Colour Scheme Matters - Or Does it?

[Zephaniah Adriyen]

 

Gah, I feel jealous for 'Nids players. All their special characters can belong to any Hive Fleet and take any Adaptation. Color scheme has no reason at all to matter for them, and as such, you can run a Swarmlord, an Old One Eye, a Deathleaper and a Red Terror, all in one Detachment, all with some Hive Fleet keyword different from the one they're fluffed to have (Behemoth for the Swarmlord, Old One Eye and the Red Terror, Leviathan for Deathleaper) and a matching color scheme. Tiamet players can take all of these and have their snow-white Swarmlord and Deathleaper fighting alongside custom "named" Hive Tyrants.

Well that's because Tyranids don't really have named characters like other factions. It's just a specific organism the Hivemind can breed into any Hivefleet at will.

 

Also, the irony of being jealous on Tyranids after last edition is great.

 

They never have to deal with anything other than picking a Hive Fleet or Cult Creed, what with GSC having no special characters, being unable to take Astra Militarum special characters via Brood Brothers, and the proper 'Nids specials all being non-exclusive. Which is just... beautiful.

 

What happened last ed?

[Panzer]

 

 

Gah, I feel jealous for 'Nids players. All their special characters can belong to any Hive Fleet and take any Adaptation. Color scheme has no reason at all to matter for them, and as such, you can run a Swarmlord, an Old One Eye, a Deathleaper and a Red Terror, all in one Detachment, all with some Hive Fleet keyword different from the one they're fluffed to have (Behemoth for the Swarmlord, Old One Eye and the Red Terror, Leviathan for Deathleaper) and a matching color scheme. Tiamet players can take all of these and have their snow-white Swarmlord and Deathleaper fighting alongside custom "named" Hive Tyrants.

Well that's because Tyranids don't really have named characters like other factions. It's just a specific organism the Hivemind can breed into any Hivefleet at will.

 

Also, the irony of being jealous on Tyranids after last edition is great.

 

They never have to deal with anything other than picking a Hive Fleet or Cult Creed, what with GSC having no special characters, being unable to take Astra Militarum special characters via Brood Brothers, and the proper 'Nids specials all being non-exclusive. Which is just... beautiful.

 

What happened last ed?

 

 

Last edition Tyranids were pretty much absolute bottom tier. And not like this edition GK are bottom tier. The gap betweem bottom, mid and top was much wider back then.

[Trevak Dal]

I think color variation (not using GW paints or not painting in GWs methods) can be explained away with In Universe stuff like "well, these Ultramarines were fighting in proximity to exotic radiation or chemical zones, so their paint looks slightly different than standard" or "These Space Wolves (who are super independent and more loyal to their WolfLord than other Astartes are to their captains super generally speaking of course because of the fur...that is wolf-like attributes of the chapter) so they use a slight variation on what's standard to stick out and be individual or maybe, the company in question got their re supply paint from a different admech or munitorium group than normal.

 

If it's like, bright green Ultramarines (...Genisis Chapter), well they are either a distinct chapter (like the Genesis Marines) or are using a strange form of camo.

 

My Enclave Tau are painted purple because I wanted a purple army, in my opinion Tau blood is purple/blue (don't care about what gw say), but their Sept color is still gray, which tickles my fancy because p3 greatcoat grey is like my favorite color ever.

[Vermintide]

I always thought the official colour schemes were a take it or leave it example, rather than any kind of requirement. The codexes and hobby books over the years have always been pretty clear about that, so I think the same spirit should be carried forward to the tabletop whenever practical. The whole thing about successors in recent codexes more or less makes that official, in my view- It gives you a wink and a nod and says "I know you painted them all bright green three years ago, but... Go on. Pick whichever one you like."

I mean if you've gone to the effort of putting specific chapter markings and such on all your guys, then obviously you're going to have to explain to your opponent "Hey, I know they look like Templars, but I kinda wanna try RG rules." But unless your opponent is a total sperg I don't think they should ever deny you it. Someone made a great point earlier in that you'd never have the same problem with a xenos army- That may be simply because people don't care as much about the fluff with xenos, but the principle should be the same or else it's just hypocrisy.

If you don't care what colour the Eldar you're fighting are, why would you suddenly become a nitpicker when Marines are involved?

[Claws and Effect]

I don't particularly care what rules someone wants to use for their army. I generally just assume that they painted them as one Chapter and wanted to try out another's rules for something different. I might raise an eyebrow if their "Crimson Fists" are conveniently counting as whatever Chapter has the best rules at any given time, but whatever.

 

That changes if I play at a tournament. If I see a White Scars army across from me and choose my Warlord Trait and deployment expecting White Scars, and then I'm told they're actually Iron Hands....I'm going to feel like I've been put at a disadvantage through dishonesty (or at least omission of relevant information).

 

In short: casual play I don't care at all. But for competitive play, if they are painted as a canon Chapter they should be played as it.

[MegaVolt87]

I understand the resentment people can have because they spent time and money to be WYSIWYG. It's a hard pill to swallow when someone is just band wagoning their army to the new hotness. If you do this, at least let your opponent know before the game even starts and have the correct model to represent you are taking equipment wise. If it's a conversion/ scratch build okay, but at least have plasma guns as plasma guns at the least for instance. Don't get offended if people question you- they would be expect to be questioned themselves doing what you are doing.

[Slave to Darkness]

This may sound a bit anal but if you have marines painted as Blood Angels then don't expect to use Ultramarine rules when we play. I never used to be like this but when you have a Lamenters army using Space Wolf minis and using Dark Angel rules so you can spam Terminators  (yes I have faced this army numerous times, different rules every week) then my sportsmanlike manner goes out the window. Mind you I don't bother with pick up games in store any more, just stick to a small group of like minded people so we know what to expect from each other. 

[Special Officer Doofy]

It seems like most people's issues are with miss matched opponents.

 

ERJAK and Bryan Blaire and a few others seem to be in the minority after reading through this entire thread. I support your guys ideas of creativity and that there are not specific rules against painting how you want but not everything is black and white.

 

Painting ultramarines red and using ultramarines specific characters is fine as long as the keywords work GW rule wise. Your models, your paint, your money and your time. But don't expect everyone else who has put their time, their paint and their money into their models to want to play with you. I'm fine with that example but not this next one.

 

Having a whole red painted army and saying Detatchment A is chapter 1 because it's heavy support and the tactics favors it, Detatchment B is chapter 2 because it favors assault, and Detachment C is chapter 3 because it favors a gunline is so unsportsmanlike to the vast majority of players. My models, my paint, my money and my time says I'm not going to play that person.

 

I didn't spend my time and money on preparing my army so someone else can not care what I think about or value in my wargamming and just not paint or use stand in models or abuse chapter tactics under the guise of "some people are more competitive". We all know that guy. Those people exist outside of Warhammer. They are only having fun if they win. The goal is to have fun, winning is a bonus. Those people play to win, and if they win they have fun.

 

The people who are traditionalist and stuck with the same chapter for years no matter how bad the chapter tactics and paint their armors like so are not going to want to play the people who jump bandwagons everytime the tactics change or the rules do and don't bother to re-paint for the sake of being competitive. Those are two totally different players. The people who are traditionalist in this thread seem to be okay with creativity just not abusing rules to win or make things too confusing.

 

I personally am in the middle. If you paint your smurfs red because your sick of blue and wanted to be different, cool. Just let me know before the game. Or if your word bearers are painted beautifully and your in love with their rich lore and never want to play another chapter but lost the past 10 games and recognize they have the worst legion trait and want to play with another trait for a better chance at winning, that's cool too just let me know and know why before the game and I'm down. I personally rather have a closer game decided by the dice gods then someone steam rolling and tabling turn 3 (my opponent or myself).

 

Powergamers think traditionalists are ignorant for their intolerance and traditionalists think powergamers are ignorant for being over-competitive. Those players are never going to get along. Hence my first statement. I'm down for playing red smurfs or purple salamanders because some guy thought it looked cool, I'm not down for cloaked dark angels units painted dark green and off white being raven guard because -1 to hit is OP and they just want to win, not play. Sorry for rambling, just my opinion and observations.

[Bryan Blaire]

ERJAK and Bryan Blaire and a few others seem to be in the minority after reading through this entire thread.

I think it’s funny when you argue the actual rules to the game and people conflate that with your personal feelings on it.

 

My armies play a single way, always have - always will. My personal armies use DA rules, Space Wolves rules, and Blood Angels rules period. They are painted appropriate schemes and have different fluff backgrounds, but that’s what they are. Even if I never played the same person twice, it wouldn’t matter, that’s still how they would be played - I just don’t like GW’s color schemes or most of their fluff, so I do my own thing there (I also don’t necessarily like their versions of some weapons, but I’ve never gotten around to mass converting them either, so that’s a totally different conversation.

 

My entire point was about what the rules of the game say (and yes, rules are black and white - they may be worded funny and require clarification because of this, but that doesn’t change their nature - or they wouldn’t be rules) - and the rules do not include WYSIWYG or that your color scheme has any bearing on the rules you use - let’s not conflate what the rules say with my personal views on playing - they aren’t the same.

 

Again, if people want to extend the rules to color schemes and their opponents are fine with that, or you are playing under someone else’s rules umbrellas, then change whatever you want - those just aren’t official rules. It’s not a majority/minority thing, it’s a “what the rules say” vs. “how I want to play” - if you want to play a different way, that’s great, just house rule it!

[MysticTemplar]

It seems like most people's issues are with miss matched opponents.

 

ERJAK and Bryan Blaire and a few others seem to be in the minority after reading through this entire thread. I support your guys ideas of creativity and that there are not specific rules against painting how you want but not everything is black and white.

 

You may be suffering from selection bias - the only people posting in this thread are people who A.) Frequent Bolter and Chainsword (which my general impression of has been that the general populace is much deeper into the painting/modeling side of the hobby rather than the gaming side), and B.) Have a strong enough opinion on the subject to want to post, which feels like it is naturally going to trend to attract more people who want things painted by the book rather than people who don't care about matching studio color schemes, due to the difference in personal investment in the concept.  (Though I am willing to admit I could be wrong.  Doing otherwise would defeat the entire purpose of this post, after all.)

 

Be careful making generalizations from such tiny sample sizes, they'll lead you astray more often than not.

[Special Officer Doofy]

@Bryan Blaire I was just saying people on either extreme are not a good pair for opponents, which was my subjective opinion after reading the posts in this thread. I also said it's not a rule they have to match, and people can do whatever they want as long as they obey the keyword/faction rules. Never was arguing against the rules. I just said I, and from reading this thread, others that have posted, don't want to play certain list in that regard, is all. Not extending any rules.

 

@Mystic Templar Hmmm I said from this thread, so my generalization would have been purely based on the people that posted in this thread prior to my posting. It's a small enough sample size to physically count. Sorry if it seemed like I was generalizing the forum or population at large. I was just saying people on other sides of the argument don't make for fun match, and that was my opinion.

[Medjugorje]

its okay to Play another chapter. But it makes me sad to see some nice chapter Colors like holy Griffins or Iron Knights just played as boring Ultrasmurfes... just because the rules are better. Especially in 7th Edition when everybody Plays his black,blue,red,... Marines as White Scrars.

[Rob P]

I keep coming back to this thread and it's interesting to read what everyone thinks. It's good to see that most (if not everyone) seems to think that it's ok within your gaming group - with similar minded people - to do what you like.

 

And it's fair to say the issue seems to be representing Chapter X with Chapter Y and, as a separate point, whether Successor Chapter X should have flexibility to use Special Character from Chapter Y. I'm less interested in that secondary issue.

 

I've been trying and failing to imagine a suitable analogy and I started with Football teams and Fantasy Football - but ended somewhere altogether different.

 

With the team you (hopefully) support them through the good times and the bad. You buy the shirt and you support them through the matches whether they win or lose. They're your team.

 

With fantasy football you try and predict the most successful combo. You don't support a team or a specific player throughout but rather who is good at any given time.

 

I see the team as being like the well loved Blood Angels that you will collect through thick and thin.

 

I see the fantasy football as being the meta-army that you might buy to try and do well at a couple of tournaments and then drop/trade/sell when they fall out of favour.

 

These possibly reflect the most extreme ends of love of the army vs love of winning the game and I don't expect many people falls entirely on the edges here.

 

However, the more likely story here is love of the lore and valuing the time and effort that has been put into getting an army together v the frustration of feeling that you have rolled a dud this edition. From that angle I can fully appreciate both sides.

 

The issue, as much as it exists, from a gaming POV appears to be the motive for calling Salamanders Ultramarines (e.g. is this a person who just cares about winning?) and/or will this make the game confusing for me putting me at a tactical disadvantage? In the case of the former - why are you playing with them if it bothers you? and in the case of the latter - this can be softened/avoided through good discussion.

 

From a lore/collector/me perspective. It just don't feel right calling a Salamander marines Ultramarines. It's not logical, it just is. What makes me a lot happier is someone lifting the Ultramarine rules, finding justification applying them to the Salamanders in lore in the specific context of the event/battle/campaign and then giving the abilities etc names or effects that fit the Salamander motif- essentially window dress them as Salamander abilities. Heck - don't paint a full Ultramarine army to use their tactics but make up some cards mirroring the Ultramarine abilities etc - this helps with the second issue raised in the last paragraph. Ok, you'll still have some chin scratching to do with Guilliman and the like - how would you represent him in the Salamander vein? I'd say just use Guilliman. Guilliman leading some Salamanders is half-way to explaining why they are Ultramarine-like.

[Zephaniah Adriyen]

I've ensured that I can use either Iron Hands or Blood Angels rules at any given time if I so desire, and still be lore-accurate, with my Successor. As a tradeoff, I can't get the special characters for either, which is okay. My Chapter is certainly more Blood Angels-y in appearance (lots of red, gold and wings everywhere) but there's also elements of AdMech influence (Sergeants who, rather than obey Helmets Are for :cuss: have Skitarii Vanguard heads, red being the dominant armor color, even on specialists like Librarians and Chaplains) and of influence from the Crimson Knights' "other" parent Chapter (golden gauntlets on certain Firstborn Marines, ties with the AdMech). I still haven't used Iron Hands rules just yet, it's just a thing I can do if I want. Which is neat, I think. It wasn't even what I really intended with my lads' lore-building; I just wanted an excuse to run AdMech and Knights with 'em.

[Vermintide]

I've ensured that I can use either Iron Hands or Blood Angels rules at any given time if I so desire, and still be lore-accurate, with my Successor. As a tradeoff, I can't get the special characters for either, which is okay. My Chapter is certainly more Blood Angels-y in appearance (lots of red, gold and wings everywhere) but there's also elements of AdMech influence (Sergeants who, rather than obey Helmets Are for : have Skitarii Vanguard heads, red being the dominant armor color, even on specialists like Librarians and Chaplains) and of influence from the Crimson Knights' "other" parent Chapter (golden gauntlets on certain Firstborn Marines, ties with the AdMech). I still haven't used Iron Hands rules just yet, it's just a thing I can do if I want. Which is neat, I think. It wasn't even what I really intended with my lads' lore-building; I just wanted an excuse to run AdMech and Knights with 'em.

 

Sounds a lot like what I originally intended to do, since I had a bunch of Skitarrii and the warglaives from Forgebane. I was gonna run a mixed army of AM/SM and fluff it out as a recon escort for expeditions to discover archeotech. But after the ordeal of painting up those fiddly little skittle troops (and seeing how cool Intercessors looked), I gave in to my roots, and went full Blood Angel.

[Panzer]

 I just wanted an excuse to run AdMech and Knights with 'em.

To be fair you wouldn't need an excuse to do that. Blood Angels are an IMPERIUM army too and they can ally with AdMech and Knights as much as Iron Hands. ^^

[DuskRaider]

Does it matter... well, it's your army. You purchased it, you painted it and you're looking to get something out of your investment. To that end, I will say no.

 

I will also say, however, that I am a huge proponent of the lore and the hobby. Sometimes it does feel a bit gamey when someone rolls up with what are clearly Ultramarines and whips out a Deathwatch codex or what have you. Even more, when someone drops down a not-Guilliman in whatever color their Chapter is. I'm not saying I wouldn't play against them, but it kinda hits a nerve sometimes. My friend did this with his Space Sharks. He has a not-Guilliman-Space Shark Primarch and it's obvious he did it both because at this point Charcaradons don't have rules and because he wanted the most powerful models on the board he could use (this was by his own admittance). Do I play against it? Yes. Does it seem off to me? Absolutely.

 

In the end, no one can tell you how to play your army as long as you stick to the rules of the game. You want a Blood Angels Guilliman? Okay, that's kinda dumb but sure. If it bothers your opponent that much, they reserve the right to dent you a game just as much as you can tell them to jog off if they don't like your models.

 

Edit: I should point out that I have all sorts of counts-as models and even small Kill Teams and what have you that have no proper faction rules (Dark Mechanicum, Beastmen) but as long as I clearly model what I intend to field and / or explain to my opponent, I never have issues.

[Vermintide]

There is, of course, a separate debate about why certain factions get access to powerful characters and rules that others don't, and indeed the balance of those characters/rules in the first place. Robby G is the prime example- A competitive player wants to run Ultramarines purely to get access to him, so that player has to make a decision between having a competitive army or having a personalised army.

 

Really, that's the source of the conflict in the first place. It seems wrong to me that one one hand, GW encourages the creative aspects of the hobby, but on the other hand, it creates rules and models that limit your choice- It creates this conflict between lore and hobby.

[Tyriks]

I don't mind how anyone paints their stuff. I view the lore and the tabletop as separate entities or else I'll spend the whole game complaining about inconsistencies. I don't care if someone paints up Guilliman as their successor or anything, I don't mind if someone fields BA as IH as long as they're clear about it up front.

 

The only thing I'll groan about is stuff like, "these Imperial Fists are Ultramarines but these ones are Iron Hands." I'm not ever gonna remember which one is which without a visual cue so I'm not gonna mess with it. I dont mind people mixing and matching as long as I know what is what.

[ERJAK]

I don't mind how anyone paints their stuff. I view the lore and the tabletop as separate entities or else I'll spend the whole game complaining about inconsistencies. I don't care if someone paints up Guilliman as their successor or anything, I don't mind if someone fields BA as IH as long as they're clear about it up front.

 

The only thing I'll groan about is stuff like, "these Imperial Fists are Ultramarines but these ones are Iron Hands." I'm not ever gonna remember which one is which without a visual cue so I'm not gonna mess with it. I dont mind people mixing and matching as long as I know what is what.

This is 100% it. If you're using different chapters you need your opppnent to be able to tell them apart at a glance. Outside of that, anything goes.

 

Here's another thing to consider: This is a marine only issue AT BEST.

 

The appropriate color scheme for the appropriate chapter only seems like a reasonable (or necessary for some less savory people) option because you know what those schemes are and expect your opponent to know what those things are.

 

Which is kinda racist (speciesist? Army-ist?) tbh. Oh, space marines are just SOOO special that everyone MUST know exactly what every chapters actual color scheme is so OBVIOUSLY it'll create confusion/lore problems/etc.

 

Meanwhile, how many people can honestly say they know even half of the codex color schemes of any non-marine army they don't play? Be honest, if you don't play nids do you know the difference between jormungandr and gorgon? What about Novok and Sautek? Fiery heart and Valorous heart? Dal'Yth and Vior'la? Poison Tongue and Obsidian rose? Are you even 100% sure these are all real 'chapters' without looking any of them up?

[Spinsanity]

Meanwhile, how many people can honestly say they know even half of the codex color schemes of any non-marine army they don't play? Be honest, if you don't play nids do you know the difference between jormungandr and gorgon? What about Novok and Sautek? Fiery heart and Valorous heart? Dal'Yth and Vior'la? Poison Tongue and Obsidian rose? Are you even 100% sure these are all real 'chapters' without looking any of them up?

Considering they're deeply entranched in old-school cannon, I'm pretty sure a good many players (if not a majority) can easily identify eldar cratworlds (except maybe the new ones that have been added since what, 7th? edition) and ork clans...

[Soldier of Dorn]

Honestly, I don't really care, personally. If there's one credo I think should be brought to the tabletop, it's the sentiment that the game is not the rules, and that the rules are a guide, not a dictate: the ultimate arbiters of gameplay are the players of the game (by which I mean the discrete individual instance, not the community that has arisen around the published ruleset) themselves, not writers in their ivory towers. If it makes the game more enjoyable for those involved, then by all means, use the tools provided in a way that was not intended -- because that's all the rules are, really. They're a toolkit for competition, to be used however the individuals in question decide they should be used. I've no issue with people breaking and adapting the rules so long as it is to that end: to make the game more enjoyable for all involved.

 

Of course, for tournament play, that entire dynamic changes -- now arbitration necessarily cannot be left to the individuals and must be handed over to a higher authority, that of the organizer, as to level the playing field between competitors. But for individual play, I don't think it matters one whit what rules you choose to use.

 

ADDENDUM: Someone mentioned previously something to the end of "we could just as well all play with wooden blocks, if that was the case" and to that end I can only offer up an image that was shared in another wargaming group earlier this week:
 

Hidden Content

It may not be 40k, but I think it shows the point. One absolutely could, indeed. As with so many things, it's simply a matter of preference and choice.

[Panzer]

Be honest, if you don't play nids do you know the difference between jormungandr and gorgon? What about Novok and Sautek? Dal'Yth and Vior'la?

Yes to those three examples. ;)

[Kastor Krieg]

IMO, anyone who even attempts to force myself or any other player to play with a certain keyword because the physical models are painted in the particular color scheme, or alternatively tries to convince me that I cannot play with a certain keyword because the models aren't painted in a particular manner, is the epitome of That Guy and can go pound sand.

Nobody has the right to dictate your hobby and game rule choices that explicitly, RAW, belong to you.

And the mere thought of this makes me want to paint Slaaneshi Ultramarine renegades who have no discernable color scheme, just blotches and patterns of clashing colors all over the place, every single one of them completely different with Primarch Roboute Guilliman leading them in Harlequinesque paintjob and details, seduced into a dance by Fulgrim's blade kiss and Proud Him, Captain Cato Sicarius being his right hand

Watch this army, try and make me stop playing them as Ultramarines and I hope your eyes bleed

[Marshal Reinhard]

Nobody has the right to dictate your hobby and game rule choices that explicitly, RAW, belong to you.

 

He isn't forced to play with you either. Just saying you make it sound one-sided.

 

I'd have no problem with neither, for the record.