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.

 Fifty wrote:
Honestly, I love an alternative paint scheme.

I was thinking those schemes reminded me of something, and I couldn't put my finger on it until the last pic. Nice!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I plan on the following paint scheme.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer/comments/zd3xki/pansexual_pride_space_marine/?rdt=35947

Won’t be as high-quality, as I’m not the best painter by far, but hopefully at least somewhat good.

That looks like one of those scheme's that's gonna be great if you do it right. But if you make a mess of it it's gonna be unbelievably bad! Godspeed!

Sidenote: A little surprised at the pushback in the thread. I say ignore them

 kronk wrote:
I don't care how you paint it, as long as the army is more or less uniform and has the right gear. WYSIWYG, if you will.

A painted army, even garish or silly, is better than a grey or primered army.

Hey, that's not primer. That's "Winter Camo" thank you.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Sidenote: A little surprised at the pushback in the thread. I say ignore them

Seems a bit reductive to tell someone asking for advice to ignore advice they specifically asked for. Isn't the whole idea of asking for advice to avoid an echo chamber or feedback loop?
"You should ignore everyone who disagrees with you" is hardly something you should be advising, given that Warhammer is a cooperative experience.

 Insectum7 wrote:


Sidenote: A little surprised at the pushback in the thread.

After Gert's reply I now want to ask why. Why are you surprised that people want to play with and against armies painted in the theme of the various legions and do not express positive feelings towards the OP's choice of colors/paint scheme.

I would also ask why some replies would villainize those who are against it.
Villainizing people because they have some kind of standards is just ugly. They aren't wrong for wanting to play this game, as was described, as a historical wargame for the setting. The OP's color pallet, if they go through with it and this isn't just a troll post, is outside of this setting. Why should I be accepting of that.
All I can say is I hope they find a likeminded group to play with. I play in a closed group with friends myself and I would recommend doing the same if asked.

I have a question that follows this topic.

What if the person's army is from an obscure part of the Heresy, perhaps a unit/formation from one of the novels that has never been fully fleshed out?

Is it alright to deviate from the normal color conventions then?

I'll be honest I think the OP's question depends on the scheme - if they lean into the 'ye olde knights' theme of DA and do some kind of Brettonian style quartering paint scheme with bold reds, blues, yellows for the torsos/tabbards and plainer limbs I think it could work.

I can see wanting "proper" armies for the vaunted "historical" wargame about genetically engineered super soldiers beating the piss out of each in the 31st millennium, but I wouldn't turn down a game against someone for using unusual colors on their models.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I have a question that follows this topic.

What if the person's army is from an obscure part of the Heresy, perhaps a unit/formation from one of the novels that has never been fully fleshed out?

Is it alright to deviate from the normal color conventions then?

That is a loaded question because if one was to say "No" then you will say "Aha so you don't allow alternate schemes" and if one was to say "Yes" then you will say "Aha then why would this specific scheme not be allowed because it could just be an obscure thing that never got any limelight".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScarletRose wrote:
I can see wanting "proper" armies for the vaunted "historical" wargame about genetically engineered super soldiers beating the piss out of each in the 31st millennium, but I wouldn't turn down a game against someone for using unusual colors on their models.

Ultimately, that's up to the individual, which is why a few have suggested that the OP needs to speak with their gaming group because it is a cooperative experience.

I like the 40k setting, but there is sometimes such a thing as too much sandbox, while HH has enough sandbox to play in while still having some boundaries that keep people generally on the same page. Dark Mechanicum army with creepy Daemon bits on the models? Awesome, they were all over the joint. Luna Wolves/Dusk Raiders Shattered Legion army? Very cool, the Legions were huge, and not everyone stayed loyal to their Primarch.
But if you're rocking up with a fuschia and purple army claiming they're Dark Angels, there's a very good chance that there's going to be pushback.

Mechanicum, Militia, Knights, and Solar Aux are much better armies for fully custom schemes because they outnumber the Astartes a million to one.

 warhead01 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


Sidenote: A little surprised at the pushback in the thread.

After Gert's reply I now want to ask why. Why are you surprised that people want to play with and against armies painted in the theme of the various legions and do not express positive feelings towards the OP's choice of colors/paint scheme.

I would also ask why some replies would villainize those who are against it.
Villainizing people because they have some kind of standards is just ugly. They aren't wrong for wanting to play this game, as was described, as a historical wargame for the setting. The OP's color pallet, if they go through with it and this isn't just a troll post, is outside of this setting. Why should I be accepting of that.
All I can say is I hope they find a likeminded group to play with. I play in a closed group with friends myself and I would recommend doing the same if asked.

My feelings stem from the tradition of 40k and other GW games where custom color schemes are typically welcome and lauded. And the idea that HH is somehow "more serious" and therefore unwelcoming to the more individualistic hobbyist seems a bit silly to me.

And I'm plenty used to seeing primered and unpainted armies. Anyone who shows that they've put the effort into finishing an army, in any way, gets a thumbs up from me.

I get the appeal for a specific aesthetic, but if its someone elses models, its someone elses models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gert wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Sidenote: A little surprised at the pushback in the thread. I say ignore them

Seems a bit reductive to tell someone asking for advice to ignore advice they specifically asked for. Isn't the whole idea of asking for advice to avoid an echo chamber or feedback loop?
"You should ignore everyone who disagrees with you" is hardly something you should be advising, given that Warhammer is a cooperative experience.

Not so! You can be welcoming of opinions just to see what's out there, but then once you've heard the breadth of opinions, you're still free to ignore them. You're just ignoring them with knowledge, rather than ignoring them out of ignorance.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I have a question that follows this topic.

What if the person's army is from an obscure part of the Heresy, perhaps a unit/formation from one of the novels that has never been fully fleshed out?

Is it alright to deviate from the normal color conventions then?

Sure, why not? Who's going to honestly be able to say you're doing it wrong if GW themselves hasn't explicitly said what schemes were used during battle/campaign X?

ccs wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I have a question that follows this topic.

What if the person's army is from an obscure part of the Heresy, perhaps a unit/formation from one of the novels that has never been fully fleshed out?

Is it alright to deviate from the normal color conventions then?

Sure, why not? Who's going to honestly be able to say you're doing it wrong if GW themselves hasn't explicitly said what schemes were used during battle/campaign X?

Heck, I'm building a Knight with no kill markings, tabards, House colors, or heraldry with a mish-mashed set of damaged armor to follow the descriptions in a Horus Heresy novel.

 Quixote wrote:
Heck, I'm building a Knight with no kill markings, tabards, House colors, or heraldry with a mish-mashed set of damaged armor to follow the descriptions in a Horus Heresy novel.

I would love to see that. I think people tend to forget that the Horus Heresy was a civil war. In that situation, prescribed or uniform colour schemes will be the exception rather than the rule. Given the exigencies of the situation, troops would be going into battle with bits of other people's armour, patched up equipment, looted vehicles, improvised markings and perhaps stuff straight off the production line that wasn't even painted. You don't see many HH armies like this, but I think it would look awesome.

No I'm pretty sure people remember the Heresy is a civil war, patched or mismatched armour is just a notoriously difficult concept to pull off.

House Vyridion's Baroness Jaya goes to war in a Castigator with no name, with her Knights being unpainted gunmetal grey, heavily dented and devoid of heraldry.

The Baroness talks about being unable to identify her own Knights.

One only Knight has a mantlet painted with the houses heraldry and it's described ad being painted by the Scion himself as no Sacristans were available.

I plan on testing out the paint scheme on some Armigers first. I think it will be fun to paint some Knights without any symbols or emblems.

 Gert wrote:
No I'm pretty sure people remember the Heresy is a civil war, patched or mismatched armour is just a notoriously difficult concept to pull off.

I mean they tend to forget this when it comes to painting the models. We're all conditioned to follow GW's legion colour schemes because it looks nice to have that uniform look. It's not really difficult to incorporate patched and looted armour and odd colours - you can tie it all together with markings and weathering - but it doesn't look as pretty.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I have a question that follows this topic.

What if the person's army is from an obscure part of the Heresy, perhaps a unit/formation from one of the novels that has never been fully fleshed out?

Is it alright to deviate from the normal color conventions then?

I don't think they do.

I think what people push back about is.. I guess 'large scale' violations?

All of the legions had visible variation in their paint schemes and that's without talking about the pre-primarch schemes most of them shifted from. Black shields are also a thing. Various crusades and chapters are a thing.

For example, my world eaters use no silver and instead have all their trim in bronze, where as most of the fluff shows bronze on just helmets / the occasional arm and otherwise silver trim. The Iron Hands player I play with does them almost entirely black, more-so than the 'official' scheme. I play with another guy who uses his RT & 3rd ed marines which are painted as a combination of IF, pre-corruption EC, Salamanders, and a couple of.. I think Space Wolves? He runs them as one army that is whatever the warlord model is, because the Shattered Legion rules are kinda extreme this time 'round. There's an play with an IW player with minimal hazard stripes, bronze trim, a good amount of actual black, and lots of CSM models for his general squads.

All of this 'varies' from the 'official' color schemes, but no one ever bats an eye because it's still, very plainly, 'in the spirit' of the thing. Black Shields are rather wild cards, but still trended gloomy.

But we're talking about pride dark angels here, something which shares literally none of the color (or general 'mood' for color schemes) with the legion they supposedly represent. So it's kind of taking a somewhat structured sand box, which has an option for doing the make-your-own-chapter thing via Blackshields, but then just tossing that out the window.

Again, local group will be the ultimate arbiters. But I suspect that they won't be very amused.

 morganfreeman wrote:
But we're talking about pride dark angels here, something which shares literally none of the color (or general 'mood' for color schemes) with the legion they supposedly represent. So it's kind of taking a somewhat structured sand box, which has an option for doing the make-your-own-chapter thing via Blackshields, but then just tossing that out the window.

Again, local group will be the ultimate arbiters. But I suspect that they won't be very amused.

The original post was clarified to be a question about pink Dark Angels. I think Lathe Biosas was asking a broader question. As I explained, I think there is perhaps more scope for variation than you're suggesting, although we've been conditioned to take a relatively narrow approach to what is and is not 'acceptable'.

Maybe if you could provide an example that would maybe allow us to understand what you mean?

 Gert wrote:
Maybe if you could provide an example that would maybe allow us to understand what you mean?

An example could be all-black or all-purple Ultramarines?

With something like all black we have examples of that in the background that would justify that as an alternate scheme and those examples aren't obscure.

Destroyer Companies exist within the Legion structures with even the vaunted XIIIth having their own, the 22nd "Nemesis" Chapter:


Codex camouflage schemes exist and the Legiones Astartes weren't above using camouflage so adapting something like the below examples is also entirely fair play:


If we're talking an entirely different primary colour for the scheme, then that is a very wide berth. For example, both of the below Space Marines are what we could consider "Purple" using a colour wheel but the shade of one is far more similar to the blue of the XIIIth than the other:

With the appropriate markings and even a bit of weathering, the left-hand Marine could easily pass as an Ultramarine, while the right-hand Marine would not.

Given the range of examples that I have just displayed, I don't believe that anyone has been "conditioned" (as Snord has put it) into a narrow margin of acceptance. The idea of "Your Dudes" doesn't have the same carte blanche as it does for 40k, and that is largely due to the fact that paint schemes do in fact make a difference to the rules being used by a player and the more restrictive nature of the background in the HH period.

Again, as has been said many many times, this is ultimately up to the group in which a player finds themselves. If they are open to the idea, great. If not, then the player doesn't get to claim they are being treated unfairly as they have chosen to join this group.

I mention purple Ultramarines specifically as a nod to the Hawk Lords - an Ultramarines successor from the 21st Chapter of the XIII Legion. It would be entirely on brand, in so far as the 22nd Chapter can be all black, that the 21st could also be all purple - and their 40k colour scheme is honestly not far from pink.

We simply don't know, but I think that's a good justification for it. And frankly, if anyone kicked up a fuss, then they're not worth my time playing plastic soldiers with - which is a choice than any player can make. There isn't a single "correct" opinion which transcends all player groups, as rightfully pointed out.

However, I do think this talk of "a more restrictive nature" of 30k should be introspected upon, and if enforcing certain "expectations" is a positive or negative to the community someone might want to create.

I'm painting a mismatch force of imperial fists and have tried some different colour schemes on some of the squads.

One tac squad has red strips on their helmets and red hands in a nod to the crimson fists. I figure the successor chapters that came later had to get inspiration for their colour schemes somewhere, and a company of the original legion using some markings makes sense to me.

I use a bunch of black Templar markings on stuff, and Templar brethren have their own colour scheme.

for terminators I've mostly used the black with yellow should pads taken from one of the black books, looks cool and is an official colour scheme for the fists.

For one tactical support squad I went with a silver with yellow pads and helmets. This one looks a bit Iron Warriors in many ways but with the yellow matching the rest of the army it works. It was inspired by a colour palette for the fists I saw online, which turned out to be from the dorian heresy fan project.


Definately tempted to try some more, with nods towards other fists successors such as the celestial lions, blue pads and helmets on yellow bodies?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I mention purple Ultramarines specifically as a nod to the Hawk Lords - an Ultramarines successor from the 21st Chapter of the XIII Legion. It would be entirely on brand, in so far as the 22nd Chapter can be all black, that the 21st could also be all purple - and their 40k colour scheme is honestly not far from pink.

We simply don't know, but I think that's a good justification for it.

The thing is there is a reason the Nemesis are in black armour. The armour is stained from the radiation and chemicals used by the Destroyers of the Chapter, not an aesthetic choice.
We know that many Chapter schemes were derived from the personal heraldry of Legion Captains or Chapter Masters, but that doesn't mean that Companies/Chapters were fully decked out in their 40k scheme. They might have had hints to their future selves like minor detailing such as a pauldron or knee painted with the 40k colours.
But a full army in pink/purple and gold is explicitly the scheme of the IIIrd Legion, not the XIIIth.

And frankly, if anyone kicked up a fuss, then they're not worth my time playing plastic soldiers with - which is a choice than any player can make. There isn't a single "correct" opinion which transcends all player groups, as rightfully pointed out.

Again this has been said multiple times but ultimately, you are choosing to take part in a group activity and cutting off your nose, so to speak, just because you don't get to paint toy soldiers how you want is frankly an immature response to what is not that serious of a situation.
If you want free range customisation, great, there are options for that in Blackshields, Mechanicum, Militia, Solar Auxilia, Daemons, Knights, and even Talons at a push. But pink Ultramarines, green Word Bearers, or gold Raven Guard isn't it.

However, I do think this talk of "a more restrictive nature" of 30k should be introspected upon, and if enforcing certain "expectations" is a positive or negative to the community someone might want to create.

If you join a sports team it's an expectation that you wear the team's kit or colours. If you play Blackpowder, it's an expectation that you paint your British line infantry in red coats (or rifles in green). This is no different.

What Tamareth has detailed above are all examples that work well and would be received without a blink in the wider world. Hints, minor variations, or larger variations that still keep good traces of the Legion being used.
There is plenty of freedom of choice in making your models "Your Dudes" just as there are thematic guidelines that we all play by to keep true to the vibes and themes of the HH setting.

Gert wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I mention purple Ultramarines specifically as a nod to the Hawk Lords - an Ultramarines successor from the 21st Chapter of the XIII Legion. It would be entirely on brand, in so far as the 22nd Chapter can be all black, that the 21st could also be all purple - and their 40k colour scheme is honestly not far from pink.

We simply don't know, but I think that's a good justification for it.

The thing is there is a reason the Nemesis are in black armour. The armour is stained from the radiation and chemicals used by the Destroyers of the Chapter, not an aesthetic choice.

Does this mean that *any* Legion can be painted all black then?

Also, just to point out, but it *is* also an aesthetic choice. The fact that we see a plethora of 22nd Chapter units who don't use rad weapons, but still have black armour, alongside the artwork for 22nd Chapter units shows that their armour isn't fully black, but has blue accent panels. This means we can assume that they're still repainting their armour to have blue elements, which means that their black armoured elements is an aesthetic one, whihc may have once had basis in it being stripped by radiation, but is now far more symbolic.

We know that many Chapter schemes were derived from the personal heraldry of Legion Captains or Chapter Masters, but that doesn't mean that Companies/Chapters were fully decked out in their 40k scheme.

And what's to say it can't? If someone can field a detachment of Nemesis Ultramarines in black armour (including units which aren't Nemesis Destroyers), then other detachments can exist. We already know of various formation in various Legions that echo their 40k schemes. You're using the argument of "we haven't seen it, so it can't happen", whereas I'm pointing out that this could be possible, and even ties in with existing lore. Frankly, it just makes you come off like a spoilsport.

They might have had hints to their future selves like minor detailing such as a pauldron or knee painted with the 40k colours.
But a full army in pink/purple and gold is explicitly the scheme of the IIIrd Legion, not the XIIIth.

Black armour is "explicitly" the colour scheme of the Dark Angels, Iron Hands and Raven Guard. The only reason you've said it's okay for the UM is because something else has given you "permission" - which is exactly what Snord talked about. You're demonstrating how you've been "conditioned" to only accept certain designs, even though the whole point of those alternate designs is to show "hey, the Legions weren't monolithic and only used these specific designs!"

Also, to repeat my above, but if your argument for the Nemesis Chapter is "their armour has been blackened by radiation", then I'd argue that any Legion has the same "permission" to have an all-black colour scheme.

And frankly, if anyone kicked up a fuss, then they're not worth my time playing plastic soldiers with - which is a choice than any player can make. There isn't a single "correct" opinion which transcends all player groups, as rightfully pointed out.

Again this has been said multiple times but ultimately, you are choosing to take part in a group activity and cutting off your nose, so to speak, just because you don't get to paint toy soldiers how you want is frankly an immature response to what is not that serious of a situation.

"Paint your toy soldiers how we say, or get kicked out" isn't really the kind of approach I'd also call "mature" either.

If we're slinging round terms like immature, I think we also need to put into perspective that we're talking about little war dollies.

If you want free range customisation, great, there are options for that in Blackshields, Mechanicum, Militia, Solar Auxilia, Daemons, Knights, and even Talons at a push. But pink Ultramarines, green Word Bearers, or gold Raven Guard isn't it.

I've just pointed out how pink Ultramarines are well within the rights to have existed. As Snord pointed out, you're demonstrating this idea of "a relatively narrow approach to what is and is not 'acceptable'."

However, I do think this talk of "a more restrictive nature" of 30k should be introspected upon, and if enforcing certain "expectations" is a positive or negative to the community someone might want to create.

If you join a sports team it's an expectation that you wear the team's kit or colours. If you play Blackpowder, it's an expectation that you paint your British line infantry in red coats (or rifles in green). This is no different.

Is it? Or is that an expectation perpetuated by people like yourself, who then pretend like they take no part in the perpetuation of it?

Like all perpetuations, it can be broken if people agree to it. So, instead of continuing to say "it is what it is", maybe start to engage with the idea of "why is it this way, and is that a good thing", like I suggested.

There is plenty of freedom of choice in making your models "Your Dudes" just as there are thematic guidelines that we all play by to keep true to the vibes and themes of the HH setting.

See, you say about "keeping true to the vibes and themes", but what are those? Are they universally applicable to all players of 30k? Do all 30k players sign on and agree to those "vibes and themes"? Is that why all people choose to play 30k?

You're making an appeal to a value which not everyone shares, and suggesting that those people who don't share that value are playing the game "wrong". What authority do you have to make that claim?

Again - there's nothing wrong with *having* those particular values. But claiming some kind of "truth" or that those values mean anything to anyone else, or are inherent to this particular game of war dollies, and therefore should be followed, is where you lose me.

Can you just call me an intolerant gatekeeper and get this over with? It's about bloody paint schemes, and you're giving the fourth degree like I've said you aren't welcome because of your pronouns.

If you don't like the vibe then find something else to play, don't whinge and moan because you're only getting 99% creative freedom.

 Gert wrote:
It's about bloody paint schemes

Exactly. This is all just about paint schemes for people's plastic and resin and metal war dolls. And yet you're kicking up this much of a fuss and starting to veer into some weird sorts of comments and insinuations.

Also, if you're trying to imply that you're *not* gatekeeping, you aren't making your case any easier when, in the same comment, you say:

If you don't like the vibe then find something else to play

Like, I'm not calling you an "intolerant gatekeeper" here, nor have I before - but you seem to be going out of your way to say it about yourself. Again, I'd invite you to start making some serious thoughts about the image that you're projecting here, and if that's really the impression you want to be perpetuating in this community.

You're implying that having standards and expectations is a negative trait.

Nobody is asking you to use weathering powder. Nobody is asking you to freehand Legion symbols. You aren't being asked to only paint your army in the main Legion colour scheme.

You're being asked to make a tiny bit of effort in considering the community you have chosen to join and you can't manage it without implying it's broken, restrictive and oppressive.

 Gert wrote:
You're implying that having standards and expectations is a negative trait.

For yourself? Absolutely not. I'm an absolute stickler for my own armies, in my company markings, iconography, and in making everything all nice and organised in fluffy battle formations.

But you'll never catch me imposing that on someone else. That's the difference between "having standards" and "being restrictive". That's the difference between "fostering a community" and "fostering your own community". You've gone from denying that you're partaking in gatekeeping, to now saying "gatekeeping is good actually".

Nobody is asking you to use weathering powder. Nobody is asking you to freehand Legion symbols. You aren't being asked to only paint your army in the main Legion colour scheme.

You're being asked to make a tiny bit of effort in considering the community you have chosen to join and you can't manage it without implying it's broken, restrictive and oppressive.

What part about playing 30k said that I *have* to paint my Ultramarines in one of the colour schemes that you have personally deemed acceptable?

I just gave a perfectly good reason to justify why I might have an alternative scheme (not that I do - my 30k Ultras are blue and gold, minus my Nemesis Destroyers, which are in black) - but you seem to be cleaving to "only these colours are allowed". You asked Snord to point out what might be considered as "a relatively narrow approach to what is and is not 'acceptable'" - and it seems that you've done that work yourself.

People don't need to "imply" that it's restrictive. You're making that abundantly clear in your own comments. You can't complain that people are calling the spade a spade when you're only using it for digging.

I think I've had enough of being called narrow minded so I'm out.

Well that escalated fast...

 Gert wrote:
I think I've had enough of being called narrow minded so I'm out.

I hope you don't think I was calling you narrow-minded. I used to be a historical wargamer - I do understand where you're coming from, and why there is a fine line between what is consistent with the background and what is not. What I have seen with HH is that the overwhelming majority of Legion armies tend to stick to relatively minor variations on the prescribed colours (the kind of variations that Morgan Freeman mentioned). I do think that we have been 'conditioned' by GW to think that Marine armies should look a certain way. For instance, the matching colour schemes for vehicles and troops. It looks great on the table, but there's no reason I'm aware of why your vehicles couldn't be camouflaged to match the local terrain while your troops aren't. That argument could even be used to justify pink Marines - maybe the local terrain is pink in colour, or they could only get their hands on pink primer. That's where the execution comes in; it's the difference between a 'realistic' pink (this exists - the British SAS even had an official colour called 'desert pink') and bright bubble gum pink (which, to me, simply doesn't work).

 Snord wrote:
Well that escalated fast...

 Gert wrote:
I think I've had enough of being called narrow minded so I'm out.

I hope you don't think I was calling you narrow-minded. I used to be a historical wargamer - I do understand where you're coming from, and why there is a fine line between what is consistent with the background and what is not. What I have seen with HH is that the overwhelming majority of Legion armies tend to stick to relatively minor variations on the prescribed colours (the kind of variations that Morgan Freeman mentioned). I do think that we have been 'conditioned' by GW to think that Marine armies should look a certain way. For instance, the matching colour schemes for vehicles and troops. It looks great on the table, but there's no reason I'm aware of why your vehicles couldn't be camouflaged to match the local terrain while your troops aren't. That argument could even be used to justify pink Marines - maybe the local terrain is pink in colour, or they could only get their hands on pink primer. That's where the execution comes in; it's the difference between a 'realistic' pink (this exists - the British SAS even had an official colour called 'desert pink') and bright bubble gum pink (which, to me, simply doesn't work).

It wasn't just the SAS, most of the 8th Armoured (Desert Rats and so on) had pink tanks that the sun quickly bleached into the sand color we see in pictures. That's why modeling them is a pain. Do you paint them in the Pink they were painted, or do you paint them the washed out sand color they became after a few months in Western Africa...

Also, most models don't match the terrain your fighting in. I've seen tons of really cool soldiers on snow bases... but have never seen a snow board.

For Marines, I honestly believe that as long as you incorporate the actual heraldry and colors of the Legion somewhere on the armor or vehicle, it should look alright. Case in point, no matter how you camouflage an American tank, you will see an American Flag somewhere on that vehicle.