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

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 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.

It's not hypocritical if there's demonstrable difference, which there is.

Depends on the heraldry. Colours don't matter, as successors can have Inheritors of the Primarch, but counting a bunch of guys with Salamander decals on their shoulders as Iron Hands is just unfun.

 Ginjitzu wrote:
Depends on the heraldry. Colours don't matter, as successors can have Inheritors of the Primarch, but counting a bunch of guys with Salamander decals on their shoulders as Iron Hands is just unfun.

But those are the Iron Salamanders! A successor chapter that some mad admech guy created in secret by combining IH & Salamander geneseed.

ccs wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
Depends on the heraldry. Colours don't matter, as successors can have Inheritors of the Primarch, but counting a bunch of guys with Salamander decals on their shoulders as Iron Hands is just unfun.

But those are the Iron Salamanders! A successor chapter that some mad admech guy created in secret by combining IH & Salamander geneseed.

Cool, then they should use bespoke tactics and traits to reflect their combined heritage, and maybe modify their heraldry as well, so as not to seem like they are just Salamanders with the wrong rules!

Usually they won't have the exact same paint scheme as one of thier predecessors too, but some offshoot

Is expect Cawl's sally/IH hybrid to have a mix of both schemes.

Do people really play w40k like that, they buy more same models to play an army that is different only, because it is painted in a different way, but has the same smash captins, troops, tanks , support models etc?

Could not care less.

I'll quote this as it was succinct and true.

Karol wrote:
Do people really play w40k like that, they buy more same models to play an army that is different only, because it is painted in a different way, but has the same smash captins, troops, tanks , support models etc?

Some do. Some don't.

You have to remember this is more a continuum, and neither direction is inherently better than the other. Some will never play a particular squad sergeant as anyone other than that sergeant - not even a different squad leader with the same kit. Others model and paint their guys so that they aren't WYSIWYG to any one dataslate *for the express purpose of using them as multiple different units in different games*. Some don't paint at all.

I prefer playing with more WYSIWYG-oriented players, because it tends to lead to better immersion and narratives for me. Others - like Ratius below you - could not care less.

Still others somehow care that people like me (or, alternatively, Ratius) are out there, and are deeply offended by us existing, apparently. Even without playing against us. That's the only group that's really "wrong" in this conversation.

I prefer playing with more WYSIWYG-oriented players,

Hell, I dont even remove the mould lines from my models

Addendum: I'd rather a more WYSIWYG-oriented player with a less WYSIWYG army than a less WYSIWYG-oriented player with a more WYSIWYG army.

The more "oriented" player is going to care a lot more about the fluff, narrative, and immersion. They won't always have a more-WYSIWYG army for a variety of reasons (time/cost constraints, trying a new army, not done painting, compared to the other guy might have just Ebay'ed the army, or commissions or just has the time to do it himself), although they'll tend to.

I'd rather face a guy who's engaged in his "Captain Bob" with his First and Second Tac squads from company 3 of SomeCustomChapter backed by a grey Rhino and Dev squad than some Golden Demon-quality "SM Captain with powerfist" with "Two Tac squads" and backup. The second might look nicer on the table, but without that investment, Captain Bob's force is going to be more fun.

And Captain Bob is an UltraMarine (or Iron Hand). He's not some unnamed blue Iron Hand captain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratius wrote:

I prefer playing with more WYSIWYG-oriented players,

Hell, I dont even remove the mould lines from my models

And I don't have a problem with that.

Would you be offended if you knew I'd rather play the guy who's named each member of his Company, and have you play that other guy who's prepping for a tournament?

I would imagine that other guy who's prepping for a tournament would rather those matchups, too.

(Now, just saying to your face "Mould lines? I'd rather not play you" *is* insulting, and you should take offense - but the above concept shouldn't be offensive.)

 Ginjitzu wrote:
Depends on the heraldry. Colours don't matter, as successors can have Inheritors of the Primarch, but counting a bunch of guys with Salamander decals on their shoulders as Iron Hands is just unfun.

I wouldn't blame the Salamanders player whatsoever for doing that though because the Salamanders rules are pretty damn terrible.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
Depends on the heraldry. Colours don't matter, as successors can have Inheritors of the Primarch, but counting a bunch of guys with Salamander decals on their shoulders as Iron Hands is just unfun.

I wouldn't blame the Salamanders player whatsoever for doing that though because the Salamanders rules are pretty damn terrible.

No, salamander rules are DECENT. and they didn't even get their supplement yet.

Their are just not as overpowered as IH, and somehow this is a problem for someone not playing WAAC?


Playing for the win is fine and dandy, but pretending you are playing another army just because that other army is the flavor of the month is being WAAC, and many people prefer playing fluffier, more relaxed 40k.

TBH there was official fluff of two space marine chapters with the same name, colours and heraldy existing at the same time in two different parts of the Imperium without one knowing the existence of the other because bureocracy.

 Galas wrote:
TBH there was official fluff of two space marine chapters with the same name, colours and heraldy existing at the same time in two different parts of the Imperium without one knowing the existence of the other because bureocracy.

That's a far cry from a loyalist Chapter being created with blue armor and a white toiletseat based on a battlebarge named "Maccrage" being an Iron Hands offshoot, with nobody knowing what "UltraMarines" are...

Since I last posted I have seen people running a random hodge-podge of units as Iron Hands and I'm definitely doubling down on what I said originally.

If you're a power game that's perfectly fine, but your lazy meta chasing habits cannot come at the expense of my immersion or enjoyment in the tabletop experience.

 Ginjitzu wrote:
Depends on the heraldry. Colours don't matter, as successors can have Inheritors of the Primarch, but counting a bunch of guys with Salamander decals on their shoulders as Iron Hands is just unfun.

Why though? It's literally no different from using mismatched colors. Let's go through a few reasons for mismatched colors/symbols.
Let's take an army of completely Iron Hands in everything but symbol only and no unique characters from either army. Every single symbol has been replaced with a Salamanders Dragon.
Starting with the non-40k reasons:

Now let's give that army a fluffy reason instead.

tldr; regardless of the reason people give the end result is the same. If motive is what makes it acceptable, then players could simply lie to pass their opponents background check on if their army is acceptable or not. I find this much more toxic and damaging than simply applying a standard of "Is it consistent across the entire army? All matching marines have the same tactics? Did you make the tactic clear before the game started?"

Symbols really don't matter.

 DominayTrix wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
Depends on the heraldry. Colours don't matter, as successors can have Inheritors of the Primarch, but counting a bunch of guys with Salamander decals on their shoulders as Iron Hands is just unfun.

Why though? It's literally no different from using mismatched colors. Let's go through a few reasons for mismatched colors/symbols.
Let's take an army of completely Iron Hands in everything but symbol only and no unique characters from either army. Every single symbol has been replaced with a Salamanders Dragon.

If this is how they're painted, then they're not "Samalanders" or "Iron Hands", and wouldn't be identifiable as any major Chapter - therefore, I wouldn't have a problem with you using whatever rules you wanted for them. Of course, I would prefer if you used either the "Inheritors of the Primarch" or a combination of the two Chapters' tactics from the successor tactics options (if you were using the lore you had about them being a mixed force), but that's a far lesser concern.

What my personal issue would be is if those Marines were painted green, with black pauldrons, flame imagery, the Salamander symbol, and things like "Nocturne" or "Vulkan" or "Salamanders" written on their heraldry. They are clearly Salamanders Marines, and as per WYSIWYG, I would be expecting to fight Salamanders, same as if I saw what GW sell as a plasma gun on a model, I would expect that model to be armed with a plasma gun.

I know that's not what your hypothetical mentions - I don't have a problem with that hypothetical. I can't speak for Ginjitzu, but it's not about the symbol or colours alone that's the problem - it's the two combined, and paired with other indicators of heraldry (such as homeworld names, iconography, and other sigils).

Bharring wrote:

Karol wrote:
Do people really play w40k like that, they buy more same models to play an army that is different only, because it is painted in a different way, but has the same smash captins, troops, tanks , support models etc?

Some do. Some don't.

You have to remember this is more a continuum, and neither direction is inherently better than the other. Some will never play a particular squad sergeant as anyone other than that sergeant - not even a different squad leader with the same kit. Others model and paint their guys so that they aren't WYSIWYG to any one dataslate *for the express purpose of using them as multiple different units in different games*. Some don't paint at all.

I prefer playing with more WYSIWYG-oriented players, because it tends to lead to better immersion and narratives for me. Others - like Ratius below you - could not care less.

Still others somehow care that people like me (or, alternatively, Ratius) are out there, and are deeply offended by us existing, apparently. Even without playing against us. That's the only group that's really "wrong" in this conversation.

Aha okey. Is painting considered by of what you see ? Because there is no arment difference between a salamander unit names the same way as an Iron Hands one. tacticals will be tacticals, tanks will be tanks, captin with a hammer will be capting with hammer.

I mean I get something doing something very confusing, like puting a termintor army down and inform the opponent that they are all custodes bikes. And some of them are custodes HQs and other are regular dudes, but look the same.

And I don't have a problem with that.

Would you be offended if you knew I'd rather play the guy who's named each member of his Company, and have you play that other guy who's prepping for a tournament?

I would imagine that other guy who's prepping for a tournament would rather those matchups, too.

(Now, just saying to your face "Mould lines? I'd rather not play you" *is* insulting, and you should take offense - but the above concept shouldn't be offensive.)

I took no offense at all mate, Im just saying Im fairly casual with these things to the point of a bit lazy

40k is a game and hobby built around its lore. Nobody would play 40k without it. The game just isn't that attractive as a game, as far as that aspect goes it's an awful example of game design and a total failure of a tactical combat sim, nobody would use any edition of 40k ruleset for something like a WW2 mini game for example because it's really bad as an actual wargame ruleset. What it is is a framework for people to play with their toy soldiers and give life to the background universe. GW lives and dies by their IP above and beyond everything else.

In that sense, heraldry and symbols and colors do matter. Hell, there are and have been rules tied explicitly to color and heraldry (Red Ones Go Faster! Take Pride In Your Colors, etc). These symbols and heraldry and color schemes are deeply tied to specific factions by GW and in some cases have largely been all that served to justify their existence as distinct factions. To say they don't matter is to monstrously misunderstand the product and value proposition of the hobby, because the game and rules exist to express the setting and are largely garbage for any other purpose. That's not to say there isn't wiggle room for people to do their own thing, there obviously is and that's intentional, but that doesn't mean that symbols and heraldry and colors are irrelevant.

And yes, motive matters too to many people (just as it often does in law), as it speaks to the mindset and expectation of the game experience. Humans pretty naturally react based on perceptions of motives and to pretend that isn't the case is to tilt at windmills, same way people often react negatively to seeing basic barebones 3 color copy-pasted netlists and the like.

Karol wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Karol wrote:
Do people really play w40k like that, they buy more same models to play an army that is different only, because it is painted in a different way, but has the same smash captins, troops, tanks , support models etc?

Some do. Some don't.

You have to remember this is more a continuum, and neither direction is inherently better than the other. Some will never play a particular squad sergeant as anyone other than that sergeant - not even a different squad leader with the same kit. Others model and paint their guys so that they aren't WYSIWYG to any one dataslate *for the express purpose of using them as multiple different units in different games*. Some don't paint at all.

I prefer playing with more WYSIWYG-oriented players, because it tends to lead to better immersion and narratives for me. Others - like Ratius below you - could not care less.

Still others somehow care that people like me (or, alternatively, Ratius) are out there, and are deeply offended by us existing, apparently. Even without playing against us. That's the only group that's really "wrong" in this conversation.

Aha okey. Is painting considered by of what you see ? Because there is no arment difference between a salamander unit names the same way as an Iron Hands one. tacticals will be tacticals, tanks will be tanks, captin with a hammer will be capting with hammer.

There's a big difference between "Captain Andicar of Wings of Dawn 7th Company" and "SM Captain with Relic Blade and Combi-Melta". The first should never be fielded as Iron Hands or Salamanders. The second could be fielded as anything. The first is narrative, the second is crunch.

What they're painted at is *certainly* part of what you see. So running Captain Andicar as an Iron Hands captain would feel wrong to me. But then, running him as an Iron Hands captain isn't the same thing as running him as Wings of Dawn using the Iron Hands rules. Again, the first is narrative, the second is crunch.

I mean I get something doing something very confusing, like puting a termintor army down and inform the opponent that they are all custodes bikes. And some of them are custodes HQs and other are regular dudes, but look the same.

Yes.
The way it lines up is that the *closer* to WYSIWYG you get, the less of a negative it is. Most people seem to grasp this intuitively; proxying a Melta Gun Marine as a Plasmagun Marine is better than proxying an Ork Boy as a Plasmagun Marine. Proxying your UltraMarines as Iron Hands is a less negative than proxying your Melta Gun Marine as a PlasmaGun Marine. But it's more than 0 negative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratius wrote:

And I don't have a problem with that.

Would you be offended if you knew I'd rather play the guy who's named each member of his Company, and have you play that other guy who's prepping for a tournament?

I would imagine that other guy who's prepping for a tournament would rather those matchups, too.

(Now, just saying to your face "Mould lines? I'd rather not play you" *is* insulting, and you should take offense - but the above concept shouldn't be offensive.)

I took no offense at all mate, Im just saying Im fairly casual with these things to the point of a bit lazy

That's totally fine. I'm the same way. Not everything I've fielded is even painted.

(What is painted isn't painted well, but that's a question of skill, not laziness.)

The difference is whether you'd rather invest the time you do spend on the narrative or the crunch. Either answer is fine. So is anything in between.

Karol wrote:Is painting considered by of what you see ? Because there is no arment difference between a salamander unit names the same way as an Iron Hands one. tacticals will be tacticals, tanks will be tanks, captin with a hammer will be capting with hammer.

For me, it is. If a model is identifably painted as something, then I would expect to be playing against that, much like I would expect a Captain with a hammer to be a Captain with a hammer.

Of course, this only applies for very obviously assigned Chapters. Just being blue doesn't make you any more of an Ultramarine than it makes you a Fulminator, or being black makes you any more of an Iron Hand than it does a Raven Guard or Black Dragon.

I mean I get something doing something very confusing, like puting a termintor army down and inform the opponent that they are all custodes bikes. And some of them are custodes HQs and other are regular dudes, but look the same.

That's pretty much how I see it, yeah. They're not what I'm seeing on the tabletop, and if I get the feeling that you're saying they're something else so that you get an advantage, I'm not going to enjoy that game.

Of course, that's just what I expect from a game, but I won't make out that this is the One True Way.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
Depends on the heraldry. Colours don't matter, as successors can have Inheritors of the Primarch, but counting a bunch of guys with Salamander decals on their shoulders as Iron Hands is just unfun.

Why though? It's literally no different from using mismatched colors. Let's go through a few reasons for mismatched colors/symbols.
Let's take an army of completely Iron Hands in everything but symbol only and no unique characters from either army. Every single symbol has been replaced with a Salamanders Dragon.

If this is how they're painted, then they're not "Samalanders" or "Iron Hands", and wouldn't be identifiable as any major Chapter - therefore, I wouldn't have a problem with you using whatever rules you wanted for them. Of course, I would prefer if you used either the "Inheritors of the Primarch" or a combination of the two Chapters' tactics from the successor tactics options (if you were using the lore you had about them being a mixed force), but that's a far lesser concern.

What my personal issue would be is if those Marines were painted green, with black pauldrons, flame imagery, the Salamander symbol, and things like "Nocturne" or "Vulkan" or "Salamanders" written on their heraldry. They are clearly Salamanders Marines, and as per WYSIWYG, I would be expecting to fight Salamanders, same as if I saw what GW sell as a plasma gun on a model, I would expect that model to be armed with a plasma gun.

I know that's not what your hypothetical mentions - I don't have a problem with that hypothetical. I can't speak for Ginjitzu, but it's not about the symbol or colours alone that's the problem - it's the two combined, and paired with other indicators of heraldry (such as homeworld names, iconography, and other sigils).

Makes a lot of sense if the opposing player does recognize the heraldry although it can also mean that learning all the paint schemes for every army gives you a distinct advantage. Especially if this standard was applied to all armies. As a Tau player I know banana eldar are -1 to hit so until PA drops I could theoretically memorize the Eldar schemes and only play against -1 to hit eldar if they are painted yellow or using a custom scheme. "That's pretty distinctly Biel Tan stop ruining my immersion etc" If they are yellow and not using the Alaitoc I simply keep quiet. Personally, playing against identity theft marines is the lesser of two evils once you take that into account.

On a side note, what about armies that don't really have set paint schemes or has different rules for interpreting paint schemes? For example, I have a fire warrior with red armor, white antenna, and has lava for basing. Strictly following paint scheme rules for Tau that could be either Farsight Enclaves or Tau Sept since only the Sept markings matter (antenna visor etc) and Tau are known to repaint their armor to match their environment. Tau sept markings are white and Farsight Enclaves markings are bone white. Really isn't fair if the standard is uniquely applied to marines.

Are colour blind people blatantly allowed to swap chapters at will?

 DominayTrix wrote:


On a side note, what about armies that don't really have set paint schemes or has different rules for interpreting paint schemes? For example, I have a fire warrior with red armor, white antenna, and has lava for basing. Strictly following paint scheme rules for Tau that could be either Farsight Enclaves or Tau Sept since only the Sept markings matter (antenna visor etc) and Tau are known to repaint their armor to match their environment. Tau sept markings are white and Farsight Enclaves markings are bone white. Really isn't fair if the standard is uniquely applied to marines.

When Septs start getting extensive rules and addons and are strongly differentiated by intentionally readily identifiable bright primary color schemes and heraldry, often directly reflected by their niche subfaction names, then it may be more of an issue. Within the context of marines the issue is dramatically more blatant and widespread. It's not unique to marines, but is orders of magnitude more common and noticeable than with other factions.

DominayTrix wrote:Makes a lot of sense if the opposing player does recognize the heraldry although it can also mean that learning all the paint schemes for every army gives you a distinct advantage. Especially if this standard was applied to all armies. As a Tau player I know banana eldar are -1 to hit so until PA drops I could theoretically memorize the Eldar schemes and only play against -1 to hit eldar if they are painted yellow or using a custom scheme. "That's pretty distinctly Biel Tan stop ruining my immersion etc" If they are yellow and not using the Alaitoc I simply keep quiet. Personally, playing against identity theft marines is the lesser of two evils once you take that into account.

This is arguably WHY we should enforce "play as the Chapter you're painted as", because then we would all be able to recognise "hey, this paint scheme of Eldar has this effect in game, by association, I can now associate that paint scheme with those rules!". In that way, it would basically become the same as standard WYSIWYG - we all know what a plasma gun looks like because we've associated the look of the plasma gun to the concept of it.
Basically, if I can memorise what various weapons look like and tie that to how they function, should I not expect the same for colour schemes? After all, if I'm seeing one thing but being told it's another, isn't that just as confusing, both on modelling and paint scheme?*

On a side note, what about armies that don't really have set paint schemes or has different rules for interpreting paint schemes? For example, I have a fire warrior with red armor, white antenna, and has lava for basing. Strictly following paint scheme rules for Tau that could be either Farsight Enclaves or Tau Sept since only the Sept markings matter (antenna visor etc) and Tau are known to repaint their armor to match their environment. Tau sept markings are white and Farsight Enclaves markings are bone white. Really isn't fair if the standard is uniquely applied to marines.

If they're easily identifiable as something, then WYSIWYG should kick in. If I can't recognise what gun a certain model is carrying, but I can recognise the gun another one carries, that doesn't mean that I shouldn't be applying WYSIWYG on the gun I do recognise. Take a venom cannon and a plasma gun - even if I can't recognise what a venom cannon looks like, should I not expect my opponent to have their plasma guns modelled?

Basically, the fact that Marines have such an iconic choice of colours schemes (and again, it's not just in the colours, it's the heraldry and symbols too) doesn't mean that I should have to ignore that because other factions don't have the same iconic colours.

*of course, if people don't care about modelling WYSIWYG as well, then this point is moot - it's just about consistency. If you want everyone's models to look accurate, then I don't see why colour scheme should be any different. If they're not obviously something, then they can be whatever you like! If they're obviously something, then I would expect them to be used as that, especially if I can see that you want to use them as something else for a competitive advantage. Of course, these are just my views on it.

fraser1191 wrote:Are colour blind people blatantly allowed to swap chapters at will?

This point has actually been mentioned before, and my answer is the same - being colour blind is one thing, but even if you're colour blind, I'm sure you can see that you're applying the Ultramarine logo to something, and writing 'Macragge', 'Guilliman', or 'Ultramarines' on your banners.

Again, I'm not sure what people are missing about "it's not about what colour you painted them in, it's that they have all the colours, heraldry and symbols of X Chapter". An Iron Hand isn't just a Black Armoured Space Marine. An Iron Hand has various cog icons, doesn't follow Codex iconography, has a hand icon on their pauldron, might have various words associated with the Iron Hands written on their banners and scrolls, or have lots of cybernetic enhancements, which is very different from a Raven Guard, which is also a Black Armoured Space Marine.

So with all due respect, no, unless those colour blind people are also blind to the outlines and shapes of symbols and words, I think they should be able to tell the difference between a Black Armoured Space Marine and an Iron Hands Space Marine.

Up till now how available were all of these noteworthy pieces of iconography?

I don't think there was an iron hands upgrade sprue until this year unless you shelled out for the forge world ones. Which personally I wouldn't buy($24 Cdn for 10 pads? No way) and not everyone has the means to make transfers.

So I now have 2 questions:

The iron hands players that do not go back and either maul there marines to put these new pads on, or put the transfers on. Can they not use them as iron hands? There are a lot of people that either don't put on iconography or don't have the means to(bits, transfers)

Also immersion is important I'd never say otherwise, but at the same time can people not be friendly enough to humor someone? Everybody makes this hypothetical player as some guy that's just trying to nab a turn 1 win, which at a tournament sure because it's a more competitive scene where you are obligated to play that person. But no, this is either a local shop where you know a majority of the people or a group of friends.

So my actual second question is would you play someone you know personally from your shop/group if they chose to play Iron hands instead of X that night?

 BoomWolf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
Depends on the heraldry. Colours don't matter, as successors can have Inheritors of the Primarch, but counting a bunch of guys with Salamander decals on their shoulders as Iron Hands is just unfun.

I wouldn't blame the Salamanders player whatsoever for doing that though because the Salamanders rules are pretty damn terrible.

No, salamander rules are DECENT. and they didn't even get their supplement yet.

Their are just not as overpowered as IH, and somehow this is a problem for someone not playing WAAC?


Playing for the win is fine and dandy, but pretending you are playing another army just because that other army is the flavor of the month is being WAAC, and many people prefer playing fluffier, more relaxed 40k.

LOL no they're terrible. Even ignoring the Supplements they're easily the worst Chapter Tactic outside Crimson Fists. I would not fault my opponent for fielding their Crimson Fists with the original Imperial Fists rules like they SHOULD have either.

It's amazing how 40k has somehow gotten to a point where people are basically being punished for painting their army.

 NurglesR0T wrote:
It's amazing how 40k has somehow gotten to a point where people are basically being punished for painting their army.

How so?

If you mean what I think you mean, it should have been easy to see as people have been punished for playing the wrong faction pretty much every edition. The paint color is really just an extension of that issue.