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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So your opponent can't even use Blue for their successors to Raven Guard because you'll get confused you're not fighting Ultranarines? Have you already seen how many Chapter symbols look similar to each other?

Yeah it's your own fault.

"So your opponent can't use a cooler looking model to represent their Leviathan because you'll get confused you're not fighting a Redemptor? Have you seen how many Dreadnoughts look similar to eachother?

Yeah, it's your own fault."

Also, no-one said that painting them blue was a problem. Or that using a similar Chapter symbol was. But when I'm seeing blue Space Marines with white inverted omega symbols with the words "ULTRAMARINES" or "ULTRAMAR" or "MACRAGGE" or "ULTRA" on their heraldry?

That's a very big difference from "blue Space Marines".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm sorry, I'm not the one saying "I can't remember your Marines aren't other Marines". That's a legit memory problem, and something I've seen in healthcare.

Likewise "I can't remember your dreadnoughts aren't other dreadnoughts. That's a legit memory problem, and something I've seen in healthcare".

Wanna get that sorted out? A notepad, perhaps?

If I forget my opponent's regular Dread is actually being used as a Ven Dread (two separate kits ohmygod!!!) then yes I've got memory problems. Luckily I don't, huh?

So, just to clarify, is using a Redemptor as a Leviathan a problem? Because it's happening across the army - there's no tricks, no confusion, it's a universal change.

As you said, there's nothing wrong with that.

What is most immersion breaking. Red marines not being able to use vehicles well or red marines using codex spacemarine rules that give the same vehicles chapter tactics, doctrines, more reasonable point costs and stratagems so they arent useless in comparison.

Sounds to me that those who think you shouldnt use the rules that fit the chapter background because the name, and not what the rules represent, is just WAAC gamers that hide it behind "muh fluff". They only want you to play weak armies to get easier wins since they dont care about the actual background about marines.

A Blood Angel should be capable of driving vehicles almost as good as an Iron Hand according to the fluff and those that think paint dont matter. Those that think paint matters also thinks that Blood Angels drive on the wrong side of the road.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So your opponent can't even use Blue for their successors to Raven Guard because you'll get confused you're not fighting Ultranarines? Have you already seen how many Chapter symbols look similar to each other?

Yeah it's your own fault.

"So your opponent can't use a cooler looking model to represent their Leviathan because you'll get confused you're not fighting a Redemptor? Have you seen how many Dreadnoughts look similar to eachother?

Yeah, it's your own fault."

Also, no-one said that painting them blue was a problem. Or that using a similar Chapter symbol was. But when I'm seeing blue Space Marines with white inverted omega symbols with the words "ULTRAMARINES" or "ULTRAMAR" or "MACRAGGE" or "ULTRA" on their heraldry?

That's a very big difference from "blue Space Marines".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm sorry, I'm not the one saying "I can't remember your Marines aren't other Marines". That's a legit memory problem, and something I've seen in healthcare.

Likewise "I can't remember your dreadnoughts aren't other dreadnoughts. That's a legit memory problem, and something I've seen in healthcare".

Wanna get that sorted out? A notepad, perhaps?

If I forget my opponent's regular Dread is actually being used as a Ven Dread (two separate kits ohmygod!!!) then yes I've got memory problems. Luckily I don't, huh?

So, just to clarify, is using a Redemptor as a Leviathan a problem? Because it's happening across the army - there's no tricks, no confusion, it's a universal change.

As you said, there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't own a Levi but I've seen Redemptors, and they're pretty similar in size if I'm not mistaken. If there's two Gatlings on it (seeing as they probably want to do dual Autocannons), gold on my opponent for making a boring Dread with just two loadouts a little more fun. If they just wanted to do one gun arm + Fist I've got no problems with that either, as the Redemptor rules suck whereas the Levi, only being mediocre with gun + arm, can function slightly more I suppose.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:So, just to clarify, is using a Redemptor as a Leviathan a problem? Because it's happening across the army - there's no tricks, no confusion, it's a universal change.

As you said, there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't own a Levi but I've seen Redemptors, and they're pretty similar in size if I'm not mistaken. If there's two Gatlings on it (seeing as they probably want to do dual Autocannons), gold on my opponent for making a boring Dread with just two loadouts a little more fun. If they just wanted to do one gun arm + Fist I've got no problems with that either, as the Redemptor rules suck whereas the Levi, only being mediocre with gun + arm, can function slightly more I suppose.

Lovely. So do you have a problem with all the Tactical Marines models in my army playing as Scouts?
Do you have a problem with every missile launcher models actually being plasma guns?

Likewise, this is universal across the list, no tricks, no non-GW bits or conversions. Just me telling you - you know the rules for Scouts and plasma guns, right? If not, I can show you the unit entries before we play.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:So, just to clarify, is using a Redemptor as a Leviathan a problem? Because it's happening across the army - there's no tricks, no confusion, it's a universal change.

As you said, there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't own a Levi but I've seen Redemptors, and they're pretty similar in size if I'm not mistaken. If there's two Gatlings on it (seeing as they probably want to do dual Autocannons), gold on my opponent for making a boring Dread with just two loadouts a little more fun. If they just wanted to do one gun arm + Fist I've got no problems with that either, as the Redemptor rules suck whereas the Levi, only being mediocre with gun + arm, can function slightly more I suppose.

Lovely. So do you have a problem with all the Tactical Marines models in my army playing as Scouts?
Do you have a problem with every missile launcher models actually being plasma guns?

Likewise, this is universal across the list, no tricks, no non-GW bits or conversions. Just me telling you - you know the rules for Scouts and plasma guns, right? If not, I can show you the unit entries before we play.

I mean, I've used my Mk4 dudes with Shotguns in my Deathwatch as Scouts in a pinch and nobody cared. I'm working on getting some cheap Scouts + Scion heads though because I hate the bare heads on Scouts. It looks stupid.

Seeing as the ML isn't a good weapon, yeah I've got no problem with someone doing that. They clearly told me as much and, if my memory is as bad as other people in this thread, I always carry sticky notes + a pen on me. Granted that's because I could get a work call, but it has helped a couple of times.
They might want to eventually get some actual Plasma Guns or even Plasma Gun equivalents if they just hate the design of GW's, but why would I care in the meantime?

I find it can reaaaaaaaallly depend on the situation. if it's a case of "I'm toying with differant tactics etc and wanna test these out" no matter. but if the guy is simply just persuing the most powerful rules it can come off as a little cheeky.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:So, just to clarify, is using a Redemptor as a Leviathan a problem? Because it's happening across the army - there's no tricks, no confusion, it's a universal change.

As you said, there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't own a Levi but I've seen Redemptors, and they're pretty similar in size if I'm not mistaken. If there's two Gatlings on it (seeing as they probably want to do dual Autocannons), gold on my opponent for making a boring Dread with just two loadouts a little more fun. If they just wanted to do one gun arm + Fist I've got no problems with that either, as the Redemptor rules suck whereas the Levi, only being mediocre with gun + arm, can function slightly more I suppose.

Lovely. So do you have a problem with all the Tactical Marines models in my army playing as Scouts?
Do you have a problem with every missile launcher models actually being plasma guns?

Likewise, this is universal across the list, no tricks, no non-GW bits or conversions. Just me telling you - you know the rules for Scouts and plasma guns, right? If not, I can show you the unit entries before we play.

I mean, I've used my Mk4 dudes with Shotguns in my Deathwatch as Scouts in a pinch and nobody cared. I'm working on getting some cheap Scouts + Scion heads though because I hate the bare heads on Scouts. It looks stupid.

Seeing as the ML isn't a good weapon, yeah I've got no problem with someone doing that. They clearly told me as much and, if my memory is as bad as other people in this thread, I always carry sticky notes + a pen on me. Granted that's because I could get a work call, but it has helped a couple of times.
They might want to eventually get some actual Plasma Guns or even Plasma Gun equivalents if they just hate the design of GW's, but why would I care in the meantime?

Excellent.

So, in light of this - why did you post this?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Because one is flat out for the army, and you already know the Raven Guard rules.

Not even close to the same.

Now, I haven't got a problem if you think that they're all the same, and you'd happily play against someone who has an Ultramarines painted army with Tactical Marines as Scouts, missiles as plasmas, and Redemptors as Leviathans as a Raven Guard list - that's all consistent. It's when we have people saying "how your model looks isn't the same as how they look!", which is just incredibly confusing and inconsistent.

Klickor wrote:
What is most immersion breaking. Red marines not being able to use vehicles well or red marines using codex spacemarine rules that give the same vehicles chapter tactics, doctrines, more reasonable point costs and stratagems so they arent useless in comparison.

Sounds to me that those who think you shouldnt use the rules that fit the chapter background because the name, and not what the rules represent, is just WAAC gamers that hide it behind "muh fluff". They only want you to play weak armies to get easier wins since they dont care about the actual background about marines.

A Blood Angel should be capable of driving vehicles almost as good as an Iron Hand according to the fluff and those that think paint dont matter. Those that think paint matters also thinks that Blood Angels drive on the wrong side of the road.

The differences between marines should be like the differences between special forces in the US military for example. I'm pretty sure a field operator is proficient to the point they are an expert at literally everything they do. Marines are even more so specialized with implants and special organs ect. The difference between marines is much smaller than is being portrayed in the rules of this game and to me that is immersion breaking...if iron hands were really this strong chapters would stop wanting to be like/look up to ultras and start cutting of limbs because iron hands are the true way to be a marine as proven by being way more effective in combat LOL.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:So, just to clarify, is using a Redemptor as a Leviathan a problem? Because it's happening across the army - there's no tricks, no confusion, it's a universal change.

As you said, there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't own a Levi but I've seen Redemptors, and they're pretty similar in size if I'm not mistaken. If there's two Gatlings on it (seeing as they probably want to do dual Autocannons), gold on my opponent for making a boring Dread with just two loadouts a little more fun. If they just wanted to do one gun arm + Fist I've got no problems with that either, as the Redemptor rules suck whereas the Levi, only being mediocre with gun + arm, can function slightly more I suppose.

Lovely. So do you have a problem with all the Tactical Marines models in my army playing as Scouts?
Do you have a problem with every missile launcher models actually being plasma guns?

Likewise, this is universal across the list, no tricks, no non-GW bits or conversions. Just me telling you - you know the rules for Scouts and plasma guns, right? If not, I can show you the unit entries before we play.

I mean, I've used my Mk4 dudes with Shotguns in my Deathwatch as Scouts in a pinch and nobody cared. I'm working on getting some cheap Scouts + Scion heads though because I hate the bare heads on Scouts. It looks stupid.

Seeing as the ML isn't a good weapon, yeah I've got no problem with someone doing that. They clearly told me as much and, if my memory is as bad as other people in this thread, I always carry sticky notes + a pen on me. Granted that's because I could get a work call, but it has helped a couple of times.
They might want to eventually get some actual Plasma Guns or even Plasma Gun equivalents if they just hate the design of GW's, but why would I care in the meantime?

Excellent.

So, in light of this - why did you post this?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Because one is flat out for the army, and you already know the Raven Guard rules.

Not even close to the same.

Now, I haven't got a problem if you think that they're all the same, and you'd happily play against someone who has an Ultramarines painted army with Tactical Marines as Scouts, missiles as plasmas, and Redemptors as Leviathans as a Raven Guard list - that's all consistent. It's when we have people saying "how your model looks isn't the same as how they look!", which is just incredibly confusing and inconsistent.

I posted it because the complaints are NOT the same and would require different schools of thought. You were merely asking how I would treat models, which is a different subject from paint. Nobody has any right to complain about paying and designs, whereas you'd have more a leg to stand on when it comes to models.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:So, just to clarify, is using a Redemptor as a Leviathan a problem? Because it's happening across the army - there's no tricks, no confusion, it's a universal change.

As you said, there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't own a Levi but I've seen Redemptors, and they're pretty similar in size if I'm not mistaken. If there's two Gatlings on it (seeing as they probably want to do dual Autocannons), gold on my opponent for making a boring Dread with just two loadouts a little more fun. If they just wanted to do one gun arm + Fist I've got no problems with that either, as the Redemptor rules suck whereas the Levi, only being mediocre with gun + arm, can function slightly more I suppose.

Lovely. So do you have a problem with all the Tactical Marines models in my army playing as Scouts?
Do you have a problem with every missile launcher models actually being plasma guns?

Likewise, this is universal across the list, no tricks, no non-GW bits or conversions. Just me telling you - you know the rules for Scouts and plasma guns, right? If not, I can show you the unit entries before we play.

I mean, I've used my Mk4 dudes with Shotguns in my Deathwatch as Scouts in a pinch and nobody cared. I'm working on getting some cheap Scouts + Scion heads though because I hate the bare heads on Scouts. It looks stupid.

Seeing as the ML isn't a good weapon, yeah I've got no problem with someone doing that. They clearly told me as much and, if my memory is as bad as other people in this thread, I always carry sticky notes + a pen on me. Granted that's because I could get a work call, but it has helped a couple of times.
They might want to eventually get some actual Plasma Guns or even Plasma Gun equivalents if they just hate the design of GW's, but why would I care in the meantime?

Excellent.

So, in light of this - why did you post this?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Because one is flat out for the army, and you already know the Raven Guard rules.

Not even close to the same.

Now, I haven't got a problem if you think that they're all the same, and you'd happily play against someone who has an Ultramarines painted army with Tactical Marines as Scouts, missiles as plasmas, and Redemptors as Leviathans as a Raven Guard list - that's all consistent. It's when we have people saying "how your model looks isn't the same as how they look!", which is just incredibly confusing and inconsistent.

I posted it because the complaints are NOT the same and would require different schools of thought. You were merely asking how I would treat models, which is a different subject from paint. Nobody has any right to complain about paying and designs, whereas you'd have more a leg to stand on when it comes to models.

Could you elaborate on how proxying say, an UltraMarine with inverted-Omega bits on it as an Iron Hands marine is different and requires a "different school(s) of thought" than proxying something like an Assault Marine as a Vanguard Vet Marine?

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:So, just to clarify, is using a Redemptor as a Leviathan a problem? Because it's happening across the army - there's no tricks, no confusion, it's a universal change.

As you said, there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't own a Levi but I've seen Redemptors, and they're pretty similar in size if I'm not mistaken. If there's two Gatlings on it (seeing as they probably want to do dual Autocannons), gold on my opponent for making a boring Dread with just two loadouts a little more fun. If they just wanted to do one gun arm + Fist I've got no problems with that either, as the Redemptor rules suck whereas the Levi, only being mediocre with gun + arm, can function slightly more I suppose.

Lovely. So do you have a problem with all the Tactical Marines models in my army playing as Scouts?
Do you have a problem with every missile launcher models actually being plasma guns?

Likewise, this is universal across the list, no tricks, no non-GW bits or conversions. Just me telling you - you know the rules for Scouts and plasma guns, right? If not, I can show you the unit entries before we play.

I mean, I've used my Mk4 dudes with Shotguns in my Deathwatch as Scouts in a pinch and nobody cared. I'm working on getting some cheap Scouts + Scion heads though because I hate the bare heads on Scouts. It looks stupid.

Seeing as the ML isn't a good weapon, yeah I've got no problem with someone doing that. They clearly told me as much and, if my memory is as bad as other people in this thread, I always carry sticky notes + a pen on me. Granted that's because I could get a work call, but it has helped a couple of times.
They might want to eventually get some actual Plasma Guns or even Plasma Gun equivalents if they just hate the design of GW's, but why would I care in the meantime?

Excellent.

So, in light of this - why did you post this?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Because one is flat out for the army, and you already know the Raven Guard rules.

Not even close to the same.

Now, I haven't got a problem if you think that they're all the same, and you'd happily play against someone who has an Ultramarines painted army with Tactical Marines as Scouts, missiles as plasmas, and Redemptors as Leviathans as a Raven Guard list - that's all consistent. It's when we have people saying "how your model looks isn't the same as how they look!", which is just incredibly confusing and inconsistent.

I posted it because the complaints are NOT the same and would require different schools of thought. You were merely asking how I would treat models, which is a different subject from paint. Nobody has any right to complain about paying and designs, whereas you'd have more a leg to stand on when it comes to models.

Could you elaborate on how proxying say, an UltraMarine with inverted-Omega bits on it as an Iron Hands marine is different and requires a "different school(s) of thought" than proxying something like an Assault Marine as a Vanguard Vet Marine?

Sure. One is a paint job and design and has literally no impact on what is going on in the game. One might be a dual Chainsword Vanguard being proxied as an Assault Marine (for whatever God forsaken reason you would do that), which dictates army composition.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Excellent.

So, in light of this - why did you post this?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Because one is flat out for the army, and you already know the Raven Guard rules.

Not even close to the same.

Now, I haven't got a problem if you think that they're all the same, and you'd happily play against someone who has an Ultramarines painted army with Tactical Marines as Scouts, missiles as plasmas, and Redemptors as Leviathans as a Raven Guard list - that's all consistent. It's when we have people saying "how your model looks isn't the same as how they look!", which is just incredibly confusing and inconsistent.

I posted it because the complaints are NOT the same and would require different schools of thought.

How on earth is "your model looks different from what I'd expect it to be" any different from "your model looks different from what I'd expect it to be"?

You were merely asking how I would treat models, which is a different subject from paint. Nobody has any right to complain about paying and designs, whereas you'd have more a leg to stand on when it comes to models.

Models can be painted. I don't see a difference at all between "your model is built in a different way" or "your model is painted in a different way".

Please - if you're the judge on what people have "a right to complain about" - why is there a difference?

Are you going to complain if someone paints their Ultramarines black, including the new Calgar model (with the helmet of course), which makes him slightly harder to point out?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Sure. One is a paint job and design and has literally no impact on what is going on in the game.

Yes it does - I see an Ultramarine, and expect to be fighting an Ultramarine.
In the same vein, a plasma gun's design is only aN aesthetic. It has "literally no impact on what it going on in game".

One might be a dual Chainsword Vanguard being proxied as an Assault Marine (for whatever God forsaken reason you would do that), which dictates army composition.

But if your memory was any good, you'd be able to figure out what was going on. Maybe break out that notepad you mentioned.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:So, just to clarify, is using a Redemptor as a Leviathan a problem? Because it's happening across the army - there's no tricks, no confusion, it's a universal change.

As you said, there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't own a Levi but I've seen Redemptors, and they're pretty similar in size if I'm not mistaken. If there's two Gatlings on it (seeing as they probably want to do dual Autocannons), gold on my opponent for making a boring Dread with just two loadouts a little more fun. If they just wanted to do one gun arm + Fist I've got no problems with that either, as the Redemptor rules suck whereas the Levi, only being mediocre with gun + arm, can function slightly more I suppose.

Lovely. So do you have a problem with all the Tactical Marines models in my army playing as Scouts?
Do you have a problem with every missile launcher models actually being plasma guns?

Likewise, this is universal across the list, no tricks, no non-GW bits or conversions. Just me telling you - you know the rules for Scouts and plasma guns, right? If not, I can show you the unit entries before we play.

I mean, I've used my Mk4 dudes with Shotguns in my Deathwatch as Scouts in a pinch and nobody cared. I'm working on getting some cheap Scouts + Scion heads though because I hate the bare heads on Scouts. It looks stupid.

Seeing as the ML isn't a good weapon, yeah I've got no problem with someone doing that. They clearly told me as much and, if my memory is as bad as other people in this thread, I always carry sticky notes + a pen on me. Granted that's because I could get a work call, but it has helped a couple of times.
They might want to eventually get some actual Plasma Guns or even Plasma Gun equivalents if they just hate the design of GW's, but why would I care in the meantime?

Excellent.

So, in light of this - why did you post this?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Because one is flat out for the army, and you already know the Raven Guard rules.

Not even close to the same.

Now, I haven't got a problem if you think that they're all the same, and you'd happily play against someone who has an Ultramarines painted army with Tactical Marines as Scouts, missiles as plasmas, and Redemptors as Leviathans as a Raven Guard list - that's all consistent. It's when we have people saying "how your model looks isn't the same as how they look!", which is just incredibly confusing and inconsistent.

I posted it because the complaints are NOT the same and would require different schools of thought. You were merely asking how I would treat models, which is a different subject from paint. Nobody has any right to complain about paying and designs, whereas you'd have more a leg to stand on when it comes to models.

Could you elaborate on how proxying say, an UltraMarine with inverted-Omega bits on it as an Iron Hands marine is different and requires a "different school(s) of thought" than proxying something like an Assault Marine as a Vanguard Vet Marine?

Sure. One is a paint job and design and has literally no impact on what is going on in the game. One might be a dual Chainsword Vanguard being proxied as an Assault Marine (for whatever God forsaken reason you would do that), which dictates army composition.

Those inverted-Omega bits might just be "design", but then where do you draw the line between "design" and "function"? That inverted-omega is "design" that clearly demonstrates UltraMarines, in much the same way that a Signum represents "I can tell my squaddies how to shoot gud" - both represent specific subsets of individuals in the game (the first, Ultramarines, and the second, Dev Sarges). I wouldn't bat an eye at a Signum-toting Tac Sarge, if it were obvious (next to 3 Squaddies and a Special, for instance), but it's still proxying.

I'd agree that it's *less impactful* proxying, a much lower level, but how is it not proxying?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for no impact on the game - playing with a bunch of chess pieces or poker chips has no crunch impact on the game, too. But most people don't do that.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Sure. One is a paint job and design and has literally no impact on what is going on in the game.

Yes it does - I see an Ultramarine, and expect to be fighting an Ultramarine.
In the same vein, a plasma gun's design is only aN aesthetic. It has "literally no impact on what it going on in game".

One might be a dual Chainsword Vanguard being proxied as an Assault Marine (for whatever God forsaken reason you would do that), which dictates army composition.

But if your memory was any good, you'd be able to figure out what was going on. Maybe break out that notepad you mentioned.

If I were stupid I'd probably have to jot it down, sure, because nobody in their right mind runs Vanguard as Pistol + Chainsword. If the other three are the basic loadout for Assault Marines and then whatever the Sarge is loaded out with (perhaps an Eviscerator), I think I can probably figure out with just a SMALL amount of critical thinking which squad it is. He, if someone wanted to do an Assault Squad but one guy is going cowboy with the Bolt Pistols and the other guy is going akimbo with dual Chainswords, that's awesome.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Sure. One is a paint job and design and has literally no impact on what is going on in the game.

Yes it does - I see an Ultramarine, and expect to be fighting an Ultramarine.
In the same vein, a plasma gun's design is only aN aesthetic. It has "literally no impact on what it going on in game".

One might be a dual Chainsword Vanguard being proxied as an Assault Marine (for whatever God forsaken reason you would do that), which dictates army composition.

But if your memory was any good, you'd be able to figure out what was going on. Maybe break out that notepad you mentioned.

If I were stupid I'd probably have to jot it down, sure, because nobody in their right mind runs Vanguard as Pistol + Chainsword. If the other three are the basic loadout for Assault Marines and then whatever the Sarge is loaded out with (perhaps an Eviscerator), I think I can probably figure out with just a SMALL amount of critical thinking which squad it is. He, if someone wanted to do an Assault Squad but one guy is going cowboy with the Bolt Pistols and the other guy is going akimbo with dual Chainswords, that's awesome.

But equally, couldn't you figure out what they were if they were numbered poker chips?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Are you going to complain if someone paints their Ultramarines black, including the new Calgar model (with the helmet of course), which makes him slightly harder to point out?

Obvious strawman is obvious.

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:So, just to clarify, is using a Redemptor as a Leviathan a problem? Because it's happening across the army - there's no tricks, no confusion, it's a universal change.

As you said, there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't own a Levi but I've seen Redemptors, and they're pretty similar in size if I'm not mistaken. If there's two Gatlings on it (seeing as they probably want to do dual Autocannons), gold on my opponent for making a boring Dread with just two loadouts a little more fun. If they just wanted to do one gun arm + Fist I've got no problems with that either, as the Redemptor rules suck whereas the Levi, only being mediocre with gun + arm, can function slightly more I suppose.

Lovely. So do you have a problem with all the Tactical Marines models in my army playing as Scouts?
Do you have a problem with every missile launcher models actually being plasma guns?

Likewise, this is universal across the list, no tricks, no non-GW bits or conversions. Just me telling you - you know the rules for Scouts and plasma guns, right? If not, I can show you the unit entries before we play.

I mean, I've used my Mk4 dudes with Shotguns in my Deathwatch as Scouts in a pinch and nobody cared. I'm working on getting some cheap Scouts + Scion heads though because I hate the bare heads on Scouts. It looks stupid.

Seeing as the ML isn't a good weapon, yeah I've got no problem with someone doing that. They clearly told me as much and, if my memory is as bad as other people in this thread, I always carry sticky notes + a pen on me. Granted that's because I could get a work call, but it has helped a couple of times.
They might want to eventually get some actual Plasma Guns or even Plasma Gun equivalents if they just hate the design of GW's, but why would I care in the meantime?

Excellent.

So, in light of this - why did you post this?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Because one is flat out for the army, and you already know the Raven Guard rules.

Not even close to the same.

Now, I haven't got a problem if you think that they're all the same, and you'd happily play against someone who has an Ultramarines painted army with Tactical Marines as Scouts, missiles as plasmas, and Redemptors as Leviathans as a Raven Guard list - that's all consistent. It's when we have people saying "how your model looks isn't the same as how they look!", which is just incredibly confusing and inconsistent.

I posted it because the complaints are NOT the same and would require different schools of thought. You were merely asking how I would treat models, which is a different subject from paint. Nobody has any right to complain about paying and designs, whereas you'd have more a leg to stand on when it comes to models.

Could you elaborate on how proxying say, an UltraMarine with inverted-Omega bits on it as an Iron Hands marine is different and requires a "different school(s) of thought" than proxying something like an Assault Marine as a Vanguard Vet Marine?

Sure. One is a paint job and design and has literally no impact on what is going on in the game. One might be a dual Chainsword Vanguard being proxied as an Assault Marine (for whatever God forsaken reason you would do that), which dictates army composition.

Those inverted-Omega bits might just be "design", but then where do you draw the line between "design" and "function"? That inverted-omega is "design" that clearly demonstrates UltraMarines, in much the same way that a Signum represents "I can tell my squaddies how to shoot gud" - both represent specific subsets of individuals in the game (the first, Ultramarines, and the second, Dev Sarges). I wouldn't bat an eye at a Signum-toting Tac Sarge, if it were obvious (next to 3 Squaddies and a Special, for instance), but it's still proxying.

I'd agree that it's *less impactful* proxying, a much lower level, but how is it not proxying?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for no impact on the game - playing with a bunch of chess pieces or poker chips has no crunch impact on the game, too. But most people don't do that.

If the Poker chips are different colors for the different pieces, I see no reason it can't be done. Hell I'm sure some people that don't have good chess sets like I do do some sorta makeshift thing like that to play, and they have my respects.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Are you going to complain if someone paints their Ultramarines black, including the new Calgar model (with the helmet of course), which makes him slightly harder to point out?

Obvious strawman is obvious.

No, it isn't. This is the core of the issue.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:So, just to clarify, is using a Redemptor as a Leviathan a problem? Because it's happening across the army - there's no tricks, no confusion, it's a universal change.

As you said, there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't own a Levi but I've seen Redemptors, and they're pretty similar in size if I'm not mistaken. If there's two Gatlings on it (seeing as they probably want to do dual Autocannons), gold on my opponent for making a boring Dread with just two loadouts a little more fun. If they just wanted to do one gun arm + Fist I've got no problems with that either, as the Redemptor rules suck whereas the Levi, only being mediocre with gun + arm, can function slightly more I suppose.

Lovely. So do you have a problem with all the Tactical Marines models in my army playing as Scouts?
Do you have a problem with every missile launcher models actually being plasma guns?

Likewise, this is universal across the list, no tricks, no non-GW bits or conversions. Just me telling you - you know the rules for Scouts and plasma guns, right? If not, I can show you the unit entries before we play.

I mean, I've used my Mk4 dudes with Shotguns in my Deathwatch as Scouts in a pinch and nobody cared. I'm working on getting some cheap Scouts + Scion heads though because I hate the bare heads on Scouts. It looks stupid.

Seeing as the ML isn't a good weapon, yeah I've got no problem with someone doing that. They clearly told me as much and, if my memory is as bad as other people in this thread, I always carry sticky notes + a pen on me. Granted that's because I could get a work call, but it has helped a couple of times.
They might want to eventually get some actual Plasma Guns or even Plasma Gun equivalents if they just hate the design of GW's, but why would I care in the meantime?

Excellent.

So, in light of this - why did you post this?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Because one is flat out for the army, and you already know the Raven Guard rules.

Not even close to the same.

Now, I haven't got a problem if you think that they're all the same, and you'd happily play against someone who has an Ultramarines painted army with Tactical Marines as Scouts, missiles as plasmas, and Redemptors as Leviathans as a Raven Guard list - that's all consistent. It's when we have people saying "how your model looks isn't the same as how they look!", which is just incredibly confusing and inconsistent.

I posted it because the complaints are NOT the same and would require different schools of thought. You were merely asking how I would treat models, which is a different subject from paint. Nobody has any right to complain about paying and designs, whereas you'd have more a leg to stand on when it comes to models.

Could you elaborate on how proxying say, an UltraMarine with inverted-Omega bits on it as an Iron Hands marine is different and requires a "different school(s) of thought" than proxying something like an Assault Marine as a Vanguard Vet Marine?

Sure. One is a paint job and design and has literally no impact on what is going on in the game. One might be a dual Chainsword Vanguard being proxied as an Assault Marine (for whatever God forsaken reason you would do that), which dictates army composition.

Those inverted-Omega bits might just be "design", but then where do you draw the line between "design" and "function"? That inverted-omega is "design" that clearly demonstrates UltraMarines, in much the same way that a Signum represents "I can tell my squaddies how to shoot gud" - both represent specific subsets of individuals in the game (the first, Ultramarines, and the second, Dev Sarges). I wouldn't bat an eye at a Signum-toting Tac Sarge, if it were obvious (next to 3 Squaddies and a Special, for instance), but it's still proxying.

I'd agree that it's *less impactful* proxying, a much lower level, but how is it not proxying?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for no impact on the game - playing with a bunch of chess pieces or poker chips has no crunch impact on the game, too. But most people don't do that.

If the Poker chips are different colors for the different pieces, I see no reason it can't be done. Hell I'm sure some people that don't have good chess sets like I do do some sorta makeshift thing like that to play, and they have my respects.

And you see nothing wrong with asserting that nobody could or would ever care that you're using poker chips instead of models in 40k?

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Sure. One is a paint job and design and has literally no impact on what is going on in the game.

Yes it does - I see an Ultramarine, and expect to be fighting an Ultramarine.
In the same vein, a plasma gun's design is only aN aesthetic. It has "literally no impact on what it going on in game".

One might be a dual Chainsword Vanguard being proxied as an Assault Marine (for whatever God forsaken reason you would do that), which dictates army composition.

But if your memory was any good, you'd be able to figure out what was going on. Maybe break out that notepad you mentioned.

If I were stupid I'd probably have to jot it down, sure, because nobody in their right mind runs Vanguard as Pistol + Chainsword. If the other three are the basic loadout for Assault Marines and then whatever the Sarge is loaded out with (perhaps an Eviscerator), I think I can probably figure out with just a SMALL amount of critical thinking which squad it is. He, if someone wanted to do an Assault Squad but one guy is going cowboy with the Bolt Pistols and the other guy is going akimbo with dual Chainswords, that's awesome.

But equally, couldn't you figure out what they were if they were numbered poker chips?

And as I pointed out, that's fine if there's no chess pieces and you're stuck with just checkers for whatever reason. I'm guessing you're too high and mighty to do a chess game like that?

How is Calgar being black harder to make out? You really are flailing around for justification with that one.

But just continue with your absolute statements like you're the king of 40k or something.

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:So, just to clarify, is using a Redemptor as a Leviathan a problem? Because it's happening across the army - there's no tricks, no confusion, it's a universal change.

As you said, there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't own a Levi but I've seen Redemptors, and they're pretty similar in size if I'm not mistaken. If there's two Gatlings on it (seeing as they probably want to do dual Autocannons), gold on my opponent for making a boring Dread with just two loadouts a little more fun. If they just wanted to do one gun arm + Fist I've got no problems with that either, as the Redemptor rules suck whereas the Levi, only being mediocre with gun + arm, can function slightly more I suppose.

Lovely. So do you have a problem with all the Tactical Marines models in my army playing as Scouts?
Do you have a problem with every missile launcher models actually being plasma guns?

Likewise, this is universal across the list, no tricks, no non-GW bits or conversions. Just me telling you - you know the rules for Scouts and plasma guns, right? If not, I can show you the unit entries before we play.

I mean, I've used my Mk4 dudes with Shotguns in my Deathwatch as Scouts in a pinch and nobody cared. I'm working on getting some cheap Scouts + Scion heads though because I hate the bare heads on Scouts. It looks stupid.

Seeing as the ML isn't a good weapon, yeah I've got no problem with someone doing that. They clearly told me as much and, if my memory is as bad as other people in this thread, I always carry sticky notes + a pen on me. Granted that's because I could get a work call, but it has helped a couple of times.
They might want to eventually get some actual Plasma Guns or even Plasma Gun equivalents if they just hate the design of GW's, but why would I care in the meantime?

Excellent.

So, in light of this - why did you post this?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Because one is flat out for the army, and you already know the Raven Guard rules.

Not even close to the same.

Now, I haven't got a problem if you think that they're all the same, and you'd happily play against someone who has an Ultramarines painted army with Tactical Marines as Scouts, missiles as plasmas, and Redemptors as Leviathans as a Raven Guard list - that's all consistent. It's when we have people saying "how your model looks isn't the same as how they look!", which is just incredibly confusing and inconsistent.

I posted it because the complaints are NOT the same and would require different schools of thought. You were merely asking how I would treat models, which is a different subject from paint. Nobody has any right to complain about paying and designs, whereas you'd have more a leg to stand on when it comes to models.

Could you elaborate on how proxying say, an UltraMarine with inverted-Omega bits on it as an Iron Hands marine is different and requires a "different school(s) of thought" than proxying something like an Assault Marine as a Vanguard Vet Marine?

Sure. One is a paint job and design and has literally no impact on what is going on in the game. One might be a dual Chainsword Vanguard being proxied as an Assault Marine (for whatever God forsaken reason you would do that), which dictates army composition.

Those inverted-Omega bits might just be "design", but then where do you draw the line between "design" and "function"? That inverted-omega is "design" that clearly demonstrates UltraMarines, in much the same way that a Signum represents "I can tell my squaddies how to shoot gud" - both represent specific subsets of individuals in the game (the first, Ultramarines, and the second, Dev Sarges). I wouldn't bat an eye at a Signum-toting Tac Sarge, if it were obvious (next to 3 Squaddies and a Special, for instance), but it's still proxying.

I'd agree that it's *less impactful* proxying, a much lower level, but how is it not proxying?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for no impact on the game - playing with a bunch of chess pieces or poker chips has no crunch impact on the game, too. But most people don't do that.

If the Poker chips are different colors for the different pieces, I see no reason it can't be done. Hell I'm sure some people that don't have good chess sets like I do do some sorta makeshift thing like that to play, and they have my respects.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Are you going to complain if someone paints their Ultramarines black, including the new Calgar model (with the helmet of course), which makes him slightly harder to point out?

Obvious strawman is obvious.

No, it isn't. This is the core of the issue.

And you see nothing wrong with asserting that nobody could or would ever care that you're using poker chips instead of models in 40k?

Hell people made armies out of the sprues themselves.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/402720391662452308/
I'd play it because that's just amazing to me.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Sure. One is a paint job and design and has literally no impact on what is going on in the game.

Yes it does - I see an Ultramarine, and expect to be fighting an Ultramarine.
In the same vein, a plasma gun's design is only aN aesthetic. It has "literally no impact on what it going on in game".

One might be a dual Chainsword Vanguard being proxied as an Assault Marine (for whatever God forsaken reason you would do that), which dictates army composition.

But if your memory was any good, you'd be able to figure out what was going on. Maybe break out that notepad you mentioned.

If I were stupid I'd probably have to jot it down, sure, because nobody in their right mind runs Vanguard as Pistol + Chainsword. If the other three are the basic loadout for Assault Marines and then whatever the Sarge is loaded out with (perhaps an Eviscerator), I think I can probably figure out with just a SMALL amount of critical thinking which squad it is. He, if someone wanted to do an Assault Squad but one guy is going cowboy with the Bolt Pistols and the other guy is going akimbo with dual Chainswords, that's awesome.

But equally, couldn't you figure out what they were if they were numbered poker chips?

And as I pointed out, that's fine if there's no chess pieces and you're stuck with just checkers for whatever reason. I'm guessing you're too high and mighty to do a chess game like that?

I think there's been a massive goalpost shift here.

We're arguing that we'd rather play chess with chess pieces than poker chips. You're arguing that the only reason we'd ever care is because we're not "smart enough" to handle the substitutions. That if we have any preference for chess pieces, we're obviously so dumb we need to seek medical attention.

I want people to paint their models, this game should be played with beautifully painted models. Punishing people for painting their army is insane. Please let's not do that.

The subfaction rules change all the time and for many armies didn't even exist until very recently. It is completely unreasonable to expect people's rule choices to be bound by colour choices that were possibly made before the said rules even existed.

Furthermore, it is pretty random whether or not subfaction rules actually support the playstyle the faction is known for. Catachan trait encourages bringing lots of thanks, whilst Ultramarines makes a better swift and mobile marine army than the White Scars.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Are you going to complain if someone paints their Ultramarines black, including the new Calgar model (with the helmet of course), which makes him slightly harder to point out?

In what way "black" are we talking?

Are we talking "undercoated black with no paint details?" - No issues. They're not masquerading as something else.
Are we talking "black paint, but the Ultramarine symbols are still present on every model?" - No issues. They could be any Chapter.
Are we talking "fully painted black, no Ultramarine icons, and no symbols or scripture of another canon Chapter?" - No issues. They're a custom Chapter.
Are we talking "fully painted black, another Ultramarine successor Chapter's symbols and scripture, but Calgar present?" - No issues. They're Ultramarine successors, but I'll let it go.
Are we talking "fully painted black, a non-Ultramarine successor Chapter's symbols and scripture, but Calgar present?" - Slight issues, but if that Calgar model is being played AS Calgar, then he's got to be an Ultramarine.
Are we talking "fully painted black, a non-Ultramarine successor Chapter's symbols and scripture, and no Ultramarine specific characters?" - Issues. They don't look anything like Ultramarines, look identifiable as another canon Chapter, and have no markers that would tell me they're Ultramarines.

Would you complain if someone builds their plasma gun as a meltagun?

 Grimtuff wrote:
How is Calgar being black harder to make out? You really are flailing around for justification with that one.

But just continue with your absolute statements like you're the king of 40k or something.

Because he's not blue like an Ultramarine should be. If they're all painted Raven Guard black, as pointed out in this thread, it would be too difficult to really play because they're not painted like Ultramarines and they might forget, instead thinking they're playing against Raven Guard or Iron Hands.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Sure. One is a paint job and design and has literally no impact on what is going on in the game.

Yes it does - I see an Ultramarine, and expect to be fighting an Ultramarine.
In the same vein, a plasma gun's design is only aN aesthetic. It has "literally no impact on what it going on in game".

One might be a dual Chainsword Vanguard being proxied as an Assault Marine (for whatever God forsaken reason you would do that), which dictates army composition.

But if your memory was any good, you'd be able to figure out what was going on. Maybe break out that notepad you mentioned.

If I were stupid I'd probably have to jot it down, sure, because nobody in their right mind runs Vanguard as Pistol + Chainsword. If the other three are the basic loadout for Assault Marines and then whatever the Sarge is loaded out with (perhaps an Eviscerator), I think I can probably figure out with just a SMALL amount of critical thinking which squad it is. He, if someone wanted to do an Assault Squad but one guy is going cowboy with the Bolt Pistols and the other guy is going akimbo with dual Chainswords, that's awesome.

But equally, couldn't you figure out what they were if they were numbered poker chips?

And as I pointed out, that's fine if there's no chess pieces and you're stuck with just checkers for whatever reason. I'm guessing you're too high and mighty to do a chess game like that?

I think there's been a massive goalpost shift here.

We're arguing that we'd rather play chess with chess pieces than poker chips. You're arguing that the only reason we'd ever care is because we're not "smart enough" to handle the substitutions. That if we have any preference for chess pieces, we're obviously so dumb we need to seek medical attention.

People with early onset dementia are not dumb. That's an insult to a legit medical problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Are you going to complain if someone paints their Ultramarines black, including the new Calgar model (with the helmet of course), which makes him slightly harder to point out?

In what way "black" are we talking?

Are we talking "undercoated black with no paint details?" - No issues. They're not masquerading as something else.
Are we talking "black paint, but the Ultramarine symbols are still present on every model?" - No issues. They could be any Chapter.
Are we talking "fully painted black, no Ultramarine icons, and no symbols or scripture of another canon Chapter?" - No issues. They're a custom Chapter.
Are we talking "fully painted black, another Ultramarine successor Chapter's symbols and scripture, but Calgar present?" - No issues. They're Ultramarine successors, but I'll let it go.
Are we talking "fully painted black, a non-Ultramarine successor Chapter's symbols and scripture, but Calgar present?" - Slight issues, but if that Calgar model is being played AS Calgar, then he's got to be an Ultramarine.
Are we talking "fully painted black, a non-Ultramarine successor Chapter's symbols and scripture, and no Ultramarine specific characters?" - Issues. They don't look anything like Ultramarines, look identifiable as another canon Chapter, and have no markers that would tell me they're Ultramarines.

Would you complain if someone builds their plasma gun as a meltagun?

Calgar has a gaint hand where the toilet seat should be. It's the same model but not an Ultramarine, but being played like an Ultramarine.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Are you going to complain if someone paints their Ultramarines black, including the new Calgar model (with the helmet of course), which makes him slightly harder to point out?

Obvious strawman is obvious.

How is that a strawman?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Sure. One is a paint job and design and has literally no impact on what is going on in the game.

Yes it does - I see an Ultramarine, and expect to be fighting an Ultramarine.
In the same vein, a plasma gun's design is only aN aesthetic. It has "literally no impact on what it going on in game".

One might be a dual Chainsword Vanguard being proxied as an Assault Marine (for whatever God forsaken reason you would do that), which dictates army composition.

But if your memory was any good, you'd be able to figure out what was going on. Maybe break out that notepad you mentioned.

If I were stupid I'd probably have to jot it down, sure, because nobody in their right mind runs Vanguard as Pistol + Chainsword.

Well, this guy does. Better get out your notepad.

If the other three are the basic loadout for Assault Marines and then whatever the Sarge is loaded out with (perhaps an Eviscerator), I think I can probably figure out with just a SMALL amount of critical thinking which squad it is. He, if someone wanted to do an Assault Squad but one guy is going cowboy with the Bolt Pistols and the other guy is going akimbo with dual Chainswords, that's awesome.

Lovely. But that doesn't answer my question.

If painting a model is only an aesthetic choice, and building a model with a plasma gun is only an aesthetic choice, why is one good and the other bad?

The aesthetic choice for model building affects actual rules. If someone uses all their Melta Guns as Plasma Guns I'm perfectly fine with it, because Plasma Guns are good, Melta Guns are fething awful, and unfortunately Melta Guns look pretty darn cool.