Imperial Knight paint scheme preferences

[Stray]

Last Knight (ha! puns!) GW released a video interviewing the creator of Knights in 40k, Jes Goodwin. It was an interesting watch all told, but one aspect of what he said stuck in my mind especially.

Jes had a very slight moan about seeing Knights painted in Marine Chapter colours, stating something akin to 'why? You don't have those.'
I've seen people doing this quite a lot. Ultramarine 'oathed' Knights, taking on their colours etc. Suddenly, it seems like, this is deeply unfluffy. A big part of me kinda likes to stick to the fluff where ever possible. I like my 40K fluffy. But I'm also kinda sold on the argument that they are your models, so whatever the hell you like with them.

So this argument has me quite torn. What do you all think about this? Convince me to jump off the fence and defecate in one garden or the other.

The interview for reference:

Edited July 10, 2019 by Brother Tyler
First two posts merged, topic focused on paint schemes

[Ghostinnashell]

I sometimes run a House Vulker Gallant with my Custodes...  I show the allegiance with a gold and red backed thunderbolt and cog design on his shin.  This way, if i play a pure Knight list or ally him with my AdMech, he still fits in with those lists' colors as well.

[Stray]

I sometimes run a House Vulker Gallant with my Custodes...  I show the allegiance with a gold and red backed thunderbolt and cog design on his shin.  This way, if i play a pure Knight list or ally him with my AdMech, he still fits in with those lists' colors as well.

 

 I keep trying to look at your forum avatar, but all I can see is a blue smiley face wearing a baseball cap and some scrolling text. Weird...

 

Anyhew, I think that's a sensible compromise. You have something like that in the fluff regarding 'Red Might' a House Taranis Crusader. It had been working alongside a skitarii group, and was starting to be decorated with Skitarii group markings or something?

 

There's a player down at my local game store who has a Custodes army, with a matching Knight - complete with all over Custodes colour scheme. What would be your gut feeling if he rocked up with that to a game?

[RandyB]

 

 

I sometimes run a House Vulker Gallant with my Custodes... I show the allegiance with a gold and red backed thunderbolt and cog design on his shin. This way, if i play a pure Knight list or ally him with my AdMech, he still fits in with those lists' colors as well.

I keep trying to look at your forum avatar, but all I can see is a blue smiley face wearing a baseball cap and some scrolling text. Weird...

 

Anyhew, I think that's a sensible compromise. You have something like that in the fluff regarding 'Red Might' a House Taranis Crusader. It had been working alongside a skitarii group, and was starting to be decorated with Skitarii group markings or something?

 

There's a player down at my local game store who has a Custodes army, with a matching Knight - complete with all over Custodes colour scheme. What would be your gut feeling if he rocked up with that to a game?

Headcanon FTW.

[Stray]

Right, but at what point does creating our own canon mean we're no longer playing 40K?

 

40K 8th edition is a set of rules, but 40K itself is a lore rich universe that we play in. When we change specific lore to suit our own likes and dislikes, are we still playing 40K, or a similar homebrew game using 40K's rules? What about the opponents views on canon which can be disrupted based on what we bring to the narrative 'stage' of the table?

 

Are these factors at all?

[Lightbox]

I personally prefer the idea of a knight household colour scheme over a chapter colour scheme. However if you want visual consistency then it can become a fun challenge to fit some of the same/similar colours in but in a way that still gives the household a unique identity. But it is an important distinction in fluff that knights aren't just another space marine vehicle but their own household and culture that make them wonderfully unique.

 

I'm not going to berate anyone for their chapter themed knights because as far as I'm concerned it's your army/your game etc do whatever makes you happy. But I know personally for my forces I like to make that distinction. I think a cool way to go about showing/chronicling your households close relationship with a forgeworld/chapter/regiment/starbucks would be to incorporate that groups heraldry onto a shin plate or something like that, that way it gives a nice ode to the group whilst still maintaining the identity of that household.

 

 

On a different note for this general thread, I've seen wonderful knight conversions and additions for chaos but what (besides freehanding cool stuff onto shoulder pads) sort of leeway do imperial knights have for conversions? For instance I'm making four legged armigers for a sort of centaur like feel mostly for rule of cool but I know the imperium is rather funny about modifying standard templates etc. Though is there much scope for the idea of different patterned knight chassis to make more unique conversions for those who like that sort of thing. Also if anyone has cool knight conversions or additions I'd totally love to see those!

[synthaside]

My Knights are painted to match my Skitarii , in a not quite malinax not quite Metallica kind pale cream , this was intentional,  knights were in my codex when i built my first one and because I like my army to match on the table top . My heraldry is all house raven because its the one that works closely with metallica in the fluff but  I have a friend who has painted his knight up to match his ultramarines , it looks fine .. but very very blue like a giant space marine.  But by contrast one other freind who painted his knight up like ulrich the slayer complete with wolf priest  head , at the end of the day have fun with your stuff its your stuff ...

While i'm not particulary fussy at the same time , I regularly see mix and match "borrowed" knights at tournment events  and this does make me a bit sad when i'm playing against  a gorgeous hawk-shroud resplendent in its yellow , one ok looking Gallant in tanaris and a Castellen thats barely base coated  ... all played as Raven.

Dont worry the warlord's in the loyal 32 at the back .. he's goat a nice coat of zandri dust and some flesh shade >.<
 

Edited July 10, 2019 by synthaside

[Stray]

I've seen a couple of attempts at four legged Knights - definitely do share what you're doing with your Armiger when you're ready buddy. I'm keen to see how you've approached it.

 

There's quite a lot of scope in the fluff for 'unusually' legged Knights:

 

 

 

Behold the Slaaneshi Hell-Ostrich!

 

...Yeah, on second thoughts, maybe we shouldn't let Slaanesh design anything O.o

[Lightbox]

I've seen a couple of attempts at four legged Knights - definitely do share what you're doing with your Armiger when you're ready buddy. I'm keen to see how you've approached it.

 

There's quite a lot of scope in the fluff for 'unusually' legged Knights:

 

 

Behold the Slaaneshi Hell-Ostrich!

 

...Yeah, on second thoughts, maybe we shouldn't let Slaanesh design anything O.o

 

I can try and get a picture of the leg & chassis I've already put together when I get home. As I will have a single warglaive chassis with no legs (used the other for an AoS realm of metal steam tank) I'm considering sticking that one on some dunecrawler legs, though that would be a chaos one as it wouldn't look right as imperial I don't think. (Though all my knights may end up going that tainted way... still deciding  )

 

I am now tempted to make my second helverin as a weird gun headed ostrich machine   Though would probably look a bit naff without a lot of work!  

[Canadian_F_H]

Regarding knights in "chapter colors"

 

1st

 

They forked over the cash they can do whatever they want.

 

2nd

 

I dont have to like it, and for the most part i dont like it.

 

3rd

 

"It is better to be polite than it is to be right." definitly applies to this ultimatwly subjective matter regarding made up everything.

 

 

My personal preference would be to put a little bit more thought into something like that. The 500 worlds must assuredly either include, are in proximity to and certainly allied with many knight worlds.

 

Figure out some fluff. a paint scheme that fits but isnt identical. There is already a precedence in canon of knights taking on markings from crusades they have joined, or honorifics from chapters they have campaigned with.

 

One would probably achieve just about the same result. It is comparable to a DIY #th founding chapter with chapter trait X.

 

 

My primary chapter is the black templars and my knights' color scheme is lifted straight from the cover of the WFB 6th edition bretonnia army book... So bright red and blue is pretty far from 90% black 9% white and 1% red. Lol

 

 

And of course i will be doing a traitor knight army as well. Ive decided on a house divided. Ie the loyalist and traitor knighta i own according to my narrative are from the same house originally. And in keeping with using the main bretonnia heraldry for the loyalists, im seriously considering using moussillion heraldry for the traitors. Which is black and yellow incase you didnt know.

Edited July 10, 2019 by Canadian_F_H

[Magos Takatus]

I prefer to see a Knight that reflects a Knight house rather than a Space Marine Chapter personally but I really like the idea of incorporating heraldry from allied units into the Knight's own heraldry. When it comes down to it, the heraldry of a Knight is a history of their triumphs and failures and charting that history on your Knight is a really awesome idea in my opinion. Especially with you dodgy heretek types! :p. Seeing the Living Litany devolve from an eccentric Freeblade to the renegade Litany of Destruction was an extremely interesting part of the Knight lore. I hope he makes it into the Chaos Knight codex because that story still has some legs. I think if I was making renegade or Chaos aligned Knights i'd be all over that armour painting spat-on oaths and denouncing past allies, or perhaps just keeping them intact so you can see at what point the pilot decided they'd had enough of the Imperial yoke and struck out on their own.

[Brother Tyler]

Folks, general discussion topics for all things X don't work. They get confusing and muddy. More importantly, they undermine any ability to gauge volume of discussion - instead of having distinct separate discussions about various aspects of a topic, you have a single topic. So any time we look at topic discussion volume, we'll see fewer topics and are less likely to break factions out into their own forums, where appropriate.

 

This topic will be adjusted to reflect paint scheme preferences. Other lines of discussion should be pursued as separate topics. 

[Brother Tyler]

Jes Goodwin's view on this is what I consider an "historical wargame" approach, where hobbyists assemble, convert, and paint their little toy soldiers and models to match the established history (or lore, in the case of WH40K). An alternate title for this might be a "purist" approach.

 

One of the fun things about the hobby, though, is that hobbyists aren't required to take the above approach. They are allowed and encouraged to exercise their creativity. The "head cannon" approach is valid, and extends far beyond just painting (I've previously referred to this concept as the "parallel universe" or "divergent universe" approach in the Liber forums, where each individual's creations represent a divergence from the established lore). Mild deviation from pure lore would include things like painting Imperial Knights to match the forces with which they are aligned (e.g., Space Marine Chapter colors). More liberal deviation might extend to things like painting your models in non-WH40K IPs. One example of such an army that was showcased in White Dwarf Magazine was a Homer Simpson Space Marine force, and I think there may have been one painted to look like the Martians from Mars Attacks.

 

Personally, I'm with Jes Goodwin on not painting Imperial Knights to match Space Marines. However, that's nothing more than a restriction I impose on myself. If my opponent plonks an Imperial Knight painted up as a Howling Griffon down on the table, I'm more than happy to play it and don't see any reason to give them any grief about it. I'm much more likely to compliment them on their painting and would see no value in criticizing them for their scheme choice.

 

Ultimately, how one paints one's models is a personal choice. I'd prefer to see an Imperial Knight painted as Iron Man than one that hasn't been painted at all (or even just primered).

[hermanista]

On a way I kinda regret picking a boring candy red for my knights and have thought about a second household/selling them on and starting afresh to go for House Vyronii or something different.

 

Trying to decide how to paint my metal cadians atm, but not red.

[Ghostinnashell]

 

I sometimes run a House Vulker Gallant with my Custodes...  I show the allegiance with a gold and red backed thunderbolt and cog design on his shin.  This way, if i play a pure Knight list or ally him with my AdMech, he still fits in with those lists' colors as well.

 

 I keep trying to look at your forum avatar, but all I can see is a blue smiley face wearing a baseball cap and some scrolling text. Weird... WORKING AS INTENDED. MOVE ALONG.

 

Anyhew, I think that's a sensible compromise. You have something like that in the fluff regarding 'Red Might' a House Taranis Crusader. It had been working alongside a skitarii group, and was starting to be decorated with Skitarii group markings or something?

 

There's a player down at my local game store who has a Custodes army, with a matching Knight - complete with all over Custodes colour scheme. What would be your gut feeling if he rocked up with that to a game?

 

 

Like some of the other replies... I  may roll my eyes internally at a Golden Boy or Smurfy Knight, but as long as they don't try any rules shenanigans -- it's theirs and I'm just happy to see more painted plastic.

And there is plenty of fluff covering long allied Knights taking on colors and honors... all the way back to 30k when the Legions would 'honor' the castellax that were fighting along side them by naming them and repainting them in Legion colors.

 

side note -  I've seem some very nice Amiger conversions using Onager legs...

Edited July 10, 2019 by Ghostinnashell

[Bryan Blaire]

Right, but at what point does creating our own canon mean we're no longer playing 40K?

 

40K 8th edition is a set of rules, but 40K itself is a lore rich universe that we play in. When we change specific lore to suit our own likes and dislikes, are we still playing 40K, or a similar homebrew game using 40K's rules? What about the opponents views on canon which can be disrupted based on what we bring to the narrative 'stage' of the table?

 

Are these factors at all?

To answer those questions, you have to actually get down to what GW/40K has is a “loose canon” - there have been numerous topics addressing this (in the end, it’s a sort of “if it was officially produced, it’s canon until it’s contradicted by another officially produced piece of material, even if that leads to conflicts among official works that aren’t specifically contradictions” - the concept of “everything you have been told is a lie” encapsulates it well). So since your personal games are in no way official products, you are always playing 40K and never playing “40K canon.” Anyone that doesn’t understand this doesn’t understand how canon works (in that canon can only be determined by the IP owner/creator/officially authorized content producer, and never the consumer). Anything a consumer produces will only ever be canon if the official content owner/creator deems it canon.

 

Now, each of us playing basically has a “sandbox” that we get to play around with the IP provided, and you can incorporate whichever books and views on 40K you like in your sandbox, but even if you stick strictly to all the official lore (which is practically impossible, because even the lore conflicts at different points), you still won’t be playing “canon 40K” - because what you are playing isn’t officially recognized in any way (I guess unless you are playing in a campaign at the GW office and they tell you that the results of your games are getting canonized in some way).

 

So if you are playing 40K in any fashion, with any lore, you will always be playing 40K. How you resolve lore conflicts between you and your opponent are yours and yours alone, because even if you call on lore to resolve it, us normal players aren’t capable of making canon determinations.

 

I agree with Brother Tyler that Jes definitely seems to have a more “purist” view with regards to modeling and painting, but that doesn’t necessarily make it “right” for anyone (or make someone else “wrong”).

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Yeah, I'm not a fan of people telling others that they are doing the hobby wrong, even if that isn't how I would do things myself.  So I'm with GitS on this - there may be some internal eye rolling, but ultimately to each his/her own on how they want to engage with this hobby.

 

Plus, I've found that the execution can go a long way in "selling" a concept - for example, I might think the idea of a Simpsons themed army is pretty dumb, but if done well I might say "... but that's cool".  Or even if "wrong" from a fluff perspective, it might engage my sense of humour - for example, there was a marine army a while back that all had Hello Kitty heads, that while not particularly well executed, I'm glad it was a thing because I still find it really funny.  So, this is a huge case of "your mileage may vary".

 

Additionally, the "purist" approach seems to imply that players should be interested and take an active role in learning or crafting the background of their force.  Not everyone is into that, and having to come up with separate histories for their marines and their knights (or at all) is not a way they like engaging in the hobby.  I'm kind of like that - army background development isn't something that I enjoy, but I recognize that for others it is.

 

Finally, it can all seem rather arbitrary.  For example, my chaos marines are loyalists who grew frustrated with the incompetence of the imperial commander in a defensive campaign they were fighting, so they tried and executed that commander.  Since then they have been absorbing other units (including my new chaos knight) who are disgruntled about corruption and incompetence in the imperial hierarchy.  So, I've painted my knight to match the colours of my CSM.  For some, my backstory might be sufficient to justify the way I've painted them.  For others it might not be.  Similarly, the degree which a knight matches the marines could be too much for some - with the ultramarine knight example above, painting it blue might be too far, or using ultramarine symbols, or... whatever the line is for any given individual.

[Biscuittzz]

I think, in my opinion anyway, that what Jes was getting at was more like a lament of designers/creators when they see an IK in ultramarine colours etc. They realise the particular favouritism and golden goose that they have created with space marines and ultras in particular, so when they bring something fresh and exciting with completely new designs/lore/iconography and see it superimposed as an Ultramarines IK it can be disheartening.

 

Now I understand that this is our universe and we can create the lore basically to whatever we want but I do understand his side of the story. It's like a restaurant only serving orange juice but they hear mumblings that maybe something else should be served too, so they add apple juice only to have everybody still drink the orange juice.

[Stray]

I figure the established fluff is still the established fluff, and I guess Jes largely gets to make that decision. I suppose from an in universe point of view, there isn't a lot of sense in the idea of Marine chapters having their own pet Knights.

 

But, while I wouldn't do it myself, and may even groan inwardly when seeing one, I'd totally support the right of anyone to paint their models and enjoy their hobby any way they choose. My 'rules' are for me to keep me grounded and interested - they're not for forcing on the poor guy trying to enjoy himself on the other side of the table.

Edited July 10, 2019 by Stray

[Sword Brother Adelard]

I personally just don't get it. Knights are far older than the Legions and have their own rich history in the fluff, so whenever I see one painted as if it just walked out of the armoury of a fortress monastery it pains the 40k fan in me, it also suggests perhaps a lack of imagination?

 

Saying that, I would never tell someone that it's wrong, or refuse to play them, it's their time, money and effort, they can paint that thing how they want.

 

I found my own way of incorporating Knights into my Templar army, which I will go into more depth in my upcoming thread here. (I thought I may as well put my money where my mouth is on the recent argument for a Knight thread.)

 

But one reason I really didn't want to paint my Knight(s) in exactly the same colours as my Templars is that I'm frankly sick of painting black! I want some variety in my painting and I really enjoyed just sitting down with different paints and messing around with them. I wouldn't have had that fun had I simply painted it Black, White and Red.

Edited July 10, 2019 by Brother Adelard

[Magos Takatus]

It sounds like there's a consensus here. I'll have to watch that video tomorrow since I've been enjoying Voxcast. When I get transfers for my marines one of my Knights may well incorporate elements of their heraldry into them. I suppose I should follow the example of my earlier post. :)

[Lord Lorne Walkier]

If I see a Astartes librarian that isn't blue my eye twitches. A White Scars dreadnought..... I throw up in my mouth. Heck if I see a Space Wolves, Dark Angles "allied" force, I might not play the game, even if it's painted and bassed by a pro. Don't get me started on mixed race forces.. Tau-dar ext. "There are levels to this."

 

On the fluff scale, 1 being Harliquin- Slannesh combo, 10 White Scars all bike force. I give Astartes heraldic Knights a solid 4.5. I would not walk away from the table. I would keep my mouth shut and not hate to his face. But I might compose a post on BnC about it.

 

I've been playing games of 40k since Rogue Trader hard back. Battle at the farm with cut out chits. I care WAY to much. Not everyone should be that crazy to love this game. We should error on the side of getting more people to play the game and not running off people with imagination short commings or fluff tards. At the same time we should also feel free to give some "constructive" criticism. I would say I think Knight Astartes are better then Metta Knights, who counts as the flavor of the month house, just to Waac.

[Bryan Blaire]

Don't get me started on mixed race forces..

 

I've been playing games of 40k since Rogue Trader hard back.

Don't get you started because you love them like the half-elf Ultramarines Librarian and just won't stop talking about mixed-race forces!? :teehee:

 

(Ultramarines Chief Librarian Astropath Illiyan Nastase - it's awesome funky lore from Rogue Trader for those that don't know - he was just born back in M40.912, a youngster by Space Marine standards! :teehee:)

 

I agree, we definitely shouldn't be driving people away from the hobby due to lore devotion or a lack thereof - it's hard enough trying to get people into the hobby to begin with.

[Son of Sacrifice]

I could see a freeblade knight being granted the right to take on a chapter's colours. But yeah not for me.

 

How about knight houses during the heresy? Did they adopt forge world / Titan legion colors?

 

House Malinax seems to have adopted the colors of Xana II for example.

Edited July 17, 2019 by Son of Sacrifice

[Canadian_F_H]

I could have sworn it was in a codex or somewhere that it specifically said that free blades, individual household knights or even whole house holds have encorporated insignia and heraldric colors from other factions they have deep ties too. Such as millenia(plural) long alliances that have seen them fight side by side hundreda of times in desperate circumstances.

 

Its not really that differebt from how half the holds described in codex are flagrantly mechanicum in heraldry because of deep ties to thwie forgeworld, and ive seen several times that folks do all tgeir knights up in the heraldry of the legio titanicus they are tied to.

 

Personally, i wouldnt do it with "my" knights. But thats just me. Andi would preffer it done more as a "nod" or "encorporation" rather than fully engulfing their heraldry.