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.

Racerguy180 wrote:
One; you suggested it so I'm not sure that you are the best person to decide what Iwant to do and Two, ummmmmmm hell no. Why in the hell would I want to run my army that I've had for quite a few years, killed literally thousands of Orks & Tyranids and have painted lovingly. I should just ditch all that for a new entirely different type of army? What a jacked up way to play. O wait, I forgot who I was referring to. You should be last person anyone listens to about their own army. If I wanted to play ultras I would have, or scars, or wolves. There is absolutely zero about the other legions, chapters etc that remotely interest me.

If I want to play a different type of army, I have my Metalica & Flawless Host currently. Soon Sororitas will join.

Why are you talking about playing a different type of army? You play with the same units, you just pick whichever chapter's tactics/characters/etc are best for those units.

 Peregrine wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
One; you suggested it so I'm not sure that you are the best person to decide what Iwant to do and Two, ummmmmmm hell no. Why in the hell would I want to run my army that I've had for quite a few years, killed literally thousands of Orks & Tyranids and have painted lovingly. I should just ditch all that for a new entirely different type of army? What a jacked up way to play. O wait, I forgot who I was referring to. You should be last person anyone listens to about their own army. If I wanted to play ultras I would have, or scars, or wolves. There is absolutely zero about the other legions, chapters etc that remotely interest me.

If I want to play a different type of army, I have my Metalica & Flawless Host currently. Soon Sororitas will join.

Why are you talking about playing a different type of army? You play with the same units, you just pick whichever chapter's tactics/characters/etc are best for those units.

So outta curiosity peregrine, what army do you play?

BrianDavion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
One; you suggested it so I'm not sure that you are the best person to decide what Iwant to do and Two, ummmmmmm hell no. Why in the hell would I want to run my army that I've had for quite a few years, killed literally thousands of Orks & Tyranids and have painted lovingly. I should just ditch all that for a new entirely different type of army? What a jacked up way to play. O wait, I forgot who I was referring to. You should be last person anyone listens to about their own army. If I wanted to play ultras I would have, or scars, or wolves. There is absolutely zero about the other legions, chapters etc that remotely interest me.

If I want to play a different type of army, I have my Metalica & Flawless Host currently. Soon Sororitas will join.

Why are you talking about playing a different type of army? You play with the same units, you just pick whichever chapter's tactics/characters/etc are best for those units.

So outta curiosity peregrine, what army do you play?

IG, with whichever sub-faction rules are best for what I want to do in a particular game.

I feel like this talk is never going to end well, never does.

Some people play the sub faction they love, good or bad, regardless of rules. They don't care if the rules aren't great, they play that faction, with that subfactions rules. It's fluffy for them and they consider it a point of honor.

Some people play their own faction, and use whatever the best sub faction rules are regardless of fluff, it's all about what is the best, fluff is second to effective rules.

Those who view the game these ways will never see eye to eye.

Neither side is wrong, however the rules trump all crowd is often extra vocal to tell others they are wrong for liking to stick to bad rules, or at least not the best rules.

I had one such player say it made him sick to see me run Ogryns and not Bullgryns, because bullgryns are so much better. I promptly ran more Ogryns and offered to get him a bucket if he had spew.

nevermind that the "power rules before all" crowd are useally the biggest problem with 40k in any edition.

BrianDavion wrote:
nevermind that the "power rules before all" crowd are useally the biggest problem with 40k in any edition.

No, that would be the CAAC crowd you're thinking of.

 Peregrine wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
nevermind that the "power rules before all" crowd are useally the biggest problem with 40k in any edition.

No, that would be the CAAC crowd you're thinking of.

yes it was the CAAC rowd who took rules loop holes and abused them to the point of absurdity? it was the CAAC crowd who decided to abuse the ally rules to run superfriends in 6th and 7th?

BrianDavion wrote:
yes it was the CAAC rowd who took rules loop holes and abused them to the point of absurdity? it was the CAAC crowd who decided to abuse the ally rules to run superfriends in 6th and 7th?

The fact that you are so insistently labeling a perfectly legal army "abuse" just demonstrates my point.

Peregrine wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Spoiler:

One; you suggested it so I'm not sure that you are the best person to decide what Iwant to do and Two, ummmmmmm hell no. Why in the hell would I want to run my army that I've had for quite a few years, killed literally thousands of Orks & Tyranids and have painted lovingly. I should just ditch all that for a new entirely different type of army? What a jacked up way to play. O wait, I forgot who I was referring to. You should be last person anyone listens to about their own army. If I wanted to play ultras I would have, or scars, or wolves. There is absolutely zero about the other legions, chapters etc that remotely interest me.

If I want to play a different type of army, I have my Metalica & Flawless Host currently. Soon Sororitas will join

.

Why are you talking about playing a different type of army? You play with the same units, you just pick whichever chapter's tactics/characters/etc are best for those units.

So outta curiosity peregrine, what army do you play?

IG, with whichever sub-faction rules are best for what I want to do in a particular game.

That sounds like a great way to play! Wait, what the hell, did I just get hit on the head....upon further consideration....nope. If you want to continuously change stuff up, how are you going to learn how run your army? Or are you gods gift to 40k and just have an innate(should be inane) talent on the tabletop and are able to hot swap rules, doctrines, etc in the most points/rules efficient way possible?

BrianDavion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
nevermind that the "power rules before all" crowd are useally the biggest problem with 40k in any edition.

No, that would be the CAAC crowd you're thinking of.

[u]yes it was the CAAC rowd who took rules loop holes and abused them to the point of absurdity? it was the CAAC crowd who decided to abuse the ally rules to run superfriends in 6th and 7th?

DINGDINGDING, we have a winner.

Racerguy180 wrote:
That sounds like a great way to play! Wait, what the hell, did I just get hit on the head....upon further consideration....nope. If you want to continuously change stuff up, how are you going to learn how run your army? Or are you gods gift to 40k and just have an innate(should be inane) talent on the tabletop and are able to hot swap rules, doctrines, etc in the most points/rules efficient way possible?

How do you learn your army when you change units? How do you learn when you change missions? Or do you play the same mission with the same list every game?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Orodhen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Well the Salamanders rules are bad anyway so who cares? Run them as something else and get a better bonus.

You have impossibly high standards if you think free re-rolls on every unit and turning -1 AP into 0 AP is bad. Their supplement isn't even out anyways.

The free rerolls didn't make them good in the first place. Gaining a durability rule worse than Iron Hands and Raven Guard helps them how?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why play Salamanders when you can play the Green Drakes, an Ultramarines successor chapter using the Ultramarines rules?

This guy gets it. You don't need to defend bad rules.

It's actually not a bad army trait by itself. Reolling a single hit/wound in MSU is usually all you need rather than a buff character close by which wants you to castle thus losing some board control. Saying it was bad before is fairly disingenuous because marines were just plain bad, pretty much all of them. You didn't see Ravenguard destroying people on a regular basis, even though it's supposed to be the best trait (as people claim for the Eldar).

Shrugging -1 damage rolls is excellent and will be extremely useful vs the marine lists that will be out there now. A good player will make Salamanders do work and we have yet to see what their specific supplement will provide.

 Peregrine wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
That sounds like a great way to play! Wait, what the hell, did I just get hit on the head....upon further consideration....nope. If you want to continuously change stuff up, how are you going to learn how run your army? Or are you gods gift to 40k and just have an innate(should be inane) talent on the tabletop and are able to hot swap rules, doctrines, etc in the most points/rules efficient way possible?

How do you learn your army when you change units? How do you learn when you change missions? Or do you play the same mission with the same list every game?

We play 90% open war so it's a different game/mission every time. My lists change with whatever mood I'm feeling, if I want to be aggressive, my list reflects that, same goes for long range, deep strike, etc...

I will only add units to my army if they;
1) Are cool/amazing/challenging(buildwise) Model
2) Fill a specific purpose/need not currently addressed
3) Fit in visually with other units in similar style

It might take me a while to figure out how best to use the unit(no math just feel and tactics) before I play it, but when I do it fits in cohesively and allows me to do something not possible before.

I dont care if UM can fall back & shoot w no penalty, IF can ignore cover, IH 6+ FNP....none of that is pertinent to how my Salamanders work/play for me.


but getting back on the topic of Drop pods....

I might have to breakdown and actually buy a couple. Just have to work out how to best use them for my playstyle. But I think the FW dredpod might do more for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:


Shrugging -1 damage rolls is excellent and will be extremely useful vs the marine lists that will be out there now. A good player will make Salamanders do work and we have yet to see what their specific supplement will provide.

I'm planning on making full use of everything in the SALAMANDERS supplement. +3" to all of the flamers in my army means a whole lotta charred enemies of the Emperor. Hopefully Melta gets some love as well.

You shouldn't be allowed to play a different chapter than the one you painted your models as.
That's the great advantage of 30k over 40k: no "your dudes" stupidity and only a few legions to choose from and I don't think I have ever seen someone playing with someone else rules.

And this is from someone playing a successor chapter (but as they are Ultramarine successors, I have never played with anything else than the UM tactics even if others would be better).

About the "ignore -1ap" part of the Salamader CT, what has -1ap ? Bolters (now) and one dynasty of necrons ? What else ?

You shouldn't be allowed to play a different chapter than the one you painted model as.

Ah go way out of that.
Are you really implying if I own Wolves but want to try out the rules for Ultras or Scars I have to repaint/rebuy them? Eh no

 Ratius wrote:

You shouldn't be allowed to play a different chapter than the one you painted model as.

Ah go way out of that.
Are you really implying if I own Wolves but want to try out the rules for Ultras or Scars I have to repaint/rebuy them? Eh no

I guess trying stuff if okay, then either you buy the codex and the models or you stop "trying" WS and Ultra.

Take that approuch and I garentee what'll happen is every one of your local game group will be a custom marine chapter. whose orgins are "mysterious"

 godardc wrote:
You shouldn't be allowed to play a different chapter than the one you painted your models as.

What if my models aren't painted as any of the official chapters?

Do I have to repaint them the "correct" way before I'm permitted to play a game with them?

 godardc wrote:

About the "ignore -1ap" part of the Salamader CT, what has -1ap ? Bolters (now) and one dynasty of necrons ? What else ?

Quite a few melee weapons. Tzaangor blades are somewhat on meta and would suffer here.

If GW were good at keeping the different chapters at the same level I would prefer if people played with the chapter they were painted as. And also if the internal chapter balance were good too.

Lets say you have 10k points of marines of a single chapter and in the current edition only Dark Angels had usable Terminators and Bikes, Blood Angels the only usable Jump Infantry, Space Wolves dreads and normal Marines infantry tanks. Would you really force that poor Dark Angels player to only play with his 2000pts of terminators and bikes for the whole edition if he want to even have a shot of winning and shelf the other 8000pts for a few years? In some editions the difference between chapters can be HUGE, especially for certain play styles within the chapters. To force a player to then basically sit out most of an edition instead of playing a different colored marine is the most eliteiest attitude possible.

If it were low single digit % difference between which color you have on your armor I would frown on those always trying to min max instead of having fun and I would only play my marines as what they are painted as. But we aren't talking about only a 1-5% performance difference but up to 50%+ in certain cases just depending on what edition and build you are trying to play. In edition shifts you can see this problem way more when some chapter might be playing a 5 year old codex from the start of the previous edition while another chapter has a brand new codex designed with the new rules in mind.

If my opponent wouldn't play against me because I used another chapters rules while my own were complete crap I wouldn't want to play that player at all either. If they care so much more about sitting on a high horse for an almost free win than having a fun and close game then they are probably not fun at all to play against.

I actually did paint my marines in custom colors at first and removed all the chapter specific symbols on them so I could play them as Salamanders, Black Templars or Blood Angels etc. But that just made them look more bland and took much more time to prep for little reward. I love the BA play style so now I just paint my newer models with more red and keep the blood angels bits on them. Wont play them as a tank heavy Iron Hands army ever but if lets say Raven Guard or White Scars have better rules for getting in to close combat with my jump pack marines than BA then I sure as hell would play my marines built and painted as BA with the RG/WS rules. If if anyone is gonna gate keep me from that I will gladly tell them they are an idiot and should shut up unless they want to buy and paint a new army for me or make GW write better rules.

quote=TheFleshIsWeak 778926 10536864 [62c14610721eadef06d7ee4863061191.jpg]

 godardc wrote:
You shouldn't be allowed to play a different chapter than the one you painted your models as.

What if my models aren't painted as any of the official chapters?

Do I have to repaint them the "correct" way before I'm permitted to play a game with them?

 godardc wrote:

Klickor wrote:
If GW were good at keeping the different chapters at the same level I would prefer if people played with the chapter they were painted as. And also if the internal chapter balance were good too.

Lets say you have 10k points of marines of a single chapter and in the current edition only Dark Angels had usable Terminators and Bikes, Blood Angels the only usable Jump Infantry, Space Wolves dreads and normal Marines infantry tanks. Would you really force that poor Dark Angels player to only play with his 2000pts of terminators and bikes for the whole edition if he want to even have a shot of winning and shelf the other 8000pts for a few years? In some editions the difference between chapters can be HUGE, especially for certain play styles within the chapters. To force a player to then basically sit out most of an edition instead of playing a different colored marine is the most eliteiest attitude possible.

If it were low single digit % difference between which color you have on your armor I would frown on those always trying to min max instead of having fun and I would only play my marines as what they are painted as. But we aren't talking about only a 1-5% performance difference but up to 50%+ in certain cases just depending on what edition and build you are trying to play. In edition shifts you can see this problem way more when some chapter might be playing a 5 year old codex from the start of the previous edition while another chapter has a brand new codex designed with the new rules in mind.

If my opponent wouldn't play against me because I used another chapters rules while my own were complete crap I wouldn't want to play that player at all either. If they care so much more about sitting on a high horse for an almost free win than having a fun and close game then they are probably not fun at all to play against.

I actually did paint my marines in custom colors at first and removed all the chapter specific symbols on them so I could play them as Salamanders, Black Templars or Blood Angels etc. But that just made them look more bland and took much more time to prep for little reward. I love the BA play style so now I just paint my newer models with more red and keep the blood angels bits on them. Wont play them as a tank heavy Iron Hands army ever but if lets say Raven Guard or White Scars have better rules for getting in to close combat with my jump pack marines than BA then I sure as hell would play my marines built and painted as BA with the RG/WS rules. If if anyone is gonna gate keep me from that I will gladly tell them they are an idiot and should shut up unless they want to buy and paint a new army for me or make GW write better rules.

I doubt GW would delete BA terminators or bikers, ever. They rarely delete a unit that had a model, mainly weapons etc (my poor razoback has to use the index haha).
The rules for terminators haven't been that good for a long time and thus, after a few attempts, I haven't play my terminators for a long time. I didn't try to use them as Deathwing or whatever, they aren't even painted white.
And tbh, I don't think a lot of person own so many codex that they can switch like this between armies with one collection.
If your models are blood angels painted Blood Angels, why would you play Raven Guard ? We are lucky enough to have a setting, well detailed stories and everything. We know what is an UM, a BA, an IF. Why playing DA ravenwing with WS bikers ?
It's not elitist at all, it's just 40k.
I wouldn't play idk, Poland cavalry in a German army for the Battle of Berlin in Bols for example.
Why don't you use Ork models for playing needs then ?
Why don't you play chess if rules are so important and models aren't ?

GW dont have to remove the models or its rules for a certain list but some times the units costs and rules are vastly different from the SM codex and the other chapters codex. So much so that if playing for example a terminator list with X chapter you are barely competitive but still have some chance against most lists but using almost the exact same list with another codex is almost an auto loss unless your opponent plays a weak list just to humor you. Which is ok with friends but what if I want to go to a tournament setting and play 4-6 games in a weekend and not just get crushed every time. Why not play the better rules than having to play a meta list or not play my army at all.

Lets say Raven Guard would get a lot of new rules that would help with getting units like Assault Marines in to close combat and perform well there. Lets say they are noticeable better than Blood Angels at that play style. Like 20-30% better performance while doing the exact same thing. Why wouldnt I just use my BA models and play them like a normal BA list but using the much superior Raven Guard rules. Same list, same play style, same models just a different color and both me and my opponent will most likely have a more interesting game. Maybe in a few months or a year or so Blood Angels get the updated rules too and will perform as well as Raven Guard but why do I have to lose in the mean time? Does it really matter if the rules are called "xxx doctrine" instead of "red thirst" when they are basically the same? It looks like BA, it plays like BA, it performs like BA should but the name in the rule book is slightly different and that somehow ruins all of your immersion? It still vanguard veterans, assault marines, JP characters and other units shared by all marines. Sure there won't be any death company or sanguinary guard but not every BA list fields them anyway and unless I actually told you I played with RG rules you wouldn't even notice it except that perhaps my list performs well instead of you steam rolling me.

Is is very elitist. You are trying to dictate how others should play in a way that only gets you a tiny bit more enjoyment out of the game while not caring at all if it makes the other player even want to play the game at all. Using orks as tyranids isnt a good comparison at all. It would be very confusing since they share nothing in common except being 40k models. If I just did a small change in how I painted by BA army you wouldnt ever know if they were a Raven Guard or Blood Angels successor chapter unless I fielded unique units, characters or flat out told you. Its not even unfluffy. Marines are elite fighters with decades of training and very versatile and can fight well in any role. So as long as you are not using Unique units and characters in a confusing way it even fits the lore better than intentionally gimping yourself with bad rules.

Let's not forget that sub-faction rules are a new thing. Until 8th all marines were the same and it didn't matter how you painted them. So why, in 8th, should a Salamanders player be locked in to one faction rule they didn't choose while someone with bright pink marines gets to use any faction rules they want?

 Peregrine wrote:
Let's not forget that sub-faction rules are a new thing. Until 8th all marines were the same and it didn't matter how you painted them. So why, in 8th, should a Salamanders player be locked in to one faction rule they didn't choose while someone with bright pink marines gets to use any faction rules they want?

It literally doesn't matter.

If your guys are green play the Salamander's successor chapter. If you have more than one chapter in the army then make them distinguishable.

This gak isn't rocket science.

I think the "strict color scheme" idea is mostly for lore hounds who are going for the war reenactment narrative. Otherwise most people don't care about that your Dark Angels are Ultramarines. Hell, I've played against Imperial Fist painted Salamanders and it was just good old fun game.

 godardc wrote:
You shouldn't be allowed to play a different chapter than the one you painted your models as.
That's the great advantage of 30k over 40k: no "your dudes" stupidity and only a few legions to choose from and I don't think I have ever seen someone playing with someone else rules.

And this is from someone playing a successor chapter (but as they are Ultramarine successors, I have never played with anything else than the UM tactics even if others would be better).

About the "ignore -1ap" part of the Salamader CT, what has -1ap ? Bolters (now) and one dynasty of necrons ? What else ?

Autocannons of all types (Armiger, regular, Pred, etc)
Heavy Bolter
Heavy Flamer
Haywire
Multiple melee weapons

no clue about Tau/orks/Nids, don't have their books (although I think Heavy Burst Cannon is, right?).

Granted, it's not exhaustive (I may have been biased as it seems the armies I do play have lots of -1, lol)

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Let's not forget that sub-faction rules are a new thing. Until 8th all marines were the same and it didn't matter how you painted them. So why, in 8th, should a Salamanders player be locked in to one faction rule they didn't choose while someone with bright pink marines gets to use any faction rules they want?

It literally doesn't matter.

If your guys are green play the Salamander's successor chapter. If you have more than one chapter in the army then make them distinguishable.

This gak isn't rocket science.

This isn't rocket science. Paint your models however you like and use whichever rules are best for your strategy on the table, the two have nothing to do with each other.

 bullyboy wrote:

 godardc wrote:
You shouldn't be allowed to play a different chapter than the one you painted your models as.
That's the great advantage of 30k over 40k: no "your dudes" stupidity and only a few legions to choose from and I don't think I have ever seen someone playing with someone else rules.

And this is from someone playing a successor chapter (but as they are Ultramarine successors, I have never played with anything else than the UM tactics even if others would be better).

About the "ignore -1ap" part of the Salamader CT, what has -1ap ? Bolters (now) and one dynasty of necrons ? What else ?

Autocannons of all types (Armiger, regular, Pred, etc)
Heavy Bolter
Heavy Flamer
Haywire
Multiple melee weapons

no clue about Tau/orks/Nids, don't have their books (although I think Heavy Burst Cannon is, right?).

Granted, it's not exhaustive (I may have been biased as it seems the armies I do play have lots of -1, lol)

Cyclic ion
Heavy Burst Cannon
HYMP
Deffguns

All things that are common and love to kill Primaris.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 godardc wrote:
You shouldn't be allowed to play a different chapter than the one you painted your models as.
That's the great advantage of 30k over 40k: no "your dudes" stupidity and only a few legions to choose from and I don't think I have ever seen someone playing with someone else rules.

And this is from someone playing a successor chapter (but as they are Ultramarine successors, I have never played with anything else than the UM tactics even if others would be better).

About the "ignore -1ap" part of the Salamader CT, what has -1ap ? Bolters (now) and one dynasty of necrons ? What else ?

Autocannons of all types (Armiger, regular, Pred, etc)
Heavy Bolter
Heavy Flamer
Haywire
Multiple melee weapons

no clue about Tau/orks/Nids, don't have their books (although I think Heavy Burst Cannon is, right?).

Granted, it's not exhaustive (I may have been biased as it seems the armies I do play have lots of -1, lol)

Cyclic ion
Heavy Burst Cannon
HYMP
Deffguns

All things that are common and love to kill Primaris.

Not to forget the heaps of Bolters/Auto bolt rifles while the Tactical Doctrine is active, or Bolt Rifles when not using the Tactical Doctrine.
Funnily enough, it seem the vast majority of AP-1 weapons belong to other Marines, so for Salamanders, their ideal match-up may be other Marines.

-

Yeah, I really don't like that. Same goes for melta. Melta is awful vs xenos. Why does IoM have so many weapons that suck vs their opponents?

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, I really don't like that. Same goes for melta. Melta is awful vs xenos. Why does IoM have so many weapons that suck vs their opponents?

LOL because every space marine combo that is remotely good gets nerfed pretty quickly. IG is allowed to have good stuff....cause guard.