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.

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

Yep. And people pushing for this do not even realise that this is the effect.

 fraser1191 wrote:
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?

I hand painted every Crimson Fists symbol onto 5,000 points of Crimson Fists back in 3rd because no other options really existed. I'd expect Iron Hands players to do the same.


If a SM player's army is non committal, I have precious little to say about what rules they use as long as they're consistent. Soup makes this damn near impossible. If a local player spams 3 Chapters simultaneously under a plain black paint job, I simply wouldn't play them. Too much hassle.


Now a few questions for you, since I see the whole "colorblind" round of questioning as some sort of "AHA" moment to excuse bad gaming behavior:

Are you colorblind? Do you switch your Chapter rules to chase the meta? One of these isn't an indicator of power gaming, and the other is the kind of guy who would argue the first point solely to normalize TFG actions.

Why is playing with the most powerful rules TFG?

It can be, if you're using a tournament-winning netlist against a newbie player, but if you're throwing down against another experienced player with a wide collection to draw from, why NOT try to make the game as tight and competitive as possible?

I can see reasons for that (say, your opponent is a GK player) but if that's the case, what if you've been playing Iron Hands for decades? Wouldn't it make a better game to switch to, say, Salamanders Tactics for this game? You're not playing what you're colored as, but you're also nerfing yourself for a better game.

I feel like once we get more settled info for the last two supplements we'll all go round and round about this somewhere. Maybe with all kinds of rainbow marines running around as IH, IF and maybe even Salamanders, wouldn't that be cool ? I can't wait.

To point out, this is meant to be a joke. I think what really annoys people with it is it feels like people chasing the next big thing. Some don't care, to some it feels like shameless bandwagon jumping. It feels worse if you always played that faction and then see all these " I've always loved IH, Iron everywhere, heck yeah ". Yet you know those same people will be whatever the next hotness is and be all about that.

I really don't care anymore, I used to but all you need to know is just have fun for you. Don't let anyone elses choices take the fun away as any choice made just by power will change as soon as the seas shift, which they always do.

Will make me laugh when IH get nerfed, or fall out of favor and then you are told " Only an idiot would play IH ". It's just a matter of time as the power creep rolls on.

 DominayTrix wrote:
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?"

Just to be clear, I have never once given my opponent a background check before a game. I like to get to know everyone at my local game store well in advance of playing a game. Some of them love building lists for narrative reasons like myself, others love manipulating synergies in the rules to make brutal combinations, but all of them are a great bunch of guys and I will play them all. But, I will play the fluffy guys more frequently, because I enjoy those games more. If the title of this thread had been, "Would you refuse to play someone using a counts-as chapter?" I'd have said no, but if I were to say that proxying doesn't bother me at all, I'd just be lying, because that's just how I feel. Neither approach to the game is more valid than the other, and I will facilitate both, but I prefer one.

Symbols really don't matter.

They matter to me.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 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.

Well there is a difference though, and a big one. If someone buys models that could make a good army, but is forced to play it with bad rules, then it is better to never paint the models at all, because you are being punished for painting them. This is drasticly different from someone buying a bad army and not being able to use it as anything else.

I do think this does explain why so many armies are unpainted. For example on facebook all Polish trade sites have "on sprue or unpainted, will accept painted, but then price is lower" no wonder most people don't go further then undercoat on their armies. Only people that play tournaments or like painting very much, seem to have painted armies. Everyone else doesn't even bother with it. Painting does cost a lot of time and money.


Also people really do put those decals on their models? Everyone here just sells them off or throws them away.

I honestly think eventually GW will place actual rules down for using the army you have them painted as or set up as. I can feel it coming and can't wait to see how fans spin it as GW helping us with such a rule. As opposed to just balancing factions better at least within the same faction, that really shouldn't be so hard to do when its all from the same book.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
I honestly think eventually GW will place actual rules down for using the army you have them painted as or set up as. I can feel it coming and can't wait to see how fans spin it as GW helping us with such a rule. As opposed to just balancing factions better at least within the same faction, that really shouldn't be so hard to do when its all from the same book.

They wont, b.c its way to alienating and hurtful to the image of the game, if they require a paint scheme NO ONE would paint their armies any of the iconic colors and just use their own colors.

Maybe, but it also would move to push people to get new armies. I mean sure you can not paint, but if you play in a tournament you have to paint. As for those who won't pain outside tournaments they will eventually get peer pressured to do so. GW does a lot to make the community be the bad guy by giving recommendations and knowing players take it as gospel.

Like if they say in tournaments it has to be painted as those exact schemes and chapters to use the rules. They can say its a recommendation for tournament play. Though most players will look at that as a hard and fast rule and not just a side idea. Let us push it for them and they are all clean. Forces people to lock in certain factions, and if they wish to chase the meta even in faction they'll need to get and paint more of the same models again.

Only time will tell, but I mean who could have imagined that they'd squat a whole game system and replace it with a system with no points. That in the process they'd literally squat whole armies that had been revamped maybe a year ago. Who could imagine they may be wanting to squat one of their long time best sellers, Marines for new more expensive marine armies.

I really put nothing past these people at this point. They have little to no care of alienation and hurtful image as they alienated a whole player base that while not as massive as 40k, was still probably larger than most mini games have for an active player base.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Maybe, but it also would move to push people to get new armies. I mean sure you can not paint, but if you play in a tournament you have to paint. As for those who won't pain outside tournaments they will eventually get peer pressured to do so. GW does a lot to make the community be the bad guy by giving recommendations and knowing players take it as gospel.

Like if they say in tournaments it has to be painted as those exact schemes and chapters to use the rules. They can say its a recommendation for tournament play. Though most players will look at that as a hard and fast rule and not just a side idea. Let us push it for them and they are all clean. Forces people to lock in certain factions, and if they wish to chase the meta even in faction they'll need to get and pain more of the same models again.

Only time will tell, but I mean who could have imagined that they'd squat a whole game system and replace it with a system with no points. That in the process they'd literally squat whole armies that had been revamped maybe a year ago. Who could imagine they may be wanting to squat one of their long time best sellers, Marines for new more expensive marine armies.

I really put nothing past these people at this point. They have little to no care of alienation and hurtful image as they alienated a whole player base that while not massive, was still probably larger than most mini games have as an audience.

And then you get my country, where only tournament players and comission painters have painted armies, and everyone else why strickt on WYSIWYG does not touch the army with paint, because it lowers the resell value. People maybe playing tournament armies or tournament like armies, but not everyone plays big tournaments. And at stores if the owner said only painted armies can play in the event, he would get 6 people playing in it, and 20+ not playing. Kind of a hard to get decent prizes with 6 people, or the entry would have to be huge. But I doubt with 6 people people would like to see a huge entry fee, when only top 1-3 get stuff from it. Even with 20+ people when you get nothing it ain't much for to pay for other people prizes, but at least tables are free then. No one is going to pay half a box in money to get nothing, unless they are 100% sure they can get in to top 1-3.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Maybe, but it also would move to push people to get new armies. I mean sure you can not paint, but if you play in a tournament you have to paint. As for those who won't pain outside tournaments they will eventually get peer pressured to do so. GW does a lot to make the community be the bad guy by giving recommendations and knowing players take it as gospel.

Like if they say in tournaments it has to be painted as those exact schemes and chapters to use the rules. They can say its a recommendation for tournament play. Though most players will look at that as a hard and fast rule and not just a side idea. Let us push it for them and they are all clean. Forces people to lock in certain factions, and if they wish to chase the meta even in faction they'll need to get and paint more of the same models again.

Only time will tell, but I mean who could have imagined that they'd squat a whole game system and replace it with a system with no points. That in the process they'd literally squat whole armies that had been revamped maybe a year ago. Who could imagine they may be wanting to squat one of their long time best sellers, Marines for new more expensive marine armies.

I really put nothing past these people at this point. They have little to no care of alienation and hurtful image as they alienated a whole player base that while not as massive as 40k, was still probably larger than most mini games have for an active player base.

Tournaments would allow custom paint colors tho, remember tournaments only work if players go to them.

Yet again, GW is the biggest game in town. People won't not go to compete just because of paint rules. How many players buy thousands of dollars worth of things just to keep up every year ? More than respond here. How many care a lot about base size ? More than I'd like.

I mean you can feel they won't do it, but when they do, even if its just a suggestion, it'll ripple down. If it becomes the in house GW game standard small venues can not follow it but many will and many will just shrug and accept it. The only way to see how we'll respond is to watch what happens. I see it coming at some point. I mean players even supported the AoS mess without points or clear rules and just smashing models into each other as genius and visionary and if you didn't like it you were too dumb to understand the beauty.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Yet again, GW is the biggest game in town. People won't not go to compete just because of paint rules. How many players buy thousands of dollars worth of things just to keep up every year ? More than respond here. How many care a lot about base size ? More than I'd like.

I mean you can feel they won't do it, but when they do, even if its just a suggestion, it'll ripple down. If it becomes the in house GW game standard small venues can not follow it but many will and many will just shrug and accept it. The only way to see how we'll respond is to watch what happens. I see it coming at some point. I mean players even supported the AoS mess without points or clear rules and just smashing models into each other as genius and visionary and if you didn't like it you were too dumb to understand the beauty.

You are forgetting that most tournaments are not GW ran or GT's but independent local ones and local stores are a lot more lax b.c they rather have happy players and make sales than run off 1/2 the players b.c of "you have the wrong color paint"

I'm not forgetting most tournaments aren't GW. However GW have their hooks in some of the larger ones now and support by little or large a lot of the movers and shakers in those scenes.

Small tournaments would be fine, but even if just GW doing this in their own tournaments became common practice. Just that happening would give players a reason to call out people for doing otherwise as power gamers or that guy. Like I said though, we'll see this is just a feeling I have.

Also, before you say larger tournaments don't trickle down to smaller ones that's not so. Especially for players who want to go to those large venues during the year.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
I'm not forgetting most tournaments aren't GW. However GW have their hooks in some of the larger ones now and support by little or large a lot of the movers and shakers in those scenes.

Small tournaments would be fine, but even if just GW doing this in their own tournaments became common practice. Just that happening would give players a reason to call out people for doing otherwise as power gamers or that guy. Like I said though, we'll see this is just a feeling I have.

Also, before you say larger tournaments don't trickle down to smaller ones that's not so. Especially for players who want to go to those large venues during the year.

It doesn't "trickle down", larger tournaments right now require painted models and have been fore years, many smaller local store don't have that requirement.

Time will tell I suppose, until then we wait and see.

For those worried about the iron hand of iconography requirement I would like to mention that those who are die- and tryhard iconography fans are generally a minority. I have yet to meet a person in real life that would have the same attitude as some of the most vocal people here in this thread. Most people just want to have fun and play a game with good people.

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

This. Thanks to all of these variants. It's almost as if marine variant rules are a mistake.

fraser1191 wrote: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.

Freehand? Transfers? If those were too difficult (and I totally get that, I tried freehanding an Iron Hands symbol on a Deathwatch terminator once, wasn't easy), then just leave it blank. As I've said, if you leave it blank, they're not representing any known Chapter, so they can be played as whatever you like, by my books.

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)

I don't quite understand your point. You don't need icons to play as Iron Hands (although they're preferable in my eyes, I'm not that strict). You don't even need to have black armour.
It's if you have a faction which is painted, marked, and embellished as another major Chapter that's not going to fly.

A long term Iron Hands player who has a black armoured Space Marine but no Iron Hands iconography is fine, because they're not trying to get away with putting down blue armoured Marines with white Ultima symbols and the words "Macragge/Ultra/Guiliman" on their armour.

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?

How personally do I know them? Are they a friend I've been playing narrative games with for years, always plays to a narrative and wants to switch out for what I can sense is a genuine reason (whatever that might be)? Yeah, sure, but I'll probably joke about if this will be a regular thing, and if it is, are they going to do anything about it.

If I've known them personally to prioritise winning and making the most effective army? No, I won't, because that's not the kind of 40k I want to play.

Again, it depends on their motivation for doing it, and knowing them personally for some time, I think I would have a good idea of what they wanted. I'm not saying either of them are right or wrong, but one of them is going to give me far more enjoyment for that evening.

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

Question: do you play WYSIWYG? Do you expect your opponents to? Just to put it to you another way:
"It's amazing how 40k has somehow gotten to a point where people are basically being punished for building their army."

Of course, if you don't believe in WYSIWYG, disregard this, but I'm purely asking to see if you're at least being consistent.

That aside, if my personal preference of not playing someone who cares more about getting stronger rules than embracing their models is "punishing", then what would be your solution? I shouldn't have any expectations or personal preferences on who I play? I should just drop my army and be ready to play at anyone's beck and call? I'm not allowed to choose who I want to play?

I don't think anyone is advocating that "play as what you paint" should be a forced compulsory rule everyone should abide by - rather, they're saying "this is my preference, and is important to my enjoyment of the game". Unless you genuinely think that people shouldn't be allowed to enjoy the game how they see fit, why is that a problem?

JNAProductions wrote:Why is playing with the most powerful rules TFG?

It can be, if you're using a tournament-winning netlist against a newbie player, but if you're throwing down against another experienced player with a wide collection to draw from, why NOT try to make the game as tight and competitive as possible?

Because that's less important to me personally than playing against what I'm seeing on the board. I don't think anyone's saying it's TFG, of course not, but that doesn't mean it 100% fine by everyone, and that's fine too.

Again, the game being more tightly balanced and competitive isn't what everyone wants from their opponent - there's nothing wrong with whatever way you prefer though.

Daba wrote:This. Thanks to all of these variants. It's almost as if marine variant rules are a mistake.

Honestly, yeah - this the problem. If subfaction rules didn't exist, then this literally wouldn't be a problem, because there would be no difference between what I'd expect an Ultramarine to do compared to an Iron Hand.

It's if you have a faction which is painted, marked, and embellished as another major Chapter that's not going to fly.

Why? The how the army looks doesn't matter in game terms. Otherwise nice painted stuff would be better on the table, then painted by something who is bad at it or doesn't want to paint their army, but is forced to do it. If the opponent says he plays X it is X as long as it is WYSIWYG, painting or symbols on the armour aren't part of it, at least from what I have been told. Just like you don't have to put all grenades, pistols etc on models that have them.

Other wise the army investment would be super restrictive. People start marines, because they can change armies with no or little investment. If they would have to rebuy all the models again, or repaint them , which is just as bad because it maybe costs less, but takes more time up, a lot of people wouldn't be starting to play at all.

Karol wrote:

It's if you have a faction which is painted, marked, and embellished as another major Chapter that's not going to fly.

Why? The how the army looks doesn't matter in game terms.

So you can play whatever faction you like with whatever models you like, so long as they're roughly the same size? Would you be okay with me playing Chaos Space Marine Terminators as Grey Knights? How about WYSIWYG?

(Note - this isn't supposed to be a loaded of accusatory question. I genuinely am asking if that's considered fine with you, because then I get an idea of what your personal standards are, and you're not being contradictory).

Otherwise nice painted stuff would be better on the table, then painted by something who is bad at it or doesn't want to paint their army, but is forced to do it. If the opponent says he plays X it is X as long as it is WYSIWYG, painting or symbols on the armour aren't part of it, at least from what I have been told. Just like you don't have to put all grenades, pistols etc on models that have them.

Okay, but do you expect a unit armed with a plasma gun to have a model carrying a plasma gun in it?

Sure, you don't need all the grenades and pistols - in the same way that my preference of painting doesn't mean you need to have blue Space Marines with Ultima symbols in order to play Ultramarines. As long as you're not obviously looking like something else, play as what you like. So, to compare that to modelling, I don't care if you don't have every weapon modelled, just don't expect me to be 100% fine with your missile launcher pretending to be a plasma gun (if I can tell you're clearly doing it just to win harder).

Other wise the army investment would be super restrictive. People start marines, because they can change armies with no or little investment. If they would have to rebuy all the models again, or repaint them , which is just as bad because it maybe costs less, but takes more time up, a lot of people wouldn't be starting to play at all.

Or, maybe, just paint a custom Chapter. Or just don't put Chapter specific icons on. Or just bite the bullet and play a slightly less powerful list.

You seem to imply that you should always strive for the most powerful, most optimised list, and compromising on that is out of the question. Why? It's not like if you don't get to play your models as Iron Hands, you'll never get to play. Just play with how you painted them, and if that's out of the question, apply a different transfer or paint scheme, or just play someone else who's more on your wavelength.

Karol wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 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.

Well there is a difference though, and a big one. If someone buys models that could make a good army, but is forced to play it with bad rules, then it is better to never paint the models at all, because you are being punished for painting them. This is drasticly different from someone buying a bad army and not being able to use it as anything else.

I do think this does explain why so many armies are unpainted. For example on facebook all Polish trade sites have "on sprue or unpainted, will accept painted, but then price is lower" no wonder most people don't go further then undercoat on their armies. Only people that play tournaments or like painting very much, seem to have painted armies. Everyone else doesn't even bother with it. Painting does cost a lot of time and money.

I think you are missing my point. Before subfactions were a thing a person could buy models that make a bad army. Heck, they could simply pick a faction that was plain bad. Chaos Space Marines weren't all that good from 5th to about the end of 7th with most of that time the legion they were or weren't painted being bad. Orks have also struggled many editions. Depending on how WYSIWYG your group is you were stuck with it. At least paint can be stripped and re-painted. That is much cheaper than buying a whole new army or even magnetizing/changing weapons.

The paint job a person picks for their army is no different to me than the weapons they carry of the full model they are. Like I said, I don't have to have everything WYSIWYG so if a player wants to play one subfaction over another just like saying all meltaguns are plasmaguns is the same level of bother to me. A minor annoyance that I would prefer they not do, but not enough to not get in a game.

I would also like to mention I don't believe that picking one subfaction over another is going to make any given army good yet picking a different subfaction for that same army suddenly make it bad. It is just not as optimized. I am not convinced that even with the space marine supplements that these extras have that radical effect. Yes, Word Bearers have poor subfaction rules, but I don't really think suddenly playing them as Red Corsairs is going suddenly turn them into a powerhouse. They will be better sure, but I don't think they are suddenly be next level from it. And if they are, you can bet your bottom dollar they won't be next year.

This being an excuse for why armies aren't painting is incredibly weak. First, I think few in IRL are bothered enough to say anything anyways. If they were the sort to be bothered by it, there is a very high chance they would be more bothered by an unpainted army. No, I think the reason most armies aren't painted are far more likely to be they buys the whole army all at once and gets overwhelmed/bored, are afraid their painting skills aren't good enough, or lacks a paint space to quickly an easily get painting in here and there.

But most people don't paint their armies at all, as that lowers the army resell value, when they quit or want to play something else. And most of those that do paint do it, because they play at tournaments or the large stores in big cities when they force people to paint stuff, or they don't get tables to play on.

As the subfaction goes, I don't think you are right on that one. There is a huge difference between playing Word Beares and and lets say any of the also red renegade chapters.

Same with imperial marines, there is a huge difference between playing IH,RG or Ultramarines, and playing a DA successor or even DA themselfs. The quality of rules is , in my opinion, impossible to compare. It is like having a second and third set of extra rules for same kind of models.


And here very few people buy an army in one go, because it costs too much. It has to either be a deal, or they are trading other stuff for it along side cash like MtG cards, or something like that.

But from what I was told by someone, people in western countries sometimes buy a new army every 2-3 months, so I guess it can be different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

So you can play whatever faction you like with whatever models you like, so long as they're roughly the same size? Would you be okay with me playing Chaos Space Marine Terminators as Grey Knights? How about WYSIWYG?

Well no one here plays GK, other then me, so I don't know. But considering WYSIWYG is enforced here, and I couldn't play GK as any other army, because there is no army GK can be counts as, I would say no. The weapons are wrong and the size of the models is wrong.

Okay, but do you expect a unit armed with a plasma gun to have a model carrying a plasma gun in it?

yes, otherwise you can't play here. Only options are buy multiple box, and no one does that, or buy 3d party or recast. The third happens most often.

As long as you're not obviously looking like something else, play as what you like.

Okey, so lets say someone bought a BA army, because he could get it for cheaper, and he finds out it is really bad. Or it can be good, but he won't use most of the things, and he has to spend another 400$ on knights and other soup stuff, and they don't have the cash for it. They wouldn't be able to just play them as, any of the good marine armies, that use the same models just because maybe some of his are painted red, am assuming he bought a tournament army, as the problem wouldn't exist if he wasn't buying just a regular one, as chance of that one being painted and sold is zero. As those who paint their armies and don't play tournaments, don't sell their armies. They also generaly don't play much, just sit at the store and do commissions.

Or, maybe, just paint a custom Chapter. Or just don't put Chapter specific icons on. Or just bite the bullet and play a slightly less powerful list.

okey, but this again means one would have to model and paint an army and lock oneself in to it. The army could be master class painted, and it would sell for less by virtue of having paint on it.

You seem to imply that you should always strive for the most powerful, most optimised list, and compromising on that is out of the question. Why? It's not like if you don't get to play your models as Iron Hands, you'll never get to play. Just play with how you painted them, and if that's out of the question, apply a different transfer or paint scheme, or just play someone else who's more on your wavelength.

From what little expiriance I have, the most powerful is rarely marines, and if it is marines then it is either something like characters. If lets say ahriman suddenly becomes utter trash replacing him with something is much easier, then replacing a 700$ or more army that went bad. the obligation to paint and mark armies seems to me, very restrictive. It locks one in to an army, costs extra money and time to do. And on top of it all one may just not like painting.

Now I don't have such problems as my army came prepainted, when I bought it. But If I was unpainted and now to play I would have to spend money and time to paint, an army that isn't fun to play, I wouldn't feel good about it at all.

Let us estimate costs here:

Buying and painting ton of new models because of color obsessives: 1000s of dollars and 1000s of hours

Painting your old models because of color obsessives: Throwing away 1000s of hours to spend 1000s of hours.

Ignoring the color obsessives and just play the game with good and fun people: 0$ (unless you want to buy snacks for people. Always recommend buying snacks for people. Nothing bonds people more than food)

People just need to chill and play the game and have fun with good people. Ignore the haters and just have fun.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Or, maybe, just paint a custom Chapter. Or just don't put Chapter specific icons on.

I wish more people woud create custom chapters. I really love when someone has put a lot of thought into creating a colour scheme, symbols, markings and background for their custom chapter, Much more interesting than copying the stock studio paint job. But still, this is something people should do because they lake the creativity it allows, not for some rule benefit. And I certainly can't imagine telling to an opponent that has painted their marines in official colours that they couldn't use the rules they want while simultaneously I with my custom chapter could. That is a TFG move, and I really don't want custom chapters to be associated with that sort of WAAC mentality.

Or just bite the bullet and play a slightly less powerful list.

You seem to imply that you should always strive for the most powerful, most optimised list, and compromising on that is out of the question. Why? It's not like if you don't get to play your models as Iron Hands, you'll never get to play. Just play with how you painted them, and if that's out of the question, apply a different transfer or paint scheme, or just play someone else who's more on your wavelength.

First: at this point the differences in power level are not slight, they're massive. I really don't think Blood Angels or even White Scars have much of a chance against the Iron Hands.

Second: it is not always the power, it can be about the playstyle. Even if different chapters were balanced properly (which they even remotely aren't) they play differently. And people might want to experiment with different playstyles without buying and painting a full new army. And I think it can be reasonably fluffy. An Armoury force lead by the Master of the Forge using Iron Hand rules, Tenth Company force using Raven Guard rules etc. Chapter rules are fighting styles, and a section of a chapter could easily utilise a fighting style that is usually associated with another chapter.

I can very well remember 5th edition when a new guy was introduced into our playing group who - through the months - showed up with Space Wolves, Blood Angels and finally Grey Knights. He actually did have seperate / correct models for everything with a crude paint job on it, so from a certain point of view you really could not complain about this guy always bringing the latest Marine codex to the table. That doesn't mean his WAAC attitude was any more enjoyable.

On the other hand I cant count the evenings when we proxied Monoliths with Hard Drive cases or Drop Pods with beer bottles (which came in in the same rounds as we finished them ) and everyone involved had a great time, regardless of which rules the casual (and a bit quirky) Space Marine player was using on that night.

What I want to show is that intention/attitude matters just as much as your actions, when it comes to how enjoyable the game is going to be for you and your opponent.


I have a genuine question to people who don't like their opponents using rules that do not match the respective color scheme:
How do you feel about playing against a Marine player who keeps switching his two successor traits every game?

If this is not a problem for you, what is the difference between this and changing the chapter?

If this is a problem for you, does it concern you as well that my SM Captain used a Relic Blade last week and this week it is a regular power sword, despite using the same model?

The power difference right now is massive. A SM supplement chapter can tailor from 20+ chapter traits and a list of 6 successors for traits/etc.

A SM chapter has twice the stratagems of BA, twice the warlord traits and relics And can use 3 warlord traits and more/cheaper relics. 6 more powers for your librarians. Cheaper units. Extra AP from doctrines + a super doctrine. And chapter tactics works on their vehicles as well.

It is not like SM is only 10% stronger than BA right now. Each of those advantages adds up and multiplies. Having better strats with better units is better than just having them separately. IH /RG is probably 50% better or more than BA right now. A vehicle heavy IH list vs a vehicle heavy BA list is probably 95+% in favor of the IH player winning regardless of scenario. Unless both players play with loaded dice, I cant see BA winning. Not even enough if BA player cheats with good dice the IH player needs to roll far below average too.

Karol wrote:

It's if you have a faction which is painted, marked, and embellished as another major Chapter that's not going to fly.

Why? The how the army looks doesn't matter in game terms.

Neither does playing with numbered poker chips. Crunch-wise, there's no difference between that and a fully rendered Golden Demon quality army.

Crunch isn't the only thing that matters. I wouldn't play this game with poker chips, as it wouldn't be engaging for me. In other words, the crunch alone isn't enough for me.

Now, there's a mile of difference between "Non-WYSIWYG painting" and "Poker Chips" in terms of quality, of course. But only in magnitude; one is just a much more extreme version of non-WYSIWYG.

Looks matter a lot. I want encourage people to paint their models at the best standard they're capable of. That's why I don't want to place any unnecessary hurdles that would discourage people from doing so. This is very simple.

Honestly, if the entire army is painted, respect. I don't care what you want to call them, I understand it gets boring playing the same thing week after week. I'm guilty of this myself, I'll change what guard regiment I play just to mix things up. Granted, I don't mix and match regiments and am somewhat opposed if someone were mixing and matching space Marine chapters to be super competitive and they were all the same colors.