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.

 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.

Except for the CSM players who played as Space Wolfs because that was OK?

And ALL of the CSMs stated as Loyalist SMs - there's no mandate that a CSM must have spikes. If you're going to call strawman and so forth, where is that requirement to only use official CSM models in the rules? Go ahead, show me. And then explain Red Corsairs, which would be perfectly acceptable using Loyalist SM models..

We are talking about what we would consider acceptable. You draw the line differently than I do. I follow the line that GW put for their tournaments, which should be the gold standard for WYSIWYG, and it absolutely does include paint.

 JohnHwangDD 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.

Except for the CSM players who played as Space Wolfs because that was OK?

And ALL of the CSMs stated as Loyalist SMs - there's no mandate that a CSM must have spikes. If you're going to call strawman and so forth, where is that requirement to only use official CSM models in the rules? Go ahead, show me. And then explain Red Corsairs, which would be perfectly acceptable using Loyalist SM models..

We are talking about what we would consider acceptable. You draw the line differently than I do. I follow the line that GW put for their tournaments, which should be the gold standard for WYSIWYG, and it absolutely does include paint.

Why does GW get to set community standards?

And, moreover, why is JUST the GW tournament that sets them?

I played in a tournament, at a GW, where models weren't even required to be PAINTED.

 JohnHwangDD 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.

Except for the CSM players who played as Space Wolfs because that was OK?

And ALL of the CSMs stated as Loyalist SMs - there's no mandate that a CSM must have spikes. If you're going to call strawman and so forth, where is that requirement to only use official CSM models in the rules? Go ahead, show me. And then explain Red Corsairs, which would be perfectly acceptable using Loyalist SM models..

We are talking about what we would consider acceptable. You draw the line differently than I do. I follow the line that GW put for their tournaments, which should be the gold standard for WYSIWYG, and it absolutely does include paint.

Fluff is not rules.

The community sets the standard, and it will vary! Which makes it a somewhat non-standard standard. Its a broad community.

Context is everything. Playing against a friend? Whatever you and your friend find acceptable. Playing at a tourney? Whatever the Tournament Organizer has published/enforced in his tournament pack. TO's are free to set their own standards, and players are free to choose which events to attend (assuming there are spaces). A TO who has a strict tourney pack that the community does not like will have plenty of spaces at his tourneys...The one with a more reasonable event pack might just sell out a venue with 700 spots. Supply and demand. The invisible hand of community standards. Our local TO for 40K engages with the community and makes adjustments. He also mixes it up.

It is a good thing that we have different venues with different standards. Some will be grey-plastic focused on tabletop victory. Others will emphasize being a hobby-hero. Both are great if you know what you are getting into - clear tournament packs are important here.

As an aside, I think that if you want Azrael at a strict-painting requirement event you need to paint and play as Dark Angels and not a Successor Chapter.

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.

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

Considering that GW has published color patterns for dozens of chapters, several of which are very similar to first founding chapters that are cannonically not their parent chapter, I don't see any reason to forbid blue marines with roman iconography from being played as any of the other loyalist chapters.

Even as a TO in the given scenario I would go so far as to say that blue marines with roman iconography could be played as a renegade chaos chapter so long as it was scrupulous about wysiwyg equipment and only used a single chaos trait and the same marks throughout. Assault marines are Raptors, Dreadnaughts are Hellbrutes, Predators are Predators, there are no Primaris anywhere, etc.

Playing two different chapter traits with models that all have the same paint scheme is right out though.

 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.

This sort of behaviour is what screams TFG to me, not switching chapters. People who act le this frequently.find themselves unwelcome to play ime.

Drager wrote:

 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.

This sort of behaviour is what screams TFG to me, not switching chapters. People who act le this frequently.find themselves unwelcome to play ime.

Me? Unless I'm misunderstanding you're saying I'm TFG? I think I might get a hernia if I laugh too much at this. I really guess TFG is in the eye of the beholder.

 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.

There are no ‘official’ WYSIWYG rules in the rule book. The rule book in no way states that you must build the models to be holding the weapon options you select. In this case, a dogmatic adherence to RAW contributes nothing to the discussion, since no rules are written.

If we want to go into full BCB pointless ‘RAW IS THING ONLY HIG THAT MATTERS’ legalese, then all we have written is guidelines. And the only GW guidelines that state WYSIWYG is a thing ALSO state that painting the correct sub faction is a thing.

But we can't chose and pick what we want to say is the official way to play of that tournament pack. We take it all or nothing. So, if I remember correctly they play at 1850 points, no? Or was it 1750?

If the equipment and upgrades are correct, it should absolutely be allowed.

If I found out the TOs had refused to allow such an army, I would not play in the event.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Drager wrote:

 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.

This sort of behaviour is what screams TFG to me, not switching chapters. People who act le this frequently.find themselves unwelcome to play ime.

Me? Unless I'm misunderstanding you're saying I'm TFG? I think I might get a hernia if I laugh too much at this. I really guess TFG is in the eye of the beholder.

Not necessarily, I don't know you or your character beyond the above post, but the behaviour you describe above - enforcing paint = rules and trying to create an environment were switching Chapter for better rules is discouraged - is how the most TFG guys I've met behave.

It smacks of telling people they are having fun wrong and it's frankly very rude. It's totally within your rights to refuse a game for any reason, but giving people the side eye, impugning their character (implying they will cheat as you do above) and creating an environment that's hostile to them is the epitome of TFG.

I might have misunderstood your post, but that's how it came across to me.

 Jimsolo wrote:
If the equipment and upgrades are correct, it should absolutely be allowed.

If I found out the TOs had refused to allow such an army, I would not play in the event.

Then I'd advise not entering the GW Grand Tournament, given this happened to a friend of mine (last year, and not on the day after he checked something would be OK in advance, but still...)

Drager wrote:
Not necessarily, I don't know you or your character beyond the above post, but the behaviour you describe above - enforcing paint = rules and trying to create an environment were switching Chapter for better rules is discouraged - is how the most TFG guys I've met behave.

It smacks of telling people they are having fun wrong and it's frankly very rude. It's totally within your rights to refuse a game for any reason, but giving people the side eye, impugning their character (implying they will cheat as you do above) and creating an environment that's hostile to them is the epitome of TFG.

I might have misunderstood your post, but that's how it came across to me.

I think you might have an extremely different idea of the definition of TFG to most people.

Either that or you’re deliberately trying to muddy the waters by ‘redefining’ it from bad/cheating/rules-lawyering player to some sort of too-casual person.

But yeah, definitely not the definition of TFG most people would use.

Put a coloured mark around the side of the bases of each unit and a matching coloured mark beside the unit's army list entry and you're doing more than enough to get my approval.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

Drager wrote:
Not necessarily, I don't know you or your character beyond the above post, but the behaviour you describe above - enforcing paint = rules and trying to create an environment were switching Chapter for better rules is discouraged - is how the most TFG guys I've met behave.

It smacks of telling people they are having fun wrong and it's frankly very rude. It's totally within your rights to refuse a game for any reason, but giving people the side eye, impugning their character (implying they will cheat as you do above) and creating an environment that's hostile to them is the epitome of TFG.

I might have misunderstood your post, but that's how it came across to me.

I think you might have an extremely different idea of the definition of TFG to most people.

Either that or you’re deliberately trying to muddy the waters by ‘redefining’ it from bad/cheating/rules-lawyering player to some sort of too-casual person.

But yeah, definitely not the definition of TFG most people would use.

To me it includes cheating and bad behaviour as well as misinterpreting or misrepresenting rules on purpose. This includes making a club a toxic atmosphere and trying to force your preferences on everyone. It can be a casual at all costs or win at all costs mentality. Or just a jerk. I think that's a pretty standard definition. It's the person who makes people go "oh that f#@*ing guy".

 ArbitorIan wrote:

Drager wrote:
Not necessarily, I don't know you or your character beyond the above post, but the behaviour you describe above - enforcing paint = rules and trying to create an environment were switching Chapter for better rules is discouraged - is how the most TFG guys I've met behave.

It smacks of telling people they are having fun wrong and it's frankly very rude. It's totally within your rights to refuse a game for any reason, but giving people the side eye, impugning their character (implying they will cheat as you do above) and creating an environment that's hostile to them is the epitome of TFG.

I might have misunderstood your post, but that's how it came across to me.

I think you might have an extremely different idea of the definition of TFG to most people.

Either that or you’re deliberately trying to muddy the waters by ‘redefining’ it from bad/cheating/rules-lawyering player to some sort of too-casual person.

But yeah, definitely not the definition of TFG most people would use.

It comes pretty close to the definition of TFG that most people I know hold. Anyone has the right to refuse a game fir whatever reason, but that dismissive, passive aggressive stuff can make clubs very toxic. From sneering at people's painting to looking down on 3rd party sculpts to questioning stuff like Forge World etc etc It all detracts from people's enjoyment and establishes one person's preferences as moral authority.

These 2 words have come up before, but I want to throw them up again...


SUCCESSOR CHAPTER

There are multiple LGS full of wysiwyg-paint 'people' in my area, and I've become adept at dealing with them. Funnily enough, these attitudes drive everyone to the local GW, due to the managers "How would you like to hobby today?" mentality.

I gota wonder how some of these people would ever deal with a pure MK 4 armor army that was painted pure red with gold trim with green visors and black bolt guns to meet the 3 color min. Since at that point they could be WE WB BA or a bunch of LSM successors all with the correct color's and models.

 mew28 wrote:
I gota wonder how some of these people would ever deal with a pure MK 4 armor army that was painted pure red with gold trim with green visors and black bolt guns to meet the 3 color min. Since at that point they could be WE WB BA or a bunch of LSM successors all with the correct color's and models.

Yep. They can be any of those things.

We’re literally only saying ‘Play them as something they look like so it isn’t confusing for your opponent’. This is also the position GW take.

Playing generic Mk4 red marines as BA or WB isn’t confusing. Taking those marines, covering then in BA symbols, special models and iconography and then playing them as WB is confusing.




Cue standard responses:
- I don’t find it confusing so nobody else should
- But but but I’ve found a torturous fluff exception where that doesn’t apply so none of that could possibly work at all.
- I’ve missed the point and only care about RAW and this isn’t RAW, but I still support WYSIWYG

 ArbitorIan wrote:

Drager wrote:
Not necessarily, I don't know you or your character beyond the above post, but the behaviour you describe above - enforcing paint = rules and trying to create an environment were switching Chapter for better rules is discouraged - is how the most TFG guys I've met behave.

It smacks of telling people they are having fun wrong and it's frankly very rude. It's totally within your rights to refuse a game for any reason, but giving people the side eye, impugning their character (implying they will cheat as you do above) and creating an environment that's hostile to them is the epitome of TFG.

I might have misunderstood your post, but that's how it came across to me.

I think you might have an extremely different idea of the definition of TFG to most people.

Either that or you’re deliberately trying to muddy the waters by ‘redefining’ it from bad/cheating/rules-lawyering player to some sort of too-casual person.

But yeah, definitely not the definition of TFG most people would use.

Yup, I'm as far from TFG as possible, it takes some fine mental gymnastics to get there.

I don't get why so many people ITT are... offended(?) by the idea of social conventions in this (or any) hobby. Do they literally do nothing else in life where there are also unspoken rules in place, be it on the street or in the workplace? Maybe these rules of etiquette are so subtle they don't even know they're abiding by them and it's a bit of a culture shock to them when pointed out.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 ArbitorIan wrote:

Drager wrote:
Not necessarily, I don't know you or your character beyond the above post, but the behaviour you describe above - enforcing paint = rules and trying to create an environment were switching Chapter for better rules is discouraged - is how the most TFG guys I've met behave.

It smacks of telling people they are having fun wrong and it's frankly very rude. It's totally within your rights to refuse a game for any reason, but giving people the side eye, impugning their character (implying they will cheat as you do above) and creating an environment that's hostile to them is the epitome of TFG.

I might have misunderstood your post, but that's how it came across to me.

I think you might have an extremely different idea of the definition of TFG to most people.

Either that or you’re deliberately trying to muddy the waters by ‘redefining’ it from bad/cheating/rules-lawyering player to some sort of too-casual person.

But yeah, definitely not the definition of TFG most people would use.

Yup, I'm as far from TFG as possible, it takes some fine mental gymnastics to get there.

I don't get why so many people ITT are... offended(?) by the idea of social conventions in this (or any) hobby. Do they literally do nothing else in life where there are also unspoken rules in place, be it on the street or in the workplace? Maybe these rules of etiquette are so subtle they don't even know they're abiding by them and it's a bit of a culture shock to them when pointed out.

I'm totally on board with social conventions. I just live with different (and I think more reasonable and fair) ones than you describe. Did you spend any time reflecting on what I said above and wondering if you are mistaken in your behaviour? I did the other way round. As I said I don't know anything of your character, but what I've seen in this thread doesn't show that you aren't TFG, nor that you are, simply that you have one trait in common with all the TFG people I've met; an evident desire to control other people's leisure time. I am well aware of unspoken rules and social contacts, my point is that the attitude you describe is a breach of good behaviour and etiquette in my social circles. We pride ourselves on being welcoming and respecting others over having things the way we like them. This isn't true everywhere and isn't even 'right' in any large sense, but is where my disagreement with your statement stems from.

So what if i get my Salamanders, put a green sticker over the chapter badge so you cant see it anymore on all my models. I then say they are a successor chapter of the Ultramarines called the green spots. How does that work. At what point does it become a custom chapter? Is the just the chapter badge that defines them?

I couldn't even tell you what colour Hive Fleet Kraken should be, or the Borkan Sept for Tau. As far as I'm concerned, as long as you're consistent and following WYSIWYG the colour of your army isn't relevant. Yes, this means I don't consider colour scheme to be part of WYSIWYG. As Peregrine pointed out a few pages back, this game is already operating at a sufficient level of complexity and required knowledge that if you're somehow confused by someone saying "these blue marines are Raven Guard" I'm not sure how you manage to get through a normal game without your brain melting.

How far are we supposed to go with this anyway? Blood Angels used to have a different official paint scheme. In fact, between 2-4th edition I think the official base colour for BA changed at least 3 times (it was Terracotta, then Blood Angels Red, then Blood Red) and they changed the shoulder pad trim from black to red at some point too. So do I now have to update my BA every time GW changes their official paint colour or scheme? If my UM are actually painted in the old blue from the previous paint range then surely they're no longer officially painted as UM at all, so what's the problem with them now using Raven Guard rules?

Ultimately this all comes down to whether or not your army is confusing. A simple "everyone is Salamanders" to cover your army is not confusing to any reasonable person. Saying "these blue guys are Salamanders, but these blue guys are Raven Guard" is confusing unless there's some sort of obvious difference between them (they all have cloaks modelled over their armour, for example). As has already been pointed out, the OP's original statement was made in bad faith and is internally contradictory anyway. In the real world there are usually shades of grey we have to work around as a community but one thing I've learned after playing this game for a long time is that common sense in some areas is actually a lot more common than some people would have you believe. I have literally never encountered a single person who's had a problem with an army counting as something it's not technically accurately painted to represent.

ArbitorIan wrote:
Cue standard responses:
- I don’t find it confusing so nobody else should
- But but but I’ve found a torturous fluff exception where that doesn’t apply so none of that could possibly work at all.
- I’ve missed the point and only care about RAW and this isn’t RAW, but I still support WYSIWYG

Wildkarrde wrote:So what if i get my Salamanders, put a green sticker over the chapter badge so you cant see it anymore on all my models. I then say they are a successor chapter of the Ultramarines called the green spots. How does that work. At what point does it become a custom chapter? Is the just the chapter badge that defines them?

Slipspace wrote:So do I now have to update my BA every time GW changes their official paint colour or scheme? If my UM are actually painted in the old blue from the previous paint range then surely they're no longer officially painted as UM at all, so what's the problem with them now using Raven Guard rules?

- If they look like Salamanders, play them as Salamanders. If they look like green not-Salamanders, play them as whatever your want.
- If they look like Blood Angels, play them as Blood Angels. If they look like orangey-red not-Blood Angels, play them as whatever you want.

I think the most reasonable, and most commonly played, solution to the exaggerated scenario in the OP is that it's fine to have an army of Crimson Fists and play them as Salamanders. That's fine.

It gets confusing, though when someone says, 'This Crimson Fists Tactical Squad is actually a Raven Guard Tactical Squad but this identical Crimson Fists Tactical Squad is actually a Blood Angels Tactical Squad.'

I still wouldn't refuse the game or consider the player TFG but I would expect a modicum of decency from the guy in that he'd throw the odd reminder in if it looked like any resulting confusion was giving him an unfair advantage.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
Cue standard responses:
- I don’t find it confusing so nobody else should
- But but but I’ve found a torturous fluff exception where that doesn’t apply so none of that could possibly work at all.
- I’ve missed the point and only care about RAW and this isn’t RAW, but I still support WYSIWYG

Wildkarrde wrote:So what if i get my Salamanders, put a green sticker over the chapter badge so you cant see it anymore on all my models. I then say they are a successor chapter of the Ultramarines called the green spots. How does that work. At what point does it become a custom chapter? Is the just the chapter badge that defines them?

Slipspace wrote:So do I now have to update my BA every time GW changes their official paint colour or scheme? If my UM are actually painted in the old blue from the previous paint range then surely they're no longer officially painted as UM at all, so what's the problem with them now using Raven Guard rules?

- If they look like Salamanders, play them as Salamanders. If they look like green not-Salamanders, play them as whatever your want.
- If they look like Blood Angels, play them as Blood Angels. If they look like orangey-red not-Blood Angels, play them as whatever you want.

So can you tell me exactly how much not-like Salamanders my army needs to look? What if I'm not actually that knowledgeable about the lore and don't even know that Salamanders are a thing (much like I couldn't tell you what each Hive Fleet's colours are)? I'm all for avoiding confusion but I've yet to see a reason why a simple statement of "my army uses Raven Guard chapter tactics" is confusing in any way, regardless of how the army is painted. It's all very well you laughing at people using your "standard responses" but if large numbers of people find those responses reasonable (minus the biased language used in your explanations) they are reasonable for most practical purposes regardless of your attitude towards them.

Slipspace wrote:

So can you tell me exactly how much not-like Salamanders my army needs to look? What if I'm not actually that knowledgeable about the lore and don't even know that Salamanders are a thing (much like I couldn't tell you what each Hive Fleet's colours are)? I'm all for avoiding confusion but I've yet to see a reason why a simple statement of "my army uses Raven Guard chapter tactics" is confusing in any way, regardless of how the army is painted. It's all very well you laughing at people using your "standard responses" but if large numbers of people find those responses reasonable (minus the biased language used in your explanations) they are reasonable for most practical purposes regardless of your attitude towards them.

Nope. It's a grey area. (Despite the posters on here who insist there is no such thing). If there's a reasonable chance that your models could be confusing then it's probably best to check with the event, as per GW guidelines suggest.

Realistically, I don't actually think this happens very often. If you've got green marines, with their skin all coal-black, and dragon scale cloaks, and loads of flamers, you're probably playing them as Salamanders, and if you have green marines without any of that and with different pads and a different symbol, you're probably not.

What I see on this thread is a ton of people arguing with false equivalence, where people WITH the first sort of army are insisting that they simply can't see the why it would be confusing to run them as Ultramarines because other green chapters exist.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

So can you tell me exactly how much not-like Salamanders my army needs to look? What if I'm not actually that knowledgeable about the lore and don't even know that Salamanders are a thing (much like I couldn't tell you what each Hive Fleet's colours are)? I'm all for avoiding confusion but I've yet to see a reason why a simple statement of "my army uses Raven Guard chapter tactics" is confusing in any way, regardless of how the army is painted. It's all very well you laughing at people using your "standard responses" but if large numbers of people find those responses reasonable (minus the biased language used in your explanations) they are reasonable for most practical purposes regardless of your attitude towards them.

Nope. It's a grey area. (Despite the posters on here who insist there is no such thing). If there's a reasonable chance that your models could be confusing then it's probably best to check with the event, as per GW guidelines suggest.

Realistically, I don't actually think this happens very often. If you've got green marines, with their skin all coal-black, and dragon scale cloaks, and loads of flamers, you're probably playing them as Salamanders, and if you have green marines without any of that and with different pads and a different symbol, you're probably not.

What I see on this thread is a ton of people arguing with false equivalence, where people WITH the first sort of army are insisting that they simply can't see the why it would be confusing to run them as Ultramarines because other green chapters exist.

I can see why it would be confusing at first glance, but not after someone says "these are using the UM tactic". Then it isn't, or if it is I can't imagine such a person having the capacity to play the game at all.

The paint = rule attitude forces others into 4 choices if they don't like the rules their any now has.

1) Repaint all their miniatures
2) Buy and paint a new army
3) dont play
4) Play with reasonable people

1-3 are unreasonable, I recommend 4.

Wildkarrde wrote:
So what if i get my Salamanders, put a green sticker over the chapter badge so you cant see it anymore on all my models. I then say they are a successor chapter of the Ultramarines called the green spots. How does that work. At what point does it become a custom chapter? Is the just the chapter badge that defines them?

I think for some people it does. Reading through some of the posts here, it would seem some people here take iconography to be very important, to the extent that for them, the wrong chapter badge is not WYSIWIG. I'm not sure I've seen anyone suggest that an Ultramarine army can't be green though. Is anyone here actually suggesting that?

 Ginjitzu wrote:

Wildkarrde wrote:
So what if i get my Salamanders, put a green sticker over the chapter badge so you cant see it anymore on all my models. I then say they are a successor chapter of the Ultramarines called the green spots. How does that work. At what point does it become a custom chapter? Is the just the chapter badge that defines them?

I think for some people it does. Reading through some of the posts here, it would seem some people here take iconography to be very important, to the extent that for them, the wrong chapter badge is not WYSIWIG. I'm not sure I've seen anyone suggest that an Ultramarine army can't be green though. Is anyone here actually suggesting that?

Nope, nobody is suggesting an UM army with the UM trait can't be a green chapter.

What we're suggesting is that running an obviously Salamanders army with the UM trait would be confusing.