Let's talk about GW's recent wording with successors

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

@ Chapter Master ###

 

That is fine for you just don’t expect everybody else to agree with you. ;)

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

You see, you say that about being locked in to a specific subfaction's rules purely because of color scheme...and I can't help but shake my head. Maybe it's a grognard thing - I don't know your history with the game - but loyalty to a subfaction was why people played with bad rules. I've played my Iron Hands as Iron Hands since I started them in 3rd/4th Edition. I could have used Codex: Space Wolves in 5th because they were arguably a better representation than the no-rules the Chapter had in 5th...but I didn't. I could have used Codex: Blood Angels too, because better-Razorbacks and deep striking Land Raiders sounds pretty Medusan to me...but I didn't. Despite both of those codices being better than C:SM at the time, I had an Iron Hands army. Not a black Space Wolf army. Not a black Blood Angels army. Because I love my army. I love(d) their lore, I loved the scheme, I took ownership of them as "mine." Nothing about them was disposable because I was loyal to my faction.

 

So when you say, "people get locked into a full set of rules just because they picked a blue paint pot," what I'm hearing is "I want to play the army of the month and color shouldn't matter." Your lens is wrong. It's not a blue army, it's an Ultramarine army. It's not a yellow army, it's an Imperial Fist army. I applaud your friend for picking a scheme he likes with lore he likes but instead of running his Farsight Enclaves as T'au Sept, I'd recommend finding what *works* for Farsight. Find the joy in a hard fight with his favorite faction instead of looking for easier wins by betraying his own likes and dislikes. 8th isn't perfectly balanced and the new run of rules we're getting with C:SM2.0 will take a while to catch up with the rest of the game and level out the playing field. But in the meantime, my personal opinion is that if you have a Space Marine that's painted as Ultramarines...play them as Ultramarines. I can't force you to do so, I may not be able to convince you to do so. But I also don't have to play against you, either.

I appreciate the concept you have and I applaud it. It is something I couldn't do and admit it fully because I am someone who enjoys using the full length and breadth of a codex and multiple of them. To me, I don't see C:SM + 1 supplement. I see them all. As I said, I am a list builder person and I enjoy building lists over and over again. It was something I also enjoyed in card games, I enjoyed building decks.

 

Also...finding what works for Far'Sight Enclave? Trust me brother, we tried. It doesn't work. The trait wouldn't be bad if it weren't for the fact it just doesn't mesh well with tau. He would LOVE to play Far'Sight enclave as they are described in lore, close the enemy and doing damage but the lack of any melee option and crisis suits being straight garbage right now (cost way too much) just means it isn't viable nor effective.

 

I suppose I should add something quick: I tend to play in a fairly competitive area where many of the players are tournament players and regularly will want to test those lists for upcoming events. So it is possible my mindset is different to yours because of our play groups.

Again, I respect your point and it is valid but I couldn't do it. I want to play with ALL the toys!

See that’s the issue. Space Marines are specific factions. They’re as specific as Tau and Orks are from each other. It doesn’t matter if they have the same army list or psychic powers or whatever. If you’ve chosen a known successor of a First Founding, and you’re running them with different rules you’re playing a different game, as if you were playing Orks as Tau or SoB as Primaris. You can do as you like, obviously, but list building isn’t meant to be done like that. Edited October 9, 2019 by Marshal Rohr

[chapter master 454]

So I am clearly the minority here.

Let me see if I can try and encapsulate the view points best I can but if I mis-represent then well...sorry I am trying to get your viewpoint.

 

From my perspective:

A player is best to just ignore lore no matter how much they love chapter X, Y or Z and make their own chapter as to ensure they can use whatever rules they want to as they may get stuck with a set of rules that is one of various factors. One is the rules aren't what they wanted and now they have to ether "suck it up" or have to strip all their hardwork down to start again for something they did want but maybe not enjoy the colour scheme (you tell me yellow is fun to paint! Gold is bad enough!). Two, the rules aren't up to snuff and doesn't allow the player to have fun due to a lack of power as they can't really play the game without have a ball and chain around their neck.

  Thankfully, the new marine supplements are far from this and are amazing (unlike the first codex for marines in 8th, THAT was playing with a handicap. You could only do worse with Grey Knights really imo). A player should not be forced upon rules that they did not exactly ask for/know about. A player should be able to enjoy lore and visual appeal separate from mechanics. I don't believe in egregious proxying (the whole "Ork as Tau" concept), however this topic is about GW tournaments and those who follow those guidelines and in this case, models are moot point here as in a tournament the models MUST have the correct parts. The issue is forcing a colour scheme to assign rules which may not be what the player wants and may not have the time, money or both to strip down their army every time they want to play something else within one faction.

 

Literally I don't see the reason in players needing to get separate armies for Sub-Factions within a Faction. There is some outliers within some factions which is notable within marines due to the existence of Dark Angels, Blood Angels and Space Wolves who all vary heavily enough to warrant their own bespoke codex which by all accounts could consider them a different faction. The main difference these factions have is their need of a unique codex and not a supplement (which needs the parent codex to function).

In those instances I would agree that those factions warrant building a new army, they are divergent from the base faction they are related to that they are unique to the point of needing it.

However when we talk about Codex: Space Marine and the 6 (or however many there will be) supplements where the only real difference between the supplements is colour and colour alone. Heck, Iron Hands and Raven Guard even share the same primary colour in their scheme with only minor variances. Why should I need a new army with the only difference being colour?

That is my argument.

 

The other side:

A player should not be allowed to use whichever chapter they want due to it being the new hotness. They should make do with what they have and try and work through it and improve with what they have and adapt with the tools they have available, not the ones they say they "want".

It looks silly having a fully painted ultramarine army run around with Iron Hand relics and stratagems while a White Scar army is playing with Raven Guard tools (oof, right in the lore there). It also cheapens the efforts of other hobbyists who have worked hard on their army and even toughed through thick and thin with the faction only to suddenly have others say they are one of them when they are suspiciously yellow when they should be Dark Navy Blue.

 

Sorry to make the other side short...I don't want to but it is a lot easier to express ones self opinion better than what is the opinions of others that one is trying to understand, and see the perspective from to get a better grasp of the feelings towards the situation.

 

Clearly again, I am in the minority. I don't want to have my list building nature and enjoyment to be restricted to one list of toys and tools but others find it immersive to be loyal to one faction/sub-faction. I do get that because I have fought thick and thin on different fronts.

I was a player of tanks. Land Raiders are my favourite tanks, bar none. I LOVE Land Raiders. I would field my 3 beloved tanks, a Phobos, Crusader and Redeemer at a loss to my own ability to win. I did fight thick and thin and got to the point of giving even tournament lists a run (even when they brought plenty of brightlances, I still showed how unreliable those were!). How do you think I feel about Repulsor? I hate them. Grav-tanks just irk me because it reminds me of how charging infantry just immediately turn off tanks making them worthless...it makes me seethe. In fact even typing about it I have to curtail my want to curse it out.

My beloved land raider. The one tank that should be the EPITOME of armoured might in 40k without going super heavy is nought but a pile of garbage in the face of everything. Why use Land raiders when there are Executioners? Why use them at all when the crusader doesn't benefit from bolter discipline? (oh because someone at GW got their ork horde wiped by one I wager...-points to centurions-)Why use them at all when the redeemers flamestorms only have D6 each? I would use them...I really want to...but whenever I do I lose complete hope for the game because I see how pointless it is to try with them at times. They can do damage, they can do work but the amount of effort you have to put in for it...I can't anymore.

 

I want my land raiders...I want them. But all I get is that reminder that tanks in 40k suck and should just be removed because they are that warp cursed trivial to deal with unless they float like fairies because that makes sense. "Tanks causing you hassle? Just charge 'em, they can't shoot"

Vent...Vent...Vent...VEnt...VENT.

 

Massive tangent. Colossal. But I needed to say it...carry on and leave me be...just a competitive player...who just wants his tanks to be good. (and no...I don't want leman russes...)

[Kinstryfe]

I think any attempt to make players "make due with what they have and try to work thru it" is the reason my flgs and Facebook feeds are full of people trying to sell or trade their Marine armies. This is a hobby, and something to the effect of "gee too bad you painted your toy soldiers red instead of black" will, in my experience, cause more people to quit the hobby or the army rather than it will cause them to dig in their heels and try to fight an uphill battle. And we can be mad at bandwagon jumpers, but my buddy with his long-term Iron Hands army needs occasional reminding that since in his last tournament he played black metal Ultramarines, he can't really be mad at blue Hands.

 

The thing that really bugs me though is that any attempt to tie rules in with colours is only going to lead to me seeing more bare plastic down at the shop. The strongest, most flexible condition for an army shouldn't be bare plastic. Bare plastic? Can be any Space Marine army. Undercoated black or white? Any army. I paint it yellow? Imperial Fists or any Successor. Add little black and white cheques? Common Marine decoration, could still be any of those. Add a red heart? Bam, they're Lamenters. Blood Angels codex but without the special characters or relics, but with one forgeworld character with no model. That's the dumb part, that color and livery equals rules. And that's not even taking into the fact that the fluff is ever changing. I feel for the guy out there with a lovely obscure Chapter he picked off a poster who gets their primogenitor revealed as a Chapter he isn't fond of. It all seems like GW has gone away from the philosophy of "your guys" and into "do as we say".

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Just sounds like entitlement to me. A large part of the game is the immersion that comes from playing with armies that duly look the part.

[Sloeberjong]

Well, it sounds like entitlement to me if you force me to use rules just because I once picked a colour I liked and now the playstyle doesn't fit what I like to play. It's not all waac.

 

Fluff, hobby and game are separate things. Things don't work in game like they do in the fluff and the hobby aspect is something personal. I might like the look of blood angels but I might not like a close combat gaming experience. I could still play blood angels, they're not bad in any instance, but still, it doesn't fit the style you like to you and you might miss out on some fun strategems.

 

I wouldn't mind someone with an ultramarines army saying he plays Iron Hands because it's more competitive. It's an Iron Hands army that's painted blue, big deal. It changes nothing gaming wise so why be bothered by it? Especially since it's ridiculous to force people to buy new models to paint them a specific colour or to change the models they have every time they want to try some new rules just because maybe when they started they liked the look of Ultramarines. This is not a cheap hobby. If they're marines with corresponding weapon options it'll be fine for me if you play whatever chapter. 

 

I'm glad I've got orange marines so I can happily use whatever rules I want. The new goodies all seem fun and different to play, I love aggressors and repulsors so I can't really choose what rules to play. UM are good for aggressors, IH good for everything, WS have fun toys, soon IF/CF might have fun toys for bolters...I will happily change it up

Edited October 9, 2019 by Sloeberjong

[Trevak Dal]

Basically there are three routes per supplement (using Ultramarines as an example);

1. Be Ultramarines;

You get access to Ultramarines CT, Ultramarine Super Doctrine, Named Characters/Special Units, Ultramarine relics, Special Issue Wargear, Ultramarine Stratagems, Ultramarine Psychic Discipline and Warlord Traits. Plus everything from C:SM.

2. Be an Ultramarine 'Inheritor of the Primarch';

You get access to Ultramarines CT, Ultramarine Super Doctrine, Special Issue Wargear, Ultramarine Stratagems, Ultramarine Psychic Discipline and Warlord Traits. Plus everything from C:SM. (Spend CP to access Ultramarine Relics).

3. Be an Ultramarine Successor;

You get access to 2x Successor CT from C:SM, Ultramarine Super Doctrine, Special Issue Wargear, Ultramarine Stratagems, Ultramarine Psychic Discipline and Warlord Traits. Plus everything from C:SM. (Spend CP to access Ultramarine Relics).

Thank you for that, really sums it up for a simple Simon like myself. Edited October 9, 2019 by Trevak Dal

[Dosjetka]

=][= Be polite with each other, folks. We're all brothers and sisters under the guidance of the Emperor/Chaos Gods, after all. =][=

[Trevak Dal]

I'd say the Farsight Enclaves player would just be able to just play as another Sept, as the Tau are the one race that does commonly use different schemes for their faction, only keeping the sept colour the same. Their base red colour doesn't really matter, just say that they're another Sept battling in a planet that that colouration fits.

The major colors of the individual Tau paint schemes are like Guard camo. The little stripes are the bits that align with which Sept they belong to.

 

Enclaves is a really baller dark gray.

 

Enclaves armor is red to symbolize the Tau's hot-bloodedness (Farsight is from Viorla, whose Sept color is bright red same with a lot of his initial followers).

 

I think that a lot of the color schemes are chosen by the artists so that they look interesting.

 

Like how Viorla has a MUCH better color scheme than it used to. It was like some weird, pastel yellow/green, looking like something you'd find in a diaper. The new scheme is just CASH.

 

I'm kind of struggling with what to paint my marines. I have always wanted a Spartan Green marine army, with unit and Specialist (like librarians, chaplains, etc) in their "codex" colors. That was really cool and appealed to me.

 

I would kind of like to make my Tau purple, but have become hesitant after a few bad attempts with some test models.

[Rik Lightstar]

For me, I'd always rather see people use the rules associated with the faction and sub-faction they've chosen.

 

For my part this means that I use the White Scars supplement for my Mantis Warriors rather than the Ultramarines one, despite the fact that the Ultramarines lineage trait would probably work better for the force I have. However I do understand that that's my choice, and I accept other people do it differently.

 

What would make me so much happier than any restriction of sub-faction based on colours chosen would be a simple rule stating that: "If your models are unpainted they cannot benefit from any <Sub-Faction> rules." I'd prefer to see fully painted Ultramarines become Iron Hands and Blood Angels become Raven Guard than see endless grey hordes of unprimed plastic.

 

Rik

[Lemondish]

I think it's refreshing to see that the most creative option is also the one with the least baggage.

[Sloeberjong]

There's no painting requirement anywhere in the rules, so none should be added IMO.

 

That's your own rule and that of most tournaments. In tournaments you usually don't have to worry about playing unpainted armies and for local stuff you can opt to not play unpainted armies. I get it though, but I don't think it should have an actual effect on the rules since that's not how GW operates or how you keep enough players. Especially new players. It comes across as rather elitst to want to have this requirement to be honest. 

 

Looking at myself, I love building and gaming, but I hate painting...so I often have unpainted models. It's a rarity to see fully painted armies at our club. I must say the new contrast paints do help a lot. I get that it's annoying for some people to face (partly) unpainted armies, but I would not play this game if it were a requirement. 

[BluejayJunior]

Just sounds like entitlement to me. A large part of the game is the immersion that comes from playing with armies that duly look the part.

I think you meant to say, "A large part of what I enjoy about the game is the immersion that comes from playing with armies that duly look the part."

 

Again just because somebody wants something a little different from the hobby, doesn't mean they are doing it wrong. If someone wants to run their Ultramarine army as Iron Hands because it's a stronger option or better fits their play style or because they like just like the rules, then let them play that way. If you feel that strongly about it, then you are free to not play against them (unless you are at a tournament, then it's either play them or concede). But nobody should be trying to force their way to play on anyone else. 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Where I play the armies must be painted correctly so if you don’t like it then you can concede or go elsewhere.

[BluejayJunior]

I'm glad that works for you and your gaming community. But don't try to force your idea of gaming on everyone else. If you want to gatekeep like that in your area, that's your business. 

[Iron Father Ferrum]

I do want to come back in and clarify something. When discussing color schemes, we've all been a bit reductionist. This has been touched on but to clarify: my Iron Hands are clearly Iron Hands. They are predominantly black with silver and white trim and all have the Chapter's insignia on there somewhere.

 

If you have an army of Space Marines in a medium blue with gold trim but not an agemo anywhere, I don't have a leg to stand on. They sure look like Ultramarines 2nd Company, but you can say they're the Blue Hands, a Successor of the Iron Hands and that's fine. Where I really draw the line - and by that I mean find a different opponent, not force you to change your ways - would be if your Blue Hands are led by Iron Father Feirros. Because that is an obvious attempt to sidestep the lore.

 

And ultimately, I'm here for the lore. If I wanted to just play a scifi wargame there are other choices. What draws me to 40K has never been the balance or gameplay, it's the lore. That's why I place such a heavy emphasis on it. The lore states that Iron Hands are black with a silver gauntlet icon. Ultramarines are blue with a white agemo. Period.

 

If I wanted an army that I can use to just switch between different Chapter Tactics, I wouldn't have painted them in a First Founding scheme. I'd have picked one of the hundreds of schemes GW has published over the years that is just a name and a jumble of colors, or created my own. If someone has lore for their DIY chapter called the Blue Hands and they look with Ultramarines but have a different insignia...that's fine. TTT in YouTube have their own custom Chapter - the Iron Dragons I think? - that they use in batreps but since its DIY and a non-canon scheme, they freely try different Marine rulesets with them. And that's fine because it doesn't conflict with my sense of the lore.

[Trevak Dal]

Sapphire Claws?

[Vermintide]

 

If I wanted an army that I can use to just switch between different Chapter Tactics, I wouldn't have painted them in a First Founding scheme. I'd have picked one of the hundreds of schemes GW has published over the years that is just a name and a jumble of colors, or created my own. If someone has lore for their DIY chapter called the Blue Hands and they look with Ultramarines but have a different insignia...that's fine. TTT in YouTube have their own custom Chapter - the Iron Dragons I think? - that they use in batreps but since its DIY and a non-canon scheme, they freely try different Marine rulesets with them. And that's fine because it doesn't conflict with my sense of the lore.

 

This is a very sensible way of looking at it. I doubt anyone would really disagree- If you knowingly go for a first founding "official" colour scheme it can be reasonably be expected that that's what you intend to play. There can still be exceptions though. I think people get way too uptight about this, and when I really think about it there are very few things I would actively deny my opponent from doing, so long as they have a decent reason and they're not trying to be underhanded.

 

Fun story-

 

I got back into this hobby without reading any books or rules, I didn't intend to play. I just wanted to paint, so I was going to make a mixed army of AdMech and Marines. From my background lore knowledge I thought "Well, I'll say they're an Iron Hands successor. I can fluff 'em out as an escort for archeotech expiditions on space hulks and whatnot." Turns out the colour scheme I painted my Marines? Blood Drinkers. Literally spot on, 100% canonical Blood Angels successor. Total accident- That was just the colour scheme I thought up.

 

So then I read the Blood Angels book, and I thought "Hey, sure. I used to have these guys in the old days too. Maybe it's fate." and then I stuck all the BA decals on them. But imagine if I'd kept them as my original idea of Iron Hands Ad Mech soup. Skip forward to September 2019 and boy would I have looked like the cheesiest, meta-chasing power gamer out there, and everyone would probably ask me "C'mon man, why are you playing your Blood Angels as Iron Hands." and I would have been beyond exasperated constantly having to explain that that's not what I'm doing.

 

So... Y'know, unless someone's clearly doing it to be a meta chaser, I'd always give the benefit of the doubt.

[MegaVolt87]

This day and age, there is no excuse of being uninformed about hobby stuff like mini gaming with the internet existing. If you even have the slightest inclination to switch sub factions within a main faction, a DIY force, theme + paint job that jumps rules to rules of the new hotness is what you should be doing. Its expected, but will solicit eye rolling nevertheless. I came back to CSM knowing they are struggling in 8th ed, I couldn't imagine proxying my IW's with something a bit stronger like red corsairs with knights. I got a DIY SM army on the slow burn so I can band wagon with unashamedly if I want. DIY is the way to go for band wagoning/ WAAC, its more respectful of established factions at least. Especially when you put as much effort in modeling + painting. 

 

The real issue really is people who go too deep on a sub faction, when they really should have started a different army in that faction instead for the same amount of investment. The amount of investment I have in my IW's, I could have done two other armies at this point, so that would be four different armies instead of two. I would never proxy my IW's as anything but, so have no regrets in going all in. I respect the lore, themes etc too much to proxy them. So yeah, when you have no respect for the official factions by not being WYSIWYG + blatantly band wagoning, don't get upset when you are being disrespected for your attitude. 

[Lemondish]

I do want to come back in and clarify something. When discussing color schemes, we've all been a bit reductionist. This has been touched on but to clarify: my Iron Hands are clearly Iron Hands. They are predominantly black with silver and white trim and all have the Chapter's insignia on there somewhere.

 

If you have an army of Space Marines in a medium blue with gold trim but not an agemo anywhere, I don't have a leg to stand on. They sure look like Ultramarines 2nd Company, but you can say they're the Blue Hands, a Successor of the Iron Hands and that's fine. Where I really draw the line - and by that I mean find a different opponent, not force you to change your ways - would be if your Blue Hands are led by Iron Father Feirros. Because that is an obvious attempt to sidestep the lore.

 

And ultimately, I'm here for the lore. If I wanted to just play a scifi wargame there are other choices. What draws me to 40K has never been the balance or gameplay, it's the lore. That's why I place such a heavy emphasis on it. The lore states that Iron Hands are black with a silver gauntlet icon. Ultramarines are blue with a white agemo. Period.

 

If I wanted an army that I can use to just switch between different Chapter Tactics, I wouldn't have painted them in a First Founding scheme. I'd have picked one of the hundreds of schemes GW has published over the years that is just a name and a jumble of colors, or created my own. If someone has lore for their DIY chapter called the Blue Hands and they look with Ultramarines but have a different insignia...that's fine. TTT in YouTube have their own custom Chapter - the Iron Dragons I think? - that they use in batreps but since its DIY and a non-canon scheme, they freely try different Marine rulesets with them. And that's fine because it doesn't conflict with my sense of the lore.

Feirros as a unit is just a vector for rules.

 

The Blue Hands might have their own Forge father with the same skills. Would you deny the lore possibility there? It's certainly having one's cake and enjoying it too, but I actually love the work people do to make counts as characters work in their custom armies.

Edited October 10, 2019 by Lemondish

[Marshal van Trapp]

See that’s the issue. Space Marines are specific factions. They’re as specific as Tau and Orks are from each other. It doesn’t matter if they have the same army list or psychic powers or whatever. If you’ve chosen a known successor of a First Founding, and you’re running them with different rules you’re playing a different game, as if you were playing Orks as Tau or SoB as Primaris. You can do as you like, obviously, but list building isn’t meant to be done like that.

I am a diehard marine player (been playing templars since 3rd edition and SW since 5th) and I do not agree with this AT ALL. If you're playing a specific marine faction with it's own unique models (wolves, blood Angels, dark Angel's, even templar to some degree) then sure, you're faction locked. But if every model in your army is just generic marines with painted armor and a painted on chapter symbol they are as interchangeable as any OTHER sub faction. This "using Tau as Orks" description is like saying a tactical marine body is not also the same as a bolter wielding devastator. Your line of thinking is way out there and its hyperbolic at this point. If someone wants to play their little plastic soldiers that THEY paid for as ultras, let them or change your mindset mate. This is NOT the hill worth dying on!

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

The lamest excuse I’ve heard so far is that it’s okay coz I’m uber competitive.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Feirros as a unit is just a vector for rules.

 

The Blue Hands might have their own Forge father with the same skills. Would you deny the lore possibility there? It's certainly having one's cake and enjoying it too, but I actually love the work people do to make counts as characters work in their custom armies.

No he's not. He's a specific character in a specific Chapter. It says so right on his data slate in the keyword section. If he was intended to be used by anyone, his keyword would be CHAPTER. If he was a Blue Hand, it would be BLUE HANDS. It's not. Its IRON HANDS. So the only way you should be able to take him is if your army is Iron Hands, and twenty some odd years of GW publications say that Iron Hands have black armor with silver and white trim.

 

Lore =/= rules, but lore *informs* the rules. And Feirros' lore is that he's an Iron Hand. I've seen Sons of Medusa players paint him up green too, and that's just as wrong in my opinion.

 

Like I said before, I can't stop anyone from doing what they want with their own models, but I'm allowed to voice my disagreement and choose not to play you.

[Marshal van Trapp]

So prior to this new codex there were no "successor chapter" dictated rules, if I was playing a successor chapter and painted up say calgar or BobbyG in the successor scheme, what would be the justification for not letting me use them? Simply saying "they are ultramarines characters so you cant use these models that you clearly painstakingly and loving painted because lore =/= rules" is hand waving and hyperbole

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I remember a time when the lore was cherished and you actually could score points for it at grand tournaments. It’s was a good time.