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.

The problem is the CAAC guys just not coming out and saying they don't want to play against competitive guys.

I doubt Smudge would enjoy playing against a properly painted/badged/based IH competitive list anymore than he would enjoy playing that same list if it was made of UM. The paint job really isn't his point of contention, it's just that it wouldn't be a good game between an optimized competitive list vs a fluffy list. Some people are not willing to jump through all the hoops GW puts up to play a competitive game.

That's fine. Just come out and say it. Implying things about people character who are willing to jump through those hoops is where the whole CAAC group comes across as holier than thou gatekeepers which we do not need in our hobby.

Bringing a double executioner + levi dread list to a casual/narrative game is a jerk move regardless of the paint scheme. Showing up to game night and judging me because I want to play my blue marines as sneaky boys is just as much of a jerk move (and just as damaging to the hobby as clubbing new seals with your netlist).

This argument never is about painted right vs wrong. It's about the different things people want from this game (which is why I only play tournaments because of bad experiences I've had with the CAAC crowd). If both sides would just approach the discussion with a little honesty instead of trying to win an internet argument we wouldn't be on the 40th thread of basically the same argument...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Clearly they say they MUST be painted.

The models absolutely should be painted. And this is why I abhor a convention that would punish people who paint their models 'wrong'! Such a practice will just lead to people being hesitant to paint their models in the first place.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:

ImPhaeronWeasel wrote:

SPE825 wrote:
I want to say it matters. But at the same time, it really sucks that my Deathwatch Primaris have gotten nothing but the executioner at this point. I'm sure that we'll eventually get the Vanguard/Phobos stuff, but I'm not going to paint up an entire second Space Marines army just to play them. At this point I'd guess it'll be late 2020 at best before Deathwatch is updated.

I'd just rather paint up a new, non-SM army in general (which is what I'm doing).

Basically this.

I like the new primaris stuff but I cant really play it because my main army right now is Deathwatch.
Now therefore Im building up sort of a „training chapter“ for PRIMARIS that want to join the Deathwatch. Usually Im using 3 chapter tactics depending on the list but mainly its the Imperial Fist one. According to some elitists here I would t be allowed to play them painted as deathwatch because they dont have the new Primaris stuff...

Not a SINGLE person said that.

There is a world apart between "these deathwatch guys are temporary using IF rules as deathwatch didn't get updated with these models yet" and "these 15 years old ultra marines are actually iron hands in disguise"

One is obviously making ends means, the other is obvious power grabbing.

Anyone pretending not to see the difference is either trolling, or just dense.

There IS no difference. Imperial Fists got an update that gives them a lot more goodies than Deathwatch.

But deathwatch does not have ANY counterpart to the new phobos marines.
Not a "not as optimal" counterpart, but not at all. and we all know it will come eventually, so using "basic marines" as stand in for your phobos deathwatch is cool.

Moving from one chapter to another, while you have a totally viable set of rules of your own, is being a prick and chasing power. if you didn't do it JUST for power you wouldn't care that your "own" chapter might be a bit suboptimal.

For referance, my Tau.
I'm a Kel'shen player. we don't have rules yet, so I borrow other septs. but when I'll finally get Ke'lshen rules, I'd freaking play Ke'lshen rule-even if they turn out not-quite-as-good.
My Thousands sons stay as thousand sons-despite the codex being rather blah and getting out-magicked by codex marines. our biggest upside is some crutch underpriced HQs that hold up an otherwise poor codex. My rubrics are not alpha-rubrics just to milk some more power, because I'm a sons player, with a sons army.

 BoomWolf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:

ImPhaeronWeasel wrote:

SPE825 wrote:
I want to say it matters. But at the same time, it really sucks that my Deathwatch Primaris have gotten nothing but the executioner at this point. I'm sure that we'll eventually get the Vanguard/Phobos stuff, but I'm not going to paint up an entire second Space Marines army just to play them. At this point I'd guess it'll be late 2020 at best before Deathwatch is updated.

I'd just rather paint up a new, non-SM army in general (which is what I'm doing).

Basically this.

I like the new primaris stuff but I cant really play it because my main army right now is Deathwatch.
Now therefore Im building up sort of a „training chapter“ for PRIMARIS that want to join the Deathwatch. Usually Im using 3 chapter tactics depending on the list but mainly its the Imperial Fist one. According to some elitists here I would t be allowed to play them painted as deathwatch because they dont have the new Primaris stuff...

Not a SINGLE person said that.

There is a world apart between "these deathwatch guys are temporary using IF rules as deathwatch didn't get updated with these models yet" and "these 15 years old ultra marines are actually iron hands in disguise"

One is obviously making ends means, the other is obvious power grabbing.

Anyone pretending not to see the difference is either trolling, or just dense.

There IS no difference. Imperial Fists got an update that gives them a lot more goodies than Deathwatch.

But deathwatch does not have ANY counterpart to the new phobos marines.
Not a "not as optimal" counterpart, but not at all. and we all know it will come eventually, so using "basic marines" as stand in for your phobos deathwatch is cool.

Moving from one chapter to another, while you have a totally viable set of rules of your own, is being a prick and chasing power. if you didn't do it JUST for power you wouldn't care that your "own" chapter might be a bit suboptimal.

For referance, my Tau.
I'm a Kel'shen player. we don't have rules yet, so I borrow other septs. but when I'll finally get Ke'lshen rules, I'd freaking play Ke'lshen rule-even if they turn out not-quite-as-good.
My Thousands sons stay as thousand sons-despite the codex being rather blah and getting out-magicked by codex marines. our biggest upside is some crutch underpriced HQs that hold up an otherwise poor codex. My rubrics are not alpha-rubrics just to milk some more power, because I'm a sons player, with a sons army.

Do you really know it'll come eventually? What's your source?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Clearly they say they MUST be painted.

The models absolutely should be painted. And this is why I abhor a convention that would punish people who paint their models 'wrong'! Such a practice will just lead to people being hesitant to paint their models in the first place.

Want to use your Word Bearers models and not lose? HAHAHAHAHA TOO BAD SCRUB

 Xenomancers wrote:

I honestly was hoping Ultras would get a new tactic that worked kind of like this. LIke they could use a new space marine CT every turn but they would have to change them every turn. That would have been really cool and require a lot of strategy. Nope - all other chapters which already had superior CT got better CT and Ultras terrible tactic remained unchanged.

Well food for thought BolS had an article about how Fly is too powerful and probably should be nerf, which I agree with. So if jump pack units suddenly can't fall back and shoot at full BS then UM will get a significant boost

bananathug wrote:
The problem is the CAAC guys just not coming out and saying they don't want to play against competitive guys.

Calling those who prefer an army is played as it's modeled/painted "CAAC" is like calling those who'd rather proxy their UM modeled/painted army as IH "WAAC". It's a massive overstatement. "Power Gamer" is certainly a more loaded word than we'd want - as many posts have attempted to fix. But even it's most loaded form isn't a WAAC.

This argument never is about painted right vs wrong. It's about the different things people want from this game

Very much agree.

If both sides would just approach the discussion with a little honesty instead of trying to win an internet argument we wouldn't be on the 40th thread of basically the same argument...

It would help to be a bit more evenhanded (using "CAAC" vs "casual", or "WAAC" vs "power gamer").

The other thing that would help is if people would realize that there's some nuance. I'll stick by "I'd rather play IH played as IH than UM proxied as IH". But I' m not saying "You're a terrible person if you' proxy your UM as IH". I'm not saying "You shouldn't be allowed to play if you're proxying...". I'm not even saying "I won't enjoy a game if I'm playing against UM proxied as IH".

I'm saying "There is negative value produced by proxing UM as IH".

And that's fine.

Nothing is ever perfect. No opponent or army is 100% what you want to face. Sometimes you're facing an Eldar list where they throw their Honored Dead around like they're expendable. Sometimes you're facing a model with a Melta Gun that's really a Flamer. Sometimes you're facing a gray dood. And sometimes you're facing UM proxied as IH. None of these are ideal, but they don't make the other guy a bad guy. They don't stop the game from being fun. They just reduce how much fun it is (for some players).

So stop reading "I'd rather play well-painted armies without proxies" as "You're going to hell if you ever want to change Chapter Tactics".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Clearly they say they MUST be painted.

The models absolutely should be painted. And this is why I abhor a convention that would punish people who paint their models 'wrong'! Such a practice will just lead to people being hesitant to paint their models in the first place.

Painted units fielded as painted/modeled > painted units fielded as modeled > painted units fielded with proxied equipment > painted units fielded as proxies for other units > unpainted units fielded as modeled > unpainted units fielded with proxied equipment > unpainted units fielded as proxies for other units > playing with poker chips.

Once again, in saying "I prefer playing against painted units fielded as they are modeled/painted" is *not* the same thing as saying "You cannot play with models that are not fielded as they are modeled/painted".

bananathug wrote:The problem is the CAAC guys just not coming out and saying they don't want to play against competitive guys.

I doubt Smudge would enjoy playing against a properly painted/badged/based IH competitive list anymore than he would enjoy playing that same list if it was made of UM. The paint job really isn't his point of contention, it's just that it wouldn't be a good game between an optimized competitive list vs a fluffy list. Some people are not willing to jump through all the hoops GW puts up to play a competitive game.

Quite right. It's not that it's the simple act of playing the "wrong" Chapter - it's *why* you're doing it.

And I think you're very right about being honest about what you want from the game. (Foreword, I'll use the phrases WAAC and CAAC - they are not meant as derogative, purely as shorthand, my apologies if they offend)

If you are CAAC, make that aware. Don't try and force people to tone down their list, or expect them to adhere to narrative convention or stuff like that. Be honest with what you want from the game - casual fun.
If you are WAAC, make that aware. Don't try and force people to play against your meta-chasing list, or expect them to tolerate a list that is tailored for maximum winning potential. Be honest with what you want from the game - competitive fun.

This argument never is about painted right vs wrong. It's about the different things people want from this game (which is why I only play tournaments because of bad experiences I've had with the CAAC crowd). If both sides would just approach the discussion with a little honesty instead of trying to win an internet argument we wouldn't be on the 40th thread of basically the same argument...

Agreed. I don't play tournaments because I hate the environment, but I won't say that it's wrong or bad. It's just different.

It's a big hobby, and there isn't a right or wrong way to enjoy it. And while some things might be a problem for enjoying the game in one way and not the other, I suppose the least we can do is accept we all have different preferences.

Exalted Smudge

I'd say it goes beyond just what we want from the game. I'd say how we come out on this debate has a lot to do with what we get from the social aspect of the game as well.

At least in my personal situation fielding the bleeding edge competitive army is a form of virtue signaling to the guys I play with that I play the game the same way as them. That I am a competitive gamer, that I am up on the meta, that the game is important enough for me to spend cash on the new hotness, that I am invested enough to figure out some non-net-list combos and at a major I'm shooting for 4-2 with my slightly off-meta snowflake list. It is important to me that I am seen as fielding a competitive list for my social standing in my chosen play group.

I could imagine similar pressure on the other side of the coin to have proper field markings, lore compliant army construction and codex compliant paint jobs in order to "belong" with their group of players in the way they enjoy the hobby.

I imagine CAAC players would feel the same way showing up to a tourney with their carefully constructed 5th company as I'd feel showing up to a narrative event with WAAC green and blue iron hands.

All that being said, I'd be perfectly willing to tone down my WAAC list if you'd be willing to overlook my BT pauldrons that I've painted blue and black on my blood claws without a lick of yellow or red on them...

Why is proxying a chapter a form of "meta chasing"? ive seen this argument come up many times in this thread and i disagree with it.
We're in a period where Marines see plenty of changes, i think its just normal to want to try them out and figure out which chapter fits my playstyle the most, should i repaint it between games?

If you want to be "immersed by the experience of your match", is playing against black ultras, green BA or yellow raven guard that immersion breaking? Youre still playing against a fully painted army, and nothing in the lore says that imperial fists don't know how to sneak around when they need to.

Now, if we change it to another faction with less known color scheme, would you have the same reaction?

I painted my Admech army with the lucius scheme because when i started, it was the forgeworld that i liked the most for its deepstrike stratagem (that was before i knew anything about the game, and when the stygies infiltration was still a strictly bettre version of lucius's). Now i feel that my aggresive playstyle if better suited with stygies's dogma. Am i a meta chaser?

Also, the difference between most forgeworld is minimal, Mars, Graia, Agripiina and lucius all have basically the same scheme when looked from 3" on the tabletop.

I know im using specific examples but thats still my feeling on the issue of "is paint part of wysiwyg".

When i started 40k last year, i had no idea about the background, i picked the army i liked the most visually and went online for painting tutorials. Surprise surprise, the official GW one for painting skitariis demonstrated the mars scheme, i thought the lucius one was better and lucky for me, it was just about swapping 2 colors. If i started playing marines and did the same procedure when i started, i probably wouldve been stuck with ultramarines as a color scheme. Would i have been a meta chaser then?

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Your poll SUCKS, where is the hard NO!

Playing and Painting are 2 different hobbies and painting takes an immense amount of time. Rules change all the time, playing is meant to be fun, if you are not having fun with Blue boys and what White, or Red boys, why do i care if your Red boys are painted blue?

No one questions Necrons, Tau, DE colors, they only question SM b.c its "easy to know the colors".

Hrm, it goes beyond just colors. SM's get a lot of product and rules support, particularly for tiny niche subfactions, often that some demand are totally necessary, for factions that often have orders of magnitude less distinction than other forces that share a codex.

Being highly visually distinct does factor into that, but does so on both ends, when people see Red marines they expect Red marine rules, not Blue or Grey marine rules, and if they're that easy to switch around then it causes people to question why we have so many distinct rule sets for them in the first place (particularly with the associated issues of power bloat and rules confusion), and does undercut the immersion factor.

Other factions also have a lot fewer subfaction specific stuff, there's no unique Vior'la suit variant or Iyanden wraithtype or unique Catachan tank model to proxy, no universally recognized distinct Cadian uniform color pallette or Genestealer Cult faction colors to rigidly identify units, no Sa'Cea unique shoulderpads, Kabal-specific troop variant kits, or Biel'tan molded heraldry. Space Marine subfactions have all that stuff, where most other factions don't (or have very little).

It shouldn't be much wonder that such mix and matching causes more consternation in that light.

If you see blue you should ask what they are playing and not assume what they are playing, maybe they are red colorblind and want blue blood angels (i literally know someone that did this for this reason). Who are you to say why they have to play with red guys?

And other some other armies does have more traits, its called successor chapters for a reason, all factions has them, are we supposed to remember 400 subfaction color schemes?

you're being a wee bit obtuse here, when I'm referring to colors here I'm using shorthand to refer to specific subfactions (Blood Angels, Ultramarines, Space Wolves, etc), hence my talk about faction specific subunits and iconography and identifiable color schemes. These things are much more distinctive with marines than most other armies, hence why it causes a level of consternation.

If someone wants to play a successor chapter, fine. If someone hops codexes every week or every new release though, or is playing with an army with Blood Angels iconography and paintjobs all over everything and using rules from another codex, it's understandable that it causes irritation.

And ultimately, I'm not saying they can't play whatever they want, I'm certainly not the plastic army man police or berate anyone over it. But it's not unwarranted for others to be bothered by that either, or to question why they have or need so many different subfaction rulesets as a result if it's so easy to switch.

K, so if someone got UW and after a few a year of playing them didnt find them fun anymore and wanted to play WS, he should repaint his full army now just to play with new rules? Thats stupid and you know it. My DE, Quins, CWE, etc.. dont need to do that and no one expects me to do that.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Why is proxying a chapter a form of "meta chasing"? ive seen this argument come up many times in this thread and i disagree with it.
We're in a period where Marines see plenty of changes, i think its just normal to want to try them out and figure out which chapter fits my playstyle the most, should i repaint it between games?

If you want to be "immersed by the experience of your match", is playing against black ultras, green BA or yellow raven guard that immersion breaking? Youre still playing against a fully painted army, and nothing in the lore says that imperial fists don't know how to sneak around when they need to.

Now, if we change it to another faction with less known color scheme, would you have the same reaction?

I painted my Admech army with the lucius scheme because when i started, it was the forgeworld that i liked the most for its deepstrike stratagem (that was before i knew anything about the game, and when the stygies infiltration was still a strictly bettre version of lucius's). Now i feel that my aggresive playstyle if better suited with stygies's dogma. Am i a meta chaser?

Also, the difference between most forgeworld is minimal, Mars, Graia, Agripiina and lucius all have basically the same scheme when looked from 3" on the tabletop.

I know im using specific examples but thats still my feeling on the issue of "is paint part of wysiwyg".

When i started 40k last year, i had no idea about the background, i picked the army i liked the most visually and went online for painting tutorials. Surprise surprise, the official GW one for painting skitariis demonstrated the mars scheme, i thought the lucius one was better and lucky for me, it was just about swapping 2 colors. If i started playing marines and did the same procedure when i started, i probably wouldve been stuck with ultramarines as a color scheme. Would i have been a meta chaser then?

Good post.

Personally I have used the army traits to fine tune the competitiveness of my army. Like for tournaments I might use the most optimal traits whereas for more casual games I might use worse ones.

I find if "fluff" matters to you at all, you will pick an established chapter and try to play it to whatever rules are out there for them, with a more competitive streak, you will leverage what you can.
It gets in the way a tiny bit to play them differently than the chapter portrayed, less WYSIWYG.

I find if "competitive" matters to you, you will make your own army with no known ties to the "fluff" and then you can pick or choose all you want.
Mind, the Codex SM tries to address successor chapters with their own rules if you are not wearing the "right" colours.

I have a strong respect for anyone that can paint an army to a better than tabletop standard AND keep up with the latest "hotness".
They have more skill, time, dedication and money than me.

I have been assembly-line painting my long-backlogged Primaris exclusive army as good old Ultramarines primarily 2nd company.
Painting up 30 joe-troopers (Intercessors) to codex proper paint scheme has been hard work.
I got another 60 models of all the other stuff to do.
I am up to some 15 different paints/shades on each model (about 3 types for each colour: red, blue, steel, trim, leather / purity ribbon).
I may have missed the boat completely already for the Ultramarine Supplement meta.

There is only one cure for this thread: "Gotta collect them all", I will soon have two chapters to my name, I just need to collect and build the rest!

In all honesty, I think your own custom chapter is the best way to go as a first army, or something to have as your base.

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I honestly was hoping Ultras would get a new tactic that worked kind of like this. LIke they could use a new space marine CT every turn but they would have to change them every turn. That would have been really cool and require a lot of strategy. Nope - all other chapters which already had superior CT got better CT and Ultras terrible tactic remained unchanged.

Well food for thought BolS had an article about how Fly is too powerful and probably should be nerf, which I agree with. So if jump pack units suddenly can't fall back and shoot at full BS then UM will get a significant boost

Yes - that would be a big deal. Right now though it is literally a benefit handed out for free on a lot of units. Still though - it is quite conditional. A chapter tactic should have an effect on every game IMO. Like for example kraken gets 3d6 advance and can fall back and charge (a much more useful ability IMO) plus 3d6 advance is pretty amazing. Plus 1 LD though might as well not exist. Really the tactic would still need to improve with a fly keyword nerf IMO. At least give me - fall back and shoot at -1 and units can heroically intervene like characters or something.

Another potential cure: Play the faction and rules you want.

If you don't want to play the army as what you've assembled/painted them as, that's fine. The people that bothers enough to not want to play you probably don't want to play you for other (likely related) reasons. So doing so doesn't really change things.

As for who the people who are bothered enough to not want to play you are, that depends on how far you go. "My UltraMarines are Iron Hands today" isn't enough to stop most people from enjoying a game with you. On the other hand "Poker chips 1-10 are Tac Squad 1, and..." is certainly enough for many people to not want to play.

It's totally fine if we don't all have the same goals, standards, or breakevens.

Proxing your army as something else is a negative, sure. But when do you ever see games with no negatives? Perhaps the other guy talks a little more than he should. Or not enough. Perhaps the other guy isn't taking it seriously enough. Or too seriously. Perhaps he's not sharp enough to challenge you. Or too competitive and you're not enjoying the curbstomping. Perhaps he cares too little for the fluff. Or too much. It's a continuum. If the worst thing I can say about you is "he plays his UM as IH", you're a saint.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Your poll SUCKS, where is the hard NO!

Playing and Painting are 2 different hobbies and painting takes an immense amount of time. Rules change all the time, playing is meant to be fun, if you are not having fun with Blue boys and what White, or Red boys, why do i care if your Red boys are painted blue?

No one questions Necrons, Tau, DE colors, they only question SM b.c its "easy to know the colors".

Hrm, it goes beyond just colors. SM's get a lot of product and rules support, particularly for tiny niche subfactions, often that some demand are totally necessary, for factions that often have orders of magnitude less distinction than other forces that share a codex.

Being highly visually distinct does factor into that, but does so on both ends, when people see Red marines they expect Red marine rules, not Blue or Grey marine rules, and if they're that easy to switch around then it causes people to question why we have so many distinct rule sets for them in the first place (particularly with the associated issues of power bloat and rules confusion), and does undercut the immersion factor.

Other factions also have a lot fewer subfaction specific stuff, there's no unique Vior'la suit variant or Iyanden wraithtype or unique Catachan tank model to proxy, no universally recognized distinct Cadian uniform color pallette or Genestealer Cult faction colors to rigidly identify units, no Sa'Cea unique shoulderpads, Kabal-specific troop variant kits, or Biel'tan molded heraldry. Space Marine subfactions have all that stuff, where most other factions don't (or have very little).

It shouldn't be much wonder that such mix and matching causes more consternation in that light.

If you see blue you should ask what they are playing and not assume what they are playing, maybe they are red colorblind and want blue blood angels (i literally know someone that did this for this reason). Who are you to say why they have to play with red guys?

And other some other armies does have more traits, its called successor chapters for a reason, all factions has them, are we supposed to remember 400 subfaction color schemes?

you're being a wee bit obtuse here, when I'm referring to colors here I'm using shorthand to refer to specific subfactions (Blood Angels, Ultramarines, Space Wolves, etc), hence my talk about faction specific subunits and iconography and identifiable color schemes. These things are much more distinctive with marines than most other armies, hence why it causes a level of consternation.

If someone wants to play a successor chapter, fine. If someone hops codexes every week or every new release though, or is playing with an army with Blood Angels iconography and paintjobs all over everything and using rules from another codex, it's understandable that it causes irritation.

And ultimately, I'm not saying they can't play whatever they want, I'm certainly not the plastic army man police or berate anyone over it. But it's not unwarranted for others to be bothered by that either, or to question why they have or need so many different subfaction rulesets as a result if it's so easy to switch.

K, so if someone got UW and after a few a year of playing them didnt find them fun anymore and wanted to play WS, he should repaint his full army now just to play with new rules? Thats stupid and you know it. My DE, Quins, CWE, etc.. dont need to do that and no one expects me to do that.

Sorry, which factions are we talking about here exactly with UW and WS? I genuinely don't know entirely which factions you are referring to there. Might be a brainfart on my part.

If you mean Ultramarines and then White Scars? I would expect that at some point you'd repaint your army eventually if that's a long term decision, because those color schemes very much are tied to rules in ways that don't necessarily hold true for other factions, at least to anything near the same degree. I have zero problem calling an army painted in Ultramarines colors with UM iconography running White Scars rules "tacky". I have in fact repainted multiple models myself for this exact reason. I have two different guard armies with two different model lines (DKoK and Cadians with converted heads) and don't mix them in the same army as the same faction for much the same reasons.

When people see a Space Marine in Ultramarine blue with Ultra shoulderpads, that has a dramatically different connotation, in terms of rules and gameplay, than say a Harlie Troupe's colors that most people couldn't pick out of a lineup if their life depended on it (assuming they even have such), particularly when so many Eldar units have their own (non faction related) color schemes as well.

That said, beyond some mild eye rolling, it's not like I'm going to make a huge deal out of it, or that there's much I even could do about it, people can do and paint whatever they want, but lets not pretend that there's *nothing* objectionable at all about codex/faction hopping with an army painted one way using rules from another, particularly when color scheme is intentionally such a huge part of Space Marine visualization and rules.

My bright green army is Iron Hands though: Sons of Medusa.

I only ever play them as "Bright green Iron Hands" when I want to field Feirros though, usually they remain(and pay CPs for relics as) Iron Hands successors.

Doesn't really have any effect as I only have to pay the 1 CP "Bequeathed by the Iron Council" when fielding a Librarian for Mindforge. I don't often use the Ironstone.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Your poll SUCKS, where is the hard NO!

Playing and Painting are 2 different hobbies and painting takes an immense amount of time. Rules change all the time, playing is meant to be fun, if you are not having fun with Blue boys and what White, or Red boys, why do i care if your Red boys are painted blue?

No one questions Necrons, Tau, DE colors, they only question SM b.c its "easy to know the colors".

Hrm, it goes beyond just colors. SM's get a lot of product and rules support, particularly for tiny niche subfactions, often that some demand are totally necessary, for factions that often have orders of magnitude less distinction than other forces that share a codex.

Being highly visually distinct does factor into that, but does so on both ends, when people see Red marines they expect Red marine rules, not Blue or Grey marine rules, and if they're that easy to switch around then it causes people to question why we have so many distinct rule sets for them in the first place (particularly with the associated issues of power bloat and rules confusion), and does undercut the immersion factor.

Other factions also have a lot fewer subfaction specific stuff, there's no unique Vior'la suit variant or Iyanden wraithtype or unique Catachan tank model to proxy, no universally recognized distinct Cadian uniform color pallette or Genestealer Cult faction colors to rigidly identify units, no Sa'Cea unique shoulderpads, Kabal-specific troop variant kits, or Biel'tan molded heraldry. Space Marine subfactions have all that stuff, where most other factions don't (or have very little).

It shouldn't be much wonder that such mix and matching causes more consternation in that light.

If you see blue you should ask what they are playing and not assume what they are playing, maybe they are red colorblind and want blue blood angels (i literally know someone that did this for this reason). Who are you to say why they have to play with red guys?

And other some other armies does have more traits, its called successor chapters for a reason, all factions has them, are we supposed to remember 400 subfaction color schemes?

you're being a wee bit obtuse here, when I'm referring to colors here I'm using shorthand to refer to specific subfactions (Blood Angels, Ultramarines, Space Wolves, etc), hence my talk about faction specific subunits and iconography and identifiable color schemes. These things are much more distinctive with marines than most other armies, hence why it causes a level of consternation.

If someone wants to play a successor chapter, fine. If someone hops codexes every week or every new release though, or is playing with an army with Blood Angels iconography and paintjobs all over everything and using rules from another codex, it's understandable that it causes irritation.

And ultimately, I'm not saying they can't play whatever they want, I'm certainly not the plastic army man police or berate anyone over it. But it's not unwarranted for others to be bothered by that either, or to question why they have or need so many different subfaction rulesets as a result if it's so easy to switch.

K, so if someone got UW and after a few a year of playing them didnt find them fun anymore and wanted to play WS, he should repaint his full army now just to play with new rules? Thats stupid and you know it. My DE, Quins, CWE, etc.. dont need to do that and no one expects me to do that.

Sorry, which factions are we talking about here exactly with UW and WS? I genuinely don't know entirely which factions you are referring to there. Might be a brainfart on my part.

If you mean Ultramarines and then White Scars? I would expect that at some point you'd repaint your army eventually if that's a long term decision, because those color schemes very much are tied to rules in ways that don't necessarily hold true for other factions, at least to anything near the same degree. I have zero problem calling an army painted in Ultramarines colors with UM iconography running White Scars rules "tacky". I have in fact repainted multiple models myself for this exact reason. I have two different guard armies with two different model lines (DKoK and Cadians with converted heads) and don't mix them in the same army as the same faction for much the same reasons.

When people see a Space Marine in Ultramarine blue with Ultra shoulderpads, that has a dramatically different connotation, in terms of rules and gameplay, than say a Harlie Troupe's colors that most people couldn't pick out of a lineup if their life depended on it (assuming they even have such), particularly when so many Eldar units have their own (non faction related) color schemes as well.

That said, beyond some mild eye rolling, it's not like I'm going to make a huge deal out of it, or that there's much I even could do about it, people can do and paint whatever they want, but lets not pretend that there's *nothing* objectionable at all about codex/faction hopping with an army painted one way using rules from another, particularly when color scheme is intentionally such a huge part of Space Marine visualization and rules.

Scheme has never been tied to rules. Visualization sure, but not rules.

Or do you honestly think to yourself 'wow, that army's blue, it must be able to retreat and shoot!' Before games?

Also, this is super hypocritical/egotistical. Oh, the color schemes of marines are just SOOOOO much more important than other armies color schemes because of how SUPER SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE every marine chapter is. I mean, you absolutely MUST know the difference between ravenguard and Ironhands, even if you don't play marines because of how SUPER SPECIAL marines are.

Plenty of people neither know nor care what the difference is between marine factions (outside of rules). If I didn't play marines myself I guarantee you I couldn't tell an IH army apart from an RG army without hearing what their CT did.

Even GW confused IH and RG in one of the model display pictures in the new Codex!

Like anyone really knows the Harlequins ones either.

ERJAK wrote:


Scheme has never been tied to rules. Visualization sure, but not rules.

Or do you honestly think to yourself 'wow, that army's blue, it must be able to retreat and shoot!' Before games?

Also, this is super hypocritical/egotistical. Oh, the color schemes of marines are just SOOOOO much more important than other armies color schemes because of how SUPER SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE every marine chapter is. I mean, you absolutely MUST know the difference between ravenguard and Ironhands, even if you don't play marines because of how SUPER SPECIAL marines are.

Plenty of people neither know nor care what the difference is between marine factions (outside of rules). If I didn't play marines myself I guarantee you I couldn't tell an IH army apart from an RG army without hearing what their CT did.

When they're the poster boys of the line, in bright primary colors often tied directly to their name, and with a plethora of distinct products for each, yeah I kinda expect that most people know each on sight and know that there are differences because that's what my experience with other players has been in playing this game over five editions now, in a dozen different towns and dozens of tournaments and events.

People may not all know exactly what the microdetails of each are, but I have never once met anyone who was simply completely unaware of any differences, didnt know the broad strokes of rules of differentiation (e.g. blood angels like stuff that flies and go chop chop more than Ultramarines), or who couldnt tell an Ultramarine from a Blood Angel or a Space Wolf or Imperial Fist or Raven Guard on sight if painted in Chapter colors.


More fundamentally, Space Marines are by far the biggest faction we see people do this with, hence why we're largely only talking about Space Marines. Nobody shows up with an army of Catachan models and tries to run them as Valhallans for example, and I've never seen an Iyanden painted army trying to run with Ulthwe rules. EDIT: that is not to say the sentiment does not apply, only that the issue is dramatically less widespread and the faction connections to color schemes are not as tight.

 Vaktathi wrote:

More fundamentally, Space Marines are by far the biggest faction we see people do this with, hence why we're largely only talking about Space Marines. Nobody shows up with an army of Catachan models and tries to run them as Valhallans for example, and I've never seen an Iyanden painted army trying to run with Ulthwe rules.

Of course not. All Eldar armies regardless of colour are run as Alaitoc! In case of non-marine armies this is not an issue, because no one gives a feth nor even know what their colour schemes let alone rules are.

 Crimson wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

More fundamentally, Space Marines are by far the biggest faction we see people do this with, hence why we're largely only talking about Space Marines. Nobody shows up with an army of Catachan models and tries to run them as Valhallans for example, and I've never seen an Iyanden painted army trying to run with Ulthwe rules.

Of course not. All Eldar armies regardless of colour are run as Alaitoc! In case of non-marine armies this is not an issue, because no one gives a feth nor even know what their colour schemes let alone rules are.

Plenty of people do. If by no-one you mean "a minority" then you might be right but you should probably say that.

For the record I'd find that just as much an immersion breaker as with marines. You couldn't have picked a worse example I don't think as the Eldar Craftworld colours would be known to most who've been in the game a while or who read the fluff, If you'd picked pretty much any other army I'd agree.


One army I'd let is slide (i'd let is slide with anyone...maybe I should say be more understanding) with is Guard due to the fact the models have existed before and now don't.


I never claimed to be consistent.

Yes, the Craftworlds are definitely the best known after various Marines. But even with them people may know their colours but they rarely do know what their subfaction rules actually do, so they won't get confused by the 'wrong' rules being used. And outside Marines and Craftworlds people have even less of a clue.

Dai wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

More fundamentally, Space Marines are by far the biggest faction we see people do this with, hence why we're largely only talking about Space Marines. Nobody shows up with an army of Catachan models and tries to run them as Valhallans for example, and I've never seen an Iyanden painted army trying to run with Ulthwe rules.

Of course not. All Eldar armies regardless of colour are run as Alaitoc! In case of non-marine armies this is not an issue, because no one gives a feth nor even know what their colour schemes let alone rules are.

Plenty of people do. If by no-one you mean "a minority" then you might be right but you should probably say that.

For the record I'd find that just as much an immersion breaker as with marines. You couldn't have picked a worse example I don't think as the Eldar Craftworld colours would be known to most who've been in the game a while or who read the fluff, If you'd picked pretty much any other army I'd agree.


One army I'd let is slide (i'd let is slide with anyone...maybe I should say be more understanding) with is Guard due to the fact the models have existed before and now don't.


I never claimed to be consistent.

Oh please. You can't possibly say that Eldar, Dark Eldar, and Tyranids color schemes are close to as well known as the 18 Legions.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dai wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

More fundamentally, Space Marines are by far the biggest faction we see people do this with, hence why we're largely only talking about Space Marines. Nobody shows up with an army of Catachan models and tries to run them as Valhallans for example, and I've never seen an Iyanden painted army trying to run with Ulthwe rules.

Of course not. All Eldar armies regardless of colour are run as Alaitoc! In case of non-marine armies this is not an issue, because no one gives a feth nor even know what their colour schemes let alone rules are.

Plenty of people do. If by no-one you mean "a minority" then you might be right but you should probably say that.

For the record I'd find that just as much an immersion breaker as with marines. You couldn't have picked a worse example I don't think as the Eldar Craftworld colours would be known to most who've been in the game a while or who read the fluff, If you'd picked pretty much any other army I'd agree.


One army I'd let is slide (i'd let is slide with anyone...maybe I should say be more understanding) with is Guard due to the fact the models have existed before and now don't.


I never claimed to be consistent.

Oh please. You can't possibly say that Eldar, Dark Eldar, and Tyranids color schemes are close to as well known as the 18 Legions.

There's a world of difference between "As common knowledge as UltraMarine's color scheme" and "Knowledge more than just a couple ultra-fluffbunnies know". Many Craftworld Eldar color schemes are known by significant portions of the playerbase. Probably even moreso than some of the lesser-known legion colors. Most players pick up stuff like this in passing.

i'm a drukhari / eldar player and it took me until very recently to know that alaitoc wasn't the red ones.

Also, with drukhari, apart from kabal of the black heart i have no idea what the schemes are supposed to be

I only know Ulthwe is Black (And I only know the Alaitoc rules) I believe after marines orks have the more well known colours and thats just for Sunz and Moonz.

Really people you have a big dissonance in how invested in the fluff is your average player compared with people on forums. The factura one is online talking about warhammer marks him or he as someone above the average in his commitement of the hobby.

This is all just an opinion piece at the end of the day anyways. There is no right or wrong just right or wrong in the eyes of the individual.

Let me go into a touch of detail. It's like honor, or what we as individuals call honor. You can be an honorable man, or woman, but not always a right one. You can do what is right by you but not to another. It doesn't make you right or wrong but to yourself.

Such is what this whole thing boils down to. Some are casual, some are power gamers, neither side is wrong yet both to some level or another feel the other side is just wrong.

You can debate the points till the cows come home but at the end of it neither side will budge and neither side can because you won't find a winner. You can't when they are both right and both wrong.

Do i think it's fine to run your painted marines as whatever ? Yes I do. Would I do it ? No not really. Do I think its power gamey ? Hell yes I do and if we're being honest with ourselves we'd all agree to that. Is this the games fault for making some choices just hands down better ? Yes indeed.

It's a matter of honor to the person. Some just want to win, or want the best chance to win and thats fine. Some want to win but not sacrifice the love of the army they have to do it, and that is equally fine.

Lets stop the fighting with each other over it. Just realize you won't see eye to eye with someone who doesn't agree on that and move on. Otherwise you're just wasting your time when both sides are correct.

 Vaktathi wrote:


That said, beyond some mild eye rolling, it's not like I'm going to make a huge deal out of it, or that there's much I even could do about it, people can do and paint whatever they want, but lets not pretend that there's *nothing* objectionable at all about codex/faction hopping with an army painted one way using rules from another, particularly when color scheme is intentionally such a huge part of Space Marine visualization and rules.

Um, I'll bite.

There is nothing objectively objectionable about faction hopping. Whether the colour scheme is well known or not is irrelevant.

If you object to it on the grounds that it makes your stomach upset to draw the mental link between what abstract universal rules bonus your opponent has and what colour the models are in front of you, that's purely your prerogative. Same goes for the people flexing about how they judge others and avoid them over it on principle. Just don't pretend that you're not playing a game system where if you're playing with strangers like most people, you're going to be playing Imperials vs Imperials often enough to think that happens every Tuesday on every planet in the Imperium.

I couldn't care less if I'm playing against someone with an army on the level of Kaldor Dayglow's Draigowing or a Space Marine chapter themed on the colour palette of Nestlé
Smarties, which yes, I have actually seen, and yes that made for a fascinating conversation. On the aesthetic level I'm always far more interested in the quality of painting, amount of painted stuff and any conversions my opponent has.

Bottom line is this; I would far rather play against someone with the sense of humour needed to come up with something like Kaldor Dayglow or an army themed around the Angry Marines, than someone who is so fixated on immersion that they get in a silent twist over what the colour scheme of your army is.

Edit:

I'm too lazy to dig up the post that made the false equivalence of using the "wrong" colour scheme with attempting to fluff-splain why all your plasma guns are melta guns, but no, that's not a valid argument. Having the wrong weapons modelled on your units due to not meeting basic WYSIWIG can present an actual issue of clarity and potential advantage in competitive/tournament settings. Having a non WYSIWIG faction setup doesn't present any realistic problem when you're always going to get a verbal rundown on your opponent's list, get to read it, or get the oppurtunity to straight up ask before a game anyway.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


Oh please. You can't possibly say that Eldar, Dark Eldar, and Tyranids color schemes are close to as well known as the 18 Legions.

Craftworlds are. Probably more so than the '18' (actually 20 with BTs and CF). I couldn't actually tell you which very specific combinations of Red and a minor color or various shades of Blue distinguish roughly half the SM legions/chapters. Or which Black armored chapter is which at a distance.

I'd say Orks are equally well known, though it gets a bit fuzzy when you get to snakebites and freebooterz (as snakebites were less characterized by color than 'not having the good stuff,' other than 'vaguely brownish'). And blood axes were known more for their uniforms, which have vanished from the range. But Red=Evil Suns, Yellow= Bad Moons, Blue =Deff Skulls and Black=Goffs shouldn't escape many if any people who've played longer than a year.

But of course DE and Tyranids aren't as well known. They didn't even have set color schemes until last year.