Successor Chapters and the future

[Phoebus]

Sure. :)

[Panzer]

 

I am fighting against the solution of "ignore the rule". I will not ignore any rules because, to me, that is tantamount to cheating. If you declare you are playing a Successor, you're locked out of options. If you declare you're playing Dark Angels and your army is clearly not Dark Angels, then by official precedent your opponent may challenge the validity of your army.

 

We never suggested to ignore any rule. This just shows how little you understand of what we are actually telling you. And we were VERY direct in the end. 

[Phoebus]

sfPanzer,

 

With respect, how is what you’re offering him not a way to get around the rule he’s citing? He clearly doesn’t want that. You guys have a difference of opinion on the matter, and that’s fine, but that’s different from him not understanding you.

[Panzer]

Getting around a rule != ignoring a rule.

You also get around the rule of how many Fast Attack choices you can have in a Battalion detachment by taking an additional detachment of choice for example. If you were to ignore it you would just take more Fast Attack choices in said Battalion detachment even if it's not allowed.

[Slasher956]

So I see the issue as this....

 

PROBLEM ONE: if you use the DA codex you are either Dark Angles chapter & have full access to all characters, Relics, stratagems etc OR you are a successor chapter & have no chapter master, no 1st or 2nd company captains (who are special DA characters) and only 1 Relic.

 

Now when compared to standard SM 'dex you have those positions and most of the relics open to you....

 

PROBLEM TWO:  Paint scheme = Chapter... If you paint as Chapter X then you are chapter X

 

Now this stance is given official sanction by GWs own GT rules,   It is also backed up by the wording used in the 'dexs about colour schemes, there is no comments that these colours are suggested schemes, they are statements that X force uses this colour scheme in this edition  (i've bolded that part to highlight that rules from last edition have no relevance in a discussion like this)

 

 

What I take is that the OPs community cant solve problem 1 with the ignore function as suggested due to problem 2.

 

So how does the OP get round it without ignoring any rule?  

 

i) CA add Masters on Bikes & in TA and open some of the relics to all successor chaptors

ii) GW Erratas the rule about successors only having one relice

iii) GW FAQs the whole does my paint job limit me to what sub faction rules I can use outside of the GT

 

Of these 3 I think that option 1 is the only one likely to happen.... so I would ask people if they would mind me using the DA relics & if I could use the Captain on bike & Captain in TA from the SM dex to enable us (the community) to feed back to GW if it does 'overpower' the DA 'dex

[Brother Worsey]

On that vein, I run my Guardians of the Covenant "counts as" DA with my group and use the full dex rules/characters, save for the fact I have different names for the GotC characters/relics (Sebastius aka Zeke for example) and use accurate wysiwyg representations of the DA model rather than the official one (I use a std chapter master w a pointy sword, added a combi plasma and accompanied by a watcher, and my counts as Sableclaw is a basic speeder with twin AC/HB, pilot waving a sword about, and some additional icon fluffery so it stands out from my other speeders). If an opponent really wanted to go down the OP route (1 relic etc) I'd probably avoid the game tbh but that's just me - it's a game, and I can take it or leave it. Our local ITC comp rules my GotC counts as DA ok too (though that doesn't mean everyone will, but just for a bit of context).

 

Which reminds me, must add some pics to the Armoury if the Successors thread (sorry for slight hijack there).

[Berzul]

I think the way this should be resolved has been made clear.

 

1) If your army is keyword <SUCCESSOR CHAPTER> you may not use named characters or relics from the <DARK ANGELS>, save for the Heavenfall Blade

 

2) Upon placing your army on the table you must declare if it is a <DARK ANGELS> or a <SUCCESSOR CHAPTER> army. Upon doing this you set the limits for army building that apply.

 

3) NO RULE whatsoever forces you to play your army in any specific color scheme. Colors are set bu fluff, not rules. (As a side note, in fact, the Codex Astartes (per the fluff) even says that chapters should update their heraldry and colors regularly to avoid the enemies of the Imperium to more easily learn the military structure of the Chapter)

 

So, with RAW, paint whatever the heck you want. Then claim they are Dark Angels for the purposes of rules.

 

#solved

 

As a side note, if two opponents agree to change, add, or omit, a rule, it is NOT cheating. It is an agreement by both players. Thus, it is valid for said game. Cheating would be to change, add or omit a rule without your opponent knowing or against his approval of said action.

 

Finally, as it has been said, Tournament Rules are NOT Friendly Match rules, UNLESS you decide to make them so.

 

In any case, play whichever way you would like, as long as your opponent will not object, and hold your opponents to the same standard.

[BlackTriton]

In GW events, they do insist for the "corect" colors to be used for marketing reasons.

They also disallow 3er party models, count as and are hard on conversion, for the same reason.

 

This dosent represent the actual attitude of the player base, tournament or not.

 

Tournaments really dosent care what color you paint your armies, as long as its not confusing.

If your DA army list is legal, there is no reason for complains by anyone no mather what color you painted your plastic.

 

I for one have never seen a Dark angel player have the "correct" color scheme around here.

 

 

Now if your friends and/or local tournament have as a standard that all colors schemes must match the official rules, not much can be done.

I never even heard of a community looking down on original color scheme, but if yours is like that its gonna come down to accept it or pass.

 

Edit,:

The general community for wargaming understands that an army is a very personnal thing. It requires a large investment of both time and money. Its only natural to want a personnalised army, one that reflect and is unique to you. Thats why its accepted that an army might be painted a different color and still use the original rule.

[Chaplain Lucifer]

At this point I have to chime in again ;) to try and steer this one up in the right direction.

 

The OP seems to be aware of the options at his disposal as stated by several members (thanks for your input guys and gals!), however he wishes that in his particular case the options can be made black on white for his sake and for sake of his gaming group.

 

That said, please keep your input coming on how can the OP can express his particular situation to GW.

Any other suggestions are welcome, but keep it polite, no use going back and forth arguing because "agree to disagree" will be good enough since the OP wants his particular problem solved in a particular way.

[SickSix]

"Rules are rules. Choosing to ignore a rule, no matter the reasoning, is cheating."

 

Then why did you even start this discussion?

[Berzul]

ok guys, lets not get hostile on this issue.

 

It is clear now that the point presented is NOT about how to circunvent the restrictions as they are applied in OPs gaming group. They clearly take the text of the rule to the letter, with no wiggle room on the issue. So, what he is truly asking, as he expressly said, is on how this rule should be presented to GW so that they will change it. Change that, most likely, would go along the lines of what others here have presented as solutions.

 

So, the discussion HAS merit. Lets keep it going.

[SickSix]

What discussion? The rule is silly and should be changed. BUT since it probably won't for a long time, alternative practices have been suggested. Discussion over.

 

If he wants to start a petition or wants support on a comment on GWs official FB, then link to it.

 

To continue the 'discussion' at this point would just be beating a dead horse.

[Bryan Blaire]

There is no RULE in the Codex or the main rule book about a color scheme equating to a specific Faction Keyword. There is no written rule that specifies “Dark Angels must consist of a Caliban Green base coat, a Nuln Oil shade...” or even a rule that says “To use this Faction Keyword, your model’s base color must be some shade of dark green.”

 

GW should not spend time, digital or physical pages and ink on “correcting” something that doesn’t exist in the game rules. They should spend FAQ and Chapter Approved time giving us something of value that actually has a rules basis (as in something that is in a written game rule in the Codex or BRB that has a real problem).

 

If a group chooses to use a GW tournament rules pack (which are solely GW’s house-rules for tournaments, not part of the game or precedent for the game as a whole, or they would be distributed as a FAQ/Errata) for their games, that’s a house-rule problem, not a game rule problem. GW should remain interested and focused on game rule problems for FAQs/Errata/Chapter Approved.

[Berzul]

No, there is no rule that forces a specific color scheme. The problem has been stated to be that you cannot play successors and stil use the relics and characters of the parent chapter.

 

I remain unconvinced that it IS an issue, as noone can force you to declare your army a successor, in terms of mechanics, regardless of your color scheme, but, yeah. Tahts the issue. So, the question is how you would go about presenting it to GW so they can OFFICIALLY state that you can just say, "this guys are dark angels!" regardless of color scheme, so that noone can force you t play the army in a way you dont want to.

 

... yeah.

[Bryan Blaire]

No, there is no rule that forces a specific color scheme.

Okay, so then no one can OFFICIALLY do the following:

in terms of mechanics, regardless of your color scheme...noone can force you t play the army in a way you dont want to.

 

... yeah.

Yup.

 

The answer to the problem was already in your response. GW has nothing to OFFICIALLY answer, because there isn’t a game/Codex rule for color schemes (proprietary tournament rule sets are not game rules until GW writes an Errata saying it is - and then they could include any rules revisions they want, such as saying the ITC rules set must be used - but they haven’t done that).

 

The Successors rule in the DA Codex is superfluous as the only other defined Chapter Faction Keyword in the Codex is “Angels of Absolution”, and there’s nothing in the Codex at all for that Faction Keyword.

 

GW’s whole “restrict characters to not be able to use abilities or be used by multiple factions by Faction Keywords” concept totally fails given the content in the DA Codex. They and we would have been better off with GW saying that the “Named Characters can only be used once in any army, regardless of number of DA detachments” in the army (my preference would obviously have been “once per all game tables with battles pending or on-going”, but that would probably be considered too burdensome and silly by most).

 

Now maybe we will get an “Unforgiven” supplement/mini-Codex giving the DA Codex actual Successor units, items, stratagems and the like, but until then, just don’t use the “Angels of Absolution” Faction Keyword and every Unforgiven player is a DA player.

[Berzul]

Gotta be honest, OP, I am starting to NOT see what the issue is... I mean, why can't you just play dark Angels if you want, regardless of color?

[Phoebus]

Getting around a rule != ignoring a rule.

You also get around the rule of how many Fast Attack choices you can have in a Battalion detachment by taking an additional detachment of choice for example. If you were to ignore it you would just take more Fast Attack choices in said Battalion detachment even if it's not allowed.

No one’s arguing that the rules are otherwise perfect — that they don’t include contradictions or workarounds. The fact that you are provided means to get additional Fast Attack choices, however, doesn’t mean that GW aren’t explicitly drawing a line between Dark Angels and Dark Angels Successors. Their stated intent is for the latter to be limited in terms of characters and relics.

 

Then why did you even start this discussion?

He’s soliciting people to contact GW to try to get this rule changed. He’s literally said that. You don’t have to agree with him, obviously, but it’s not like there’s no point to his topic.

 

There is no RULE in the Codex or the main rule book about a color scheme equating to a specific Faction Keyword.

He understands what you’re saying, Bryan. From where I’m sitting, I don’t think there’s any confusion regarding the fact that a majority of respondents consider this to be a non-issue, and feel that most avenues won’t oppose someone fielding, e.g., Angels of Absolution using Dark Angels rules, characters, and relics. He doesn’t want to do that. Regardless of whether we agree or disagree with the OP, the fact remains there is a distinction and an intent where the Dark Angels and their Successors are concerned, which the OP is opposed to. I don’t know if this is because he dislikes the theoretical scenario that his Angels of Shadow won’t be recognized as such in a specific competitive forum. I don’t know if this is purely a “principle of the thing” matter. Either way, telling him over and over that there’s no rule that ties paint scheme to a specific Chapter doesn’t help anything.

 

GW should not spend time, digital or physical pages and ink on “correcting” something that doesn’t exist in the game rules.

I agree that there are much more pressing things that need fixing where this Codex is concerned. Our opinions on the matter, though, are subjective. No matter how secondary we may feel the Successor restrictions are, however, they do exist in the game rules. If you choose to follow GW’s intent and rules, and change your force’s faction keyword from Dark Angels to Angels of Absolution, you are not supposed to field named Dark Angels characters or relics other than a Heavenfall Blade. That’s a fact.

[JJD]

If I was going to petion GW on this issue it would be to allow successors access to generic chaptermaster and something generic for the 2nd company master. Maybe a company master in a landspeeder but with loadout options.

 

But then if we are asking I want my Librarians and chaplains on bikes back too (no I’m never going to drop this)

[Cpt_Reaper]

There might not be anything stating that a colour scheme equates to a Keyword...but as there is nothing to say any colour scheme can be any Keyword then if someone was to claim that a person playing a Dark Angels Successor using the Dark Angels keyword was using an illegal army then the DA player has no defence.

 

Does doing that make the accuser a poor sport? Very much so. But by the wording of the codex the accuser is right.

 

Just because you don't think it's an issue doesn't mean there isn't one. It is, I've witnessed the issue and I would like to make a list of changes to send to GW to make sure it cannot be an issue.

 

Every issue with the game is as important as every other. Because something that you think doesn't exist is ruining somebody else's game.

 

So again, if you don't agree with me then you are welcome to disagree with me. However I am asking for suggestions to improve these rules that defy the spirit of the hobby.

[SickSix]

The suggestions have been made. Several times. So email GW and post to their official social media outlets. If people support your ideas then they will also email or post to social media.

[Berzul]

Yeah, the point seems clear enough. Now its about how to get it to GW.

[Master Sheol]

To point out the situation

There file about SC is the same in EVERY codex

So if you make an army of UM successors you don't have access to UM SC and UM relics too

 

It's an issue in every codex but in DA one it's bigger cause you have access to only 1 generic relic and no access to CM, DW master, RW master too

[Panzer]

Also this got complained about since the Codexes got released. So about 10 months ago for DA and BA. GW really doesn't care about that because it's not that much of an issue normally. Go ahead and send them a mail at the usual address and ask them to change things. You won't be the first but don't expect to see it getting changed.

[Chaplain Raeven]

1) Buy army

2) Build & paint army in a matter of months/years in a Successor's colour since you like the fluff/scheme.

3) Add expensive models, characters and lovelingly converted models.

4) Buy expensive codex to use said investment

5) Try to play a friendly game with the army you spend so long building.

6) Opponent: 'You can't use half of the stuff you brought mate, they're in the wrong colour. No, I don't care that they are perfectly WYSIWYG. Successors don't have acces to those units and/or rules. You'll have to use those handicapped rules while I'll use my overpowered army with the massive amount of possible units, since I did paint them in the right shade of blue, like Ultramarines should be.'

 

Seriously man, if that is an issue in your local club, no amount of help from GW is going to improve your experience. You have 3 options:

1) If you want the rules, paint them green.

2) If you want the Successor, accept the bullying and follow the retarded rule.

3) Tell your group to stop acting like  children and to let people enjoy the damn game! 

 

The army is correct! The colour should be irrelevant to playing the game. Nitpicking on rules like that just means that they want to gain an advantage over you, and it's just an easy way to gain it. From the moment GW would change the rule, they WILL find something else to bitch about. It's like applying a skin in a videogame. It looks cooler than the standard generic character/vehicle, but changes NOTHING about the game itself. I see no reason whatsoever why Warhammer should be different. 

[Berzul]

He has already stated that he is not looking for a practical solution to the issue. He wants to address this with GW and have an official change applied to the rule itself.

 

Please guys, we have already presented this solutions ad nauseum. We are in agreement that the rule is absurd and that there are plenty ways to go around it.

 

But that is not the point of OPs post.