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.

Looking at the WYSIWYG conversation I was intrigued to see what people think about painting troops as one colour and using rules for another. For example my army is fully painted and based and totally WYSIWYG but instead of using the crimson fists rules I run my marines with the Deathwatch codex. They all have exactly what they are armed with and are all the exact same models but I just use Deathwatch rules as they are better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm also painting up my iron warriors but will be running them as black legion so I can take abbadon (in iron warriors colours of course.

I can't see a problem if they're modelled with the correct loadouts. With all these WYSIWYG questions it's all about not combining multiple non-WYSIWYG aspects so as to confuse your opponent.

If you have ultramarines and wanna run crimson fists, white scars, raven guard or whatever then go for it. If anyone says otherwise, they are someone you wouldn’t wanna play anyway. Only way it wouldn’t be cool is if all are painted ultramarines, and you say hey this section is ultramarines but this section is insert other chapter here. That’s confusing.

As long as it’s uniform, I have no problems with that.

For a lot of armies, the paint job had zero impact on the rules until fairly recently, where <faction> rules spread from more than just space marine chapters. And if you go back far enough, even marines didn’t mater what color they were.

I’d not want to penalize someone for painting. Enough grey hordes out there as it is.

People might have a fluff issue if the game is a narrative one, but for purely WYSIWYG, it doesn't matter what colour your marine is.

Marines can be a "little" different only because each chapter does have unique shoudlerpads and models to their own chapter. However that has no effect on paint scheme.

If they are modelled Deathwatch then they are Deathwatch no matter if you've painted them blue, red, or bright pink with polkadots.




Heck outside of marines most people don't even know the official schemes for most sub-faction armies. Even within marines its very casual understanding (ultramarines are blue; blood angles are red; white scars are white etc...), so you shouldn't have issues.

Nothing stops you, but personally, I think it's incredibly gamey and usually means someone is doing it only for the mechanical advantages (barring situations where it's proxying one for another because you are looking at doing the other and want to test them out)

There are no rules for paint. As long as it’s clear which models belong to which <faction>, then do what you want.

I have no issues with it. My space marines (though I rarely play them) are a pretty close to ultramarine blue. As far as chapters I use em as sucessors to anything I want to (usually iron hands though occationally deatwatch or dark angels) I do not put any chapter iconography though, so its less breakign than it would be to see ultramatine U's everywhere on "ironhands"

The moment GW expects me to adhere to paint=rules they should start selling me prepainted miniatures.
Until that moment feth them.

Most people don't care as long as it isn't some type of confusing along the lines of multiple detachments with different traits but no differentiation in how they look or similar reasonable standard.

But we'll see if the other handful who will make blanket insults, question your morality, tell you you're ruining the hobby, having fun wrong, etc will be along to get any thread that brings this up locked like usual.

BlackSwanDelta wrote:
Most people don't care as long as it isn't some type of confusing along the lines of multiple detachments with different traits but no differentiation in how they look or similar reasonable standard.

But we'll see if the other handful who will make blanket insults, question your morality, tell you you're ruining the hobby, having fun wrong, etc will be along to get any thread that brings this up locked like usual.

Hey now I think it's wrong and dirty but I did not make blanket insults

Honestly one of the things I’d suspect you of being is a hyper competitive player out to game any advantage you could, but there could be many other reasons and I’d happily give you the benefit of the doubt and play you.

 Nevelon wrote:
As long as it’s uniform, I have no problems with that.

For a lot of armies, the paint job had zero impact on the rules until fairly recently, where <faction> rules spread from more than just space marine chapters. And if you go back far enough, even marines didn’t mater what color they were.

I’d not want to penalize someone for painting. Enough grey hordes out there as it is.

This!

As a Word Bearers player it's almost expected by my opponents at this point. Figure they are renegades from the horribad rules.

Throwing a bit of salt on the sweet cake, I'd say you might run into fluff-related expectations.

With that I mean to say that people would (incorrectly, I suppose) assume any (dark) blue space marines with golden trims and an Omega symbol on their shoulder to be Ultramarines, and black chaos space marines with gold and silver trims to be Black Legion. Likewise, according to all the fluff, Deathwatch marines have a silver coloured shoulder plate identifying them as Deathwatch, coupled with black power armour, and maybe one shoulder plate indicating their Chapter of Origin.

But fluff is no official rule.

Neither is WYSIWYG an official rule, but I know a lot of tournament organisers (and a lot of players, basically) who dislike unclear situations about which model is armed with what weapon and the likes. If I see three units of Khorne Berzerkers on the table, each and every model of them armed with a Chainsword, I think they are Khorne Berzerkers with chainswords.
Now, in an expensive hobby like this, I would be unfair to force my opponents, some of which are very young and dependent on pocket change and monthly savings to buy a box of plastic, to be totally compliant to WYSIWYG. But it would also be fair sportmanship if you would have such Khorne Berzerker units, and at least indicate which are "actually" armed with chainaxes, as indicated by your army list and the point value you gave them. Perhaps put a note next to the one unit which has chainaxes, or use small rubber rings on the chanswords that would actually be chainaxes if the unit ought to have a mix of weaponry. Clarity is key in these situations.

So, how do I think WYSIWYG and colour scheme coincide?

I don't. If you want to run neon pink and green (Tamiya colours) space marines as Space Wolves, and you let me know that you do, more fun to you. From the fluff, I would expect Space Wolves to have blueish-grey power armour and look like space vikings, but it is of no consequence to the game how they look. Again, fluff (and colour) isn't a rule. On the other hand, however, if you would use your purple space marine scout models and use them as a bunch of terminators with varying wargear... I would probably object a little more (especially if you had failed to mention this before the game). This would be more of a WYSIWYG situation than whatever colour you gave them. When I see five identical scout models on 25mm bases, I don't expect them to be five 40mm based terminators, one with an assault cannon and powerfist, one with a heavy flamer and chainfist, one with a stormbolter and frost axe, one with a stormbolter and powersword, and one with a stormbolter and power fist. Again, clarity is key.



So, back to your original post. Your models (I assume) painted like crimson fists, but fully WYSIWYG with regards to their wargear loadout... Just mention you use Deathwatch rules beforehand, and due to your WYSIWYG compliance about wargear, I wouldn't see a problem. Especially as I am no tournament player. WYSIWYG, regardless of colour, saves a lot of time spent in unnecessary debate about which model is armed with what weapon and why that seems to change from round to round. TCYSIWYG (The Colour You See Is What You Get, just made that term up myself) saves time spent in unnecessary debate about how green marines could be Blood Angels, or why Space ork skin couldn't be anything else but green. But TCYSIWYG, to me, is far less important than WYSIWYG, or even just having a fun game as long as clarity is key.

Rogerio134134 wrote:
instead of using the crimson fists rules I run my marines with the Deathwatch codex.
I just use Deathwatch rules as they are better.

I'm also painting up my iron warriors but will be running them as black legion so I can take abbadon (in iron warriors colours of course.

In competition with cash value prizes on the line, I would zero you out for not playing a WYSIWYG army.

If it looks like Crimson Fists, it needs to play as Crimson Fists.

If it looks like Iron Warriors, it needs to play as Iron Warriors.

If you don't like the rules, don't paint an army to match.

Or just buy another army.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Rogerio134134 wrote:
instead of using the crimson fists rules I run my marines with the Deathwatch codex.
I just use Deathwatch rules as they are better.

I'm also painting up my iron warriors but will be running them as black legion so I can take abbadon (in iron warriors colours of course.

In competition with cash value prizes on the line, I would zero you out for not playing a WYSIWYG army.

If it looks like Crimson Fists, it needs to play as Crimson Fists.

If it looks like Iron Warriors, it needs to play as Iron Warriors.

If you don't like the rules, don't paint an army to match.

Or just buy another army.

100% ignore this guy. He comes to any thread like this stating this same statement. It’s how his post count got so high. If you know a player is ever judging you in an event and giving you 0 due to you playing ultramarines as grey knights, give him a 0 for playing his orks as orks and not necrons.

Umm. Think you miss his point. He does stress competition games, with cash prizes? I can see all sorts of possibilities for cheating (if one were so inclined) with a ‘this is a red rules marine, painted blue’ one game and ‘this is a green rules marine, painted blue’ the next. The ‘just’ buy another army suggestion raised a giggle, though.

What colour your Marines are means little to me - sub chapters, and all that. But fielding your blue Marines as ‘whatever is today’s bestest’ on an ongoing basis leaves a bad taste. Makes me think you are only interested in the game if you can win?

I have no problem with it, I've been collecting marines of all types for 20+ years and they are all painted red and gold, I have blood angels models as well as characters and options from a variety of other chapters all red, even my Gulliman is :-)

Various posters have said that people only do this to power game and chase the meta, whilst that may be the case for some please don't tar us all with the same brush. I like to get maximum use out of my models, I rarely (if ever) use the same list twice and changing chapter tactics lets me field different styles of armies and different characters making the game far more interesting.

Moriarty wrote:
Umm. Think you miss his point. He does stress competition games, with cash prizes? I can see all sorts of possibilities for cheating (if one were so inclined) with a ‘this is a red rules marine, painted blue’ one game and ‘this is a green rules marine, painted blue’ the next. The ‘just’ buy another army suggestion raised a giggle, though.

What colour your Marines are means little to me - sub chapters, and all that. But fielding your blue Marines as ‘whatever is today’s bestest’ on an ongoing basis leaves a bad taste. Makes me think you are only interested in the game if you can win?

If the event is well organized, you’ll have to submit a copy of your army with traits.. and have copies on hand to hand to each opponent. You’d run the risk of a judge finding out you’re using different rules each game than what you submitted. Possible? Sure. Likely? Not so much. IMO, giving someone a 0 because you don’t like them being competitive regardless of some slapped on paint color is cheating. That’s why I’d give them a 0 also for their non necron orks

Don't paint your army as a known chapter.
One week, they are a successor of the Ultramarines, and a week later are a Salamanders offshoot.
If there is nothing to tie our army to the fluff, no-one can call you out on it.

If you do paint as a known chapter, keep a card to one side saying which chapter your are using them as. If anyone asks, show them the card.

Space wolves and Dark Angels are a bit too specifically sculpted to get away with that though. The weapons are about the same though, and you might have to proxy a couple. I'd play against your army like that, though, if you're consistent.

 Skinnereal wrote:
Don't paint your army as a known chapter.
One week, they are a successor of the Ultramarines, and a week later are a Salamanders offshoot.
If there is nothing to tie our army to the fluff, no-one can call you out on it.

If you do paint as a known chapter, keep a card to one side saying which chapter your are using them as. If anyone asks, show them the card.

Space wolves and Dark Angels are a bit too specifically sculpted to get away with that though. The weapons are about the same though, and you might have to proxy a couple. I'd play against your army like that, though, if you're consistent.

I have dark angels and space wolves in my army. all painted the non standardized color scheme that I use. when i field things like the wulfin or wolf riders obviously then they use space marine rules. The dark angels mixed in are usually the leaders, they wear robes over their power armor as a chapter tradition.

when using thier special flyers or characters though they get fielded as dark angels.

though i guess it should be noted that I have only put em down as something other than vanilla maybe a half dozen times on a table since 8th started

 Skinnereal wrote:
Don't paint your army as a known chapter.

If you do paint as a known chapter, keep a card to one side saying which chapter your are using them as.

If you want rules flexibility, play grey marines. That's what Jervis did with his Relictors.

If you paint as a known Chapter that has Chapter-specific rules, the I will expect it to be played as such if cash prizes are on the line. Any variance from that in tournament play is cheating, card or not. Same as playing a Heavy Bolter as a LascannonThe model isn't playing the way that it looks. Same as fielding SM models as "Necrons", or IG models as Sisters. To that end, it is absolutely correct to push for maximum penalties when people do this.

You can paint your dudes as 100% Fluff Accurate Blood Angels and use Ultramarine rules if you so desire for all the rules care. All the rules care about is you use the correct model to represent the correct datasheet. Paint does not affect rules. Anyone saying otherwise is simply incorrect.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You can paint your dudes as 100% Fluff Accurate Blood Angels and use Ultramarine rules if you so desire for all the rules care. All the rules care about is you use the correct model to represent the correct datasheet. Paint does not affect rules. Anyone saying otherwise is simply incorrect.

A Blood Angel isn't an Ultramarine, anymore than an Imperial Guardsman or Necron is. It's cheating.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
Don't paint your army as a known chapter.

If you do paint as a known chapter, keep a card to one side saying which chapter your are using them as.

If you want rules flexibility, play grey marines. That's what Jervis did with his Relictors.

If you paint as a known Chapter that has Chapter-specific rules, the I will expect it to be played as such if cash prizes are on the line. Any variance from that in tournament play is cheating, card or not. Same as playing a Heavy Bolter as a LascannonThe model isn't playing the way that it looks. Same as fielding SM models as "Necrons", or IG models as Sisters. To that end, it is absolutely correct to push for maximum penalties when people do this.

So, if I have blue marines, but I'm playing White Scars, I hand you a list at the start of the game that has "White Scars Battalion" at the very top in big, bold letters (and later down, say, "White Scars Outrider" in similar font), I say at the start of the game (say you're playing Raven Guard) "Oh sweet! White Scars and Ravenguard have their rivalry. That makes this game even cooler!" and I'm running a bike-heavy list...

You're saying that, with all that, I am the one to blame if you think I'm running Ultramarines?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You can paint your dudes as 100% Fluff Accurate Blood Angels and use Ultramarine rules if you so desire for all the rules care. All the rules care about is you use the correct model to represent the correct datasheet. Paint does not affect rules. Anyone saying otherwise is simply incorrect.

A Blood Angel isn't an Ultramarine, anymore than an Imperial Guardsman or Necron is. It's cheating.

Following the rules is literally the opposite of that.

In the BA vs UM situation, BA Marines have different dataslates than UM marines.

That said, UM vs RG would work, technically. Same dataslates.

Bharring wrote:
In the BA vs UM situation, BA Marines have different dataslates than UM marines.

That said, UM vs RG would work, technically. Same dataslates.

Do do BA and UM Rhinos, do people get angry when you run Rhinos as BA?