Jump to content
Welcome Guest!

Join us now to get access to all our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, and so, so much more. It's also quick and totally free, so what are you waiting for?

Jamie the Jasper

Members
  • Content count

    404
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Jamie the Jasper last won the day on September 22

Jamie the Jasper had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

589 Celestant-Prime

1 Follower

About Jamie the Jasper

  • Rank
    Dracothian Guard
  1. The Sainted Court of King Gargantula - FEC

    You're absolutely right about the broken tiles. To be honest I'm not quite sure why I didn't do it! The only thing I can think of is that I enjoyed building and painting it so much that I blazed ahead, and by the time I paid any attention to the voice at the back of my mind telling me to add broken tiles the opportunity had sort of passed. That, or I was just being lazy.
  2. The Sainted Court of King Gargantula - FEC

    This is the base that my AoS28 monster will sit on - he's a big fella! I've used a variety of materials including cork (first time and I love it), gravel, sand, green stuff and plastic components. I'm trying to represent the idea of an ancient palace that's collapsed into a massive subterranean cave and been taken over by flesh-eaters. The base is exactly as I originally pictured it and I'm really pleased with how it's turned out.
  3. The Sainted Court of King Gargantula - FEC

    And some teasers for my entry into the AoS28 monster competition.
  4. The Sainted Court of King Gargantula - FEC

    Been working on a few more bits and pieces to expand my flesh-eaters. First up, a test model for my 'Deceasium Knights', plus a corpseling horn blower.
  5. That's the exact opposite of what the people I disagree with want. This is what I want. The level of deliberate misrepresentation and obfuscation is becoming absurd now.
  6. If you're using the generic Stormcast Eternals rules, yes. If you've painted your army as Celestial Vindicators but want to use Hammers of Sigmar rules instead of Celestial Vindicators rules then that's less cut and dried.
  7. I needed a shorthand to refer to this particular group of people. I'm not particularly happy with it but it's a short, accurate description of the approach and attitude being discussed. Any derogatory intention is pure projection. Call me 'paint to win' if you like but unlike 'rules cherry picker' it's an obvious and bizarre mischaracterisation of my views because winning is irrelevant to me and I haven't said anything that would suggest otherwise. This is especially bizarre because you're insinuating that the person who sees a new rule and then spends time and resources painting an army in the appropriate colour scheme is the one primarily concerned with winning, rather than the person who sees a newly published rule and thinks 'I'm taking that for the army I've already got'. And you're arguing that the later person is more concerned with creative freedom and the hobby side of things? Madness. No, the Hammers of Sigmar is the Hammers of Sigmar. You show me where it says that the Hammers of Sigmar rules are just a template and that changes things. Again, my position on this isn't one I would ever enforce on someone, but you sure do seem hell-bent on enforcing your position on me, so I feel that the burden of proof is on you to show that your interpretation is the orthodox way and mine is unorthodox. No, this is a fundamental misunderstanding. No one is trying to make the decision on how to paint your models for you. You make that decision yourself, freely, and after you've made it I respectfully request that you honour the consequences of that decision by not trying to use rules that aren't meant to apply to the army you've chosen. I want you to paint your models however you want, then use the appropriate rules. It's that simple.
  8. I'm baffled that some people on the rules cherry-picking side of the debate are still repeating the line 'people should be free to paint their armies however they want' when it's crystal clear to me that there is no disagreement on this point. Literally no-one has said that people must paint their models in a specific way. No-one is proposing restricting that freedom. The 'creative freedom' argument is a complete strawman, so can we put that facet of the debate to rest? It's just comes across as a cheap way for the rules cherry-pickers to create an atmosphere of moral superiority over those who disagree with them. Freedom to use whatever rules you want with any army is not the same as the creative freedom to paint your army however you want. They are completely separate matters and there is only disagreement over the former, not the latter. I feel that this debate would be a lot more constructive and would stop going around in circles if the rules cherry-pickers recognised and accepted this small but important distinction.
  9. Fyreslayers in Destruction?

    You've touched on an interesting point there, which is that there may also be a general assumption that all members of a given race should sit entirely within a single Grand Alliance. The only race I can think of that straddles multiple Alliances at the moment is humans (Order, Chaos). But if the GW designers can break people out of that rigid mindset it could be a lot more fun. Not only could we get some version of things like chaos dwarfs in Chaos and mercenary ogors in Order, but we could see some really unusual stuff like grot necromancers in Death and barbarian human beastmasters in Destruction.
  10. The Sainted Court of King Gargantula - FEC

    Looking good! I wasn't sure that the bowmen bodies would work because they're posed side-on, but that actually works nicely.
  11. There is more that unites us than divides us! I know that the case you're making comes from a well-intentioned place even if I disagree with it - and I'm sure if we were to ever have the opportunity to play together the question of colour schemes would barely even arise, if at all. I also know I can come across as pompous when I'm really getting into the guts of a debate, so apologies for that! That apology applies to @Keldaur and @Burf too. Where's the poop emoticon when you need one?
  12. Fyreslayers in Destruction?

    This would add so much to the game and the hobby in general that it baffles me that they haven't implemented it already. Imagine a quarterly or even bi-annual splash release of a Dogs of War unit that can be taken as allies in any army, regardless of Grand Alliance. Everyone gets a new toy to play with, everyone has something to get excited about regardless of how long they're waiting for their main army to get some love, and GW gets to rake in money from everyone. The structure of AoS is made for exactly this kind of flexibility - they could implement mercenaries tomorrow in a way that feels completely natural and requires no adjustment to the current framework. Do you hear me GW??! Implement this at once!!!
  13. The standards of politeness do vary across groups, locations and cultures, but that's all the more reason to be cautious and ensure that you're respecting the standards and expectations of the company you happen to be in at the time. To bring it back to the painting/rules debate, the onus is on the person wanting to use Astral Templars rules with a Celestial Vindicators army to be sure that the person or people they're playing with are okay with that, because it clearly isn't the intention that the rules should be used in this way. Let's set aside majority opinion and minority opinion - the rules say 'Astral Templars' not 'here are some generic rules for Stormcast armies', so what's written down in black and white by definition has to be the 'orthodox' default position, and any other position is 'unorthodox'. Do we crush and drive out people who take the 'unorthodox' position? No. Do people who hold an 'unorthodox' position have a right to assume that their position should automatically be accepted by those who hold the 'orthodox' position? Also no. In every group, location or culture, the onus is always on those who take the unorthodox position to at least show some degree of deference to those who hold the orthodox position, even if they disagree with it - at least if they have any intention of having a positive interaction with the group. So, to put it in simple, game-related terms. If a stranger comes up to me and wants to play Celestial Vindicators using Astral Templars rules, I won't complain. It's not something I would do and I'd question their motivations for doing it (internally) but it wouldn't deter me from playing with them or potentially having a fun game. But a mismatch between the army on the tabletop and the rules being used to represent it is by definition unorthodox, so if that person didn't check with me first and just assumed that I'd be okay with it or (worse) decided that they didn't care whether I was okay with it or not, that is impolite. It's their presumptuousness that would rub me up the wrong way, much more so than the colour of their army. I don't think they could realistically claim ignorance about what the orthodox standard is - there is nothing in the published works of AoS to suggest that playing one army with another armies rules is the done thing. If anything, the published material indicates the exact opposite. So to say that both positions are equally valid as the default position just doesn't hold up. I suppose for me the debate boils down to this - who has the right to expect what from who? Does the mix-and-match player have the right to be accepted without question or concession? Or does the player who tries to stick more closely to the spirit of what is intended by GW have the right to expect that their way should be the de facto standard unless explicitly agreed otherwise? It's pretty clear what my position on that question is, and I think I'm just about out of arguments now! I don't think I'm going to be changing anyone's mind today in any case. TL;DR: In determining which should be the default position when approaching another player or group for the first time, it doesn't matter whether the majority of people agree or disagree that the look of an army should match its rules. It only matters what a reasonable person would expect the default position to be. The logical default is that you follow both the letter and spirit of the material published by GW, which would indicate that an army should visually match the rules being used. The onus is on the person who wants to deviate from the logical default to check whether this is acceptable in the particular group. It probably will be acceptable, and that's great, but politeness dictates that they still need to check.
  14. Ok, now the off-topic spin-off thread is about to go off-topic, but here goes! Both politeness and morals are sets of rules that we collectively agree to abide by for the good of the wider community and, by extension, for our own individual benefit. The difference, in my opinion, is that morals concern matters and behaviour that can have a genuine impact upon the people around you, whereas politeness concerns little rituals that have no wider impact and exist purely to signal that you belong to a certain group and respect the other members of that group. So, wearing a condom when you have sex is a moral act, it's not just polite. Whereas not putting your feet up on someone's coffee table is polite, but has no moral dimension. Now, there are people, perhaps on this very forum, who might argue that putting your feet on someone's coffee table doesn't really affect them in any way and doesn't cause any harm, so why shouldn't they be allowed to do it? But those people would be missing the point. We all know that, broadly speaking, society considers this act to be impolite. So if you choose to ignore this general consensus and put your feet up on someone's coffee table, you're making a conscious decision to send a signal that says 'I don't care what society thinks and I'm not willing to play by the conventional rules' - you're choosing to cast yourself as being an 'outsider' separate in some way from the 'tribe'. That person has chosen not to (as you put it) subjugate their own sensibilities to those of the wider society. They've chosen to be impolite. They'll argue that they haven't done any actual harm, and they'll be right. But if someone chooses to send a signal that they don't want to respect the conventions of the group, does the group still owe them and their beliefs the same degree of respect that they would show towards someone who abides by the conventions of the group despite disagreeing with them? I would say not.
×