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.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
So your essentially hobbling anyone that wants to paint their guys as a named chapter (particularly a first founding one) versus someone who paints their models in a custom scheme allowing them to still do what you described aka chase codexes. How a model is painted or if it is painted at all has never had any impact on the game rule wise. How would you treat someone who showed up with a based black army?

Taking this one step forward how would you treat IG players? GW essentially doesn't sell many of the regiments that now have traits.

I'd agree but the OP is saying you need to recall all the differences of which the army in question has many. It isn't just a paint job issue in that near a complete none wysiwyg kind of deal.

I doubt anyone would care what you ran your guard as. As they could wear cadian armor yet use steel legion combat tactics, or moridans or talaran, etc etc. The issue comes in more when they don't have the proper set ups at all. Or if it's super hard to tell, like they are all painted the same but represent 2 or 3 different traits, it can get hard to make them out.

I've never had an issue in what tactic I choose to use so long as its known. As well though my paint scheme isn't a traditional one either.

But the OP very much DOES have an issue with someone who paints Ultras and runs Ravenguard, or Iron Hands, or White Scars.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
So your essentially hobbling anyone that wants to paint their guys as a named chapter (particularly a first founding one) versus someone who paints their models in a custom scheme allowing them to still do what you described aka chase codexes. How a model is painted or if it is painted at all has never had any impact on the game rule wise. How would you treat someone who showed up with a based black army?

Taking this one step forward how would you treat IG players? GW essentially doesn't sell many of the regiments that now have traits.

I'd agree but the OP is saying you need to recall all the differences of which the army in question has many. It isn't just a paint job issue in that near a complete none wysiwyg kind of deal.

I doubt anyone would care what you ran your guard as. As they could wear cadian armor yet use steel legion combat tactics, or moridans or talaran, etc etc. The issue comes in more when they don't have the proper set ups at all. Or if it's super hard to tell, like they are all painted the same but represent 2 or 3 different traits, it can get hard to make them out.

I've never had an issue in what tactic I choose to use so long as its known. As well though my paint scheme isn't a traditional one either.

The OP has put forward a restriction, if you paint your guys as UM or IH than that's the only chapter trait/rules you should use for your minis. By taking that to it's logical conclusion if you wanted to use talaran tactics then you need to find out of production models.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
So your essentially hobbling anyone that wants to paint their guys as a named chapter (particularly a first founding one) versus someone who paints their models in a custom scheme allowing them to still do what you described aka chase codexes.

How a model is painted or if it is painted at all has never had any impact on the game rule wise.

How would you treat someone who showed up with a based black army?

Taking this one step forward how would you treat IG players?

GW essentially doesn't sell many of the regiments that now have traits.

The OP has put forward a restriction, if you paint your guys as UM or IH than that's the only chapter trait/rules you should use for your minis. By taking that to it's logical conclusion if you wanted to use talaran tactics then you need to find out of production models.

If someone paints a named Chapter (Craftworld, Hive Fleet, whatever) and it has specific Codex rules, then I expect it to be played as such. Playing it as anything else is confusing to an opponent who should not have to remember that the Ultramarines are *not* playing under Ultramarines rules.

A custom scheme has no specific rules connotation, so it is perfectly acceptable to play under a variety of rules.

In many tournament environments, armies that are painted as Named forces with specific rules *must* be played as such. GW Official Tournaments, in particular, are like this.

Someone who showed up with a primer black army would fail the 3-color minimum that most tournaments require, so they would not be allowed to play.

If an IG player showed up with Guardsmen modeled and painted as a particular Regiment, but played under different rules, that's creating the same confusion as the Ultramarines playing as CSM.

An IG army using generic models is like a custom Chapter, and can play as any set of traits.

You misunderstand completely:
1. An Ultramarine army painted as such should be played as such.
2. An IG army using Tallarn rules can certainly use generic IG models.
3. An IG army using OOP Tallarn models painted in the "classic" Tallarn scheme and heraldry should be expected to play as Tallarn.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
So your essentially hobbling anyone that wants to paint their guys as a named chapter (particularly a first founding one) versus someone who paints their models in a custom scheme allowing them to still do what you described aka chase codexes. How a model is painted or if it is painted at all has never had any impact on the game rule wise. How would you treat someone who showed up with a based black army?

Taking this one step forward how would you treat IG players? GW essentially doesn't sell many of the regiments that now have traits.

Yes. If you paint your models as Ultramarines, it’s confusing for your opponent to use them as Iron Hands. If you paint your models as Amazing Purple Marines, it’s not confusing for your opponent to use them as Iron Hands.

Regarding IG, i’d go further than John does, as there are no ‘generic’ IG models. If you buy Cadian models, and want them to be not-Cadian, you’re gonna have to make them look appropriately not-Cadian. And if you use detachments with different regiments, then those detachments have to be visibly different to a level where your opponent can tell the different from the other side of the table.

Last week I had to play in an event against a three-detachment Tau army where each detachment had a different sept to maximise special abilities. All models were painted exactly the same. It was really confusing, and I wouldn’t play that army again because of it.

Edit: ninja’d

 ArbitorIan wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
So your essentially hobbling anyone that wants to paint their guys as a named chapter (particularly a first founding one) versus someone who paints their models in a custom scheme allowing them to still do what you described aka chase codexes. How a model is painted or if it is painted at all has never had any impact on the game rule wise. How would you treat someone who showed up with a based black army?

Taking this one step forward how would you treat IG players? GW essentially doesn't sell many of the regiments that now have traits.

Yes. If you paint your models as Ultramarines, it’s confusing for your opponent to use them as Iron Hands. If you paint your models as Amazing Purple Marines, it’s not confusing for your opponent to use them as Iron Hands.

Regarding IG, i’d go further than John does, as there are no ‘generic’ IG models. If you buy Cadian models, and want them to be not-Cadian, you’re gonna have to make them look appropriately not-Cadian. And if you use detachments with different regiments, then those detachments have to be visibly different to a level where your opponent can tell the different from the other side of the table.

Last week I had to play in an event against a three-detachment Tau army where each detachment had a different sept to maximise special abilities. All models were painted exactly the same. It was really confusing, and I wouldn’t play that army again because of it.

Edit: ninja’d

Ah see, I get that. Now what if the tau models had three different paint jobs to designate the Sept differences ? Like say Red, Blue and Yellow, for instance ? For me that is where the line is drawn. I don't care if someone has cadian models, with a non standard paint job and they say they are using whatever regiment trait they want so long as it's uniform at least by paint scheme. Though I don't usually split up my regiment it's all either cadian, or whatever else it might be just to not be confusing and honestly it would feel cheese to me otherwise.

Now if I play someone and they have the traditional cadian paint scheme but they say they are steel legion regiment, I'm still fine with that as that isn't confusing to me though I can see where having a unique paint scheme would be easier as it wouldn't lead to thinking one thing over another.

Now I wouldn't usually do that though myself as I like to stick with whoever my dog in the race is. I don't mind being less powerful for a bit if I have to be. I won't be saying my marines are chaos any time too soon. ( I have nurgle for that itch )

AngryAngel80 wrote:


Ah see, I get that. Now what if the tau models had three different paint jobs to designate the Sept differences ? Like say Red, Blue and Yellow, for instance ? For me that is where the line is drawn. I don't care if someone has cadian models, with a non standard paint job and they say they are using whatever regiment trait they want so long as it's uniform at least by paint scheme. Though I don't usually split up my regiment it's all either cadian, or whatever else it might be just to not be confusing and honestly it would feel cheese to me otherwise.

Now if I play someone and they have the traditional cadian paint scheme but they say they are steel legion regiment, I'm still fine with that as that isn't confusing to me though I can see where having a unique paint scheme would be easier as it wouldn't lead to thinking one thing over another.

Now I wouldn't usually do that though myself as I like to stick with whoever my dog in the race is. I don't mind being less powerful for a bit if I have to be. I won't be saying my marines are chaos any time too soon. ( I have nurgle for that itch )

Oh me too - if whatever my army are is sub-optimal, I really don’t mind. I’ll just play them like that anyway.

Yeah, if he had painted them in three different sept colours, then I would have been totally fine with it. It was just really hard to remember which leader was the one to remove to get rid of which buffs to which models when they’re all different but painted all the same!

With Cadians, I agree that it’s a bit fuzzier. I guess I’d be more annoyed by someone painting their models green and khaki and then running them as mordians than if they painted them blue and gold, and swapped sergeant heads for caps and THEN ran them as mordians, etc etc.

On a different point (that I don’t think has been mentioned yet):
One of the things I used to dislike about codex-hopping in 7ed was how it really removed/narrowed down the options you saw on the field (because in 7ed chapter traits were much closer tied to individual units). So, in the rules you could build normal marine armies, biker marine armies, armoured marine armies, etc and also run them as ultramarines, iron hands, white scars etc. That’s loads of varied and subtle options - a white scars biker army would function differently to an ultramarine biker army. But with codex-hopping, not only was it more confusing to play against, but you never saw most of those options. Every single biker army used white scars rules. Every single armoured army used Iron Hands rules.

I’d love to see how different a Light Infantry-themed Cadian army and a Light Infantry-themed Tallarn army function, and both are possible to take, but if everyone always uses Tallarn traits for every Light Infantry army, we have less armies to play against!

Casual, ‘try this out’ game? No problem.

Tournament, WYSIWYG required? Nope to the Nth.

And this is from an Ork player.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:


Ah see, I get that. Now what if the tau models had three different paint jobs to designate the Sept differences ? Like say Red, Blue and Yellow, for instance ? For me that is where the line is drawn. I don't care if someone has cadian models, with a non standard paint job and they say they are using whatever regiment trait they want so long as it's uniform at least by paint scheme. Though I don't usually split up my regiment it's all either cadian, or whatever else it might be just to not be confusing and honestly it would feel cheese to me otherwise.

Now if I play someone and they have the traditional cadian paint scheme but they say they are steel legion regiment, I'm still fine with that as that isn't confusing to me though I can see where having a unique paint scheme would be easier as it wouldn't lead to thinking one thing over another.

Now I wouldn't usually do that though myself as I like to stick with whoever my dog in the race is. I don't mind being less powerful for a bit if I have to be. I won't be saying my marines are chaos any time too soon. ( I have nurgle for that itch )

Oh me too - if whatever my army are is sub-optimal, I really don’t mind. I’ll just play them like that anyway.

Yeah, if he had painted them in three different sept colours, then I would have been totally fine with it. It was just really hard to remember which leader was the one to remove to get rid of which buffs to which models when they’re all different but painted all the same!

With Cadians, I agree that it’s a bit fuzzier. I guess I’d be more annoyed by someone painting their models green and khaki and then running them as mordians than if they painted them blue and gold, and swapped sergeant heads for caps and THEN ran them as mordians, etc etc.

On a different point (that I don’t think has been mentioned yet):
One of the things I used to dislike about codex-hopping in 7ed was how it really removed/narrowed down the options you saw on the field (because in 7ed chapter traits were much closer tied to individual units). So, in the rules you could build normal marine armies, biker marine armies, armoured marine armies, etc and also run them as ultramarines, iron hands, white scars etc. That’s loads of varied and subtle options - a white scars biker army would function differently to an ultramarine biker army. But with codex-hopping, not only was it more confusing to play against, but you never saw most of those options. Every single biker army used white scars rules. Every single armoured army used Iron Hands rules.

I’d love to see how different a Light Infantry-themed Cadian army and a Light Infantry-themed Tallarn army function, and both are possible to take, but if everyone always uses Tallarn traits for every Light Infantry army, we have less armies to play against!

Oh I totally get that feeling. That is the exact reason I mix up the regiments from game to game. It isn't so much a power game move. I just like to try out different tactics and focus on different units. Like I mostly run cadian as I have the character models and I had used them as cadians the whole time. Though I suppose there isn't a reason why you wouldn't field commanders who used cadian gear but focused on blitz tactics or mech assault or close order combat drills etc. Always good to use all of your collection and keep the game fresh for yourself as well as the other guy.

I would have made my guard force steel legion way back if the models didn't cost a mint and were easier to get. Now it's pretty difficult all in all so if I get the itch I just roll heavy mechanized and use the regiment trait, still great coats, gas masks FTW or they would be if I had them. That however ends up a fault of GW in never really touching on any of the other guard lines and leaving just the two dated model selections of catachan and cadian.

Edit: Also you can run those different set ups with other lists as well, like mechanized cadians, mordians, etc, etc. So I do that too, but mixing up regiments and none specific paint scheme gives you the freedom of always trying out the different tactics and keeping it from feeling like the exact same army over and over, which I feel is a good thing usually.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

Dysartes wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
[Citation Needed]

...in this mess of a thread? For which bit?

I'd particularly like to see the wording of the WYSIWYG non-rule that imposes restrictions on your paint-job, despite not existing.

It does though, just not in the "written" rules (in this current edition anyway...). There are numerous unwritten rules and gentlemen's agreements in every hobby and sport. WYSIWYG is one of them in 40k. It is generally expected of you to have the correct equipment on the models and in this edition paintjobs also factor into this (unlike most other editions) as they have crucial rules attached to them where this was not exactly the case in the past.

If I see a blue SM army with a load of Roman iconography across the board from me it is a reasonable assumption to make that I am facing Ultramarines. Finding out I am in fact playing against Iron Hands goes against the general expectation of WYSIWYG that the vast majority of gamers have IME. This game is a social contract, if you break one of the rules of the contract then you'll find it hard to get opponents. This is why it is generally adhered to. There are exceptions (such as "rule of cool". (bUt ThAt'S nOt a RuLe In ThE rUlEbOoK! ) ) but IME I see just about every gamer subconsciously adhere to it as they want to continue playing this game.

All this talk about "fuzziness" or "assumptions" is nonsense. Your paint has no bearing on what rules you use. The OP is a strawman that is trying to conflate two different things.

You cannot use Loyalist Marine models as Chaos Marine Datasheets. You can use Loyalist Marine models as Loyalist Marine datasheets with whatever keywords you want, regardless of the paint job. End of discussion. Anything else is house rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
All this talk about "fuzziness" or "assumptions" is nonsense. Your paint has no bearing on what rules you use. The OP is a strawman that is trying to conflate two different things.

You cannot use Loyalist Marine models as Chaos Marine Datasheets. You can use Loyalist Marine models as Loyalist Marine datasheets with whatever keywords you want, regardless of the paint job. End of discussion. Anything else is house rules.

Sums things up perfectly. Paint the models however and use whatever chapter/Sept/craftworld etc you want, or mix them between detatchments freely. Playing involves communication, just ask your opponent if you can't remember something. Next people will be saying warlord traits, relics and psychic powers should be clearly represented on the model somehow to avoid confusion.

However, a loyalist is a loyalist, not a chaos model or an orc.

 Grimtuff wrote:
If I see a blue SM army with a load of Roman iconography across the board from me it is a reasonable assumption to make that I am facing Ultramarines.

It is also a wrong assumption. You're facing my White Omegas space marines, a Black Templars successor chapter with fully WYSIWYG models.

Also, I have to laugh at this idea that it's difficult to remember what chapter you're playing against if the models don't match your painting expectations. It's not like breaking WYSIWYG with weapons where you have to remember that this flamer is really a plasma gun, but this other flamer is a melta gun and that flamer is a flamer. Your opponent tells you what chapter rule they're using and that's it, it's one static piece of information to remember. And TBH if you can't remember such a simple fact you're probably playing with such a limited understanding and awareness that you're going to lose anyway and it doesn't matter if your inability to keep track of a single rule causes you to make a mistake.

TIL I learned that unwritten rules count the same as written rules and that some people apparently cannot possibly remember "they're blue, but they're Iron Hands" for more than a few seconds without becoming confused and possibly hurt and scared.

How do you recall rules (written or otherwise, obviously) if you can't even remember what Faction you're facing without a visual cue?

 Excommunicatus wrote:
TIL I learned that unwritten rules count the same as written rules and that some people apparently cannot possibly remember "they're blue, but they're Iron Hands" for more than a few seconds without becoming confused and possibly hurt and scared.

How do you recall rules (written or otherwise, obviously) if you can't even remember what Faction you're facing without a visual cue?

Way to miss the point.

There is nothing stopping you in the rules of the game from doing this. There is, however IME an unwritten "rule" amongst playgroups that prevent you from doing this, lest you be labelled TFG. Sure, you can chase that competitive meta dragon and play your chapter that is established in canon background and has accompanying rules this edition as something else entirely but don't be surprised to get the side eye from other players or possibly even refused a game as you're being given an inch, so we know what comes after that.

What in heaven's name happened to communication? Do people not speak to each other when playing, anymore? Why can't the hypothetical UM player, not just remind his opponent if it looks like the proxy stuff is baiting him into something he'd obviously not do otherwise? Like just say, 'Before you charge those guys, remember, they've got a boatload of attacks back at you.'

Or if playing against the hypothetical UM player, just, you know ask or, if that's too much like actual human contact, you could just pay attention to the game from turn to turn.

Dagnabbit.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
TIL I learned that unwritten rules count the same as written rules and that some people apparently cannot possibly remember "they're blue, but they're Iron Hands" for more than a few seconds without becoming confused and possibly hurt and scared.

How do you recall rules (written or otherwise, obviously) if you can't even remember what Faction you're facing without a visual cue?

Way to miss the point.

There is nothing stopping you in the rules of the game from doing this. There is, however IME an unwritten "rule" amongst playgroups that prevent you from doing this, lest you be labelled TFG. Sure, you can chase that competitive meta dragon and play your chapter that is established in canon background and has accompanying rules this edition as something else entirely but don't be surprised to get the side eye from other players or possibly even refused a game as you're being given an inch, so we know what comes after that.

So would you say the same thing to, say, an Iron Hands player who got consistently whooped and then decides to try Ravenguard to try and eke out a victory?

I do agree that, for instance, what was presented in the OP is blatant powergaming without even a modicum of effort put forth to make it make sense. But, to quote myself...

 JNAProductions wrote:

Spoiler:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I didn't vote, because it didn't have an appropriate answer.

My answer is "No, because it's not WYSIWYG".

A Plague Marine is more than just a weapon-swapped CSM-same with Berserkers, same with TSons. (And kinda the same with Noise Marines, but they're pretty close.)

So, let me propose an amendment to your OP:

The list is:

Renegade Battalion

HQs
Chaos Lord (Bolt Pistol, Chainsword)-Represented by a Space Marine Captain with Bolt Pistol and Chainsword
Chaos Sorcerer (Bolt Pistol, Force Sword)-Represented by a Space Marine Librarian with Bolt Pistol and Force Sword

Troops
5 Man Chaos Marine Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marines
5 Man Chaos Marine Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marines
5 Man Chaos Marine Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marines

Elites
Helrbute (Multi-Melta and Fist)-Represented by a Dreadnought with Multi-Melta and Fist
Helrbute (Multi-Melta and Fist)-Represented by a Dreadnought with Multi-Melta and Fist

Fast Attacks
4 Man Chaos Biker Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marine Bikers
4 Man Chaos Biker Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marine Bikers
3 Man Chaos Biker Squad (Stock)-Represented by stock Space Marine Bikers

Dedicated Transports
Chaos Rhino (Two Combi-Bolters)-Represented by a Space Marine Rhino with two Combi-Bolters
Chaos Rhino (Two Combi-Bolters)-Represented by a Space Marine Rhino with two Combi-Bolters

992 Points

So no Calgar counts-as, no Plague Marines or Khorne Berserker counts-as (which, for a WYSIWYG tournament with cash on the line, is inappropriate) just 100% sensible, WYSIWYG models painted Imperium instead of Chaos.

I would be 100% fine with THAT, because it's WYSIWYG. Your example... Is not.

Edit: Ignore the fact that this list sucks and would never see a victory in a big tournament, let alone top tables. Assume the list is actually decent, but still WYSIWYG.

THAT list is, while still powergaming (under the assumption that CSM are better than SM) at least has the decency to make everything actually look like what it's supposed to be.

 JNAProductions wrote:

So would you say the same thing to, say, an Iron Hands player who got consistently whooped and then decides to try Ravenguard to try and eke out a victory?

Depends entirely on the situation. This game is no different to any other social contract and there are shades of grey to it. To a stranger I'd be wary and something like that would be setting off alarm bells as to what else they might be like to play. Most players will choose an established chapter for their background and playstyle so it immediately seems off if they wish to switch for whatever reason. The same cannot be said of made up chapters as that is the entire point of the rules.

If it is a friend I'll let it fly (and other things) as they have earned my trust in knowing it won't be for shenanigans.

Sure, I saw them. I then saw you immediately power past them and again attempt to pass off your opinion as having the force of a rule.

It doesn't and until GW write it down it never will.

I also saw your weasel words. That's not impolite, Moddy Modington. That's what they're called. I personally have never encountered a group or club that even attempts to enforce rules about paint, but then I've never needed to invent such a group as a convenient support for an unsupportable argument.

What is reasonable? This will vary based on the person and context. GW events have a more strict hobby requirement - a Dark Angels army has to be painted/modeled as Dark Angels in accordance with the pictures in the Codex. That is reasonable for that (somewhat unreasonable) context. It's their venue and they are trying to show off their hobby. At a local "game night" or non-GW tourneys I would say that strict painting requirements become unreasonable. I do think that we should respect datasheets as much as possible. So a box of Space Marines should be Space Marines and not Chaos unless you have done some mad-hobby skills. A box of Space Marines painted and modeled as Ultramarines should indeed be able to be played as Ravenguard at a non-GW event. We should not begrudge each other the ability to squeeze a little more variety out of our gaming dollars. To do so strikes me as unreasonable and perhaps even a little mean-spirited.

A reasonable restriction in that context would be that I can easily tell who is who. All the blue Space Marines are Ravenguard. Got it! These blue Space Marines are Ravenguard but those blue Space Marines are Iron Hands. Now I have an issue. I think that its reasonable to have a restriction that detachments with different doctrines/traits etc in the same army be easily distinguishable from each other.

We had the same debate when the V8 Astra Militarum Codex came out. Some folks were insistent that you have the "correct" models to be able to use the various doctrines. I believe that it is unreasonable to demand your opponent have "Catachan" or "Mordian" models to be able to use those doctrines. They have the same datasheets. If an opponent is using a mono-Regiment then he should be able to play whichever doctrine he choses - the book even tells you how to do this when you make up your own regiment. Mixed regiments in the same army? Then you need some way to distinguish. I am lucky enough to be a long-time IG player from 2nd Ed so I have metal Cadians, plastic Cadians, metal Catachans and plastic Catachans. This lets me mix doctrines with greater ease, but simply different colours could do it. I also do not see the issue if an opponent is Cadian one week and Tallaran the next with the same models. Variety is good! Hobby-snobbery is bad.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
What is reasonable? This will vary based on the person and context. GW events have a more strict hobby requirement - a Dark Angels army has to be painted/modeled as Dark Angels in accordance with the pictures in the Codex.

That is not a rule GW has for GW events. GW does require a standard of painting in terms of number of colors. But they do not require anyone to follow the codex images. You could paint your DA models pink and teal and call them DA.

That is reasonable for that (somewhat unreasonable) context. It's their venue and they are trying to show off their hobby. At a local "game night" or non-GW tourneys I would say that strict painting requirements become unreasonable. I do think that we should respect datasheets as much as possible. So a box of Space Marines should be Space Marines and not Chaos unless you have done some mad-hobby skills. A box of Space Marines painted and modeled as Ultramarines should indeed be able to be played as Ravenguard at a non-GW event. We should not begrudge each other the ability to squeeze a little more variety out of our gaming dollars. To do so strikes me as unreasonable and perhaps even a little mean-spirited.

A reasonable restriction in that context would be that I can easily tell who is who. All the blue Space Marines are Ravenguard. Got it! These blue Space Marines are Ravenguard but those blue Space Marines are Iron Hands. Now I have an issue. I think that its reasonable to have a restriction that detachments with different doctrines/traits etc in the same army be easily distinguishable from each other.

We had the same debate when the V8 Astra Militarum Codex came out. Some folks were insistent that you have the "correct" models to be able to use the various doctrines. I believe that it is unreasonable to demand your opponent have "Catachan" or "Mordian" models to be able to use those doctrines. They have the same datasheets. If an opponent is using a mono-Regiment then he should be able to play whichever doctrine he choses - the book even tells you how to do this when you make up your own regiment. Mixed regiments in the same army? Then you need some way to distinguish. I am lucky enough to be a long-time IG player from 2nd Ed so I have metal Cadians, plastic Cadians, metal Catachans and plastic Catachans. This lets me mix doctrines with greater ease, but simply different colours could do it. I also do not see the issue if an opponent is Cadian one week and Tallaran the next with the same models. Variety is good! Hobby-snobbery is bad.

Agree with the rest.

I buy the DA codex to use it. Just because Im using a custom painted succesor Im not gonna lose all my special characters and all my relics with the exception of one sword.
I have paid for those rules, and at least for now nobody had a problem with my custom chapter master with combiplasma and powersword using Azrael rules, or my chapter being a custom one with DA rules.

The same with my Taus, GW isnt gonna stop me from using characters I had in previous editions just because. If I can use all the subfactions rules of my codex to try different army lists and different tactics, so I dont grow bored, Im gonna do it. I have paid for those rules, and many times I know im using weaker rules, but they open new army lists and keeping my gameplay fresh is much more relevant to me. I dont play Tau because omg 5+ to overwatch and if they instead have +6" range they no longer feel tau. Most subfaction bonuses are minor things without flavour or back ground relevance, just little mathematical variations, that can open new tactics.

I dont mix and max subfactions though, so people has no problem remembering my army rules. People thinks SM standards aply to the rest of the game when with the exception of Farsight nearly no one will know what Sept goes with what paintjob.
Even worse with DE, GSC, ADmech, etc...

And Im catholic but for the love of God I cant understand this martyr complex of using the arbitrary bonuses GW has assigned to your paintjob that previously didnt had one, even if those bonuses suck, make your experience misserable, or are just so out of touch with the background that actually work agaisnt how your subfaction works in the fluff.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Orbei wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
All this talk about "fuzziness" or "assumptions" is nonsense. Your paint has no bearing on what rules you use. The OP is a strawman that is trying to conflate two different things.

You cannot use Loyalist Marine models as Chaos Marine Datasheets. You can use Loyalist Marine models as Loyalist Marine datasheets with whatever keywords you want, regardless of the paint job. End of discussion. Anything else is house rules.

Sums things up perfectly. Paint the models however and use whatever chapter/Sept/craftworld etc you want, or mix them between detatchments freely. Playing involves communication, just ask your opponent if you can't remember something. Next people will be saying warlord traits, relics and psychic powers should be clearly represented on the model somehow to avoid confusion.

Red herring is my favourite food too...

I'm sorry the point was lost on you. Subfactions, psychic powers, relics and warlord traits are all rules that confer bonuses which impact gameplay but have no modelling requirement whatsoever. Some people want to assign modeling requirements to one of those four things lest it be too confusing for them, yet somehow handle the other three just fine.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
All this talk about "fuzziness" or "assumptions" is nonsense. Your paint has no bearing on what rules you use. The OP is a strawman that is trying to conflate two different things.

You cannot use Loyalist Marine models as Chaos Marine Datasheets. You can use Loyalist Marine models as Loyalist Marine datasheets with whatever keywords you want, regardless of the paint job. End of discussion. Anything else is house rules.

Don’t know what discussion you’re having, but the OP didn’t ask ‘what are the rules?’ Or even ‘what is an overly literal description of the rules?’.

He asked ‘would you be OK with this?’.

Guess that’s the discussion still open then....

 Lance845 wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
What is reasonable? This will vary based on the person and context. GW events have a more strict hobby requirement - a Dark Angels army has to be painted/modeled as Dark Angels in accordance with the pictures in the Codex.

That is not a rule GW has for GW events. GW does require a standard of painting in terms of number of colors. But they do not require anyone to follow the codex images. You could paint your DA models pink and teal and call them DA.

That is reasonable for that (somewhat unreasonable) context. It's their venue and they are trying to show off their hobby. At a local "game night" or non-GW tourneys I would say that strict painting requirements become unreasonable. I do think that we should respect datasheets as much as possible. So a box of Space Marines should be Space Marines and not Chaos unless you have done some mad-hobby skills. A box of Space Marines painted and modeled as Ultramarines should indeed be able to be played as Ravenguard at a non-GW event. We should not begrudge each other the ability to squeeze a little more variety out of our gaming dollars. To do so strikes me as unreasonable and perhaps even a little mean-spirited.

A reasonable restriction in that context would be that I can easily tell who is who. All the blue Space Marines are Ravenguard. Got it! These blue Space Marines are Ravenguard but those blue Space Marines are Iron Hands. Now I have an issue. I think that its reasonable to have a restriction that detachments with different doctrines/traits etc in the same army be easily distinguishable from each other.

We had the same debate when the V8 Astra Militarum Codex came out. Some folks were insistent that you have the "correct" models to be able to use the various doctrines. I believe that it is unreasonable to demand your opponent have "Catachan" or "Mordian" models to be able to use those doctrines. They have the same datasheets. If an opponent is using a mono-Regiment then he should be able to play whichever doctrine he choses - the book even tells you how to do this when you make up your own regiment. Mixed regiments in the same army? Then you need some way to distinguish. I am lucky enough to be a long-time IG player from 2nd Ed so I have metal Cadians, plastic Cadians, metal Catachans and plastic Catachans. This lets me mix doctrines with greater ease, but simply different colours could do it. I also do not see the issue if an opponent is Cadian one week and Tallaran the next with the same models. Variety is good! Hobby-snobbery is bad.

Agree with the rest.

The Warhammer World Grand Tournament rules pack say that if you have painted a specific chapter then you are expected to play that chapter (Model Requirements page). I suppose that is not all GW events as each store might have its own thing. Still, the big GW tourney pack makes you stick to your specific paint job while allowing wiggle room for home-brew colours. Home-brew Chapters would not, I think, have access to Chapter-specific Special Characters. A Dark Angels Successor Chapter could have any scheme, but could not take Azrael, Sammael etc. That's my interpretation anyway. Moot point - not going!

Great point. The closest source we have for ‘official’ rules in this regard is the GW event pack, which says the following.

- Each model must completely and accurately represent its entry on your army roster (including all weapons and equipment).

- If you have painted your models in a specific way, we expect you to use the rules relevant to that scheme. For example, if you have painted your models as Salamanders, your army must have the Salamanders keyword. If you have created your own unique colour scheme, then you may give them any keyword that you wish.

- If you have used different keywords between Detachments, there must be a clear visual difference between each Detachment. For example, if you have a Tyranid army with Detachments from both Hive Fleet Kraken and Kronos, the models in each Detachment must be clearly distinguishable from one to another such as a different coloured carapace.

So, there we go. According to GW, in events painting DOES affect which rules you’re allowed to use. Interestingly, this means that running Angels of Vengeance means you cannot use Azrael, since you must use the ‘Angels of Vengeance’ keyword. However, if you invent your own colour scheme you CAN use the ‘Dark Angels’ keyword and Azrael. Weird, but at least it makes sure there’s no confusion by using the wrong paint scheme.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
Great point. The closest source we have for ‘official’ rules in this regard is the GW event pack, which says the following.

- Each model must completely and accurately represent its entry on your army roster (including all weapons and equipment).
- If you have painted your models in a specific way, we expect you to use the rules relevant to that scheme. For example, if you have painted your models as Salamanders, your army must have the Salamanders keyword. If you have created your own unique colour scheme, then you may give them any keyword that you wish.
- If you have used different keywords between Detachments, there must be a clear visual difference between each Detachment. For example, if you have a Tyranid
army with Detachments from both Hive Fleet
Kraken and Kronos, the models in each Detachment must be clearly distinguishable from one to another such as a different coloured carapace.

So, there we go. According to GW, in events painting DOES affect which rules you’re allowed to use.

Warhammer World House Rules are still House Rules. The "official" rules are, ya know, the rulebook.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ArbitorIan wrote:
Great point. The closest source we have for ‘official’ rules in this regard is the GW event pack, which says the following.

- Each model must completely and accurately represent its entry on your army roster (including all weapons and equipment).
- If you have painted your models in a specific way, we expect you to use the rules relevant to that scheme. For example, if you have painted your models as Salamanders, your army must have the Salamanders keyword. If you have created your own unique colour scheme, then you may give them any keyword that you wish.
- If you have used different keywords between Detachments, there must be a clear visual difference between each Detachment. For example, if you have a Tyranid
army with Detachments from both Hive Fleet
Kraken and Kronos, the models in each Detachment must be clearly distinguishable from one to another such as a different coloured carapace.

So, there we go. According to GW, in events painting DOES affect which rules you’re allowed to use.

Warhammer World House Rules are still House Rules. The "official" rules are, ya know, the rulebook.

Agreed.

There's one point from there that I agree with 100%-if you're running different subfactions within the same army, MAKE SURE THEY'RE CLEARLY REPRESENTED!

Cadians as Catachans is fine, but should NOT be in the same list with Cadians as Cadians when they're all painted the same.

It doesnt HAVE to be paint. Anything to make them distinct. It could be a different color stripe on the shoulder. Or an extra should bit. Or different bases. I dont care what is done to distinguish detachment from detachment but it should be done.