coherent army as a result? 40k is not an eSport. Never has been. Never will be; despite the best efforts of some players.
Silver144 wrote: "Why are you so resistant to taking the minimal steps required - such as painting the rims of bases - to make it clear for both parties what is what?"
Becouse should I followed your advice my army would be a motley circus in the current days. I had white scar, ultramarine, dark angel ally in th 7ed, now I have to use death watch. In 9 (or 8.5) the blood angels become a blast (or some new primaris only orden), should I rererepaint my base again?
Maybe you should just stop chasing that proverbial dragon and have a coherent army as a result? 40k is not an eSport. Never has been. Never will be; despite the best efforts of some players.
Thanks for advice, but did you ever tryed to play mono space wolves in current edition? My army is coherent and neatly painted in same color, I didn't use loyal 32 or knights, but take the best of my units and this is good for me and my opponents.
2019/03/17 10:39:06
Subject: Representing two space marine armies with one color scheme?
Silver144 wrote: "Why are you so resistant to taking the minimal steps required - such as painting the rims of bases - to make it clear for both parties what is what?"
Becouse should I followed your advice my army would be a motley circus in the current days. I had white scar, ultramarine, dark angel ally in th 7ed, now I have to use death watch. In 9 (or 8.5) the blood angels become a blast (or some new primaris only orden), should I rererepaint my base again?
Maybe you should just stop chasing that proverbial dragon and have a coherent army as a result? 40k is not an eSport. Never has been. Never will be; despite the best efforts of some players.
Maybe you should just stop chasing that proverbial dragon and have a coherent army as a result? 40k is not an eSport. Never has been. Never will be; despite the best efforts of some players.
Would be much better if it was. the way it is now it has a too high cost for what one gets out of it, if one does not go for the best of the best. Now if worse or bad armies cost proportionaly less in money, well then yes it would make sense. No one expects a FTP expiriance to be the same as a whale one, safe for people who are real masters. But right now someone is expected to whale out for an army, but can get a non whale product in return.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
2019/03/17 13:49:11
Subject: Representing two space marine armies with one color scheme?
Kall3m0n wrote: 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.
Do you repaint/rebase you army every time GW shift the meta?
No. But I don't power play, so that's not an issue. Also, I seldom play soup, so not an issue. Also I rarely play tournaments, so not an issue.
However, IF I was an Ork player and had two detachments from different Kultures I would paint them differently from eachother, yes. If the CA or new edition would make my old incorrectly painted units viable again I would paint them accordingly, yes. Ofc!
But lets say that Bad Moons Kulture gets completely unplayable I would play them as an other Kulture -not repaint them. That would still make them look completely different from my other battalion that is another Kulture (Goffs for example). HOWEVER, if ALL my models in BOTH battalions are painted as Bad Moons but I want one of the Battalions to be Goffs I would make them clearly stand out as to not confuse myself nor my opponent.
Why are you so fixated on repainting EVERYTHING as soon as one single unit gets nerfed or OP? Oftentimes it's very few units that needs a new layer of paint. Sometimes it's even just helmets and shoulderpads.
Nurgle protects. Kinda.
2019/03/17 14:05:48
Subject: Representing two space marine armies with one color scheme?
Kall3m0n wrote: 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.
Do you repaint/rebase you army every time GW shift the meta?
No. But I don't power play, so that's not an issue. Also, I seldom play soup, so not an issue. Also I rarely play tournaments, so not an issue.
However, IF I was an Ork player and had two detachments from different Kultures I would paint them differently from eachother, yes. If the CA or new edition would make my old incorrectly painted units viable again I would paint them accordingly, yes. Ofc!
But lets say that Bad Moons Kulture gets completely unplayable I would play them as an other Kulture -not repaint them. That would still make them look completely different from my other battalion that is another Kulture (Goffs for example). HOWEVER, if ALL my models in BOTH battalions are painted as Bad Moons but I want one of the Battalions to be Goffs I would make them clearly stand out as to not confuse myself nor my opponent.
Why are you so fixated on repainting EVERYTHING as soon as one single unit gets nerfed or OP? Oftentimes it's very few units that needs a new layer of paint. Sometimes it's even just helmets and shoulderpads.
Ok, lets use marines instead of orks.
Lets say, you have 30 well painted intercessors, all are SW colors.
But in current state of meta solo space wolves suck to the point, that even in casual games they are not fun to play with.
Repainting the varnished minis is not an option, even the bases, Just no.
So you solution: 1.Buy new 30 intercessors models to paint them balck, or 2.Keep playing the trash-tier army.
Or my favorite suggestion from certain folks: 3.Just buy some IG and knight to them, duh.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/17 14:34:53
2019/03/17 14:37:13
Subject: Representing two space marine armies with one color scheme?
Kall3m0n wrote: 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.
Do you repaint/rebase you army every time GW shift the meta?
No. But I don't power play, so that's not an issue. Also, I seldom play soup, so not an issue. Also I rarely play tournaments, so not an issue.
However, IF I was an Ork player and had two detachments from different Kultures I would paint them differently from eachother, yes. If the CA or new edition would make my old incorrectly painted units viable again I would paint them accordingly, yes. Ofc!
But lets say that Bad Moons Kulture gets completely unplayable I would play them as an other Kulture -not repaint them. That would still make them look completely different from my other battalion that is another Kulture (Goffs for example). HOWEVER, if ALL my models in BOTH battalions are painted as Bad Moons but I want one of the Battalions to be Goffs I would make them clearly stand out as to not confuse myself nor my opponent.
Why are you so fixated on repainting EVERYTHING as soon as one single unit gets nerfed or OP? Oftentimes it's very few units that needs a new layer of paint. Sometimes it's even just helmets and shoulderpads.
Ok, lets use marines instead of orks.
Lets say, you have 30 well painted intercessors, all are SW colors.
But in current state of meta solo space wolves suck to the point, that even in casual games they are not fun to play with.
Repainting the varnished minis is not an option, even the bases, Just no.
So you solution: 1.Buy new 30 intercessors models to paint them balck, or 2.Keep playing the trash-tier army.
Or my favorite suggestion from certain folks: 3.Just buy some IG and knight to them, duh.
Or you use them as-is to represent some other chapter. No need to repaint or buy new and paint or playing trash or buying knights.
Nurgle protects. Kinda.
2019/03/17 14:39:54
Subject: Representing two space marine armies with one color scheme?
Silver144 wrote: The only astertes chapter that can play solo (even at casual games) is Guilliman ultramarines.
It's ok, I guess, but DW+SW is pretty decent combo as for me, so I like it.
I fail to see what this has to do with anything. What's your point? That you would need to paint those Interscessors blue? Just say that they are smurfs. Easy enough to keep track of.
Nurgle protects. Kinda.
2019/03/17 14:47:22
Subject: Representing two space marine armies with one color scheme?
Silver144 wrote: The only astertes chapter that can play solo (even at casual games) is Guilliman ultramarines.
It's ok, I guess, but DW+SW is pretty decent combo as for me, so I like it.
I fail to see what this has to do with anything. What's your point? That you would need to paint those Interscessors blue? Just say that they are smurfs. Easy enough to keep track of.
You said just play another chapter, but solo (no subfaction soup).
I answered, that this is an option, indeed. But currently only ultramarines with Guilliman could afford to play mono-faction. Maybe I'll try it, but right know I really don't want to play static gunline, it's boring as hell. Besides I don't have Guilliman and scouts, which are the core part of the build.
2019/03/17 14:57:23
Subject: Representing two space marine armies with one color scheme?
Silver144 wrote: The only astertes chapter that can play solo (even at casual games) is Guilliman ultramarines.
I suspect the players in my local gaming group who happily play with solo SM chapters other than Ultramarines would disagree. I guess as my Ultramarines army doesn't include Guilliman I'd have to disagree too. Unless we're all imagining enjoying casual matched play games with these armies?
Like others have said, if the whole army is changed to a different chapter I wouldn't have a problem as long as the units and loadouts are easy to understand.
Silver144 wrote: The only astertes chapter that can play solo (even at casual games) is Guilliman ultramarines.
I suspect the players in my local gaming group who happily play with solo SM chapters other than Ultramarines would disagree. I guess as my Ultramarines army doesn't include Guilliman I'd have to disagree too. Unless we're all imagining enjoying casual matched play games with these armies?
Like others have said, if the whole army is changed to a different chapter I wouldn't have a problem as long as the units and loadouts are easy to understand.
Then, I guess, you local marine players are awesome players, much better than me. Cheers to them. Unless it's marine on marine matchups only, ofcourse.
2019/03/17 15:14:41
Subject: Representing two space marine armies with one color scheme?
Silver144 wrote: The only astertes chapter that can play solo (even at casual games) is Guilliman ultramarines.
I suspect the players in my local gaming group who happily play with solo SM chapters other than Ultramarines would disagree. I guess as my Ultramarines army doesn't include Guilliman I'd have to disagree too. Unless we're all imagining enjoying casual matched play games with these armies?
Like others have said, if the whole army is changed to a different chapter I wouldn't have a problem as long as the units and loadouts are easy to understand.
Then, I guess, you local marine players are awesome players, much better than me. Cheers to them. Unless it's marine on marine matchups only, ofcourse.
I doubt that. I've seen 1 marine on marine game but others have been against different factions. I'll concede that I've lost more than I've won but that's probably more a reflection of how good I am than my chapter. I couldn't give you the SM win rate for the other games I've seen being played but the SM players seem to be enjoying themselves. I can well believe that you're right about tournament matched play.
Lets say, you have 30 well painted intercessors, all are SW colors.
But in current state of meta solo space wolves suck to the point, that even in casual games they are not fun to play with.
Repainting the varnished minis is not an option, even the bases, Just no.
So you solution: 1.Buy new 30 intercessors models to paint them balck, or 2.Keep playing the trash-tier army.
Or my favorite suggestion from certain folks: 3.Just buy some IG and knight to them, duh.
This kind of strawman makes me wonder if you're a) arguing in good faith and b) understand what other people are advocating.
If yiu have 30 intercessors painted as SW and don't want to use them as SW? No worries! Use them as Ultras, or Deathwatch, or Dark Angels, or Chaos Chosen, whatever.
But if you want to take those 30 intercessors and use half of them as one subfaction and half as another, then you really should find some way to distinguish one from the other. Maybe the Ultras have a different helmet colour, or a different gun casing, or their bases have a different rim, or you blue-tac a washer under the base so there's a silver lining, or you come up with something else.
And if you refuse to do anything to distinguish one subfaction from the other, than you still have the option of playing as a single subfaction. And maybe it's not optimal to play that way, but there's a huge gap between "suboptimal" and "trash tier", and there's a huge gap between what we're saying and what you seem to think we're saying.
2019/03/17 15:36:43
Subject: Representing two space marine armies with one color scheme?
Lets say, you have 30 well painted intercessors, all are SW colors.
But in current state of meta solo space wolves suck to the point, that even in casual games they are not fun to play with.
Repainting the varnished minis is not an option, even the bases, Just no.
So you solution: 1.Buy new 30 intercessors models to paint them balck, or 2.Keep playing the trash-tier army.
Or my favorite suggestion from certain folks: 3.Just buy some IG and knight to them, duh.
This kind of strawman makes me wonder if you're a) arguing in good faith and b) understand what other people are advocating.
If yiu have 30 intercessors painted as SW and don't want to use them as SW? No worries! Use them as Ultras, or Deathwatch, or Dark Angels, or Chaos Chosen, whatever.
But if you want to take those 30 intercessors and use half of them as one subfaction and half as another, then you really should find some way to distinguish one from the other. Maybe the Ultras have a different helmet colour, or a different gun casing, or their bases have a different rim, or you blue-tac a washer under the base so there's a silver lining, or you come up with something else.
And if you refuse to do anything to distinguish one subfaction from the other, than you still have the option of playing as a single subfaction. And maybe it's not optimal to play that way, but there's a huge gap between "suboptimal" and "trash tier", and there's a huge gap between what we're saying and what you seem to think we're saying.
If you think, that it is ok to use intercessor and stormbolter veterans as DW, and lascannon guys as SW long fangs, then we are on one side.
But OP (and some other posters) will not agree with you, he thinks that all your models painted in similar color should be from the similar subfaction.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And just curious, if monomarines are not trash tier, then what is in your personal rating?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/17 15:48:04
[1,800] Chaos Knights | 
[1,250] Thousand Sons | 
[1,000] Grey Knights | 40K editions: RT, 8, 9, 10 | 