Colour Scheme Matters - Or Does it?

[ERJAK]

This is an interesting topic. I'm not going to suggest that colour should be enforced, but it does also matter.

 

40k is a very visual game. Each turn ends in a snap shot of the battlefield as the game progresses.

No one can say that visuals don't play a huge role in the game. It's the same reason why we're not playing with blank tokens.

 

If you have a custom chapter you can tell me it's a successor of X/Y/Z and that's perfectly fine. But if your army is visually 100% Ultras, or Dark Angels, or Imperial Fists (Scheme, transfers, etc) - these are looks belonging to established chapters with tomes of lore that are burned into my brain - and you tell me they are something else, I do find it a bit off-putting.

 

Whilst I'm certainly sympathetic to people who want to use a better codex (older books can be more limited in design, variety and flavour), I'm infinitely less so to people who run their chapter as a different one in the same book purely because it's stronger. It indicates a lack of affection for the chapter they've chosen to paint.

 

I've seen it all before. Ultras as White Scars back in 7th, Imperial Fists as Ultras in 8th, etc

If it transpires that Iron Hands are indeed the best codex chapter in the new supplement (as rumours suggest), I certainly won't be running my Ultras as them, but I'll be happy for the IH players.

 

I'm not saying this should be forced on people. It's just my opinion on the subject. My advice is for people to invest in a faction they really like.

This doesn't help people who like to compete.

 

It gets looked down on by all the hobby elitists on places like this, but some people do just legitimately want to go out and compete at the highest level possible against the best armies possible, build the best, strongest army they can, or even just use the best available toys. The only reason plenty of people paint AT ALL is out of respect to Tournament Organizers.

 

These SHOULD be a completely legitimate ways to enjoy the hobby. It's no dumber than the fanfic guys who write a bunch of background about their armies, or the lore historians who burn hours and hours learning about the various factions of the world, or even just the guys that paint a lot. It's a different way to enjoy the game and talking down about it isn't great.

 

You're not better than someone because you consistently play ultramarines. You just enjoy the game a different way.

 

There's nothing wrong with blue whitescars or Green blood angels the same way there's nothing wrong with playing your favorite crappy units using suboptimal chapter tactics.

[Ficinus]

If the visuals mean nothing, then why even require painting or, if we want to be extreme, miniatures? If I made rectangular or cylindrical wood cutouts that were the same dimensions as my miniatures and clearly labeled them, why not use those to play? Why shackle competitive players with miniatures when they could use paper cutouts?

[Dagoth Ur]

If the visuals mean nothing, then why even require painting or, if we want to be extreme, miniatures? If I made rectangular or cylindrical wood cutouts that were the same dimensions as my miniatures and clearly labeled them, why not use those to play? Why shackle competitive players with miniatures when they could use paper cutouts?

False equivalency. The question discussed is one of aesthetic choices being tied to rules. What you suggest is one of the nature of the games materiality being tied to the rules.

[Ficinus]

It is not a false equivalency when ERJAK is asserting that to some people, all that matters is competition and that such people should not be bound by aesthetics. If a Deimos patter Rhino and a Mars pattern Rhino are both the same thing in game terms, if Mk II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII armour are all the same thing in game terms and aesthetics do not matter at all, why should a token that adequately matches the dimensions of the unit/model not be able to stand in for the model? I know people who have scratch built tanks using platicard and bits. There are people on this site who scratch build tanks. If we accept that, why not accept a wood block just because it is less aesthetically pleasing than scratch builds that show real effort and skill in replicating the actual models? Many people also use non GW miniatures (like Victoria miniatures Imperial Guard), and I don't think many would want to ban such models. So the physical miniature being GW approved isn't tied to the rules, at least I assume it isn't to most. So why not use tokens? Aesthetics seems to be the defining feature of what is acceptable.

 

But, really, most, if not all, of the people saying that color scheme should match rules only seem to be saying that should be the case when the scheme goes beyond simple colors, when it includes embellishments that solidly identify it as X but the person wants to bbn play as Y or Z or A. And even then, I don't think anyone said it should be banned, only that they would prefer if people not do that.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Ficinus

[Bryan Blaire]

If the visuals mean nothing, then why even require painting or, if we want to be extreme, miniatures? If I made rectangular or cylindrical wood cutouts that were the same dimensions as my miniatures and clearly labeled them, why not use those to play? Why shackle competitive players with miniatures when they could use paper cutouts?

That's actually how war games started - if someone wants to play 40K that way, why would that not be okay?

 

--------------------

 

The key to any game of 40K is what the two players involved agree to. If you show up to a game and it isn't what you want to play, then don't play - it really is that simple. If you didn't discuss restrictions or the nature of the game, or anything else that might affect the game, with your opponent beforehand, or if there aren't standing rules governing said game (such as tournament rules, shop restrictions, club rules, or the like), then that's on you for not liking what your opponent brought to the table, not them. You had the opportunity, even if it is only for five minutes before you put your models down.

 

Some of this has actually been forced on players by GW - at one point they actually allowed you to have custom crafted heroes and you could have relics that were almost the equivalent of that found on Special Characters. Later, they moved away from this. Now, it's gone completely. If you are a Successor to Blood Angels (other than the Flesh Tearers), Dark Angels right now, you never have a Chapter Master (even though clearly you'd have to have one) and your Chapter has a single relic - pretty stupid considering that up until now, GW has encouraged Successors of these First Foundings. The Space Wolves Codex doesn't even acknowledge Successor Chapters for them, even though the lore actually shows that there is at least one right now.

 

Maybe this will change with some new Codexes, but it's a pretty untenable position for a player to be in - you might as well have done nothing, and your supposed friends are pretty :cuss people to try and force you down a route like that. Anyone that is trying to is looking for an advantage over you or trying to lord their choice of selected faction over you - both pretty :cuss things.

 

Now, if GW gives all players back hobby tools to actually field Chapters other than those they have officially created lore for (which they have not done at this point until all Chapters can have a Chapter Master, Master Librarian, Master Chaplain, Master Apothecary, and Master of the Forge), then I will stop arguing the stupidity of trying to tie rules to paint schemes. Should all Chapters be able to have "the Best" (GW trademark for 'Don't Be Creative, Let Us Make You Better Stuff) heroes - no, of course not, but they should be able to have actual heroes, not be lesser forces simply because you don't want to be blue and gold, green, red, and bone, red, gold, and black, white and red, some variation of the color grey/blue-grey, etc.

[USNCenturion]

OP, this is all a long winded way of the universe saying color scheme matters to some and doesn’t matter to others. Choose your opponents appropriately based on your own preferences.

 

Yikes.

[Ishagu]

 

This is an interesting topic. I'm not going to suggest that colour should be enforced, but it does also matter.

 

40k is a very visual game. Each turn ends in a snap shot of the battlefield as the game progresses.

No one can say that visuals don't play a huge role in the game. It's the same reason why we're not playing with blank tokens.

 

If you have a custom chapter you can tell me it's a successor of X/Y/Z and that's perfectly fine. But if your army is visually 100% Ultras, or Dark Angels, or Imperial Fists (Scheme, transfers, etc) - these are looks belonging to established chapters with tomes of lore that are burned into my brain - and you tell me they are something else, I do find it a bit off-putting.

 

Whilst I'm certainly sympathetic to people who want to use a better codex (older books can be more limited in design, variety and flavour), I'm infinitely less so to people who run their chapter as a different one in the same book purely because it's stronger. It indicates a lack of affection for the chapter they've chosen to paint.

 

I've seen it all before. Ultras as White Scars back in 7th, Imperial Fists as Ultras in 8th, etc

If it transpires that Iron Hands are indeed the best codex chapter in the new supplement (as rumours suggest), I certainly won't be running my Ultras as them, but I'll be happy for the IH players.

 

I'm not saying this should be forced on people. It's just my opinion on the subject. My advice is for people to invest in a faction they really like.

This doesn't help people who like to compete.

 

It gets looked down on by all the hobby elitists on places like this, but some people do just legitimately want to go out and compete at the highest level possible against the best armies possible, build the best, strongest army they can, or even just use the best available toys. The only reason plenty of people paint AT ALL is out of respect to Tournament Organizers.

 

These SHOULD be a completely legitimate ways to enjoy the hobby. It's no dumber than the fanfic guys who write a bunch of background about their armies, or the lore historians who burn hours and hours learning about the various factions of the world, or even just the guys that paint a lot. It's a different way to enjoy the game and talking down about it isn't great.

 

You're not better than someone because you consistently play ultramarines. You just enjoy the game a different way.

 

There's nothing wrong with blue whitescars or Green blood angels the same way there's nothing wrong with playing your favorite crappy units using suboptimal chapter tactics.

That's not what I was saying exactly. You can paint up some pink Astartes and use White Scar rules if you desire. That could simply be a successor chapter.

I was saying that it's a bit jarring to see actual Ultramarines on the table but for my opponent to tell me they are White Scars.

 

I'm not suggesting that this should be enforced. I'm only saying that 40k is a strongly visual game, and some things, be it models or paint schemes, do matter as they are ingrained in our minds.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Ishagu

[apologist]

Yes, I don't think this is (ho ho) a black-and-white issue; I think there's more of a gradient of preferences. 

 

In any case, there's no hill to die on here – any game should be played in good spirits of cooperation and making sure everyone's enjoying themselves. That – almost inevitably – requires compromise and an attempt to understand the other player's point of view. I think that's a good thing. Communication and interaction helps everyone :)

[robofish7591]

This is just my opinion, but I honestly don't care what chapter's rules and color scheme you use as long as you are up front with which rules you are using.  If in your mind Blood Angel's rules fit your Ultramarine assault company, then go ahead and play them as Blood Angels.  If you have Not-Azreal painted up and converted for your Howling Griffins, go ahead and use the Dark Angels keyword.  Different chapters have different play styles, if someone only likes the Brazen Claws but wants the army to play a bit differently, that is fine with me.  My Imperial Guard are Cadians painted in desert camouflage and I use the Tallarn regiment rules because I like the more mobile feel of the army with those rules.  Because they are Cadian models do I have to play them as Cadians?  What about people who have painted their armies before their factions received chapter tactics equivalents?  Should they get stuck with rules that don't fit how they want their army to play just because they put in a lot of hard work to get it painted before this was even a thing?

[Slasher956]

Yes, I don't think this is (ho ho) a black-and-white issue; I think there's more of a gradient of preferences. 

 

In any case, there's no hill to die on here – any game should be played in good spirits of cooperation and making sure everyone's enjoying themselves. That – almost inevitably – requires compromise and an attempt to understand the other player's point of view. I think that's a good thing. Communication and interaction helps everyone

 

Hows it go... the POINT of the game is to have fun, the AIM of the game is to win... dont mix the two things up.

[apologist]

This is just my opinion, but I honestly don't care what chapter's rules and color scheme you use as long as you are up front with which rules you are using.  If in your mind Blood Angel's rules fit your Ultramarine assault company, then go ahead and play them as Blood Angels.  If you have Not-Azreal painted up and converted for your Howling Griffins, go ahead and use the Dark Angels keyword.  Different chapters have different play styles, if someone only likes the Brazen Claws but wants the army to play a bit differently, that is fine with me.  

 

I think this opinion is one that most people share – and how things are mostly played in reality (i.e. away from the theory discussed here), because – again, generally speaking, most gamers are actually fairly nice in person.

 

So, with that understood, the issue here is that GW has attempted to codify the rules for Matched Play, where in previous editions, the specifics of counts-as and WYSIWYG were implied rather than explicit. Addressing your point here:

 

My Imperial Guard are Cadians painted in desert camouflage and I use the Tallarn regiment rules because I like the more mobile feel of the army with those rules.  Because they are Cadian models do I have to play them as Cadians? 

 

This is explicitly allowed in the Imperial Guard Codex rules – you substitute your regiment name and can pick a pre-determined set of rules from the 'canon' Regiments: so your example is perfect. However, it's again explicit that – according to the letter of the rules – you can't use the Tallarn special characters or Tallarn specific stratagem in Matched Play.

 

If you and the people you play against don't mind doing so, you are – of course! – allowed to do so: no-one's going to arrest you. However, as per the point I made earlier, if you or I want to play our Guard armies in a Matched Play environment, I think it's perfectly fair for the people we played with to call us out if we use the rules for a Tallarn special character (for example) with our own <Regiment>. I think this tallies up with a point a number of posters have made – such as Cpt_Reaper and Ishagu – that they hold themselves to high standards and err on the side of caution, for the (laudable) sake of making sure they're being fair to the other player. I don't think that's being elitist – if anything, it's considerate.

 

The same is true of Space Marine Chapters, as per the OP. There is even a fun name for the rule that allows my Gatebreakers Chapter (for example) to be the Scions of [X] Chapter. However, I am explicitly excluded from using [X] Chapter's special characters, so I wouldn't expect to be able to use them in Matched Play.

 

I don't personally find that a problem, because I prefer to make up my own characters, and am happy to do so within the confines of either the generic equivalent (Imperial Guard Commander, Space Marine Captain etc.), or make them up from whole cloth and create a new datasheet. Those are options for Narrative Play and Open Play respectively.

 

I do, however, understand that certain army builds rely on certain characters, so I am sympathetic towards players who are in those niche circumstances. As I said earlier, I'd happily play against their army as they want to play – but then I don't play in Matched Play environments. 

 

 

 

 

What about people who have painted their armies before their factions received chapter tactics equivalents?  Should they get stuck with rules that don't fit how they want their army to play just because they put in a lot of hard work to get it painted before this was even a thing?

 

Well, here's the other end of the question, isn't it? At the end of the day, the conclusion is the same: there's a range of options that GW gives you to play, from the most restrictive – Matched Play – to the most unguided – Open Play.

 

Even beyond that, this isn't GW's hobby. It's yours – and exploring what brings you and the people you play against the most fun is well worth five minutes discussion.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Apologist

[apologist]

Is this a modeller versus gamer thing? *SNIP*

Are those of us arguing for a more rigid application of 'Ultramarines can only be Ultramarines' more on the modelling/painting/fluff side of things?

 

Yes, I suspect so – but that's inherent in the framing of the question. Coming at it from the other angle – that is, I'm primarily into the background/lore and modelling – when someone mentions 'Ultramarines', I immediately think of the colour scheme and character, rather than the ruleset.

 

If the question were framed as 'using this set of rules relies on applying this set of rules in its entirety', then I think the point under discussion becomes a bit clearer for players with a gamer-first approach.

 

The rules 'Inheritors of the Primarch':

...puts certain restrictions (rules, not background) in place – i.e. you use just the one Successor Tactic; and it's implied by the article that you substitute the keyword but can't for special characters yadayadayada. If you're not applying them, then you're not playing in the letter of the game in Matched Play – though I hasten to say that's not wrong; playing like that is effectively Open Play.

 

(It's worth pointing out that I'm not even certain that there is a specific rule restricting (say) Calgar from having his Chapter keyword changed – in which case we're arguing over out-of-date specifics! :D)

+++

 

However, on the Warhammer community website, Paul Norton writes in his article on his Successor Chapter, the Iron Ravens, that :

 

 

They share the genetic legacy of Corax’s Raven Guard but don’t fight in exactly the same way. Many of them would have fought as Unnumbered Sons during the early years of the Indomitus Crusade, so will have picked up a thing or two from the other Space Marines they fought alongside, making them more flexible. It’s not just about stealth with the Iron Ravens – they gather intelligence to adapt to whatever situation or enemy they’re facing. To my mind, they’re well-rounded enough that I can use them however I want, without having to limit myself to the same two Successor Tactics.

 

My emphasis. 

 

The point here being that even the first Successors they showcase aren't played in a strict way that's suggested by the letter of the Codex (again, Matched Play) – so again, this really comes back to 'everyone has slightly different expectations and interpretations of both rules and background, so it's worth having a friendly chat before you begin'.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Apologist

[Slasher956]

 

 

(It's worth pointing out that I'm not even certain that there is a specific rule restricting (say) Calgar from having his Chapter keyword changed – in which case we're arguing over out-of-date specifics! )

+++

 

 

 

There is a rule but Its more that he has <ultramarines> not  <chapter> and there are no way of changing <ultramarines> to anything BUT there are rules allowing the changing of <Chapter> to <Ultramarine>

 

 

EDIT - so the there is a Rule that locks Calgar to UM but the only rule that locks UM to being blue is the one I quoted on page 1... which is GT rules....

 

So we come round to RAI or RAW question.... RAW your UMs can be DA colouring & symbols... RAI(we guess)  to be UMs they must match GWs colour scheme & symbols

Edited August 16, 2019 by Slasher956

[apologist]

EDIT - so the there is a Rule that locks Calgar to UM but the only rule that locks UM to being blue is the one I quoted on page 1... which is GT rules....

 

So we come round to RAI or RAW question.... RAW your UMs can be DA colouring & symbols... RAI(we guess)  to be UMs they must match GWs colour scheme & symbols

 

 

Thanks for the clarification on the special character thing.

 

On the broader point, I just want to reiterate that I don't think how the colour scheme should be treated is a simple binary choice.

 

There is a mechanical, game-led choice; but that sits couched within the broader understanding that the game is played with other people; and that there's a certain social contract implicit in that.

 

Just as we as gamers might adjust our playstyle when playing a beginner, or to account for a more or less competitively-minded player; so we might also consider how the other player considers the aesthetic part of the game – as more or less important?

 

It's an extreme to make the 'why play with models at all?' argument (the flipside of that is 'why bother with rules at all?'), but there is validity in it. With that in mind – and again, there's a spectrum of preference here – to some people, colour schemes and lore and the creation of their own stories through gaming are as important as the letter of the rules. Part of showing respect to yourself and the other player is understanding that.

 

I suspect that very few such players would make a huge fuss if facing an army at an event that didn't match ('but my army's set on the other side of the galaxy to your particular army!'), but I think that's because such aesthetic decisions are, by their nature, very personal and flexible. I'm self-aware enough to recognise that most people couldn't give a damn what my Colonel is called (for example), or that such-and-such a unit has fought is such-and-such a campaign; and I suspect almost all players are of a fairly similar, happy-go-lucky attitude during games, because there's already a level of abstraction and competition that needs to be considered. It's not cool for me to say 'my commander has never been defeated – so, er, you lose.' :D

 

Again, there's no wrong way to play (as long as everyone's on board with how you're playing), but the physical side of the game – how it looks, what is brought in beyond the mechanics – is not the be-all and end-all.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Apologist

[Evil Eye]

I've always been quite keen on WYSIWYG (I blame my autism) but at the end of the day, it's more a gentlemen's agreement than a hard and fast rule, and as long as it's clear what everything is and there's no foul play afoot, I've got no issue with variants on colour schemes or whatever. Rule of Cool trumps all and all that.

[Schlitzaf]

So guys for everyone I see hear complaining about OP SC, you all do realize most SC are NOT better than generic characters. And you can still create your own SC, but then this happens.

 

Slamganius & Marshall Law style characters. Furthermore this is the edition where you choose relics and warlord traits for free. Many of said relics > SC relics. For color scheme matters? I mean it doesn’t, but for those players playing musical CT depending whose the best and better one.

 

And then wanting cake and eat it too. Comes off as a tad gamey.

[Bryan Blaire]

Comes off as a tad gamey.

I mean wouldn’t it though? It is a game after all...

 

And no, as of right now, not all generic characters are equal to named characters - the only way I can get the same stat line as Azrael for my DA Successor without taking Azrael is with a Gravis Master (which they don’t have, so its a moot point, as the Stoneburners have no Primaris at all) and he can only get a single Relic and I have no more relics for anyone else. So my Stoneburners are simply funny colored Dark Angels so that I can actually have a Chapter Grand Master, etc.

 

None of the issues changed with the PDF update for Blood Angels, Dark Angels, or Space Wolves today - things may have improved with the new Successor rules for Codex Marines, but not for any of the other Marine books, so counts-as with funny color schemes is still how those roll. Will it improve in the future, hopefully.

[Rob P]

I don't play practically ever but I love the lore.

 

I'd prefer not to see Ultramarines that are using Blood Angels models in the exact Blood Angels colours with insignia and everything, but whatever.

 

As i say, I don't play so it's not battlefield confusion.

 

What I don't seem to mind as much is Blood Angel colours on an Ultramarine. Or an Ultramarine scheme on a Blood Angel. In essence it can either be a custom chapter (which I am more comfortable with) or it can be a marine or a squad from the Blood Angels who has an Ultramarine symbol because it's a badge of honour - whether joint campaign or whatever.

 

----------------

 

In my more snarky moments, I don't like the attitude of meta chasing by forcing the physical models into something they are not (even though I don't play). Might as just well play with grey models or counters if not embracing the lore side. But equally similar remarks can be made about me painting my models and missing out on a huge side of the hobby - I could paint something non-40k or just read the books.

 

Really though, each to their own.

[Marshal Reinhard]

 

I feel like GW's flip flopping on this issue basically stems from them trying to tackle the following dilemma:

On the one hand, you want to encourage people to paint their armies any way they like. Does Timmy like red more than blue, but like everytrhing else about the ultramarines? He can just switch it out the blue for red, keeping all the characters, the ultramarine symbolry etc etc. No problem

vs.

On the other hand, you have people literally just switching their marines to the best current meta is. So their picture perfect Imperial fists are just straight up Salamanders now because Sallies are the new hotness. Last month they were raven guard.

How do you encourage the former and disuade the latter? Doesn't seem like they've ever quite naled how they want it.

You don't, because there's nothing wrong with EITHER OF THESE OPTIONS. he very idea that one of those is superior to the other is absolute bull:cuss.

Timmy gets enjoyment from the game and the hobby through painting and customizing his army to match what he likes, to make it feel personal to him. That's awesome and he should be allowed to do that.

Player B gets enjoyment from the game and the hobby through playing competitively. He likes being at the cutting edge of competitive play and pitting the best army he knows how to put together against the best armies and best players out there. He wants to test his skill at high levels of play and absolutely needs the best tools he can get if he wants to legitimately compete.

Both ways of playing are valid and good and should be encouraged. You don't shackle player B to your preferred color scheme because one of his compatriots brings broken cheese to casual games just to be a douche any more than you shackle Timmy down because one of HIS compatriots spends all day talking about how amazing his army's fluff is and how great he is at painting and condescending to everyone that comes in the shop 'that's an alright paint job, but you should only be using 22$ paint brushes if you ever want stuff as good as mine' and talking about how he'd win every game if he was willing to play 'cheese' despite having played scattpack double wraithknight for all of 7th(and still not winning).

TL: DR, your comment is discriminatory towards people who enjoy legitimate competitive play and that's not cool.

One man's competitive player is another's powergamer. I know a lot of players wouldn't agree with the two being equal. Regardless, it isn't me, but rather GW you want to convince that both options are valid. What I've said about the subject so far was not really meant to be a normative statement, as much as me narrowing down what I *think* it is that GW wants/is trying to do.

 

EDIT: grammar and tone

Edited August 16, 2019 by Reinhard

[Vykes]

My own personal thing about this is: I don't care.  If it's clear, then that's good enough for me.  Marines seem to be the big ones when it comes to this hobby, with someone like Eldar coming in a near second.  But I've seen a ton of people using Cadian troopers for Valhallens in white gear, or Tallarn (also, actually, Cadians in white gear) and it doesn't phase me.  So why should it bother me what the true warriors of mankind are wearing on any which day? People are multi faceted, astartes are omni-faceted, they don't have to be railroaded into a niche archetype*.

 

For all the talk that the game is "A highly visual experience." yeah, totally true, it is.  But if it's visual, then why should a few little rules swaps darken that visual experience when it could be a tremendously thematic battle?  If it's just a game, then who cares what the paint colour is?  

 

*It's not hard to find characters, especially the consummate war masters of the astartes, that break the mold.  Insisting that White Scars can't be a defensive force that can throw shells from a bunker like the Imperial fists feels weak to me, just like saying that the artisan masters of the Salamanders can't have a close bond to their machines and want to hold the line as resolutely as the Iron Hands is just as patently ridiculous.  The doctrines and 'traits' are just the most commonly exhibited ones in the legions/chapters, any chapter can pull an Eskrador and act unpredictably. 

[Knight of the Raven]

I remember reading in an old White Dwarf that the point of WYSIWYG was to allow the players to know what gear—and therefore which rules—models had 'at first glance.' This was around the time of the first Index Astartes articles, I believe, and stretched at least to the later era of chapter traits and regiment doctrines; a time where a space marine model, whether loyalist or traitor, could have several different rules ranging from tank hunters to infiltration to furious charge, and where bionics and purity seals of all things had actual rules.

The designers were pretty clear that such bonus rules had to be shown on the models, one example being relevant trophies from slain foes for favored enemy.

I never played back then, so I don't know if the game was a mess of trying to guess which rules applied to which models. But I can easily imagine this era left its mark on the players.

Moving on to the second question asked by the original poster: I've played Salamanders, Raven Guard and World Eaters over the years and never, ever felt I needed special rules to play them. Seeing as I've never been interested in playing either Vulkan He'stan or Kayvaan Shrike, I quite literally didn't have Salamanders or Raven Guard rules to play with during 5th edition to boot; and my World Eaters were loyalists, so they never had special rules to begin with.

I see these rules as flavor. Inspiration for list-building and actions on the battlefield, even. I always did have an obsession with roleplaying.

 

So my answer is: I don't need these chapter-specific rules in the first place; seeing that they're all benefit and no drawback these days, I shouldn't have issues with opponents over not using them.

 

All that said, my kingdom for two special weapons in my tactical squads.

[Zephaniah Adriyen]

I've got my Successor very deliberately carrying chimaeric gene-seed and taking from the tactics of multiple Chapters; they're in between and they know it. I'm a Blood Angels player, normally, but I've only really got one model who evokes the Blood Angels rules I use (Smash Captain using a slightly Blood Angels-y Jump Pack with a teardrop Iron Halo) so I can try out different Chapter rules. Iron Hands are the other big one I can take from, but anyone's allowed.

 

Also, the whole "Successors don't get relics" thing is generally ignored around my FLGS. Everyone who's running a Codex takes things as if they were the Chapter their army is descended from if they're a Successor. My view is there is no reason at all for a color scheme to matter; a given unit is a given unit, and that's that. Go ahead and counts-as your Death Company as Assault Marines if you wanna try out Ultrasmurfs rules, if you're up front about it and aren't just putting your army on the table. I've got a friend with possibly the best-painted army I've ever fought against; he runs Dark Angels and Space Wolves. He forgot to bring some lascannon Dark Angels Devastators last time we played, so he just broke out some lascannon Long Fangs and went for it. This is completely fine in my book

[jaxom]

I think it comes down to what one sees as the point behind "counts-as." A cool model kludged together can still be used against an opponent who agrees that it counts as something equivalent (death robots count as ogryns, stalk-tanks count as sentinals, etc); the gentleman's agreement revolving around equivalency. It is when one left equivalency that things became confusing; for example, modeling squat trikers in 4th edition and insisting they count as killa kans rather than warbikes. I think this is where what others have already said comes into it. In the absence of "official" rules, is one choosing count-as rules that fit (are visually and/or logically consist so that an opponent doesn't need a spread sheet to keep of them) or choosing them because they are "better" rules?

 

 

The feeling I got from the successor chapter rules (and those like it in other Codexes) was it was a ham-fisted way of stopping someone from taking multiples of "unique" characters. Like, I couldn't take three detachments from three successor chapters of Dark Angels and have Supreme Grand Master Bzrael of the Dark Angles, Supreme Grand Master Czrael of the Dark Engels, and Supreme Grand Master Dzrael of the Dark Aglets.

[Maritn]

[...]My advice is for people to invest in a faction they really like.

But what if GW changed/changes the way your faction plays, the lore or how they evolve narratively? You can't expect people to strip their models that probably took quite long to paint to do it all over again just to please somebody else.

 

To be clear: It's not meant to be offensive to anyone, but things like this might (have) happen(ed).

 

Also, I can understand why people find it odd that an army that is painted like Ultramarines (that includes the recommended use of decals, just having blue marines with golden trims does not automatically make your guys Ultramarines for ever). But would anyone refuse to play with his perfectly painted Crimson Fists vs perfectly painted IF? Because it looks like a really anti-thematic matchup.

And it's really interesting to see that most of the discussion revolves around Space Marines. Don't punish people for playing the best known faction. I for sure couldn't tell if your using the recommended paint job for the Necron dynasty you've chosen. ;)

 

IMO, you can't blame people for painting their toys the way they like. Be grateful for not having to play vs a grey horde of plastic. As long as it's clear which models belong to which chapter/craftworld/swarm fleet etc. :)

[Arkhanist]

For me, it's always been a trade off.

 

You can paint your army with a scheme of your own design and play them as a successor chapter of whoever you like, and flit around as you choose to pick your army rules. But then you don't get the special characters of the 1st founding chapters. If you paint it as a 1st founding, you get the extra benefits, but are stuck with that chapter, thick or thin. Wanting to play a DIY chapter with the ability to skip around, and yet still get all the special characters too does feel a bit cheesy and playing to advantage, and indeed vice-versa.

 

That does apply to xenos etc too, but they have a lot fewer if any 'paint scheme specific' characters/relics etc so it's much less important really, you don't get a special benefit for a particular scheme (bar army wide rules). And given how stitched up famous legions successors got, I'm also fine with 'counts-as' the parent chapter, e.g. Lamenters getting access to Blood Angels stuff and characters is only reasonable. But not count-as Ultramarines...

 

But that's my personal hangup. I did pick Blood Angels when I was 12 years old, and I've stuck with them through thick and thin for 30 years, despite multiple chances to change my mind to a new scheme with new models, not least Primaris. My guys are painted as Blood Angels, and that means they're Blood Angels, not red marines of the best chapter of the month.

But that all said, I'm not going to hold my opponent to my personal hangup, if he wants to play it differently, well it's a 2 person game. Well, unless they start being That Guy about other stuff, in which case I might get a bit irritated.

 

I can also see the value of keeping it simple in tournaments as part of WYSIWYG, as frankly it's hard enough to keep track of what your opponent's got when you don't known them or their army, and then you start saying 'these ultramarines are now blood angels etc' which would just break my brain with a whole bunch of different rules that constantly jar with what I expect from what I can see.