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.

ccs wrote:

So if I were to paint my army "Spue Grey" no problem.
But if I just left it as it came, ie Spue Grey, & saved myself the effort/$, then you'd suddenly have an issue?

Unironically, it would be better. Perhaps Sprue Grey is your favourite colour and brings your vision to life, although it would be a little silly if the end result of the process was the exact same look as before it started.

It's the same for your army men example, really. If love and commitment shines through it becomes good. If it's done out of spite it becomes bad.

I'd be very surprised if there weren't events and such where only accurately loreful depictions are wanted, which would make the topic of right/wrong more black/white.

ccs wrote:

If you were one of my HH opponents? I'd do whatever I pleased & tell you "Well this is the XI Legion".
Go ahead, prove I'm doing it wrong.

You are free to do what you want with your models. Converting and painting them purposely in a way that breaks immersion for me won't change my expectations or preferences, though.

As long as it's not SS Division Wiking: The Chapter, I'm fine.

 a_typical_hero wrote:

You are free to do what you want with your models. Converting and painting them purposely in a way that breaks immersion for me won't change my expectations or preferences, though.

Yeah. HH may be changing from what it was years ago - but while I've never had the time/patience/money - but I can appreciate people who've got beautifully painted up "historical" armies that even by the standards of GW cost a fortune.
If they run into someone who's army is some sprue-grey models and a few coke cans, the obvious reaction is that they just aren't actually in the same hobby. And maybe don't want to play together as a result.

 alextroy wrote:
There are only two things that would keep me from playing your army when it comes to color schemes:

A fully black basecoated army that prevents me from seeing what the heck anything is from less than a foot away.

A color scheme so hideous that it hurts my eyes to look at it.

I play 40K to have fun, not to torture myself.

This is where I stand as well.

I'll find it tiresome if your army is a shapeless, black blob or if (for reasons known only to you) you've painted all your models to look like a magic-eye picture. Beyond that, I really don't care. They're your models so paint them however you want.

I'll note that I've never seen the fabled 'army covered in Nazi symbols', though I can't say it would bother me all that much if I did.

I mean sure, go nuts. There is no point to tabletop gaming if you cant play with "your army", whatever that might be. Enemies will either cope with the colour scheme or appreciate it for what it is.

Personally however, if we talking established faction brands, I'd appreciate some reference to the ofc colourscheme.. you can always come up with a custom subsect of your faction de jeur which covers for every other case

This already means that the models are painted, which is awesome. And people are free to paint their models however they want.

Personally I almost never use "official" colour schemes, as coming up with my own is a big part of the fun for me, and I really like seeing what other people have invented.

What it looks like to me is that 40k allows you to beas open or as jokey as you want. My Mechanicus Knight House: Mine! would work in a 40k game, but would not be appreciated in a Horus Heresy game due to its lack of seriousness.

The same would be said for players who paint their armies up like characters/units from other sci-fi media.

Or am I off base with this line of reasoning?

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
What it looks like to me is that 40k allows you to beas open or as jokey as you want. My Mechanicus Knight House: Mine! would work in a 40k game, but would not be appreciated in a Horus Heresy game due to its lack of seriousness.

The same would be said for players who paint their armies up like characters/units from other sci-fi media.

Or am I off base with this line of reasoning?

Some 40k players would be salty about it and refuse to play you.
Some 30k players would chuckle and have a grand ol' time playing you.

Me personally? I'm fine playing against unpainted minis, so any paint is just a bonus. I'd be happy to play!

Cebalrai wrote:

ccs wrote:

So if I were to paint my army "Spue Grey" no problem.
But if I just left it as it came, ie Spue Grey, & saved myself the effort/$, then you'd suddenly have an issue?

Unironically, it would be better. Perhaps Sprue Grey is your favourite colour and brings your vision to life, although it would be a little silly if the end result of the process was the exact same look as before it started.

It's the same for your army men example, really. If love and commitment shines through it becomes good. If it's done out of spite it becomes bad.

Oh, the Green Army men BA force was 100% done to grind the gears of a way-too-serious player some years back.
Everyone else I play with doesn't mind/care/admires the creative effort. Afterall, we're just a group of adult guys getting together Sunday afternoons to keep playing with army men toys....

I care as much about my opponent's paint scheme as I do about their homebrew fluff: Not one tiny bit. I just have one line: Don't do it to be deliberately offensive

Orange ultramarines? Go for it.

Day-glo neon Tyranids who are an escaped Cawl experiment? Don't care, as long as the rules are the same you can have whatever story behind your army as you want.

Pride flag colours? Sure, go for it, they make for some interesting pastel schemes

Facist iconography? well if we're playing Flames of War and you have an appropriate force then that's fine. Otherwise you're doing it to be a dick. It's not the iconography or colour scheme that offends me, it's what it says about you as a person that I do not want to spend my time around you, and I don't want to contribute to you having fun.

Painting your army sprue grey? sure man, your models, ruin them however you want

Aesthetics don't matter, the character of the people involved matters

Charax wrote:
Facist iconography? well if we're playing Flames of War and you have an appropriate force then that's fine. Otherwise you're doing it to be a dick. It's not the iconography or colour scheme that offends me, it's what it says about you as a person that I do not want to spend my time around you, and I don't want to contribute to you having fun.

Is this a common thing outside of WW2 settings?

ccs wrote:

 Jayden63 wrote:
Show me anywhere, in any codex, supplement, novel, etc. where any faction/army is depicted as sprue grey. Because 80% of all armies I've ever played against are this color.

I have no care in the world what color your army is if its painted. Playing against a fully painted army is a rare opportunity.

So if I were to paint my army "Spue Grey" no problem.
But if I just left it as it came, ie Spue Grey, & saved myself the effort/$, then you'd suddenly have an issue?

LOL, my Grey Knights army is quite literally painted sprue grey with yellow trim and the occasional red, blue, black, white, or silver. It made for the lightest layer of basecoat I've ever sprayed, and that was nice. I found out just how many variations in sprue grey there is, and it sways HARD from light grey to medium dark.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cyel wrote:



But...

I don't like crossover or joke armies, I like the immersion that comes from models and terrain belonging to the setting.

One joke army I actually liked was a Catachan Hippy army. All the tank-top dudes were painted to have blue jeans and tie-died shirts, and when he put one particular squad in a circle it quite literally formed a smoking circle, complete with one guy smoking a blunt and another guy reaching for the next pass. Also, instead of a Taurox, he converted up a VW Microbus mini to be an armored car, complete with "Piece Symbol" decal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charax wrote:


Orange ultramarines? Go for it.

I have several marine and chaos marine armies. White, grey, black, blue, rust red, silver, green. If I ever start another chapter, Orange with black and silver trim is high on my list of color schemes. My biggest obstacle is finding color-matching flat aerosol spray and brush-on paint that color matches in orange.

Why do you think that the Horus Heresy crowd is typically seen as stricter on what color schemes are allowed on the battlefield?

...

And as for Nazis on the tabletop, I had a Jewish buddy who played SS for Flames of War.

He would always laugh and say, "It's the only army that makes me happy to have them all get killed in a game."

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Why do you think that the Horus Heresy crowd is typically seen as stricter on what color schemes are allowed on the battlefield?

Because the HH is often described as a pseudo-historical game in which people play the actual Heresy.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

slade the sniper wrote:
I want a fluff/lore reason for it. Gimme that, and I'll play anyone.

-STS

So a hard "no" to the Robotech/Gundam Tau armies (and the like) ?

Not at all.
Gue'vesa that developed mecha tech before allying with the Tau.. or they just chose that paint scheme because it looks cool.
Gimme something.
Actual Robotech armies show up via Protoculture space fold shenanigans that "count as" Tau.
Granted, I want to know some lore about any army, even bog standard Space Marines... the lore is a bigger part of my enjoyment than the actual battles.

My wife's ork army is painted pink, as Ork Grrls... why? Because they fought Sisters of Battle in an epic battle, discovered those are "Grrls" and thought they could get some of those Mirkels if they were also Grrls, and Grrls like Pink, so if they are Pink, they are Grrls, and they get Mirkels and thus are more Killy, which is Orky.

-STS

I paint my armies mostly in standard in codex faction colors. If fact, a good chunk of them are in the 'poster boy' colors of said faction. I mostly don't want to have to say anything about my 'totally original character, don't steal' army. Instead, fielding a faction, even the barely initiated in the setting have a vague idea about them. When an opponent sees my Black Legion, they have a real good idea what my army is about fluff-wise without me saying a word. If they want to craft a story of what our game is about, it's real easy.

For my opponent, when it comes to 40k, basically anything can be explained in universe. 'Hello Kitty' space marines? Their recruitment world is a planet that found some Hello Kitty merch. Because it is old and from Terra, and the Emperor is old and from Terra; obviously they are gifts from the Emperor to said planet and their images are venerated in all things. Including the space marine chapter of said planet.

When it comes to Horus Heresy and actual historical miniatures games, I rather players stay within the range bands of the faction/nation/army they intend. Though, this does still mean a range of differencing shades of the color sometimes bleeding into other colors. There is almost never only a set few colors for anything.

My Sons of Horus are a bit on the darker and drab shade green from the GW color for them (I read in the lore SoH armor started to darker from the influence of Chaos), but if a player goes for a bright sea foam green, that's still SoH. But if they go full royal blue or something, I'd be a bit disappointed. Not enough to say anything, they are the other players models. But to me, it feels like missing the point of the spectacle of recreating the setting on the tabletop. But I'm sure they are getting something out of being unique.

And even non-standard colors are a sight better than bare plastic models.

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:


When it comes to Horus Heresy and actual historical miniatures games, I rather players stay within the range bands of the faction/nation/army they intend.

I'm still waiting for one of you HH "historical" purists to tell me what scheme my XI Legion should be painted in.

ccs wrote:

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:


When it comes to Horus Heresy and actual historical miniatures games, I rather players stay within the range bands of the faction/nation/army they intend.

I'm still waiting for one of you HH "historical" purists to tell me what scheme my XI Legion should be painted in.

None. Like Necrons, Eldar and Orks they are not a meaningful part of the Horus Heresy. The closest you get is Blackshields. And you can probably make a fair guess as to what their scheme is. Otherwise, you are probably going to have to pick a legion (probably the Ultramarines) to absorb the II and XI legions' marines and material many years prior to the beginning of the Heresy.

You might as well ask what are the paint schemes of the Tau during the Horus Heresy. Because I know there are players that absolutely get their kicks by being oh, so unique and quirky. Trying to get a rise out of people who just want to build something well establish in a setting they like. So to me, trying to parade the idea you have one of the lost legions is more or less trying to play Tau that got pulled back in time to 30k. I could happen lorewise (and probably did happen somewhere in the Warhammer galaxy), but would be such a blip on the overall scale of the Heresy.

More power to you if you want to paint up for HH marines in what you think the II or XI legion colors were. But if I sensed the vibe you are giving off here of 'I'm entitled to a game of HH no matter what.' I wouldn't interact with you, let alone agree to a game. Your attitude has demonstrated you are there to take the piss out of more traditional HH players. It would be a couple of hours of pure tedium on my end.

And before you get even more indigent, I have played HH vs. people with Eldar and Ork armies 'during the crusade'. Just like, I've probably played as many games set during the great scouring with HH as within the years of Horus Heresy. But they were very respectful to what it means want it means to play with more of a narrative/story focused game.

You're taking the idea that hey I like sushi with rice and nori and going, 'Well I want sushi with a flour tortilla and lettuce and cold cuts. What do you have to say about that?' It not really sushi, but it's still food and can work for lunch. But I don't want to eat at the same table as you while you needle me about your 'sushi roll'.

Has anyone here personally refused to play against someone due to their army's paint scheme? Or had someone refuse to play you, foe tge way your army was painted?

(Lack of paint is not what I'm talking about.)

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Has anyone here personally refused to play against someone due to their army's paint scheme? Or had someone refuse to play you, foe tge way your army was painted?

(Lack of paint is not what I'm talking about.)

No. But if someone came up to me and told me that they collected, painted and converted an army over weeks or months just to annoy me with the result, I would probably decline the game. Not because of how the army looks, though.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Has anyone here personally refused to play against someone due to their army's paint scheme? Or had someone refuse to play you, foe tge way your army was painted?

(Lack of paint is not what I'm talking about.)

This is one of those hypothetical edge cases where 95% of the time it’s a non issue. If you have an army which might qualify, and you are playing someone who cares, it can be an issue.

I’ve never seen it, or met anyone IRL who has. But I can think of some edge cases that would bother me, and acknowledge that there are others out there. You cast a wide enough net, you will find cases where it has come up.

Most people will let a lot of stuff slide to get a game in, as long as you are not a jerk. There are lines out there though, which very from person to person, so be respectful.

 a_typical_hero wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Has anyone here personally refused to play against someone due to their army's paint scheme? Or had someone refuse to play you, foe tge way your army was painted?

(Lack of paint is not what I'm talking about.)

No. But if someone came up to me and told me that they collected, painted and converted an army over weeks or months just to annoy me with the result, I would probably decline the game. Not because of how the army looks, though.

I think I would be honored if someone wasted a lot of cash and time just to annoy me.

ccs wrote:
I'm still waiting for one of you HH "historical" purists to tell me what scheme my XI Legion should be painted in.

What are you on about? There is no XIth Legion. Let's not be silly with made up Legions with made up numbers.

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

ccs wrote:

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:


When it comes to Horus Heresy and actual historical miniatures games, I rather players stay within the range bands of the faction/nation/army they intend.

I'm still waiting for one of you HH "historical" purists to tell me what scheme my XI Legion should be painted in.

None. Like Necrons, Eldar and Orks they are not a meaningful part of the Horus Heresy.

With all their records redacted/expunged/etc, how do you know they played no meaningful role? Because GWs not written a novel about them?
It must really rankle you guys that - despite all the vague snippets about the II/XI being long gone before the HH (despite that possibly contradicting 2e lore) - GWs always left room for player creativity.

I have an actual case here:
Back in 9th edition 40k I got a lot of heresy marine stuff because I just prefer the look of the tanks. I play Dark Angels in 40k so I painted the tanks green, and started painting the Marines in green as well to go with the tanks.

So 10th edition puts all those tanks into legends and a lot of the weapon options available on the sprue haven't translated to those legends rules. Quite demotivating and the painting is put on hold. With the launch of 3rd Edition heresy there might be some interest locally in playing HH and I would have an army more or less ready to go - in a 40k theme. Would anyone object to playing a HH force painted in a 40k color scheme?

For anyone more interested: My original lore for the army was a post Siege-of-Terra Dark Angels company on the hunt for fallen during the scouring. But I must admit I am not aware if the Codex Astartes was already in effect and the Dark Angels already in green colors during that time period...