Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I really don't think ork colour schemes are well known. Orks are rarely uniform at all.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

 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.

You're assuming a far more vehement mention reaction on my part than I think I'm intending to imply. I might do the same with a clearly copy-pasted min-3-color slapped-together netlist, opponent's who don't know their rules, badly over-meme'd angry marines army #1928398847, and any number of other things. We all do that to some degree or another, and anyone who says they don't isn't being honest with themselves

I'm not going to refuse the game, or make the game unpleasant, or be rude, or anything like that, I probably won't even mention it. If someone throws down Kaldor Dayglow, I'll probably giggle at it with everyone else. But if someone is ostensibly trying to play a themed force, and that force has rules, but they're using those of another force, I might smirk when reading the army list. That's probably less judgement than most of us feel in the checkout at the grocery store and that sort of ribbing is pretty commonplace in game stores.

Really what it does is make me wonder what value there is in having so many distinct niche sublists more than anything else.

 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?

Blue Armor with Red Blood Drop iconography isn't Ultramarines. Blue Armor with White Omega symbols probably aren't Blood Angels painted blue because someone is red color blind.

Most people in here don't throw a conniption when a DIY chapter scheme uses a known chapter rule set. They eyeroll when one known Chapter iconography is used in a Counts As another known chapter rule set to chase the new hotness.

Could not care less.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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.

I wouldn't call the UM trait useless, but I'd call it the weakest. I think that crown belongs to farsight enclaves, you can't even use it when you drop in with crisis suits

You can actively use the Ultramarines tactic if you're aggressive instead of just pure gunline like Xeno is stubborn to do. The worst two tactics are Crimson Fists (who are dependent on the opponents actual army composition) and Salamanders (one reroll does nothing compared to getting more with the HQs in the first place).

I pretty much agree with what Vaktathi is saying.

If someone one has painted their faction (not just space marines) in one faction but play them as a different faction it does bother me. At the same time, that player probably isn't going to know as I am not going to even bring it up. Much like it bothers me when a player doesn't paint their models. And to quickly address Slayer-Fan123's comment, I wish it was just new players learning to paint that only had unpainted models. I have known players going on 5 years with their entire army still unpainted. I don't bring it up since I don't want to seem rude, and it doesn't really bother me enough not to get in a game.

I believe it was Voss that said tactics playing the subfaction you have your stuff painted in. I also agree with that. It might not be as optimal, but its not like every Rusted Claw army is always going to have bikers in it. Sometimes they won't. They make due with what they do have. Most of my kill teams are painted in some the worst subfaction traits for the their faction in my opinion. Stygies VIII and Hive Fleet Jorgmandgandr ability to be obscured is all but lost on the dense boards I play on. Bad Moons getting Shooting re-roll of ones when pretty much the entire game I am looking to hit on a 6 is kinda sad. I even find Rusted Claw a mixed bad in that in my meta as it comes up all the time, but it seems to disproportionately affect the Marines (Primaris/Deathwatch mostly) and Necron players while doing nothing against anyone else. Not that keeping a 5+ save is all that impressive to begin with. Even in full 40k, I always play my Black Legion as Black Legion despite me barely ever making use anything save the Murder Sword. Those paint colors are just important to the rules those models have as the shape the plastic takes as weapons in their hands.

Of course, count-as/proxy models/war gear only bother me as much as unpainted/different paint schemed subfactions do. One can certainly argue that remembering one's opponent is playing this subfaction instead of another is much easier that even remembering that all Intercessors Sergeants without an obvious melee weapon have a chainsword. It is just neither really bother me more than the other. They both bother me a little bit, but not enough to make any fuss about unless I am directly asked like this thread.

Don't get me wrong, I completely get their reasons for not playing a particular subfaction even if the army is painted in those colors. Wanting to try something different, the army was painted before subfaction traits were a thing, being colorblind and not ever reading the paint pot color, etc. In fact, I on occasion play differing subfactions to what they are meant to be. Fairly recently, I played my GSC kill team as Pauper Princes (the next closest subfaction based on my headcannon for them) simply because I was playing a new marine player, and I didn't want to make it seem like I was directly targeting his Bolt Rifle Intercessors which made up half his team (the other half being Reivers who wouldn't get the full effect of their Heavy Bolt Pistols either). I can't say that still didn't bother me a little even if I was the one doing it. Again, much like if I use only partly painted models. I don't like it. It certainly isn't preferable. But life isn't always ideal.

The game isn't as fun, but it is fun enough not to make an issue out of it.

You know, if the traits were made generic rather than tied to a specific chapter, this arguement wouldnt occur. Traits called Codex Discipline, siege masters, forged in battle etc etc makes more sense than getting a bit silly over the colour of our man dollies and using the tactics of a different coloured set of man dollies.

 Mr.Omega wrote:
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.

Why not?

They're both aesthetic representations of in-game abilities. Why is paint not considered just as important in this?

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.

As does being painted in a different faction's colour scheme. If I see this:, I'm going to assume those are Ultramarines and will be expecting to be fighting against Ultramarines, same as if I saw this:, I'm going to assume that's a Space Marine carrying a plasma gun, and will be expecting to be fighting against a plasma gun.
They're both presenting issues of clarity and potential advantage in competitive games - they're things behaving in ways that their aesthetic representation does not correlate with.

Why is one aesthetic choice not important for WYSIWYG, but the other is? Especially when WYSIWYG isn't even a rule in the core rules anymore.

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.

Cool - but you'd get the same with any weapons loadouts. Your opponent gives you the "verbal rundown" on how all their meltaguns are actually plasmas, or you can read their list and see that every squad modelled with meltaguns is actually armed with plasma on their datasheet.

So, to repeat the point - is having modelling discrepancies the same as having colour scheme discrepancies, and if not, why?

(I'd like to emphasise that I honestly don't care if you do or don't allow proxying weapons or paint scheme or even models - as long as it's consistent. This whole "nah, paint doesn't matter at all! but god help you if you think I'll let you pretend that energy gun is representing another type of energy gun" that rubs me up the wrong way, because it's fundamentally the same thing. If we're going use the argument of "I wanted to paint my guys in this colour scheme because I think it looks cool, but I also want my army to be strong/have this effect in game", why is that any different to "I wanted to build my guys with this weapon because I think it looks cool, but I also want my army to be strong/have this effect in game"?)

Casti wrote:
You know, if the traits were made generic rather than tied to a specific chapter, this arguement wouldnt occur. Traits called Codex Discipline, siege masters, forged in battle etc etc makes more sense than getting a bit silly over the colour of our man dollies and using the tactics of a different coloured set of man dollies.

The Catch-22 of this is that if they were generic and any subfaction could take any trait, they probably wouldn't exist. For a very long time a significant portion of the player base wanted actual rules the separated Ultramarines from Iron Hands or any other subfaction from another so they were more than the paint and model choices made by the player.

 oni wrote:
My time is far to valuable to be wasted on meta chasers.

To all those who want to play Iron Hands with your obviously not Iron Hands models and subsequently whine like a petulant child because my point of view is different from yours... stop trying to force your prejudice onto me. I wont have it. Take your insolence somewhere else.

My game experience is equally as important and I want to have an immersive one. For me that means models are GW and their color schemes are correct.

Let's say you and I play a game on Saturday. I use my loving-realized (if not very well) Dark Angels force with decals and squad numbers. I will now offer three different scenarios:

a. The next Saturday we have another game, but I tell you that my Dark Angels are now Iron Hands. All weapons and models are what they are - no proxies.

b. The next Saturday we have another game, and I show up with the same army as the week before but painted as Iron Hands.

c. Both games I have the same army painted black (but with eye lenses painted and scenic bases etc). The first week I call them Dark Angels and the next I call them Iron Hands.

Are you OK playing me in these situations?

I doubt they would be, and that's okay.

What's not okay is the attitude-you're perfectly allowed to enjoy your games however you want, but you shouldn't be crapping on other people for enjoying it differently.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I doubt they would be, and that's okay.

What's not okay is the attitude-you're perfectly allowed to enjoy your games however you want, but you shouldn't be crapping on other people for enjoying it differently.

Agreed. If someone doesn't want to play you, you can't expect them to. Similarly, just because you don't want to play with someone doesn't mean that they're inferior, or enjoy the game incorrectly.

I feel there needs to be a strong "No" in the poll. I only play casually for the most part, so if your blue marines are using Iron Hands rules for this game, I am definitely cool with it.

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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.

I wouldn't call the UM trait useless, but I'd call it the weakest. I think that crown belongs to farsight enclaves, you can't even use it when you drop in with crisis suits

Yup, but at least its funny to run a vanguard of a quad-fusion coldstar with the blades and 3x3 flamer suits that jump around and roast people unexpectedly.
567 points of hilarious "what just happened" for your casual games against people expecting Tau to....Tau.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You can actively use the Ultramarines tactic if you're aggressive instead of just pure gunline like Xeno is stubborn to do. The worst two tactics are Crimson Fists (who are dependent on the opponents actual army composition) and Salamanders (one reroll does nothing compared to getting more with the HQs in the first place).

Just the 6's generating extra hits on bolters is superior to the ultras trait. Sometimes hitting on 2's is just a free bonus which will come into effect in any game where units of 20 are being fielded on the other side. You can't objectively state that the ultras trait wasn't already the weakest before this codex. Now it's just flat out hilarious to anyone that isn't just a pure Ultras hater.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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.

I wouldn't call the UM trait useless, but I'd call it the weakest. I think that crown belongs to farsight enclaves, you can't even use it when you drop in with crisis suits

I was just speaking about space marines traits. World eaters have the worst trait overall. Farsight isn't that bad it's just only good for certain units. Crisis, piranhas, commanders, breachers. They really suffer from crisis suits being weak. IMO crisis need to not have to give up a gun to take a support system and probably drop another 5 points and then they would be really good and we might actually see something other than tau sept.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 oni wrote:
My time is far to valuable to be wasted on meta chasers.

To all those who want to play Iron Hands with your obviously not Iron Hands models and subsequently whine like a petulant child because my point of view is different from yours... stop trying to force your prejudice onto me. I wont have it. Take your insolence somewhere else.

My game experience is equally as important and I want to have an immersive one. For me that means models are GW and their color schemes are correct.

Let's say you and I play a game on Saturday. I use my loving-realized (if not very well) Dark Angels force with decals and squad numbers.

Cool! +100 points of Awesome.

I will now offer three different scenarios:

a. The next Saturday we have another game, but I tell you that my Dark Angels are now Iron Hands. All weapons and models are what they are - no proxies.

-2 points of Awesome. And only half your "Cool DA Army" points count today (You're proxying the army as a very-close fit, with each wargear/kit being accurate). So I'm facing +48 points of Awesome. Good times!

b. The next Saturday we have another game, and I show up with the same army as the week before but painted as Iron Hands.

You keep 10% of your "Cool DA Army" points indefinitely. That army was awesome.
You get +50 points of Awesome. A whole painted army is awesome, but you've already gotten points for the models before. The models are still WYSWIG and no real problem with them, but they were originally intended as something else. So only another 25 points of Awesome.
So I'm facing +85 points of Aweome today. Great.

c. Both games I have the same army painted black (but with eye lenses painted and scenic bases etc). The first week I call them Dark Angels and the next I call them Iron Hands.

So a "meh" punted paint scheme, where it's ambigious what they really are? Painted with a lot of detail, but obviously missing any defining details? I'd give this 45 points of awesome? Good times, but certainly suboptimal.

Also, I'd like to add Option D: You field your Dark Angels as Dark Angel's Armor Reserve. What you assembled and painted them as.
Full, painted army, built to be a specific force: +100 Awesome points
Counts-as for other rules, without variations to the force to fit: -5 Awesome points
So I now have a game at +90 points. Great.
Note how this is superior to everything but the "As Expected" initial case, even the full repaint case. And much better than the mechanically-identical "My Dark Angels are Iron Hands today".

Are you OK playing me in these situations?

Certainly. You're awesome. Your army is awesome. Some cases are more awesome than others. In none of these cases, however, were you anywere *close* to breakeven. The army-shifting will certainly a negative to many, but this is nothing compared to grey models, or proxied kit.

(And those are nothing compared to behavior-related issues.)

Edit: Disclaimer - points shown are only directionally accurate.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You can actively use the Ultramarines tactic if you're aggressive instead of just pure gunline like Xeno is stubborn to do. The worst two tactics are Crimson Fists (who are dependent on the opponents actual army composition) and Salamanders (one reroll does nothing compared to getting more with the HQs in the first place).

Just the 6's generating extra hits on bolters is superior to the ultras trait. Sometimes hitting on 2's is just a free bonus which will come into effect in any game where units of 20 are being fielded on the other side. You can't objectively state that the ultras trait wasn't already the weakest before this codex. Now it's just flat out hilarious to anyone that isn't just a pure Ultras hater.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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.

I wouldn't call the UM trait useless, but I'd call it the weakest. I think that crown belongs to farsight enclaves, you can't even use it when you drop in with crisis suits

I was just speaking about space marines traits. World eaters have the worst trait overall. Farsight isn't that bad it's just only good for certain units. Crisis, piranhas, commanders, breachers. They really suffer from crisis suits being weak. IMO crisis need to not have to give up a gun to take a support system and probably drop another 5 points and then they would be really good and we might actually see something other than tau sept.

text removed.
Reds8n

Voss wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


They didn't even have set color schemes until last year.

Wrong, they both had them for a very long time, my old 4th nids and 5th DE codex has color schemes in them for different factions.

Thats just to show no one knows them outside of those playing the factions.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Voss wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


They didn't even have set color schemes until last year.

Wrong, they both had them for a very long time, my old 4th nids and 5th DE codex has color schemes in them for different factions.

Thats just to show no one knows them outside of those playing the factions.

Bingo. So why do people hold Marines to a greater standard? It's very hypocritical.

it only bothers me and moust others becouse i/we KNOW what colors belongs to the moust commond SM chapters!


if you are a power gamer no matter waht army you collect, keep it gray!
and yes, there are ways to paint gray!

They're free to paint their armies whatever color they choose, just as others are free to give a cuss about it or not.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Voss wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


They didn't even have set color schemes until last year.

Wrong, they both had them for a very long time, my old 4th nids and 5th DE codex has color schemes in them for different factions.

Thats just to show no one knows them outside of those playing the factions.

Bingo. So why do people hold Marines to a greater standard? It's very hypocritical.

Where are you seeing the greater standard?

You don't care if Marines lists are painted one way and played another way. You don't care if DE lists are painted one way and played another. That's the same standard.
I'm slightly nonplussed if a Marine list is painted one way and played another. I'm slightly nonplussed if a DE list is painted one way and played another. That's the same standard.

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Voss wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


They didn't even have set color schemes until last year.

Wrong, they both had them for a very long time, my old 4th nids and 5th DE codex has color schemes in them for different factions.

Thats just to show no one knows them outside of those playing the factions.

Bingo. So why do people hold Marines to a greater standard? It's very hypocritical.

Where are you seeing the greater standard?

You don't care if Marines lists are painted one way and played another way. You don't care if DE lists are painted one way and played another. That's the same standard.
I'm slightly nonplussed if a Marine list is painted one way and played another. I'm slightly nonplussed if a DE list is painted one way and played another. That's the same standard.

Except it is a different standard, because you cannot say that people know the colors of Hive Fleets or Craftworlds or Kabals or even Forge Worlds/Creeds (as both those armies were just released in the previous two editions) as well as the Space Marine ones. So these threads ONLY pop up when it comes to Marines if you hadn't noticed.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Voss wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


They didn't even have set color schemes until last year.

Wrong, they both had them for a very long time, my old 4th nids and 5th DE codex has color schemes in them for different factions.

Thats just to show no one knows them outside of those playing the factions.

Bingo. So why do people hold Marines to a greater standard? It's very hypocritical.

Where are you seeing the greater standard?

You don't care if Marines lists are painted one way and played another way. You don't care if DE lists are painted one way and played another. That's the same standard.
I'm slightly nonplussed if a Marine list is painted one way and played another. I'm slightly nonplussed if a DE list is painted one way and played another. That's the same standard.

Except it is a different standard, because you cannot say that people know the colors of Hive Fleets or Craftworlds or Kabals or even Forge Worlds/Creeds (as both those armies were just released in the previous two editions) as well as the Space Marine ones. So these threads ONLY pop up when it comes to Marines if you hadn't noticed.

Seems to me that you're answering your own question. The reason some people have a problem with it for Marines is because the color schemes are widely recognized.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

Casti wrote:
You know, if the traits were made generic rather than tied to a specific chapter, this arguement wouldnt occur. Traits called Codex Discipline, siege masters, forged in battle etc etc makes more sense than getting a bit silly over the colour of our man dollies and using the tactics of a different coloured set of man dollies.

The Catch-22 of this is that if they were generic and any subfaction could take any trait, they probably wouldn't exist. For a very long time a significant portion of the player base wanted actual rules the separated Ultramarines from Iron Hands or any other subfaction from another so they were more than the paint and model choices made by the player.

...and now players have learned the folly of that wish. Literally a case of "be careful what you wish for".

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Voss wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


They didn't even have set color schemes until last year.

Wrong, they both had them for a very long time, my old 4th nids and 5th DE codex has color schemes in them for different factions.

Thats just to show no one knows them outside of those playing the factions.

Bingo. So why do people hold Marines to a greater standard? It's very hypocritical.

Where are you seeing the greater standard?

You don't care if Marines lists are painted one way and played another way. You don't care if DE lists are painted one way and played another. That's the same standard.
I'm slightly nonplussed if a Marine list is painted one way and played another. I'm slightly nonplussed if a DE list is painted one way and played another. That's the same standard.

Except it is a different standard, because you cannot say that people know the colors of Hive Fleets or Craftworlds or Kabals or even Forge Worlds/Creeds (as both those armies were just released in the previous two editions) as well as the Space Marine ones. So these threads ONLY pop up when it comes to Marines if you hadn't noticed.

Seems to me that you're answering your own question. The reason some people have a problem with it for Marines is because the color schemes are widely recognized.

Ergo it's a different standard and hypocritical.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Voss wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


They didn't even have set color schemes until last year.

Wrong, they both had them for a very long time, my old 4th nids and 5th DE codex has color schemes in them for different factions.

Thats just to show no one knows them outside of those playing the factions.

Bingo. So why do people hold Marines to a greater standard? It's very hypocritical.

Where are you seeing the greater standard?

You don't care if Marines lists are painted one way and played another way. You don't care if DE lists are painted one way and played another. That's the same standard.
I'm slightly nonplussed if a Marine list is painted one way and played another. I'm slightly nonplussed if a DE list is painted one way and played another. That's the same standard.

Except it is a different standard, because you cannot say that people know the colors of Hive Fleets or Craftworlds or Kabals or even Forge Worlds/Creeds (as both those armies were just released in the previous two editions) as well as the Space Marine ones.

It's not a "double standard" to say you're more nonplussed by proxied armies when you immediately recognize them as what they're made as. It'd only be a double standard if we devalued the proxying player more for proxying well-known Marines over proxying obscure Hive Fleets. But recognizing the negative impact on ourselves is not the same as assigning a negative value on someone else.

Besides, I have the same "standards" regardless - building/painting your guys to a more cohesive, evocative, fluffy force that fits the narrative is better. If I don't know you're counts-as some other Hive Fleet, perhaps it doesn't drive negative value. But the standard isn't "Is the exact right paint scheme per book X". The standard is "cohesive, evocative, fluffy force that fits the narrative". "My Kraken are Behemoth today" is just as good/bad as "My UM are IH" today" as far as "Are you proxying your army" is concerned. But that's not the standard.

You are mistaking "Play an army as it's painted" as the standard.

So these threads ONLY pop up when it comes to Marines if you hadn't noticed.

Seems like someone doesn't remember all the "everyone is Alaitoc" complaints. Or "Blood-red Khorne Berzerkers of Alpha Legion" complaints.

Most of the noise about Marines proxying as other armies has been in the form of complaints *about the complaints* - relatively little noise about Marines has been in the form of complaints themselves.

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Voss wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


They didn't even have set color schemes until last year.

Wrong, they both had them for a very long time, my old 4th nids and 5th DE codex has color schemes in them for different factions.

Thats just to show no one knows them outside of those playing the factions.

Bingo. So why do people hold Marines to a greater standard? It's very hypocritical.

Where are you seeing the greater standard?

You don't care if Marines lists are painted one way and played another way. You don't care if DE lists are painted one way and played another. That's the same standard.
I'm slightly nonplussed if a Marine list is painted one way and played another. I'm slightly nonplussed if a DE list is painted one way and played another. That's the same standard.

Except it is a different standard, because you cannot say that people know the colors of Hive Fleets or Craftworlds or Kabals or even Forge Worlds/Creeds (as both those armies were just released in the previous two editions) as well as the Space Marine ones.

It's not a "double standard" to say you're more nonplussed by proxied armies when you immediately recognize them as what they're made as. It'd only be a double standard if we devalued the proxying player more for proxying well-known Marines over proxying obscure Hive Fleets. But recognizing the negative impact on ourselves is not the same as assigning a negative value on someone else.

Besides, I have the same "standards" regardless - building/painting your guys to a more cohesive, evocative, fluffy force that fits the narrative is better. If I don't know you're counts-as some other Hive Fleet, perhaps it doesn't drive negative value. But the standard isn't "Is the exact right paint scheme per book X". The standard is "cohesive, evocative, fluffy force that fits the narrative". "My Kraken are Behemoth today" is just as good/bad as "My UM are IH" today" as far as "Are you proxying your army" is concerned. But that's not the standard.

You are mistaking "Play an army as it's painted" as the standard.

So these threads ONLY pop up when it comes to Marines if you hadn't noticed.

Seems like someone doesn't remember all the "everyone is Alaitoc" complaints. Or "Blood-red Khorne Berzerkers of Alpha Legion" complaints.

Most of the noise about Marines proxying as other armies has been in the form of complaints *about the complaints* - relatively little noise about Marines has been in the form of complaints themselves.

...Alpha Legion are Space Marines. Did you forget that?

Also the complaints about Alaitoc were always the rules. Not once did I see a complaint about color scheme though.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Voss wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


They didn't even have set color schemes until last year.

Wrong, they both had them for a very long time, my old 4th nids and 5th DE codex has color schemes in them for different factions.

Thats just to show no one knows them outside of those playing the factions.

Bingo. So why do people hold Marines to a greater standard? It's very hypocritical.

Where are you seeing the greater standard?

You don't care if Marines lists are painted one way and played another way. You don't care if DE lists are painted one way and played another. That's the same standard.
I'm slightly nonplussed if a Marine list is painted one way and played another. I'm slightly nonplussed if a DE list is painted one way and played another. That's the same standard.

Except it is a different standard, because you cannot say that people know the colors of Hive Fleets or Craftworlds or Kabals or even Forge Worlds/Creeds (as both those armies were just released in the previous two editions) as well as the Space Marine ones.

It's not a "double standard" to say you're more nonplussed by proxied armies when you immediately recognize them as what they're made as. It'd only be a double standard if we devalued the proxying player more for proxying well-known Marines over proxying obscure Hive Fleets. But recognizing the negative impact on ourselves is not the same as assigning a negative value on someone else.

Besides, I have the same "standards" regardless - building/painting your guys to a more cohesive, evocative, fluffy force that fits the narrative is better. If I don't know you're counts-as some other Hive Fleet, perhaps it doesn't drive negative value. But the standard isn't "Is the exact right paint scheme per book X". The standard is "cohesive, evocative, fluffy force that fits the narrative". "My Kraken are Behemoth today" is just as good/bad as "My UM are IH" today" as far as "Are you proxying your army" is concerned. But that's not the standard.

You are mistaking "Play an army as it's painted" as the standard.

So these threads ONLY pop up when it comes to Marines if you hadn't noticed.

Seems like someone doesn't remember all the "everyone is Alaitoc" complaints. Or "Blood-red Khorne Berzerkers of Alpha Legion" complaints.

Most of the noise about Marines proxying as other armies has been in the form of complaints *about the complaints* - relatively little noise about Marines has been in the form of complaints themselves.

...Alpha Legion are Space Marines. Did you forget that?

Also the complaints about Alaitoc were always the rules. Not once did I see a complaint about color scheme though.

If you want to be pedantic, most of Alpha Legion forces are non-marine pawns, not Marines themselves. If you don't want to be pedantic, all these "Why is this a big deal now" complaints center on the loyalist SM book. The Alpha Legion Berserkers thing was a big deal years ago.

"Marines" are nearly *half* of the factions in the game. Gone by army listings on GW's site, I count 16 of 34 factions are "Marines". The vast majority of players play or played some form of Marines. The most popular faction is a Marine faction. Most games of 40k played include Marines on one or more sides. Almost any aspect of the hobby involves Marines more than non-marines. So of course you hear more about it with Marines.

Just because you didn't see (or more likely, remember) complaints about black&bone or red or green&white Alaitoc doesn't mean they didn't happen.

But you're also confusing the volume and tone, here. Most people aren't complaining about Marines. Just look at this poll. In a thread specific to Marine chapters, roughly 1 in 6 said they think armies shouldn't be proxied that way, and that it impacts their experience (where I sit). Roughly 1 in 4 said such proxies bother them, but not enough to matter. Well over half said chose the don't-care route. Do you really think significantly less than *one in six* would say Eldar armies shouldn't be proxied? Or DE? Or Nids?

You're imagining this thread as saying "Everyone hates proxied Marine armies, and the players behind them". That's not what it's saying. It's saying "A minority of us are impacted, and most of those aren't impacted significantly".