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.

I'm curious what people out there think, especially with all of the new Chapter hotness coming out. How do you feel about someone who shows up with a bright green army and says they're Iron Hands, but then turns up the next weekend with the same army and says they're Raven Guard? Does it bother you?

Welp, here we go again.

As long as it's obvious what is what. Marines are marines. Be they ultramarines or black slayers dark as the depths of night edgelord chapter or pretty pink unicorn princesses.

As far as I can tell, the only reason to be annoyed by it is rich-guy snobbery. People shouldn't be expected to have to fork out for six different space marine armies just to satisfy someone else's hang ups.

I'm slightly more dubious about people using dudes clearly painted as ultramarines as different chapters (not enough to not play them though), but yeah. Homebrew can be anything.

Doesn't bother me.

It doesn't directly bother me. But it does suggest that the player doesn't care about IH or RG. So he never was IH or RG. He was just using the rules.

So he's likely a power gamer. He'll likely have a better time playing other power gamers. He's unlikely to enjoy narrative embellishments in games, or narrative setups.

That's fine. I'm not the ideal opponent for him. I'll play him, sure - but if there's other options, we might both be better off playing other people. And I wouldn't think to invite him to a 3v3 or 5-person see-what-happens game.

But that's all "seems likes" and "probablys". It's just one data point. It's suggestive, but not definitive. It could all be wrong. But ignoring the implication does noone any favors.

And it's not nearly as suggestive as "Blue Omega Iron Hands" or similar.

It's important to remember that this suggests a *different* style of player. It's not inherently bad, and that style isn't inherently bad.

If it's purely to get better rules then it bothers me.

You can't be a meta chaser and lazy at the same time. Let's see some proper Iron Hands.

To expand on it; it's like seeing a player pick Druid in D&D because he wants to be good at everything. Sure, you can do that. But if you're playing a Druid for reasons other than playing a tree-hugger (or other variant), you're not roleplaying.

Playing D&D as a dungeon hack isn't wrong. But it's not the same game as playing D&D as an RPG. Many a campaign gets destroyed because players have different interests and expectations. Ignoring the variance is a recipe for disaster. But being eliteist about your way of playing is being TFG.

Green Marines playing as black marines, fine. Lets have a conversation, and if thats all I'm good.

If it's competitive, and it's green Marines as black marines, and blue marines, then we have a problem. I have a 1 proxy per game rule.

If its not competitive, why bother. Just as long as it's not too egregious, I am fine with your coffee mug is now a daemon prince of TZeentch. Just be prepared for a slow game of, "what's this again? And it has which rules?"


EDIT:
That being said 10% of the time it's lazy players who bought a SM primaris army on the ebays and just want to plop down the new hotness on the table and see what they play like. And there in is the problem. If you are casual, be casual. If you are competitive, be competitive. But don't show up trying to be the Meta-chaser Mr. Competitive with a half assed proxy army of blue Iron Hands.

Bharring wrote:
It doesn't directly bother me. But it does suggest that the player doesn't care about IH or RG. So he never was IH or RG. He was just using the rules.

So he's likely a power gamer. He'll likely have a better time playing other power gamers. He's unlikely to enjoy narrative embellishments in games, or narrative setups.

That's fine. I'm not the ideal opponent for him. I'll play him, sure - but if there's other options, we might both be better off playing other people. And I wouldn't think to invite him to a 3v3 or 5-person see-what-happens game.

But that's all "seems likes" and "probablys". It's just one data point. It's suggestive, but not definitive. It could all be wrong. But ignoring the implication does noone any favors.

And it's not nearly as suggestive as "Blue Omega Iron Hands" or similar.

It's important to remember that this suggests a *different* style of player. It's not inherently bad, and that style isn't inherently bad.

It's not always about power gaming to be fair, playing your marines as anything also gives you a ton more variety in playstyles. It's easy to get bored playing one army, one way. But if for the same cost you can get six different armies, all with their own unique playstyles then that's a no brainer. Also it's kinda unfair that we apply these standards to some factions and not others. No one cares what Necron dynasty you play as, or which GSC trait you use based on your colour scheme. It's unfair to just bully the marines on this.

If it's purely to get better rules to represent his army, I'd respect the choice.

If it's purely to get better rules I respect the other player for not letting weird spooks about gaming get in the way to him having an effective army.

To put it bluntly, I don't really care and no one else should.

IanVanCheese wrote:

Bharring wrote:
It doesn't directly bother me. But it does suggest that the player doesn't care about IH or RG. So he never was IH or RG. He was just using the rules.

So he's likely a power gamer. He'll likely have a better time playing other power gamers. He's unlikely to enjoy narrative embellishments in games, or narrative setups.

That's fine. I'm not the ideal opponent for him. I'll play him, sure - but if there's other options, we might both be better off playing other people. And I wouldn't think to invite him to a 3v3 or 5-person see-what-happens game.

But that's all "seems likes" and "probablys". It's just one data point. It's suggestive, but not definitive. It could all be wrong. But ignoring the implication does noone any favors.

And it's not nearly as suggestive as "Blue Omega Iron Hands" or similar.

It's important to remember that this suggests a *different* style of player. It's not inherently bad, and that style isn't inherently bad.

It's not always about power gaming to be fair, playing your marines as anything also gives you a ton more variety in playstyles. It's easy to get bored playing one army, one way. But if for the same cost you can get six different armies, all with their own unique playstyles then that's a no brainer. Also it's kinda unfair that we apply these standards to some factions and not others. No one cares what Necron dynasty you play as, or which GSC trait you use based on your colour scheme. It's unfair to just bully the marines on this.

It's certainly not always about being a power gamer. And even then, "power gamer" is more of a spectrum.

The idea that your collectin is "six different armies" with the same models is, I think, core to the distinction. My 7th Company 1st Squad Sarge is a specific model. He's not the 5th Company 3rd Squad Sarge. He's not a vet. Now, in a pinch, he can proxy those. But that's not who he is. That's how I want to play. There are people on here who make sure their models can be fielded "legally" as multiple different datasheets - so that sarge you see today has hundreds of years of experience, but tomorrow he's a neophyte who's only been alive for a few decades. So their models are tokens to track a resource, not a "person".

Both of those are completely legit. It's just different mindsets.

I think where we vary is about being "fair". It's not "unfair" to consider more power-gamey players to be more interested more in the crunch than the fluff. It is "unfair" to consider a power-gamey player as lesser because they care about the crunch. It's also "unfair" to assume someone's "power-gamey-ness" based soley on "Oh, and those blue doods are Sallys today". But it's also not "unfair" to take that into consideration when deciding who to ask for a game.

I think playing your Necrons as different dynasties is entirely the same as playing your Marines as different chapters in regards to the player themselves. But not entirely the same for whom you're playing. If my Eldar force frequently comes to the aid of the Ultramarines, and has grand plans for them, then whether they're facing UltraMarines or Iron Hands has an actual impact on the narrative. So being told "These are Raven Guard today" when they look like UM (or vice-versa) is a (minor) negative.

Being told "These UM are using RG tactics today", however, is an entirely different situation. Neither better nor worse. Now you're saying your UltraMarines are better at stealth operations and fieldcraft than my Uthwe Eldar? On the other hand, I could field a fieldcraft-focussed Uthwe warhost (using the Alaitoc trait). The rules do impact the narrative.

I realised today after playing a match with my BA against someone preparing for the new marine meta that BA/DA/SW and probably GK and DW will be getting worse each week.

I could kinda prey on others not having anything special in mind for playing marines when there were 0 marines in the meta as a BA player. But now they will have to build around marines being popular again and everything they do to build against them will make us other suffer really hard. Like if you consider marine statline models in your lines t1-2 due to RG/WS and put in some counters for that and adopt your strategy you will crush BA.

And BA against marines itself is just gonna be pathetic. Like a RG vs BA match will just be rubbing it into the BA players wounds. Cheaper, sneakier, more flexible, more durable and more killy.

In a few months time I will probably have no choice but to play as red Raven Guard if I want any wins at all at a Tournament until we get a new BA codex.

Sucks a ton since I had a homebrew chapter in red/black that Im now actually repainting to red with white wings and blood drops all over. Everything new is getting BA shoulder pads and I even learned to airbrush to make better looking red armor. Feels so "rewarded" for bothering to fix up my decade old red/black marines as shiny new BA.

I hope we get at least a few lines in CA so we can get some of the new rules like doctrines, chapter tactics on vehicles and a few reworded strats besides huge pointcosts. Dante should drop 50pts since right now I would choose Shrike at 130 over Dante that sits at 175!!!!

It bothers me that GW ties rules to paint schemes far more than it does that someone would want to use different rules than the ones that match their favorite color.

When my DG lost access to Obliterators, Raptors and Bikes in 8th edition It was clear these could only be played as Nurgle Renegades and they couldn't be anything else because that's what they're modelled and painted as. With Codex 2.0 I can now play them as either generic renegades or the Purge. I'd never think about playing them as a different legion or even a different Chaos god, because that would be proxying in my view. I don't hold the same standard for my opponent's though and I admit I don't know every Necron dynasty color and Tau fluffwize don't really have a set sept color and are always a mixture of septs, as are many Orkklans.
If you've built a green Space Marine army with lizards and scales all over, melters and/or flamers in every squad - why would you not play these as Salamanders, though? At least give me a well thought out fluff justification why these now count as Iron Hands or Imperial fists. And don't question my Vindicator with Plague spitter side sponsoons that's used as Plagueburst Crawler.

My chapter is home brew; it’s primarily green, with gold and white highlights. For the longest time I ran them as a codex-compliant chapter - I.e., Ultramarines. I only recently realized that both paint scheme-wise and backgroundwise they fit Dark Angels better, and have been running them that way since.

And my Grey Knights are painted white.

So no, I don’t think your paint scheme should limit you to a specific set of rules.

It bothers me a little bit, but mostly because I find all the super special background and rules for space marines to be the most tedious part of the game.

It is a function of GW's lunatic focus on this one faction over all others. People taking advantage of the weirdness that creates is a bit annoying but not enough to get worked up about.

Marines are cool, double digit varieties of special snowflake marines are boring.

 Ishagu wrote:
If it's purely to get better rules then it bothers me.

You can't be a meta chaser and lazy at the same time. Let's see some proper Iron Hands.

More or less this.

One of my biggest pet peeves is that now with Successor Chapters actually getting rules/mechanisms for building them? There is literally zero excuse to play the "X is actually Y" game.
Make up your own color scheme, then turn it into a Successor Chapter for the stuff out of the books.

If it's only the colors (e.g. red marines being played as Ultramarines), I can live with it. Just say it's a successor chapter. I will, however, expect consistency. Don't always be switching chapters.

Where it gets dodgy is when your marine army has clear chapter-specific icons or styles; e.g. Ultramarine decals, or Dark Angel robes, or Space Wolf heads; and is still being used as another chapter with better rules.

IanVanCheese wrote:
As far as I can tell, the only reason to be annoyed by it is rich-guy snobbery. People shouldn't be expected to have to fork out for six different space marine armies just to satisfy someone else's hang ups.

Counterpoint: people shouldn't be arbitrarily changing their sub-faction whenever rules they like better come out. If your army is clearly Ultramarines (with decals, banners, special characters, etc.) and now Iron Hands come out and are better than your Ultramarines, I think you should keep playing them as Ultramarines. No, I'm not expecting you to buy a new army and paint them as Iron Hands; I know you're not made of money (or time). What I'm expecting you to do, is stick to your sub-faction.

Non-marine example: I play my Drukhari as Kabal of the Obsidian Rose, and have incorporated roses into their paint scheme (including rose stencils on the sails of my Raiders). As my army expanded, I began relying more on flying transports, to the point where the Kabal of the Flayed Skull would now be more advantageous to me than Obsidian Rose. But I will keep playing them as Obsidian Rose, because that is the visual theme I chose for them.

I respect other players who do the same.

.

Hmmm. As long as there's something to distinguish the fact there's a difference i can happily accept this. Can have two sets of blue guys split to be red and green so long as they have something obviously uniform amongst them to tell me what's what (as in, all the ones meant to be red have a certain mark or weapon and same with green).

Don't get me wrong, if someone was to start bringing an action man or card board box with numbers and a face drawn on it to represent a Bloodthirster, after the 3rd or 4th game of it i'd probably make a point that they'd need to sort their crap out or stop using a unit they can't reasonably represent (i'd also happily reduce the game pts to accommodate such if needed) but i'd be fine if they were say, using a Lord of Change to proxy, even in the long term.

Ideally they'd have the models they intend to use or something exceptionally close to keep the submersion in the experience but it's nothing to fall out over.

I think a paintjob should be just that, and I dont think it ever deserved this place in the rules to begin with. A lot of people dont dare to invest in the lore and existing paintschemes anymore in the fear of getting forced to play subpar rules because of it. I think the subfactionrules although offering lots of options ruleswise has made army building (actual hobby stuff) more restricted and generic.

It is the current state though, but Id prefer if players stick to their lore and schemes. It displays more commitment to the hpbby than chasing some optimal rules

 puma713 wrote:
I'm curious what people out there think, especially with all of the new Chapter hotness coming out. How do you feel about someone who shows up with a bright green army and says they're Iron Hands, but then turns up the next weekend with the same army and says they're Raven Guard? Does it bother you?

I'm actually beyond indifferent about the color they chose. I believe that the personal expression in how one paints her/his army is important and should not influence the rules.

No. I play nids and if I had to constantly change biomorph and weapon combinations every new edition I'd have sold the army long ago. Now with these army traits I don't expect to have to repaint my entire army every addition.

I won't keep my army WYSIWYG because it's unfeasible over the long term and I don't expect anyone else to do the same with their army.

It's kind of arrogant to assume you would even know if it was a counts as.

How many 'Counts-as' Hive Fleet Kraken Tyranid armies have you complained about? Are you even 100% sure you have/haven't played against one.

I am 100% fine.

Especially since if someone shows up with grey plastic, you wouldn't restrict them to one specific ruleset. But suddenly, when they're painted and MORE EFFORT has gone into it, they have to follow one set of rules only? No, that's bull.

I might not be big on painting myself, but I can appreciate when other people put effort into it. So punishing them for painting... That's just rude.

I'd actually prefer it (I couldn't help but notice that there was no positive feeling on the poll - just bad, really bad, and neutral). Keeps games fresh and opens up options that wouldn't be there for a single color. Playing against a fast assault army one week, a tanky infantry list the next, then an armored column the following is more interesting than all-plasma-all-the-time DAs or whatever happens to be useful for a given color this cycle.

Besides, does anyone actually think that the marines, widely reputed to be led by strategic geniuses and purpose built to excel at war, are too stupid to adapt their tactics based on what's available to them? Do you envision the Whitescars 9th company, deployed in force to stop a DreadWaaagh! threatening a critical hive, screaming like morons as they charge down the field to bludgeon Orks to death with the butts of their plasma cannons instead of, you know, shooting them? Surely a Blood Angels armored force led by the chapters finest techmarines and artificers would have its vehicles operating in better form than a random predator that a tac company has had in the field for six months?

If you've painted a specific Chapter like Raven Guard then I'd slightly prefer you play that ruleset but I don't care that much as long as I know what's what.
If you've painted your own Chapter then whatever.

I'd never object, but if you're running IH who happen to be blue with a toilet seat on the right shoulder, I instantly know you care more about winning than your dudes. Which is fine, but you can tell it's likely gonna be a less enjoyable game. If it's your 'OC don't steal' chapter then whatever. Unless you've always played them as one thing then suddenly they're another thing that's the new hotness.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
I'd never object, but if you're running IH who happen to be blue with a toilet seat on the right shoulder, I instantly know you care more about winning than your dudes. Which is fine, but you can tell it's likely gonna be a less enjoyable game. If it's our OC don't steal chapter then whatever. Unless you've always played them as one thing then suddenly they're another thing that's the new hotness.

See this is actually kind of true. The people playing X as Y really are only doing it for better rules. It indicates it's what they care about ahead of anything else.

If you're not in a tournament why are you so concerned? It's not like the other chapters are bottom feeder armies lol

In a tournament with money involved, sure. WAAC it good. In a local, friendly game (even if it's competitive) - naah. Stop trying to get more advantages.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
I'm curious what people out there think, especially with all of the new Chapter hotness coming out. How do you feel about someone who shows up with a bright green army and says they're Iron Hands, but then turns up the next weekend with the same army and says they're Raven Guard? Does it bother you?

I'm actually beyond indifferent about the color they chose. I believe that the personal expression in how one paints her/his army is important and should not influence the rules.

My army is beautifully painted, as are the armies of many in my local scene.

Colour matters, 100%

I won't refuse a game or make a huge stink, but it does undercut the experience, particularly when it's apparent it's being done for power purposes. It's a tacky thing to do that draws some of the fun out of things and starkly hits the immersion aspect. I will probably judge you for it.

Beyond that though, its hardly the end of the world.