# How bothered would you be?(a painting question)



## JelloSea (Apr 12, 2011)

How bothered would you be if you played against a grey knights army that was not painted in the way that they are "supposed" to be? For example, all red or green, etc.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

Define this more. do you mean JUST red, no variation of colour at all?

or do you mean Instead of the drab, boring, uninspired silver, you make them have a different, more personal colour?

if its the first, if you can pull it off it works for a quick scheme and ive seen multiple table top armies perfectly fine for there using just a singular colour to make them look abit painted.

if the second. no problem at all, no one should EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER ^^^^^^ (continue this as long as you think it takes to get the point across) have an issue with models painted outside of the norm. Is this not a hobby filled with HOBBYISTS, filled with conversions and funky paintjobs from the masses? it is, anyone who would give someone grief for painting a model not the normal colours should be shot.

Of coarse that last comment was semi - joking, despite the fact that a person doing that is just a douche who is probably jealous or has a serious stick up his own ass and is just looking to cause problems.


----------



## fynn (Sep 19, 2008)

wouldnt bother me, as my GK's are painted in a very dark blue/grey


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

i would flay you over a gun carriage for even thinking about painting your models in anything other than the colours GW says they should be painted, how very dare you sir !


----------



## coke123 (Sep 4, 2010)

No problems at all. It's not different to 'counts-as', which I am a very strong supporter of.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

In the same way I don't play against people with green Blood Angels or black Space Wolves - because that shows only that the player is a flavor-of-the-month codex jumper - I guess I would have problems with wildly absurd paint job Grey Knights. I guess it's not the same as normal SM, since GK are very limited. But I think a GK army should either be matt or metallic grey, or Inquisitorial (brown/black/gold)

I guess I don't have a straight answer until I see the army, really.

EDIT: As long as the GK army contains 100% GK units/models to prove you didn't just "convert" your old Dark Angels/ Blood Angels to a new codex with little effort, I wouldn't mind.


----------



## fynn (Sep 19, 2008)

Flavour of the month codex jumper, intresteing term, but i dont think it applies here if hes useing GK minis, and i know im not one with my darker coloured GK, as i will be useing, and only use the GK codex for them (and seeing as there GK models, be a bit hard to use for another chapter)

@B&K if you try and flay me, i set my donkey on you...........lol


----------



## arlins (Sep 8, 2010)

If theyre grey knight figures it wouldnt bother me .
If its just space wolves figures ( or any othermarine) being used as GK then it would irk me ( unless i knew you were just playtesting bfore commiting to buy GK ) .


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

*shakes fist at Fynn and his continued Donkey loving


----------



## JelloSea (Apr 12, 2011)

I want to paint some knights with dark blue/slightly brighter blue with bright green highlights.

Like these sleeves:









Its tougher to see but I like to put great amounts of time into my models:









My camera is only mediocre on my lap top and my better painted models are at a friends house but you get the idea.

I am willing to dedicate a lot time into painting some knights but I don't want to be forced to paint them in the normal colors. Makes me sad that GW didn't fluff up a way to paint them other colors (same for the few ways your "supposed" to paint Eldar.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> ...I don't play against people with green Blood Angels or black Space Wolves - because that shows only that the player is a flavor-of-the-month codex jumper....


Codex jumping can benefit you as an opponent as the lack of long term experience will often mean they do not know how their army fits together so 9even if they use an internet list) will not have the basis to react to unusual tactics or builds.

Returning to topic, as long as it is clear what a model is I have no problem playing against an army.


----------



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

Why would I care what colour your army is painted? As long as everything is WYSIWYG or at least a decent level of counts as (these guardsmen with chainaxes are priests with eviserators) I would have no problem at all.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

I want going to paint mine metalic blue before I decided that I was going to sell them. Who gives a fuck what other folks say about your army as long as you have the proper models.


----------



## coke123 (Sep 4, 2010)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> In the same way I don't play against people with green Blood Angels or black Space Wolves - because that shows only that the player is a flavor-of-the-month codex jumper


Right, the people still using codices that have been out for well over a year and have had multiple codices released since the codex they're using are codex-jumpers? GW gives the option of Successor chapters for a reason (well, Space Wolves excluded). So what if people don't like the 'official' colour scheme? What if you simply wanted a chapter with greater emphasis on jump packs, or you feel that Grey hunters better suit the idea behind whatever you're using as troops than tacticals?

What if i were to use the Black Templar codex to represent my Silver Skulls? How is that any different?



JelloSea said:


> Makes me sad that GW didn't fluff up a way to paint them other colors (same for the few ways your "supposed" to paint Eldar.


Umm... GW has a ton of alternative craftworld colour schemes in the codex, and states that there are even more. There's tons of scope to create you own craftworld.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

its true, you can chuck any colour you want on your minis, they are after all your minis, GW use colour schemes to show case the models and give you ideas on how to get a good paint job, granted alot of the paint schemes in the codex are the ones you would use, but creativity is the name of the game, if you want red or green grey knights i say go for it! 
But the colour of the models is in no way related to what the army is, if you want pink orks go for it, if you want purple necrons go for it, just remeber the golden rule, all marines are blue


----------



## arumichic (May 14, 2011)

What? Creativitiy's an option for WH?! I thought GW was the law! :rofl:


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

arumichic said:


> What? Creativitiy's an option for WH?! I thought GW was the law! :rofl:


no i am the law


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

coke123 said:


> Right, the people still using codices that have been out for well over a year and have had multiple codices released since the codex they're using are codex-jumpers? GW gives the option of Successor chapters for a reason (well, Space Wolves excluded). So what if people don't like the 'official' colour scheme? What if you simply wanted a chapter with greater emphasis on jump packs, or you feel that Grey hunters better suit the idea behind whatever you're using as troops than tacticals?


Actually, I was talking about someone who for example have played Black Templars (painted and built as BT) for 3 years, and the second the Space Wolves codex come out and hear it is a powerful codex they strip the paint off and re-tool a shabby looking SW army to make their army more powerful.

That is exploiting the broader marine armies' collective codex update frequency and is not acceptable.


----------



## chromedog (Oct 31, 2007)

No.

ANTHRAX is the law (or failing that, Judge Dredd is).

I've played against yellow GK and rotting flesh coloured GK.

With my own 'boring silver' GK. I didn't have any issues with them. 

Now if he's trying to use grey plastic BA with non-GK options on them, and they aren't at least wysiwyg (or consistent 'counts as') then no.


----------



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> That is exploiting the broader marine armies' collective codex update frequency and is not acceptable.


And are you the ultimate authority on what is acceptable? Do you own GW? No? Then the quote above is simply an opinion, and bears as much weight as you seem to give to the opinions of others.

Everyone has the right to paint their miniatures whatever colour they wish to. If you want to use ultramarines models with the blood angels codex to represent the 8th company, ask your opponent, if they are happy to let you use it fine, if not find someone who will.


----------



## Varakir (Sep 2, 2009)

From a modelling and gaming aspect i'd have no issues at all, i actually think it'd be cool to see more alternative schemes for GK.

The only barrier I think is remotely legitimate is the fluff angle, as it isn't as easy to explain the new colours. You can't do the usual successor, or rogue marines army, so the most plausible reasons for a GK offshoot are out of the picture, or at least harder to justify.

You should definitely go for it though, their your models and it's up to you. If anyone challenges you on the fluff aspect just say they're in disguise :wink:


----------



## coke123 (Sep 4, 2010)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> to make their army more powerful.


And there it is. What is wrong with wanting to use a more powerful codex? Many people get far, far more enjoyment out of gaming than they do painting or fluff, if this weren't the case, then tournaments wouldn't need to enforce minimum painting standards. So why should they be disbarred from using the best codex available?

And perhaps they're not trying to get the most powerful codex? Take for instance my Silver Skulls as BT example- I in no way think that BT represent the Silver Skulls better than the Vanilla codex, in fact, it does a worse job. It's not a more powerful codex, either. So why would i do it? Variety. Maybe it's fun to shake things up once in a while and use a different codex. Have some Grey Hunters instead of Tacticals. Sprinkle some neophytes throughout my Tacticals, or even go for a foot based 'marine horde'. Or even better, tell my tacticals to take five whilst I bust out the JPs. What if we only have limited time for an elite, low moel count game (or if I'm just can't be stuffed shifting a heap of minis)? Well bust out the termies, Belial just joined the Silver Skulls



MetalHandkerchief said:


> That is exploiting the broader marine armies' collective codex update frequency and is not acceptable.


Erm, perhaps that's the draw of playing marines? All I'm seeing is an arrogant xenos player getting whiny over plastic space men and trying to impose arbitrary rules on those around him. Your xenos can't do the same? Perhaps. Does that mean marine players shouldn't be able to either? Hell no.



Varakir said:


> From a modelling and gaming aspect i'd have no issues at all, i actually think it'd be cool to see more alternative schemes for GK.
> 
> The only barrier I think is remotely legitimate is the fluff angle, as it isn't as easy to explain the new colours. You can't do the usual successor, or rogue marines army, so the most plausible reasons for a GK offshoot are out of the picture, or at least harder to justify.
> 
> You should definitely go for it though, their your models and it's up to you. If anyone challenges you on the fluff aspect just say they're in disguise


I know a guy using GK minis as Exorcists- he figures that since they work so closely together (indeed, the GK don't mind-wipe Exorcists or Silver Skulls marines) that there'd be some transfer of equipment, as thank-you presents and wotnot.


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Varakir said:


> From a modelling and gaming aspect i'd have no issues at all, i actually think it'd be cool to see more alternative schemes for GK.
> 
> The only barrier I think is remotely legitimate is the fluff angle, as it isn't as easy to explain the new colours. You can't do the usual successor, or rogue marines army, so the most plausible reasons for a GK offshoot are out of the picture, or at least harder to justify.
> 
> You should definitely go for it though, their your models and it's up to you. If anyone challenges you on the fluff aspect just say they're in disguise :wink:



This is pretty much my opinion.

I would just prefer you had a reason why they were a new colour. Just a little bit of homebrew fluff, so that when I asked ... 'why aren't your grey knights grey?' you could say they are ... whatever.

Nothing too elaborate, like I said, just a simple reason. Otherwise why not play blood angels if you like the red look, ultramarines for blue etc.

If aesthetically you prefer certain colours, why choose grey knights?

But thats just my 2 cents.


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

coke123 said:


> Erm, perhaps that's the draw of playing marines? All I'm seeing is an arrogant xenos player getting whiny over plastic space men and trying to impose arbitrary rules on those around him. Your xenos can't do the same? Perhaps. Does that mean marine players shouldn't be able to either? Hell no.


I completely disagree with your opinion, and in fact you shouldn't tell people they are 'whining over plastic space men' when you are supporting the people whining about how their 'plastic space men' aren't as powerful as the new 'plastic space men'.


I agree with Metal, proxy gaming all the newest and 'best' codices is really gay and annoying.

I want to win with little plastic men, so I am going to constantly switch armies rather than wait for the next cycle like the majority of other people.

If you like playing Dark Angels, Black Templars, Necrons etc there are plenty of people who wait for the new codex, rather than give the most crap and bizarre fluff justifications for their competitive agenda.

As I say, if that's your mentality, just be honest, your right, we can't stop people doing it. But don't pretend its because Blood Angels would make good Nightlords or Grey Knights would make good Thousand Sons. Cause its a load of old bollocks in my book. 

The codices were written for specific armies, and they should remain for those armies.

The Space Marine Codex isn't the Chaos Space Marine Codex. Simple as.


----------



## Schizofen (Mar 11, 2009)

Given the amount of grey plastic armies floating about, any decent looking paint job is more than fine by me.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

I think I need to go have a long lie down. I agree with both hankie and DAC.


I feel dirty now. 


But seriously, GW give you a game, they tell you what you can and cannot use, they give you alternative colour schemes where appropriate and say in many cases 'do whatever you want' but on a few intances there simply is only 1 colour scheme. Grey knights are silver, space puppies are blue/grey or just grey (13th company) - neither of them have any successor chapters so the models should've those colours.

So does this mean you HAVE to paint them those colours? He'll no, it's your money, IRS your time, you do whatever the heck you want, but equally expect lots if funny looks, queries, people not fully happy etc.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

Red grey knights I`m fine with. 

Blue space marines who alternate between pretending they`re red/blue/green/grey as the trends go, I am not so happy with. 

My tyranids never pretend to be orks. My eldar never pretend to be dark eldar. I dislike proxying, and I dislike counts-as unless it`s a completely unique conversion. None of this "the super big sword is a powerfist" crap, if you want an elaborate looking powerfist then do something elaborate rather than a half arsed justification for using a BA glaive. 

Worst one was when somebody played BA with DA models, and called his sergeant`s powerswords as powerfists. At a fucking tournament no less. :ireful2:


----------



## coke123 (Sep 4, 2010)

D-A-C said:


> I completely disagree with your opinion, and in fact you shouldn't tell people they are 'whining over plastic space men' when you are supporting the people whining about how their 'plastic space men' aren't as powerful as the new 'plastic space men'.


I'm not supporting their whining, I'm offering a way for them to shut the hell up. If they're using a more powerful codex, then they're not going to whine about it.



D-A-C said:


> I agree with Metal, proxy gaming all the newest and 'best' codices is really gay and annoying.


Why is it gay and annoying? Why does it bother you so?



D-A-C said:


> I want to win with little plastic men, so I am going to constantly switch armies rather than wait for the next cycle like the majority of other people.
> 
> If you like playing Dark Angels, Black Templars, Necrons etc there are plenty of people who wait for the new codex, rather than give the most crap and bizarre fluff justifications for their competitive agenda.


But it's not necessarily a competative agenda- you're making that assumption. What if they just want to shake things up a little, change stuff around? It's refreshing to change chapter once in a while.



D-A-C said:


> As I say, if that's your mentality, just be honest, your right, we can't stop people doing it. But don't pretend its because Blood Angels would make good Nightlords or Grey Knights would make good Thousand Sons. Cause its a load of old bollocks in my book.


I'm not going to open this can of worms; you and I have butted heads over dedicated counts as before and I know for a fact that neither one of us will change the other's mind.



D-A-C said:


> The codices were written for specific armies, and they should remain for those armies.


Why? What possible justification could you have for enforcing this? What possible harm could come from having red Grey Knights, or green Space Wolves?


----------



## mcmuffin (Mar 1, 2009)

I really don't mind what colours people paint their armies, provided they look good or have some nice fluff for painting them, or feel a certain codex represents them better. for example, i use the Blood Angels Codex for my world eaters, with Death Company and Astorath for a Berzerker horde, or Gabriel Seth and a load of assault marines for a different style. Regardless, my opponents don't really mind, and therefore, i don't mind people using Black Templars as Space Wolves or anything like that, provided i am told what they are using. 

Back on topic, I think you should paint them whatever way you want, maybe say that due to prolonged periods in the warp fighting daemons, their armour has taken on a greenish hue or something, i dont know. Its your army, paint it however the fuck you want, and if someone wont play you, thats just them being a dickhead.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

coke123 said:


> But it's not necessarily a competative agenda- you're making that assumption. What if they just want to shake things up a little, change stuff around? It's refreshing to change chapter once in a while.


That's the thing though. If it's not a competitive agenda, it will shine through in the quality of their re-modeling and re-tooling work to those models. If they are doing it for the "fresh", chances are they are doing a proper job, not just dipping painted minis in the colors of the codex that just came out, making up some jank fluff-mutilating story about how their old shitty army is now the new power army.


----------



## Achaylus72 (Apr 30, 2011)

Well as far as i know Grey Knights have contributed to the Deathwatch Chapter, in that they paint their Armour Black but keep their right shoulder pad the colours of the Grey Knights.

I would suggest that you create a chapter and come up with a Story Line that incorporates the colour scheme. It is allowable.


----------



## coke123 (Sep 4, 2010)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> That's the thing though. If it's not a competitive agenda, it will shine through in the quality of their re-modeling and re-tooling work to those models. If they are doing it for the "fresh", chances are they are doing a proper job, not just dipping painted minis in the colors of the codex that just came out, making up some jank fluff-mutilating story about how their old shitty army is now the new power army.


No, no, no, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. People may be inclined to switch between codices on a whim, playing for instance, vanilla one week, DA next week, SW the week after, they might have a BA month or something. In this way they won't get bored with any one codex. They're not going to repaint and remodel their army to suit their constant whimsical changes.

And you have yet to answer my question- what's wrong with wanting to use a more powerful book?


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

coke123 said:


> No, no, no, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. People may be inclined to switch between codices on a whim, playing for instance, vanilla one week, DA next week, SW the week after, they might have a BA month or something. In this way they won't get bored with any one codex. They're not going to repaint and remodel their army to suit their constant whimsical changes.
> 
> And you have yet to answer my question- what's wrong with wanting to use a more powerful book?


Space Marines are already coddled enough as it is. In fact, this game as a whole is getting rather insulting in the update department. We don't need players to make it worse? And when it comes to 'whims' like that, that wouldn't fly with most people I know, unless the player has at least a stable choice he/she plays 75% of the time. Most people, me included, are fine with counts-as experiments and fun codex swaps every once in a while, but if that is the majority of what you do I must say it'd be mighty annoying.


----------



## JelloSea (Apr 12, 2011)

As far as fluff goes, I'm toying around the idea that the GK made a deal with a Inquisitor to give him some of their members (Much like how a family got to use some of the Space wolves in the Ragnar books)


----------



## fynn (Sep 19, 2008)

so Grey Knights must be silver???
























well in that case you better ban me from the game and report me to GW for going agaisnt codex colours...............lol


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

coke123 said:


> And you have yet to answer my question- what's wrong with wanting to use a more powerful book?


There is nothing wrong with 'wanting' it - but for me, the difference between blood angels and space wolves is as different as the difference between tau and necrons.

If you are constantly proxing models as other models then I dont think thats right. I play wysiwyg unless its for something very little (eg all of my imperial guard sergeants have lasguns because they were allowed that in a previous edition and I cant alter metal praetorians!) - but for me, proxing blood angels as spacewolves is both impossible (the weapon combinations arent replicable) and a bit insulting.



fynn said:


> so Grey Knights must be silver???well in that case you better ban me from the game and report me to GW for going agaisnt codex colours...............lol


As I said above - they are your models, your money, you do what you like - but if you play people who arent entirely 'happy' dont blame them, blame yourself. Thats the risk you take.


----------



## Varakir (Sep 2, 2009)

coke123 said:


> And you have yet to answer my question- what's wrong with wanting to use a more powerful book?


For some people (me included), the whole point of playing miniature wargames is that you can act out an amazing battle in a far flung universe. The models are there to represent your army, and create the illusion that this battle is going on. The more effort put into your army, the more enjoyable it is to see them perform well.

I realise others may not think like this, but if you just want to play a strategy game, then play chess. it's cheaper and far more balanced. Surely the models being used must be somewhat relevent to what's going on?

Anyway, to get to the point, i can see why it would be annoying to constantly battle someone who is happy to represent their models with whatever codex they like. The glory of your army killing mephiston is slightly lessened if mephiston looks like scout sergeant telion with a blue tack wig.


----------



## Achaylus72 (Apr 30, 2011)

If you are painting your Grey Knights say Tin Bitz and Rotting Flesh but play them as Grey Knights then that is fine, but if you are painting them Tin Bitz and Rotting Flesh and playing them as BA, SW or say BT then you have a problem. I say if you do like to have a change now and then just to spice up your army, then make up a generic chapter and use the vanilla codex.


----------



## coke123 (Sep 4, 2010)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> Space Marines are already coddled enough as it is. In fact, this game as a whole is getting rather insulting in the update department. We don't need players to make it worse?


So you're irritated because you couldn't do it with you armies (being xenos, if I remember your past posts?)



MetalHandkerchief said:


> And when it comes to 'whims' like that, that wouldn't fly with most people I know, unless the player has at least a stable choice he/she plays 75% of the time. Most people, me included, are fine with counts-as experiments and fun codex swaps every once in a while, but if that is the majority of what you do I must say it'd be mighty annoying.


Why wouldn't it fly? I really don't see it as being different to having different armies that I have models for that I swap between regularly.



Maidel said:


> If you are constantly proxing models as other models then I dont think thats right. I play wysiwyg unless its for something very little (eg all of my imperial guard sergeants have lasguns because they were allowed that in a previous edition and I cant alter metal praetorians!) - but for me, proxing blood angels as spacewolves is both impossible (the weapon combinations arent replicable) and a bit insulting.





Varakir said:


> Anyway, to get to the point, i can see why it would be annoying to constantly battle someone who is happy to represent their models with whatever codex they like. The glory of your army killing mephiston is slightly lessened if mephiston looks like scout sergeant telion with a blue tack wig.


Those both seem like WYSIWIG concerns, which is not what we're talking about- we're talking about having a catch-all paint job. Sergeant Telion with a blue tac wig isn't really WYSIWIG, it doesn't accurately depict the model (it doesn't have the right weaponry to start with). If I have the Mephiston model, but painted blue/green/heliotrope/technicolour rainbow, what difference does it make?

I am not saying that we should be running proxy armies 24/7, that should remain in the land of playtesting. I am saying that a guy in power armour with a bolter is a guy in power armour with a bolter, regardless of what colour you've painted him. If you feel like changing to BA for the day, I don't care if they're pink and purple with yellow spots, so long as those assault marines have jump packs, bolt pistols and chainswords (Assuming you want to do this regularly). You want sanguard? Cool, better have the models/a decent conversion which has at least some fluff justification. Want Mephiston? Sweet, better have a decent conversion, because the current model is terrible .



Varakir said:


> I realise others may not think like this, but if you just want to play a strategy game, then play chess. it's cheaper and far more balanced. Surely the models being used must be somewhat relevent to what's going on?


They do have relevance to the game- they're just a different colour to those in the book you bought to use them.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

coke123 said:


> Those both seem like WYSIWIG concerns, which is not what we're talking about- we're talking about having a catch-all paint job. Sergeant Telion with a blue tac wig isn't really WYSIWIG, it doesn't accurately depict the model (it doesn't have the right weaponry to start with). If I have the Mephiston model, but painted blue/green/heliotrope/technicolour rainbow, what difference does it make?
> 
> I am not saying that we should be running proxy armies 24/7, that should remain in the land of playtesting. I am saying that a guy in power armour with a bolter is a guy in power armour with a bolter, regardless of what colour you've painted him. If you feel like changing to BA for the day, I don't care if they're pink and purple with yellow spots, so long as those assault marines have jump packs, bolt pistols and chainswords (Assuming you want to do this regularly). You want sanguard? Cool, better have the models/a decent conversion which has at least some fluff justification. Want Mephiston? Sweet, better have a decent conversion, because the current model is terrible ..


The thing is, its ALL a WYSIWYG concern.

Its impossible to have a 'marine' army that can be used to represnt vanilla marines, blood angels, dark angels, space wolves, black templars and grey knights.

Even if you leave Grey knights out of it, its actually easier to proxy any of those armies using chaos marines than it is with each other!

EG - spacewolves, no heavy weapons in their squads, but mutipul close combat weapons, black templars - see these guys with less armour on, thats a normal marine, honest.

Its possible to proxy SOME marine armies using other armies, its very easy to do dark angels/ vanilla marines and bizarely its not hard to do space wolves and black templars (neither use heavy weapons in squads much) but other than that, you have a whole bunch of models that have to be proxied - see that red storm raven, its actually a space wolf land raider...


----------



## Achaylus72 (Apr 30, 2011)

Maidel said:


> The thing is, its ALL a WYSIWYG concern.
> 
> Its impossible to have a 'marine' army that can be used to represnt vanilla marines, blood angels, dark angels, space wolves, black templars and grey knights.
> 
> ...


I think that trying to make a one size fits all Army in the end becomes very confusing, because and i'll use me as an example, i ain't the brightest bloke on the block, but that's ok, i get confused easily, and if someone decided to say proxy a Grey Knights for say Space Wolves, it only takes me a minute and i am convinced i am playing Grey Knights, why because i see Grey Knights, if i see Space Wolves i play against Space Wolves.

Does this make sense.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Achaylus72 said:


> I think that trying to make a one size fits all Army in the end becomes very confusing, because and i'll use me as an example, i ain't the brightest bloke on the block, but that's ok, i get confused easily, and if someone decided to say proxy a Grey Knights for say Space Wolves, it only takes me a minute and i am convinced i am playing Grey Knights, why because i see Grey Knights, if i see Space Wolves i play against Space Wolves.
> 
> Does this make sense.


No, sorry - you lost me completely.:shok:


----------



## Varakir (Sep 2, 2009)

coke123 said:


> I am not saying that we should be running proxy armies 24/7, that should remain in the land of playtesting. I am saying that a guy in power armour with a bolter is a guy in power armour with a bolter, regardless of what colour you've painted him. If you feel like changing to BA for the day, I don't care if they're pink and purple with yellow spots, so long as those assault marines have jump packs, bolt pistols and chainswords (Assuming you want to do this regularly). You want sanguard? Cool, better have the models/a decent conversion which has at least some fluff justification. Want Mephiston? Sweet, better have a decent conversion, because the current model is terrible .


This seems a bit contradictory. I don't see how you can switch to blood angels just for a day, but still have good conversions to represent sang guard.


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

bitsandkits said:


> no i am the law


Wait, what? I thought Galahad was the law...


----------



## SGMAlice (Aug 13, 2010)

It should make no difference. As i am sure many people have pointed out: this is a hobby with few strict rules, none of which apply to the painting side.

Just look at my Ork army; its Purple and Pink.

SGMAlice


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

SGMAlice said:


> Just look at my Ork army; its Purple and Pink.
> 
> SGMAlice


 
MY EYES!

IT BURNS!


----------



## fynn (Sep 19, 2008)

And if someone got shity with me for the way ive painted my GK, the i would point out that GW incourages people to use there own colours for the armys that are out.
Saying that though, a friend of mine was staying at a freinds house and they poped down to his local GW for a game, when they arrived and got there armys out of the case (both where nicely painted, one was a homebrew chapter, and the other was a little know chapter thats been mentioned in passing) the GW manager told them that he only allows offical GW armys in his store, and promptly banned em, despite them pointing out that GW say paint how you wish, that store lost a lot of custom while he was there, hell if you was pa9inting there, you was only allowed to paint in codex/army book colours, bloody idiot.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

fynn said:


> Saying that though, a friend of mine was staying at a freinds house and they poped down to his local GW for a game, when they arrived and got there armys out of the case (both where nicely painted, one was a homebrew chapter, and the other was a little know chapter thats been mentioned in passing) the GW manager told them that he only allows offical GW armys in his store, and promptly banned em, despite them pointing out that GW say paint how you wish, that store lost a lot of custom while he was there, hell if you was pa9inting there, you was only allowed to paint in codex/army book colours, bloody idiot.


Do you know what - you here this ALL the time.

Problem is, its never true - UNLESS that person had a load of non-GW models in his army.


----------



## Luisjoey (Dec 3, 2010)

Grey Knights are supposed to be painted in a particular way? 

i don´t bother as long as they are well painted 

complain of the people that don´t paint their army


----------



## Orochi (Jan 28, 2009)

People paint their Grey Knights other colours than deviations of Grey or Silver?

Those Bastards.


----------



## farseer22 (May 23, 2011)

I don't think anyone has the right to complain that you've painted your army a different colour than the codex. I think it shows some individuality and imagination (an important part of this hobby). My Eldar are purple and bone. I have no intention of painting my Aspect warriors in their "Official" colour scheme. I do plan a nod at the aspect they represent, my Banshees will be mostly bone with some white. My Dark Reapers will be mostly dark purple, almost black, that kind of thing.

Paint the GK the way you want, pant them Pink and call 'em Pink Knights if you want. It's your army do what you want. As long as people know what they're fighting, the colour it's painted should be the least of their issues.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

farseer22 said:


> I don't think anyone has the right to complain that you've painted your army a different colour than the codex. I think it shows some individuality and imagination (an important part of this hobby). My Eldar are purple and bone. I have no intention of painting my Aspect warriors in their "Official" colour scheme. I do plan a nod at the aspect they represent, my Banshees will be mostly bone with some white. My Dark Reapers will be mostly dark purple, almost black, that kind of thing.
> 
> Paint the GK the way you want, pant them Pink and call 'em Pink Knights if you want. It's your army do what you want. As long as people know what they're fighting, the colour it's painted should be the least of their issues.


 
The thing is - GW tells you to do that with eldar. GW specifically encourages you to make up new craftworlds - and I too, have 'non standard' eldar, hell I have YELLOW karandras (admittedly I use him as an autarch).

The problem is that there are THREE armies that are colour specific. Grey knights, black templars and space wolves.

Every single other army can be what ever the hell colour you want. In fact, there is even 'arguable' space for you to paint black templars and space wolves another colour (nothing to say that one crusade didnt run out of black paint, or that one successor chapter of space wolves got lost in the paperwork).

The problem (for me) is that grey knights are silver - thats it, there arent any other chapters like them, they specifically dont have any successor chapters.

So, ONE army that SHOULD always be silver. Thats it.


----------



## Stargazer616 (May 15, 2011)

Grey Knights for me are a bit of a problem. The name kinda suggests what colour they should be! Ye, I've got some blue Grey Knights. What, is that blue-grey Knights or blue Grey Knights. Y'see...

However, I don't think people should ever paint an army in exactly the same was as GW shows. For example, I paint my Space Wolves in quite a similar way to the way GW do but I try and avoid the whole 'look at our armour, its in perfect condition' thing and take my own interpretation to how Space Wolves are painted. I think with Space Marines, unless you're using your own chapter, you should base your paint job on what the fluff suggests, just because, from the story aspect of it, you wouldn't get Pink Grey Knights, it just wouldn't happen, as an order they're too taciturn to be so flamboyant. 

However, the beauty of GW, and any army in the Warhammer 40k Universe is that there's plenty of room for originality. Don't fancy paintint Blood Angels red, paint them blue and call them a derivative of Blood Angels made up of royalty! And then use the Blood Angels codex. Come up with a story as to why your army is painted the way it is in my opinion! For example, my Space Wolf Grey Space wolves have an almost snow camo look to them because of how I've painted them because I like the idea of my force embracing the 'cunning' side of Space Wolves (that everyone seems to forget) to blend in with Fenris before attacking with full ferocity!

So if someone painted Green Grey Knights, I'd want to know why it was! The argument 'because I wanted to' annoys me because, you're adding to the story with every game you fight and so there should be a reason to that.
Saying that, I'd never refuse to play with someone because their army wasn't painted or not painted how the Codex says. The actual game is the focus of the hobby and so comes first in my mind. The Hobby side and the story side come second and third, respectively, but are still very important!


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Stargazer616 said:


> So if someone painted Green Grey Knights, I'd want to know why it was! The argument 'because I wanted to' annoys me because, you're adding to the story with every game you fight and so there should be a reason to that.!


:goodpost:

Thats my point in a nutshell.


----------



## Igniskhin (May 19, 2011)

for the color of the paint i wouldnt care, i once played a guy who painted his chaos space marines bodys gold, and heads black, arms and gun pink... and i'm refering to high gloss spray paint, so high gloss it actualy hurt the eyes to play them in sun light... but he also didnt try the change the army to a diffrent flaver every week (only every month).

now proxies on the other hand (using X model to represent Y model) is a little diffrent. I once ran a "necron" army using nothing but eldar models the day there codex came out, but the guy i was playing had been a friend for years. tournaments on the other hand model proxies were not allowed, changing a gun was fine for a single model or for a full squad (it was common to overlook proxie weapons for players who hadnt gone out and purchased the bitz seperate) but trying to use a GK as a space marine would have been frowned apon to the point you would be luaghed at in my old LGS.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> Space Marines are already coddled enough as it is... when it comes to 'whims' like that, that wouldn't fly with most people I know, unless the player has at least a stable choice he/she plays 75% of the time.


Is your objection to swapping between SM armies or swapping between several different armies? For instance, if I own three armies (hypothetically SM, Eldar, and Necrons) and chose which one I am going to use this week depending on how I feel on Monday would you have the same problem?


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

IE: stargazer and Maidel are just whiney cuz they dont have the mind to actually understand that NOT EVERYONE has a fluff reasoning for their colourscheme, they just did not want to paint their army drab and boring?

Im sorry but Grey / silver is Drab, boring, and tasteless. Following the main 'canon' scheme of some armies becomes very drab and boring too. I have even started repainting my wolves as I got so bored painting GREY.

point is: not everyone has a reason as to WHY they are not 'canon' they just thought it looked cool.

Anyone giving someone issues for non canon colours on the appropriate models is just griefing


----------



## fynn (Sep 19, 2008)

i just had another look though my GK dex, and to be honest, apart from the pics of painted models, theres no mention of the colours they use. as i mentioned before, ive painted mine a dark blue/grey seeing as there called grey knights, and not silver as there not called silver knights.
But also when GK's first appeared back in the RT days, they where in a dark grey armour, it was only in the 3rd ed codex that they started to appear in silver armour, but even that codex had pics of GK's in darker armour.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Listen, if you payed for this crap with your money it is your shit to do with as you please. As long as you tell me what model is using what, I don't care what you use. Now, I would prefer it if the model was right, but eh.


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

KhainiteAssassin said:


> IE: stargazer and Maidel are just whiney cuz they dont have the mind to actually understand that NOT EVERYONE has a fluff reasoning for their colourscheme, they just did not want to paint their army drab and boring?
> 
> Im sorry but Grey / silver is Drab, boring, and tasteless. Following the main 'canon' scheme of some armies becomes very drab and boring too. I have even started repainting my wolves as I got so bored painting GREY.
> 
> ...


Agreed. Idiotic how people are trying to say what is and isn't acceptable for your plastic space mans. Well, its actually a little sad. If your sphere of control in life is so small, get a pet. Dont try and force people to do what you want with their plastic soldiers.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

KhainiteAssassin said:


> IE: stargazer and Maidel are just whiney cuz they dont have the mind to actually understand that NOT EVERYONE has a fluff reasoning for their colourscheme, they just did not want to paint their army drab and boring?


 


Lord Sven Kittyclaw said:


> Agreed. Idiotic how people are trying to say what is and isn't acceptable for your plastic space mans. Well, its actually a little sad. If your sphere of control in life is so small, get a pet. Dont try and force people to do what you want with their plastic soldiers.


HANG ON - I have said at least twice in this thread that 'they are yours and you can do what ever you want with them.'

What is it today with people selectively reading my posts?


And, in the same way - what I said was, dont expect everyone to milding accept the colour scheme - expect people to ask, expect people to be confused, expect people to say its not WYSIWYG.


I PERSONALLY have an issue with it because for me, the game is 25%, the background is 25% and painting is 50% - therefore if you have a 'non-fluffy' paint scheme you are affecting 25% of my 'fun'.

Thats a personal issue - and its one that evidentally Im not alone in sharing.

And, the op did ask for our opinions, opinions that we have given - I dont expect to be attacked for giving opinions on a subject that specifically asks for opinions.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

Maidel said:


> HANG ON - I have said at least twice in this thread that 'they are yours and you can do what ever you want with them.'
> 
> What is it today with people selectively reading my posts?
> 
> ...


so 25% of your fun would be ruined by a Grey Knight painted green? 25% of YOUR enjoyment of the game is effected by the colours your OPPONENT has chosen for his army, no matter the reason?

Jellosea asked 



> How bothered would you be if you played against a grey knights army that was not painted in the way that they are "supposed" to be? For example, all red or green, etc.


thus, it comes to my attention that hes asking people how they feel about ANOTHERS army being less then 'canon' which my statements are regarded. The whole fact YOU lose enjoyment because of a choice your opponent has made, gives the thoughts of control, as to regain that fun, you, and others like you, would ruin your opponents enjoyment of the game, even if asking a million questions as to why the colourscheme is what it is, or if your own atmosphere is not one of total enjoyment, leading to arguments, and generally a less the optimal game.

and my original comment was more to stargazers comment on how Grey Knights should be grey, more then you, but since you were agreeing with his comment on 'give me a reason why they are coloured that way or Im not going to enjoy this game' attitude, you were included


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

I have no problem on the colour scheme of another army. I just wish now to see some purple GK's or BT's. Would be epic. Actually if I get the insane need for a new army it shall be in purple.

I also do not mind about breaking WYSIWYG. As long as I know what I am facing I have no problem. I even played a guy using a Lizardmen army (They were on round bases) as a Tyranid force. It looked cool and the guns were explained as breath weapons or projectile acid. I am just happy to play. Not whine about the other guys army.


----------



## mcmuffin (Mar 1, 2009)

I agree with the whole 'colour your shit however you want'. It is not up to anyone but the owning player to dictate what colour army you want. If you want red space wolves, fine, if you want green black templars, who cares? if you want flower wielding grey knights, so be it, and i honestly think that nemesis flowerfists would sound better than a doomfist anyway. 
@Maidel: how can it affect the fun of the game if someone has a non-canon army? You are still using the same rules and fighting the same army. Sure, if they are unpainted or painted like shite, then it is reasonable to bitch, but if the colours look good on the model, how can it make a difference? What if he wrote up nine pages of fluff on the army and why it is coloured as such, would you be happy then?


----------



## Varakir (Sep 2, 2009)

People seem to be reading what they want into other peoples posts, and arguing with things that weren't there to begin with.

at least this thread as a whole is a good indication of how people react to new colour schemes! 




KhainiteAssassin said:


> The whole fact YOU lose enjoyment because of a choice your opponent has made, gives the thoughts of control, as to regain that fun, you, and others like you, would ruin your opponents enjoyment of the game, even if asking a million questions as to why the colourscheme is what it is, or if your own atmosphere is not one of total enjoyment, leading to arguments, and generally a less the optimal game.


I don't see why you have an issue with what he said. He didn't say he would refuse to play them, or interrogate at them until they cried. he just said that he'd enjoy the game less if they hadn't put some fluff behind their alternative choice of colour scheme.


It's perfectly feasible to say that i'd enjoy playing against a good. friendly player who has converted a beautiful white scars army with a gorgeous paint scheme, rather than an annoying player who has a poor understanding of the rules and has painted his space wolves neon green and drawn penises on their shoulderpads.

Your opponents choices will always effect your enjoyment of the game, and whilst i agree you shouldn't force them to change their mind, it's fair enough to be disappointed with the game.




> Sure, if they are unpainted or painted like shite, then it is reasonable to bitch, but if the colours look good on the model, how can it make a difference?


once again, I don't think anyone is arguing this. You can paint your models however you want, but some of us would prefer to see some fluff behind it. I actually prefer looking at original schemes, and fluff or no fluff, a well painted army is always a good thing.

But......someone is bound to ask why they are a different colour, so why not take the opportunity to think up some fluff, and make your personalised army even more personal?


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Varakir said:


> People seem to be reading what they want into other peoples posts, and arguing with things that weren't there to begin with.


Thank **** its not just me!



> I don't see why you have an issue with what he said. He didn't say he would refuse to play them, or interrogate at them until they cried. he just said that he'd enjoy the game less if they hadn't put some fluff behind their alternative choice of colour scheme.
> 
> 
> It's perfectly feasible to say that i'd enjoy playing against a good. friendly player who has converted a beautiful white scars army with a gorgeous paint scheme, rather than an annoying player who has a poor understanding of the rules and has painted his space wolves neon green and drawn penises on their shoulderpads.
> ...


Exactly this - couldnt have put it better myself.

We rely on our opponents to provide us with entertainment. IF they are rules lawyers its not fun, if they are bad sports its not fun, if they turn up with plastic counters instead of models its not fun. 

for me - looking at an army that is painted 'just cos' sucks the fun out of it for me. IF you have some fantasntic story that I couldnt have possibly dreamt up - then it makes it 100x more fun (.... to beat the crap out of them! :biggrin


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

and you Varakir, took my comments too far yourself, probably attempting to use extreme examples i take it, but, I was not referring, in any way shape or form, to quality of paint job, but colour style of paint job, which, as I can tell, is the question at hand, colour style, not quality, not fluff, just if people would be less then receptive of an army not painted cannon.

yes, we always look to our opponents to gain enjoyment from our games, and I do, admittedly enjoy a game with someone who puts as much love into their army as I do. but it does not detract from my general 'fun' when they are painted 'just cause' as 99.99999999999% of armies are painted 'just cause' then fluff added. my own included. I have my Space wolves being repainted black with dark blue highlights and lightning going down them, advancing my previous fluff and bringing them to line with my DE. but the reason I painted the first model that way was 'just cause' there was no underlaying reason more then that, I have added the reasonings to fit my own style of play.

Tell me truthfully, do ANY of you choose an army colour to really represent something? or do you pick colours and paint the models just cause you can, then add a reasoning (if its not canon colours where the reason is given to you) afterword to sate the fluff side of the hobby?

Maidel, you put the negative 'i lose 25% of my fun' line instead of the positive 'i enjoy myself 25% more with a person with a good fluff background' and you made your comments seem like the paint job had to have a reason behind the colour, as if there has to be some profound reasoning to every specific colour put on a model. This is where my comments come from, and i apologize if it was misplaced, but at the same time, choosing your own words more carefully could prevent further mistakes in this sense.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

KhainiteAssassin said:


> Maidel, you put the negative 'i lose 25% of my fun' line instead of the positive 'i enjoy myself 25% more with a person with a good fluff background' and you made your comments seem like the paint job had to have a reason behind the colour, as if there has to be some profound reasoning to every specific colour put on a model. This is where my comments come from, and i apologize if it was misplaced, but at the same time, choosing your own words more carefully could prevent further mistakes in this sense.


Not entirely sure why anything GW does needs a 'profound' reason behind it :biggrin:


Ill explain it this way - if you go to a film set in ancient rome and you see actors with trainers and wrist watches on - it will bug you because it will 'spoil' the film.


Thats how I look on armies that are simply 'wrong'. And, please remember there are only THREE armies that I think can be done 'wrong' and only 1 of those, for me, has NO reasons to be a different colour.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

it still comes down to the basis that colourscheme means something to the army as a whole.

Grey Knights are people too, and some sections of an army differ themselves, including changing the colour of their armor where given.

Example: world war, 1 or 2 it escapes me at the current moment, the men from Newfound Land, canada, worse blue patis (sp? the wraps at the legs) to war because of the constraints to aquiring the proper colour for their part of our country at the time. This was fully accepted even by the army.

now, this is a game where people are wearing bright red armor to the battlefield, and the armies we field are not just one small squad trying to stand out. The commander can easily order his army to get a colourchange, its as simple as that. no where, outside of the name implying a colour, do the grey Knights actually talk about being in silver unpainted armor with gold words.

Point is: if they dont give you a reason, make one up yourself in your own mind, so long as they have done a job of making the army look good, given their painting level. a new player to the game may not have the best painted models.

Your thought of an army looking wrong from paint scheme is invalid, the paint scheme of their armor is not disbelieving the Era they are in, a historic film with modern day watches or trainers on the actors. Grey Knights being purple is not breaking the laws of time, Watches or trainers in ancient rome are.


----------



## Varakir (Sep 2, 2009)

KhainiteAssassin said:


> and you Varakir, took my comments too far yourself, probably attempting to use extreme examples i take it


I was using extreme examples, trying to match your zealousness to get the point across.

I think this:



KhainiteAssassin said:


> do you pick colours and paint the models just cause you can, then add a reasoning (if its not canon colours where the reason is given to you) afterword to sate the fluff side of the hobby?





Varakir said:


> But......someone is bound to ask why they are a different colour, so why not take the opportunity to think up some fluff, and make your personalised army even more personal?


Proves we're on the same page, we could save so much time not arguing about it :biggrin:

(I appreciate there's no fun in that though :wink


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

KhainiteAssassin said:


> Your thought of an army looking wrong from paint scheme is invalid, the paint scheme of their armor is not disbelieving the Era they are in, a historic film with modern day watches or trainers on the actors. Grey Knights being purple is not breaking the laws of time, Watches or trainers in ancient rome are.


Ok, fine - Im watching a film about the battle of waterloo and some of the french infantry are in red uniforms carrying brown bess muskets.

Same difference, slightly more specific.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

Varakir said:


> (I appreciate there's no fun in that though :wink


exactly.

I come off as a complete ass sometimes, but thats cuz I love putting up a good debate, if i can find a flaw in someones reasoning, i will do everything i can to rectify it through debate, as its enjoyable. you will never see me back down from a debate until the matter has been resolved, usually my opponents turn to bickering or pointless bashing... I do aswell on occasion (when im drunk) I will admit, though, aswell.

my argument is still, to the notion, that because an army is painted differently, maidel loses fun and thus, even unintentionally, sour the mood of a game because he disagrees with the colourscheme chosen. or thats how his words have come across. this is leading to the debate at hand, while still, not completely derailing the thread as its still technically, on topic.

EDIT: 


Maidel said:


> Ok, fine - Im watching a film about the battle of waterloo and some of the french infantry are in red uniforms carrying brown bess muskets.
> 
> Same difference, slightly more specific.


This is more to the point, but still invalid, as we are are not Reenacting history, we are creating history through our actions. Else conversions, modeling, game outcomes, would all be invalidated and moot. the game would be scripted move for move as the reenactment foretells. The very notion, or wrong look at one of my armies for not being 'canon' could sour the game, for my SW are now black with lightning streaks, and my DE are not black in armor with a coloured highlight, like EVERY PAINTSCHEME IN THE CODEX, save for the cult of red grief at the very back.

The fact is though, do you applaud people who bring non boltgun metal Necrons, the rare time you see them? or do you complain to them that the crons are bgm and nothing else, as 'canon' wise, despite there being multitude of units, they are physically described as being metallic skeletons, and as such ultimately they become very fixated in said base colourscheme. Effectively, by even suggesting that GKs should remain bolt gun metal, you restrict them to a bland and singular colourscheme, you lessen the army as a whole in order to gain more enjoyment out of the game yourself. Even if your own thirst is sated with a single line of fluff, not everyone wants to have to build a fluff reason for their scheme of painting just to appease a few who lose enjoyment, rather then gain it, because they are not in a 'traditional' colourscheme


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

KhainiteAssassin said:


> my argument is still, to the notion, that because an army is painted differently, maidel loses fun and thus, even unintentionally, sour the mood of a game because he disagrees with the colourscheme chosen. or thats how his words have come across. this is leading to the debate at hand, while still, not completely derailing the thread as its still technically, on topic.


Ahem - please stop leaving out the fact that its only THREE armies that this can happen to - all the rest are 'paint as you see fit'.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

Maidel said:


> Ahem - please stop leaving out the fact that its only THREE armies that this can happen to - all the rest are 'paint as you see fit'.


ok whats the third army.

SW - as they dont have any 'successor chapters' are one for you, i know this, and yet, easily explained out as their individuality gives them the ability to change their colours as fit.

GK - which change their colours quite often, and i can even bring up a few old pics from the previous generation codex in which GKs are NOT painted silver in even.

so whats the 'third' army that falls under your issue.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

KhainiteAssassin said:


> ok whats the third army.
> 
> SW - as they dont have any 'successor chapters' are one for you, i know this, and yet, easily explained out as their individuality gives them the ability to change their colours as fit.
> 
> ...


Erm - you see this is my problem when I have these sorts of conversation - no one actually READS my posts - they simply see 1 line and jump on it and ignore everything else I have said.

Space wolves have no successor chapters - there is NOTHING written anywhere about them every have any other colours, no records no nothing (Except the grey to blue/grey change). And 'their individuality' is utterly silly, sorry - no space marine would change their colours - even the deathwatch get to keep their chapter colours on one shoulder.

Grey Knights - there is ONE picture of a red grey knight in anything printed since 1995.

The final one, which I have said at least twice in this thread already, was the black templars, who are, well black. And they have no successor chapters.

I have no issues with blue blood angels - there are plenty of successor chapters who they could be. I have no issue with any of the other armies at all.

I just get the impression that certain people will see 'these guys are always silver' and take it as a challenge. Its the same as the people who read 'Grey knights cannot fall to chaos' as it says at least 5 times in the codex, who then produce an army of 'fallen grey knights'. I think people see it as a challenge, when they are told they 'cant' do something, its all they want to do.




> The fact is though, do you applaud people who bring non boltgun metal Necrons, the rare time you see them? or do you complain to them that the crons are bgm and nothing else, as 'canon' wise, despite there being multitude of units, they are physically described as being metallic skeletons, and as such ultimately they become very fixated in said base colourscheme. Effectively, by even suggesting that GKs should remain bolt gun metal, you restrict them to a bland and singular colourscheme, you lessen the army as a whole in order to gain more enjoyment out of the game yourself. Even if your own thirst is sated with a single line of fluff, not everyone wants to have to build a fluff reason for their scheme of painting just to appease a few who lose enjoyment, rather then gain it, because they are not in a 'traditional' colourscheme


Erm - check the gallery, you will see my red necron lord.

And how ould I complain - the necron codex clearly shows TWELVE different colour schemes for them, including my red one.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

show me one shred of evidence that says that they CANT change their colours? if they so chose to. I do not presume to say that many would WANT to, but to say they outright CANT would be assuming too much.

even looking at this through an Army standpoint, though uniform, each country has its own style of uniform, and some countries have multiple uniforms, in VARYING COLOURS to suit the place they are currently fighting in. Thus, to state that they cant change their colours at a commanders whim, would be narrow minded.


----------



## Boc (Mar 19, 2010)

I find it vaguely amusing that the 4 most "heated" arguments going around in this thread are all perpetuated by Dark Disciples. Get that post count, fellas :grin:

Alternatively, to the OP, paint them however you want to although, as many others have said, you _should_ use the GK models with the GK 'dex.

I, for one, have begun playing with a BA army. I do plan on swapping back and forth between the BA 'dex and the Vanilla SM codex, simply because I enjoy wasting tons of money on lots of models (and I like the possibility of playing Apoc games with 4 different kinds of dreadnoughts on the table /cackle). Where the line should be is blatantly, as Handkerchief put it a couple pages back, swapping to the 'codex of the month' each time a more powerful version comes out.

A way to get around this is fairly simple: come up with a custom paint scheme that you can build fluff for that you can adjust as new codexes come out. Keep that core of tacticals/assaults/dreads/tanks as that core color, and when new codexes are out all you have to do is buy a couple new models for those new units and, bam, you have a playable force that still abides by those rules. You still have the models set aside if, for example, you want to suddenly jump back from a new DA codex back to your BA. If that doesn't make sense... I apologize, but it's how I plan on running my army. Maybe I'm a douche, but everything will be done the same way to allow interchangeability, though I vow never to play as Space Wolves, since vikings annoy me considerably :grin:

Edit: for bad smileys, apparently  is not the tongue-out command...


----------



## Varakir (Sep 2, 2009)

KhainiteAssassin said:


> my argument is still, to the notion, that because an army is painted differently, maidel loses fun and thus, even unintentionally, sour the mood of a game because he disagrees with the colourscheme chosen. or thats how his words have come across.


I agree, but you seem to have taken his '25% less enjoyment' quote and blown it out of proportion. If he doesn't like their colour scheme I doubt he'd refuse to play them, or act like a complete dick for the whole game.

If he did then that's down to his personality, and nothing to do with his personal opinion on SM colour schemes. At this point it's really a non-issue.



> I find it vaguely amusing that the 4 most "heated" arguments going around in this thread are all perpetuated by Dark Disciples. Get that post count, fellas


It's a conspiracy, we're all in the same room painting our grey knights with polka dots and laughing.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

Boc said:


> I find it vaguely amusing that the 4 most "heated" arguments going around in this thread are all perpetuated by Dark Disciples. Get that post count, fellas
> 
> Alternatively, to the OP, paint them however you want to although, as many others have said, you _should_ use the GK models with the GK 'dex.
> 
> ...


the first, why do you think im a DD in the first place through post counts no less 

second, I hate your emo space vampire ass just as much as you hate my rude, beer drinking viking ass. so were even on that.


----------



## Boc (Mar 19, 2010)

KhainiteAssassin said:


> the first, why do you think im a DD in the first place through post counts no less
> 
> second, I hate your emo space vampire ass just as much as you hate my rude, beer drinking viking ass. so were even on that.


Hey, you forgot about "cosmo-drinking"

Those chick drinks are just so tasty :laugh:


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

Varakir said:


> It's a conspiracy, we're all in the same room painting our grey knights with polka dots and laughing.


get it right, Im painting mine with lightning bolts!



Boc said:


> Hey, you forgot about "cosmo-drinking"
> 
> Those chick drinks are just so tasty :laugh:


I also forgot sparkling, but i didnt wana insult you that much


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Boc said:


> I find it vaguely amusing that the 4 most "heated" arguments going around in this thread are all perpetuated by Dark Disciples. Get that post count, fellas :grin:


I think 3 of them are perpetuated by me....




Varakir said:


> I agree, but you seem to have taken his '25% less enjoyment' quote and blown it out of proportion. If he doesn't like their colour scheme I doubt he'd refuse to play them, or act like a complete dick for the whole game.


Like pretty much anything I post today, everything I say is taken out of proportion.



> If he did then that's down to his personality, and nothing to do with his personal opinion on SM colour schemes. At this point it's really a non-issue.


Hey! Im a nice guy, unless people get shirty with me. Its not a non-issue for me :grin:



> It's a conspiracy, we're all in the same room painting our grey knights with polka dots and laughing.


Am I alone in that mine are actually silver...


----------



## coke123 (Sep 4, 2010)

Maidel said:


> The thing is, its ALL a WYSIWYG concern.
> 
> Its impossible to have a 'marine' army that can be used to represnt vanilla marines, blood angels, dark angels, space wolves, black templars and grey knights.


Not it's not- except for the GK, every SM army has pretty much the same core (OK, BA generally use RAS, but most marine players have some of these lying around anyway). A tactical marine is wysiwig for a Grey Hunter is wysiwig for a crusader (or whatever BT call their tacticals). The only ones that aren't represented by tacticals are the GK. 



Maidel said:


> Even if you leave Grey knights out of it, its actually easier to proxy any of those armies using chaos marines than it is with each other!


Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me, a tactical is wysiwig for a Chaos Marine as well! 



Maidel said:


> EG - spacewolves, no heavy weapons in their squads, but mutipul close combat weapons, black templars - see these guys with less armour on, thats a normal marine, honest.


Neophytes use the scout models- because absolutely no marine players have any of those lying around, do they? OK, I pick up a couple of extra meltaguns. See that conversion pack with 5 meltaguns in it? I buy that and stick them on a few spare tacticals, and I have enough special weapons to properly represent Grey Hunters (or Crusaders, IIRC)



Maidel said:


> Its possible to proxy SOME marine armies using other armies, its very easy to do dark angels/ vanilla marines and bizarely its not hard to do space wolves and black templars (neither use heavy weapons in squads much) but other than that, you have a whole bunch of models that have to be proxied - see that red storm raven, its actually a space wolf land raider...


That's not what I'm saying at all. That is proxy. That is a completely different kettle of fish to having an 'un-canon' paint job. If you don't have a Land Raider model, then you don't get to use a Land Raider. If you don't have a Storm Raven model, then you don't get to use a Storm Raven.



Varakir said:


> This seems a bit contradictory. I don't see how you can switch to blood angels just for a day, but still have good conversions to represent sang guard.


Boc answered this already:



Boc said:


> A way to get around this is fairly simple: come up with a custom paint scheme that you can build fluff for that you can adjust as new codexes come out. Keep that core of tacticals/assaults/dreads/tanks as that core color, and when new codexes are out all you have to do is buy a couple new models for those new units and, bam, you have a playable force that still abides by those rules. You still have the models set aside if, for example, you want to suddenly jump back from a new DA codex back to your BA. If that doesn't make sense... I apologize, but it's how I plan on running my army. Maybe I'm a douche, but everything will be done the same way to allow interchangeability, though I vow never to play as Space Wolves, since vikings annoy me considerably :grin:
> 
> Keep the same basic core around. When a new codex drops, buy the book and a box or two of the things you think you'd like to use, and then paint them in the same colours as your generic core army. So for example, say you have a purple vanilla army and want to pick up BA, and already have a bunch of ASM lying around in purple, and maybe some vanguard. Rather than buying and painting all those ASM and vanguard again, why shouldn't I be able to just buy the new codex and a box or two of sanguinary guard (which will also be painted non-canon) to go with them? In this way I can get a brand new army to play for around $200, rather than the typical $700-$900.
> 
> ...


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

To answer all of that; 

Basically, you aren't reading or understanding what I am saying.

If you have ONE army of vanilla marines you cannot use it as a space wolf army without adding in (and taking out) a considerable number of models and then you are screwing your army selection because choices in one codex are not good in another.

So, I will repeat, it is not possible to use a codex army to represent non codex armies without having effectively another mini army of replacement models unless you proxy like crazy.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Returning to whether SMs can and do paint their armour a different colour, the original Badab War chart (from the eighties) includes a number of (probably) camouflage armour schemes for Marines, some of which are quite different from the usual scheme.

As daemon infestations change reality it is possible the appropriate camouflage for a defiled world would be purple or lime green with orange darts, so - unless the GK with their better than ordinary SM attitude and kit - have rejected stealth, it is probable some GKs have had different coloured armour for some periods.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

You said it yourself 'probably'

Space marines don't use camouflage, back when space marines were simply 'nen' in power armour then they did all sorts with them, but ever since they have been SPACE MARINES they have never used camo (appart from those scout cloaks).


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Maidel said:


> You said it yourself 'probably'
> 
> Space marines don't use camouflage, back when space marines were simply 'nen' in power armour then they did all sorts with them, but ever since they have been SPACE MARINES they have never used camo (appart from those scout cloaks).


If you accept that they probably did, then my point stands that not even the GK are guaranteed to always be the same colour in every battle.

Edit: As the traits system for SMs had a trait of never camouflaging yourself (Pride in your Colours?) I think it is still a valid tactic even after they were ret-conned to ubermensch.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Dave T Hobbit said:


> If you accept that they probably did, then my point stands that not even the GK are guaranteed to always be the same colour in every battle.


No, you said 'probably' I repeated you. Something that 'probably' was implied in something written in 1987 which has never been repeated in any form since, 'probably' didn't happen.

As for grey knights camo on daemon worlds, well that's just farcical seeing as the number of descriptions we have from the codex and novels which don't say this.


----------



## coke123 (Sep 4, 2010)

Maidel said:


> If you have ONE army of vanilla marines you cannot use it as a space wolf army without adding in (and taking out) a considerable number of models and then you are screwing your army selection because choices in one codex are not good in another.


It's only really a handful of models. A few extra meltaguns to turn your tacticals into Grey Hunters, the missiles those meltaguns replaced can then form (at least part of) a bunch of long fangs. Your razorbacks, rhinos, etc are still wysiwig, you might want to pick up a couple of wolf guard and maybe an HQ to round things out. All in all you've only really needed another 10-20 models on top of your core army.



Maidel said:


> So, I will repeat, it is not possible to use a codex army to represent non codex armies without having effectively another mini army of replacement models unless you proxy like crazy.


So I will repeat, it's more than possible to use codex miniatures to represent at least the core of a non-codex army. There may be some investment in new models required, but it's really minimal. No proxy required. And even then, new models are only required in some cases.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

You just admitted it's 10-20 models. I disagree and will come back to that in a minute.

So now you need another 10-20 to make blood angels (those death company need to be clearly marked), and you will more than likely need many more scouts for black Templars.

So that's another 30-60 models. That's another army.

Then I would question about squads. If you have a squad if long fangs with 5 different squad markings on them next to another squad with 5 different squad markings you are making the game very difficult for your opponent in a way that it should not be.

Add to that the fact that the armies you are making are not 'good' tactical armies. Each codex plays differently and choices in one codex are not as viable in others. Wolf scouts great, scouts rubbish. 

So yea, if you want to use the same 7 bolter armed marines in each tactical squad and swap out the other 3 for each army as applicable, go ahead.

That's more work than actually making each army and you really haven't saved yourself a whole lot of cash.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Maidel said:


> No, you said 'probably' I repeated you. Something that 'probably' was implied in something written in 1987 which has never been repeated in any form since, 'probably' didn't happen.


English is a beautiful and descriptive language, apart from on Teh Internetz where even when we are acting without animus commonality of meaning slips away: I read "you said it yourself" as you meaning you would have said "probably" if I had not.

It was not implied; it was stated that they were variants.

I take the view that if it was stated then it is true unless contradicted. If you are instead applying a standard of repetition then we will probably disagree on a range of fluff issues.



Maidel said:


> As for grey knights camo on daemon worlds, well that's just farcical seeing as the number of descriptions we have from the codex and novels which don't say this.


I find farcical a little strong a word to use: if the books and codicies do not contain a statement that they do not use it then, it is at best unproven.

My post was to show that someone wanting to paint GK in a different colour could provide support from a GW text. Fundamentally, if you do not like the idea of GKs being anything other than copies of schemes from the latest round of GW pictures (save for personal heraldry) then that will impact your enjoyment of looking at them, and I will argue just as thoroughly for your right to not enjoy it.


----------



## Varakir (Sep 2, 2009)

I think we've established that no one really minds the GK painted in a non grey/silver scheme, and if we do it's not to the point that it's the end of the world.

So, to put the thread in a more useful direction, what fluff reasons would you deem appropriate for different coloured or counts as GK?

The main reason I always think of grey knights as grey, is that we're told their armour is unpainted. This makes it more difficult to explain a colour change as they haven't painted it in the first place. Camouflage could be one option, or maybe a force was thought to be lost on a toxic planet where their armour has become stained through corrosion or such?

The successor thing could work with the exorcists, but due to the nature of the GK powers it doesn't hold much weight to me.

We're also told they have never turned to chaos, but is there anyway they can just go rogue?


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Varakir said:


> what fluff reasons would you deem appropriate for different coloured or counts as GK?


To suggest an extreme (and unlikely) thought, an Inquisitor wants to get a small unit of GKs close to a traitor base so they rely on the fact that the trappings of Chaos do not corrupt GKs and paint themselves the same colour as a Traitor Legion.

More reasonably, the Inquisitor wants to avoid the extra level of panic that GKs would cause amongst those in the know so they paint themselves as the slightly less scary ordinary Marines.



Varakir said:


> We're also told they have never turned to chaos, but is there anyway they can just go rogue?


Alaric changes personality when trapped into arena fighting, becoming I feel more violent and self-interested, so a GK sepretared from his brothers and placed under certain stresses can lose the perfect warrior mentality. If the psychic effect of GK training is part of what makes them incorruptible then I think a GK would only change if separated from his brothers for a reasonable period, so would not go Rogue so much as drift into error.


----------



## Orochi (Jan 28, 2009)

My Blood Angel Spess Manz are painted Blue. Cus They're blue-blood conservatives and it's the interstella Councillor Elections. They're both fighting and campaigning.

Wanna fight about it?


----------



## Tzeen Qhayshek (May 4, 2010)

Orochi said:


> My Blood Angel Spess Manz are painted Blue. Cus They're blue-blood conservatives and it's the interstella Councillor Elections. They're both fighting and campaigning.
> 
> Wanna fight about it?


Rabble rabble rabble


----------



## Inquisitor_Win (Jun 9, 2010)

In our local Hobbyshop we get a bit of everything: from the master painter who paints all his armies like the cover of the boxes, passing through the players who filed unpainted armies, to the Chaos Daemons player who paints each deamon a different color; paying "homage" to things he likes like Sonic the Hedgehog, the Ninja Turtles and the Dragon ball Z characters [No, I'm not kidding].

There's a guy who painted his Orks red [for no reason other than he wanted to]. For me that's not a problem. My problem comes when a player with pink Orks wants to field them with Sisters of Battle in the same list, just because he liked the models.

As for SM players using different SM variant codices with their army, I've never seen it happen. Most players in our small community stick to one of them and play accordingly. However if one wanted to do that, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I even suggested this to a SM player while he wasn't sure which SM Chapter would his SM army be based on. As long as you stick to the rules of the codex you're using and the weapons are represented correctly, there should be no problem at all.

I love the fluff and I tried to make my army as unique as the metal models and the paint allow me to; but how much fun I have playing depends more on my opponent's attitude than how his army looks like. Of course, when you only have ONE hobby shop in your whole country that sells GW products and separates a table for costumers to play WH40K, you can't be picky about opponents :wink:


----------

