Colour Scheme Matters - Or Does it?

[Ficinus]

It is because the modeling, painting, and storytelling aspects matter more or as much to some people as the gaming aspect. I think it boils down to this: if I came up to a Blood Angels army being played as an Ultramarine army and asked the player, "What is the story behind your choice to paint your Ultramarines red with blood drops, angel's wings, and armour with sculpted on abs and pecs?" would that player have an answer besides "I just want to play Ultramarines now and don't want to go through the hassle of changing what my models look like." If someone has come up with an interesting story as to why their Ultramarines look like that or their Blood Angels fight like Ultramarines, that would be a lot better.

[MARK0SIAN]

The other aspect is to try not to judge certain armies differently to others. Someone earlier already mentioned about being unfamiliar with certain armies.

 

That’s true for me. I play marines, guard, knights and Custodes. So I’m very familiar with any subfaction bonuses/rules that come with those armies. This actually means I’m more likely to be confused or make the mistakes others have referred to if someone is playing one paint scheme as a different subfaction and I forget and make the wrong assumption.

 

However my experience playing with/against Tyranids for example is almost non-existent in 8th. So whatever scheme they chose I probably wouldn’t even know if it was the right scheme let alone know about any specific bonuses that subfaction has. As I’d have to ask lots of questions throughout anyway, it would make no difference to me if they wanted to run them as a different subfaction than their paint scheme.

 

So is it fair for me to hold the marine, guard and knights players to one standard and other armies to a different standard? My answer would be no. If, for example, a situation arose where someone wanted to run an ultramarines army as Raven Guard, I’d ask myself: “Would I care if this was a Tyranid player doing a similar thing?”. If the answer is no, I’m fine with it for the marine one too.

[Panzer]

So is it fair for me to hold the marine, guard and knights players to one standard and other armies to a different standard? My answer would be no. If, for example, a situation arose where someone wanted to run an ultramarines army as Raven Guard, I’d ask myself: “Would I care if this was a Tyranid player doing a similar thing?”. If the answer is no, I’m fine with it for the marine one too.

 

Hence why on tournaments and events where the colour scheme matters other factions are held to the same standard. They all are required to be either painted in the according colour scheme or in a completely different colour scheme that's not to be confused with an official one.

And personally, since I play T'au and know how their heraldry works and which colour which Sept uses I will give someone who has painted their army as Vior'la Sept or Sa'cea Sept but plays them as T'au Sept (very common currently) the same look I'd give someone who plays his Blood Angels as Ultramarines. I won't stop them from doing so but they'll be judged accordingly. Same goes for AdMech and Tyranids since those are regular opponents of mine and I can differentiate between at least some of their subfactions by colour scheme (Mars, Metallica, Ryza and Stygies VIII for AdMech, and Leviathan, Behemoth and Jormungandr for Tyranids are the ones who I know about out of my head for example).

[Sloeberjong]

I don't care what your little plastic dudes are painted like as long as I'm able to differentiate different weapons and such (plasma, bolters, not using a dreadnought as knight). If you say you play dark green or red Ultra's then fine, I won't forget that. I hardly try to remember my opponents' rules anyway, I don't really care if that leads to me making mistakes. It's never led to many problems since I play this "never going to be balanced" game for fun and I play opponents that I know and trust. It's not on me if you try to cheat on a "stupid" game like 40k. If you really need that then I"m not the one with the problem, besides, I know more than enough of the rules to know when someone is cheating. The same goes with colours, paint yours any way you like and if you like the Ultra look but want to play Blood Angels for a change then sure, I don't mind, as long as I can differentiate the Death company from the rest. Just make sure it's on your list too btw.

 

Really, they're little plastic army dudes, it always surprises me how much people can get worked up by all this. It shouldn't after some 20 odd years of hobby experience, but it still does. Which is probably why I avoid the tournament scene like the plague...

[Rogue]

About your 12 year old self ... well we all make mistakes when we are young. :P On a more serious note, you just said that you've been building your army for 25+ years. I'm sure if you wanted you would've found the ressources to either get the same models again and paint them in the chapter colours you actually want to play or to simply strip and repaint them (yes, that's a thing and not particularly difficult).

 

But why? Why would I want two identical armies painted in different colours? And why would I want to strip down 200 marines just to paint them again?

 

As it happens, my own marines have a made-up colour-scheme, so strictly speaking can't take on the rules of any 'real' chapter, nor ever play with special characters. But if someone wanted to insist that I could no longer play as Ultras because they're not blue, then we don't have a game and we both lose out.

 

Is this a modeller versus gamer thing? I mean, I'm a gamer first - I paint so that I have a good-looking army to play with (unlike my wife, for example, who paints with little intention of fielding her models).

 

So as a gamer, I'd rather play than fuss about a specific colour-scheme (or even if models are painted at all). I like the fluff, I like wysiwyg, I like fully-painted armies, come to that; but I like playing more.

 

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?

[McElMcNinja]

Does it matter? My answer is no. The game might go slower because I may be asking for clarification more often then not. Other then that, I just hope for an enjoyable game.

At one of the stores I play at, one fellow never has painted models anyway. He is a power gamer and is always trying to come up with the next best thing. He has the money to buy the actual units, but not the time to paint them. Again, this doesn't bother me as long as I have a good time (and ultimately thats up to me).

[Panzer]

 

Is this a modeller versus gamer thing? 

It's not. As you might have figured from plenty of the other comments, it's most strict on tournaments, especially GW ones.

[Trevak Dal]

It is because the modeling, painting, and storytelling aspects matter more or as much to some people as the gaming aspect. I think it boils down to this: if I came up to a Blood Angels army being played as an Ultramarine army and asked the player, "What is the story behind your choice to paint your Ultramarines red with blood drops, angel's wings, and armour with sculpted on abs and pecs?" would that player have an answer besides "I just want to play Ultramarines now and don't want to go through the hassle of changing what my models look like." If someone has come up with an interesting story as to why their Ultramarines look like that or their Blood Angels fight like Ultramarines, that would be a lot better.

....Hmm all Primaris Blood Angels would be Ultra Angels, JACKED, AND TAN AND THIRSTY FOR THE BLOOD OF OUR ENEMIES!

 

So long as my World Eaters get one good charge, I'm happy. I don't care or worry about objectives, my guys are going to grab you by the nose and kick you in the ass or die trying.

 

I've been failing at playing Tau as aggressively as I'd like (lack of Jump shoot jump and the drones stuff giving me fits) I like to get that good CLEAR THE DROPZONE dethklock shooting phase where I just make a swath of whatever I'm fighting go away. I take Deathrains (trimissile pods) and Fireknives (plasma and misisle pods) and when needed Firestorms (two burst cannons and a missile pod) win lose or draw I'm dropping 27 crisis suits up in your :cuss and I'm coming for that ass, I don't care if your guys use the chapter tactics of the Wu Tang Clan or the Lollipop Guild, I'm aiming to add more marine helmets to my bases.

[Rogue]

It's not. As you might have figured from plenty of the other comments, it's most strict on tournaments, especially GW ones.

True, but tournaments are a law unto themselves, and not necessarily how most people play (at least, most of the people I know).

[Closet Skeleton]

 

But why? Why would I want two identical armies painted in different colours? And why would I want to strip down 200 marines just to paint them again?

 

 

Because they like different colours and painting and converted marines, that's kind of the core audience of this forum without which it wouldn't be funded.

 

 

I don't think your perspective is necessarily wrong but there are a lot of people on this board who have chosen to be stuck playing the rules associated with the chapter they chose when they were 12 and are incredibly grumpy when a codex comes out that makes it more viable to switch things up.

But why should that make anyone grumpy? I mean, if someone chooses to stick with, say, Blood Angels through thick and thin, good for them. That's their choice. But if I don't, and want to run them as a red Ultramarine successor for a bit, why not? Why should me having the flexibility to do that matter to other people?

 

 

I didn't say 'grumpy at you/anyone else' I meant 'grumpy about the ruleset'.

 

People do get grumpy about other people not conforming to their self imposed limitations but I haven't made any comment on that. I was talking about people who buy a Black Templar book and then 3 months later their assault army is useless compared to the Blood Angels book that they now have to buy to proxy their BT if they want to be competitive.

[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.

[Rogue]

 

 

But why? Why would I want two identical armies painted in different colours? And why would I want to strip down 200 marines just to paint them again?

 

 

Because they like different colours and painting and converted marines, that's kind of the core audience of this forum without which it wouldn't be funded.

 

 

Absolutely, and if that's what people want to do, they should. It's not obvious from just the lines you've quoted there, but I was responding to someone suggesting that those were things that I could do if I wanted to try using my marines with different chapter tactics. I guess the key word is 'I' - I don't want to have to buy everything again, or repaint it all, just to make use of different game rules. To me, that seems silly when the obvious solution (to my mind) is just to say, "Today my guys are using the Iron Hands because I've never tried them before". 

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

 

It's not. As you might have figured from plenty of the other comments, it's most strict on tournaments, especially GW ones.

True, but tournaments are a law unto themselves, and not necessarily how most people play (at least, most of the people I know).

 

 

Right, but it's how many people do play, and the tournament scene has blown up just as explosively as GW has in the past few years due to the ITC, and tournament players have a right to discuss these topics as well.

 

Just think how commonly do people play power levels and narrative vs. battle-forged/matched play and points level? I can only assume most of your area plays by points and matched play rules, even if none of them are tournament players, since this is by far the most common way to play the game globally. Already, you can see the extreme tournament influence: why bother with points and matched play other than to play like tournaments do or to practice for tournaments? Power level and narrative were already given a lot of support by GW and are more than good enough for fun, casual games.

[Panzer]

 

Already, you can see the extreme tournament influence: why bother with points and matched play other than to play like tournaments do or to practice for tournaments? Power level and narrative were already given a lot of support by GW and are more than good enough for fun, casual games.

Matched play has nothing to do with tournaments. Why play with points and matched play? Because that's how the game has always worked so that's what most people are used to and because it requires the least amount of pre-game talk with your opponent. In narrative play it's VERY easy to have onesided games to stuff like infinite summoning or stratagem and psychic power spamming and power level in general is less balanced than points per design.

[Bryan Blaire]

I'm pretty sure that anyone would be hard pressed to come with actual global figures to back up any of their points regarding their perception of how people play the game, and if they aren't hard figures, then it's all anecdotal or at least locally referential and based on broad discussions with fellow players (who likely play similar to how you do) - I don't know how proportional the tournament scene is vs. people that play against friends only at their own houses or at school in my own city of over a million people or so, and I wouldn't actually believe any of you fine folk here on the board if you said you did have those figures. We really don't know (and honestly I doubt GW does either, some of those things would just be too hard to track). Let's face it, none of us are at every single location where 40K is played recording actual data, not even GW.

[Cpt_Reaper]

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.

 

If you hit the nail on the head any harder it'd be considered a warcrime.

 

This is the reason I started the topic, because it is the thing that has bothered me. To work out where creative freedom ends and "that guy" begins, and vice versa.

 

From the comments it seems that the player base would rather the paint on your models having 0% weight on anything other than look, even if it means The One Guy gets to play the flavour of the month with his army. To restrict TOG would be to restrict the everyone else who plays to the spirit of the game.

 

Did I contribute to a nail with PTSD or am I off the mark?

[Panzer]

Colour scheme restrictions are basically just an extension of WYSIWYG. The same reasoning is applied to both and the same people care about it. People who care about the one also care about the other at least to some degree and people who are fine without WYSIWYG are fine with any colour scheme and rule combination as well.

[Panzer]

 

From the comments it seems that the player base would rather the paint on your models having 0% weight on anything other than look, even if it means The One Guy gets to play the flavour of the month with his army. To restrict TOG would be to restrict the everyone else who plays to the spirit of the game.

 

Did I contribute to a nail with PTSD or am I off the mark?

 

 

I don't think you are necessarily right with that observation.

Personally if I had to make a choice I'd rather have people pick a chapter for non-crunch reasons and stick to it after having it painted that way. That's pretty utopic though and I won't tell anybody how to enjoy their hobby. It's my preference, not theirs.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

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.

If you hit the nail on the head any harder it'd be considered a warcrime.

 

This is the reason I started the topic, because it is the thing that has bothered me. To work out where creative freedom ends and "that guy" begins, and vice versa.

 

From the comments it seems that the player base would rather the paint on your models having 0% weight on anything other than look, even if it means The One Guy gets to play the flavour of the month with his army. To restrict TOG would be to restrict the everyone else who plays to the spirit of the game.

 

Did I contribute to a nail with PTSD or am I off the mark?

I would say that I think there’s a third group to add to Reinhard’s two areas. Namely the people who aren’t power gamers but value the lore, spectacle, background and visuals of the setting.

 

I’m partly in that group and although I’d be happy to play against differently coloured ultramarines for example, if you gave me the choice between playing against orange ultramarines or the standard blue ones I would choose the blue because that fits the lore better.

 

It’s the same with special characters. I agree with GWs statement that someone like Calgar is the chapter master of the ultramarines, not the chapter master of any other chapter and belongs with them. Again though, if someone used him as such my preference wouldn’t stop me playing against that person.

 

My overall point is that the colours do matter to some players for reasons other than powergaming/waac. I think GW also had to bear this in mind as well as the two groups Reinhard has already defined.

[apologist]

+1 for Reinhard's point. Anything that encourages people to be creative is good; and anything that makes it easier for two gamers to play well together is good. This is an example of where the two are pulling in opposite directions.

 

+++

 

A lot of this discussion boils down to 'lowest common denominator' – a feeling that the 'other player' (because we tend to hold ourselves to higher standards!) is choosing to do X in order to gain an unfair advantage. In this case X is playing with a set of rules that don't match the 'canon' colour scheme, but it might just as easily be playing with a heavily-converted army, or a reposed set of models.

 

I'd prefer to see a 'highest common factor' approach; that while I certainly wouldn't be bothered if someone wanted to play their models as an official supplemented Chapter (i.e. with a non-standard rules); I'd prefer it if the only Marneus Calgars I played against were actual blue-painted Ultramarines.

 

The reason for that is simply if everything's special, then nothing is. 

 

+++

The rules are already very flexible, and I quite like the explicit 'you can use these rules with your own Chapter; but you can't use this specific Character' approach. 

 

At the root of the problem, I feel, is that the special characters are often not different so much as better than anything you can create with the standard datasheets; so I can understand why (particularly tournament) players want access to them, even if they have an army that the character doesn't belong to. That's a separate discussion, but 

 

+++

As an illustration of a similar quandry, I've played various iterations of my Lamb's World Guard since the back end of second edition, and the most recent Codex has given me the explicit option to take a set of special rules – the Cadian, Catachan etc. options – and use those with some minor exceptions: specifically I cannot use named characters with the proxy-Regiment keyword nor the Regiment-specific trais.

 

I think that's a nice halfway house; allowing me to pick what I consider to be most suitable for the Lamb's World history I've written. In practise, it made me feel a bit awkward, as none of them really fitted. As a result, I've chosen not to benefit from the traits. That's a rather narrative-led approach, and I can see that it's effectively a houserule that would annoy a lot of players (in a similar way to – say – choosing to modify the BS of all my figures by -1).

 

+++

 

Hmm; bit disjointed there – but the cut of my thoughts is simply:

• In Competitive Play, stick to the letter of the rules – no special characters unless your army is painted appropriately
  • Even here I can see exceptions – there are lots of instances and stories that have a force disguise themselves, for example...
• In Narrative Play, I'd prefer that you leave specific special characters at home, but if it's important to your enjoyment, it won't upset me.
• In Open Play, go nuts – though I'd vastly prefer it if there's a cool story or reason that you have to have X beyond simple competitiveness. 

[ERJAK]

If you try to tell me I can't use rules I paid for on models I paid for because the paint I paid for isn't the same color as the dudes on the marketing material and fanfics you got...whoo boy is that discussion gonna get loud.

[ERJAK]

<p>

 

+1 for Reinhard's point. Anything that encourages people to be creative is good; and anything that makes it easier for two gamers to play well together is good. This is an example of where the two are pulling in opposite directions.

 

+++

 

A lot of this discussion boils down to 'lowest common denominator' – a feeling that the 'other player' (because we tend to hold ourselves to higher standards!) is choosing to do X in order to gain an unfair advantage. In this case X is playing with a set of rules that don't match the 'canon' colour scheme, but it might just as easily be playing with a heavily-converted army, or a reposed set of models.

 

I'd prefer to see a 'highest common factor' approach; that while I certainly wouldn't be bothered if someone wanted to play their models as an official supplemented Chapter (i.e. with a non-standard rules); I'd prefer it if the only Marneus Calgars I played against were actual blue-painted Ultramarines.

 

The reason for that is simply if everything's special, then nothing is.

 

+++

The rules are already very flexible, and I quite like the explicit 'you can use these rules with your own Chapter; but you can't use this specific Character' approach.

 

At the root of the problem, I feel, is that the special characters are often not different so much as better than anything you can create with the standard datasheets; so I can understand why (particularly tournament) players want access to them, even if they have an army that the character doesn't belong to. That's a separate discussion, but

 

+++

As an illustration of a similar quandry, I've played various iterations of my Lamb's World Guard since the back end of second edition, and the most recent Codex has given me the explicit option to take a set of special rules – the Cadian, Catachan etc. options – and use those with some minor exceptions: specifically I cannot use named characters with the proxy-Regiment keyword nor the Regiment-specific trais.

 

I think that's a nice halfway house; allowing me to pick what I consider to be most suitable for the Lamb's World history I've written. In practise, it made me feel a bit awkward, as none of them really fitted. As a result, I've chosen not to benefit from the traits. That's a rather narrative-led approach, and I can see that it's effectively a houserule that would annoy a lot of players (in a similar way to – say – choosing to modify the BS of all my figures by -1).

 

+++

 

Hmm; bit disjointed there – but the cut of my thoughts is simply:

• In Competitive Play, stick to the letter of the rules – no special characters unless your army is painted appropriately
  • Even here I can see exceptions – there are lots of instances and stories that have a force disguise themselves, for example...
• In Narrative Play, I'd prefer that you leave specific special characters at home, but if it's important to your enjoyment, it won't upset me.
• In Open Play, go nuts – though I'd vastly prefer it if there's a cool story or reason that you have to have X beyond simple competitiveness.

Absolutely not. This is a 0 exception issue. Under no conditions should anyone be telling anyone else how to paint their army.

 

Trying to force people to do so in tournament play is EVEN DUMBER than doing it in narrative play, because tournament play is the place where it matters the LEAST. The ONLY thing that matters in tournament play is that you can tell one chapter tactic from another if you have multiple.

 

Also, define appropriately. Blue is an incredibly variable color, even two ultramarine blues from two different manufacturers can look significantly different. Does every army have to be painted with GW's exact blue? What about shading and layering? If you shade with nuln oil and I shade with deuchii violet those are two very different looks and they can't BOTH be the appropriate ultramarine scheme. If I use Kantor blue is that still right? What about Teclis blue? What if I use contrast paints with metallic undercoat? That blue looks NOTHING like Macragge blue over black primer but is still blue. What about Thousand suns blue? Or vallejo magic blue? Tallassar blue? Temple Guard blue? Those are all blues can I use those on my ultras? If not why, where's the line? If there isn't an explicit 'correct' ultramarine anyway THEN WHY ARE WE EVEN BLOODY BOTHERING WITH THIS STUPID CRAP AT ALL?

 

That's the thing fluff guys don't get 'paint an ultramarine like an ultramarine' is good enough for a game with the local pedantic a-holes who care about that stuff, but it's not good enough for tournament play. You would have to define the exact range of colors that are allowed manufacturer by manufacturer OR mandate that every model be painted in the same uniform way, or the rule is even more ridiculous and arbitrary that the asinine nonsense it started out as.

 

Finally, the idea that I have to pay thousands of dollars and spend hundreds of hours getting my army playable and then somejagoff could come in and say 'oh sorry, you can't play those because the blue you used is too dark for ultramarines' makes me want to throttle somebody.

[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.

[ERJAK]

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.

[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.