Jump to content

Season of war: Firestorm - Painting for rules debate.


Trout

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply
10 minutes ago, Trout said:

What if the rule is that to qualify for a certain allegiance the models must be painted a certain way?

:(  Then that allegiance goes out the window, for me. at least.  One of my favorite aspects of wargaming is the creativity allowed in creating your own stories and characters and armies in this setting.  That's what separates Warhammer from historical wargames - you don't see many Roman Legionary soldier models painted in teal and black, after all ;).  The story telling, Narrative aspect of Warhammer is what keeps me around when tournaments get full of shenaniganizers and meta-chasers.  When the Narrative becomes no longer important, that's when my interest in the game will die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, BunkhouseBuster said:

:(  Then that allegiance goes out the window, for me. at least.  One of my favorite aspects of wargaming is the creativity allowed in creating your own stories and characters and armies in this setting.  That's what separates Warhammer from historical wargames - you don't see many Roman Legionary soldier models painted in teal and black, after all ;).  The story telling, Narrative aspect of Warhammer is what keeps me around when tournaments get full of shenaniganizers and meta-chasers.  When the Narrative becomes no longer important, that's when my interest in the game will die.

It's all fun and games until someone turns up with pink orcs >:(>:(>:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Trout said:

What if the rule is that to qualify for a certain allegiance the models must be painted a certain way?

Then better GW begin to sell me prepainted miniatures for 50% of the cost they have now, because I'm not gonna buy a miniature that I have to paint in the colors others tell me to use. I have a Dark Angels force in 40k because I really like their aesthetic and paint-scheme, but even in that case I take a great amount of artistic freedom. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Galas said:

Then better GW begin to sell me prepainted miniatures for 50% of the cost they have now, because I'm not gonna buy a miniature that I have to paint in the colors others tell me to use. I have a Dark Angels force in 40k because I really like their aesthetic and paint-scheme, but even in that case I take a great amount of artistic freedom. 

****** if GW charged me twice as much but the model came assembled and painted I'd max out my credit card in a heartbeat. The painting side of the hobby is a serious buzzkill for me. Playing and collecting is where its at for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, BunkhouseBuster said:

:(  Then that allegiance goes out the window, for me. at least.  One of my favorite aspects of wargaming is the creativity allowed in creating your own stories and characters and armies in this setting.  That's what separates Warhammer from historical wargames - you don't see many Roman Legionary soldier models painted in teal and black, after all ;).  The story telling, Narrative aspect of Warhammer is what keeps me around when tournaments get full of shenaniganizers and meta-chasers.  When the Narrative becomes no longer important, that's when my interest in the game will die.

I can empathise with where you're coming from, but I'm also a heavily narrative-focused person and I have completely the opposite position on this. If people want to tell a narrative using Anvilgard that army should look like it comes from Anvilgard. Applying Anvilgard rules to an army that was built and painted to look like they're from somewhere else entirely comes across to me as just jumping on the bandwagon - using shiny new rules because you like them from a mechanics standpoint rather than because you're trying to tell a story about an Anvilgard force. Not being able to use the Anvilgard rules (or any other theme-specific rules) doesn't restrict your creativity or storytelling in any way as far as I can see - you're still free to develop the theme, story and look of your army in any way you choose.

Isn't it interesting that we can have completely opposing viewpoints that we've arrived at for the same underlying reasons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. If you are honestly interested in a narrative focused, fluffy army, with the backstory of the Anvilguard for example, I'd expect someone to paint the models to match that. 

The only issue as I see it is that these are only just coming out now. If I play 40k, I can see the developed themes, the stories, the differing units, the characters, and apply them to my force appropriately. I pick up a space marine, and because I like the idea/artwork/story of the blood angels, I do that scheme. I would not want to play that army as another chapter, and would not play an opponent that said 'oh these are something different', conveniently just as the new codex is released.

Unfortunately AoS is at the beginning of a timeline. Case in point with Neve. She has rules that state 'model must be painted in the right colours' in as many words. I wouldn't want my opponent painting Mephiston as an ultramarine and using him in the wrong chapter. It doesn't fit the core lore. But AoS really doesn't have that weight, that volume of story to justify that yet.

 

You kind of have to have a relaxed view of these sorts of things, in both competitive and non-competitive play. If you flesh out places like hammerhal, then that's amazing. It's cool as hell to have this new depth of narrative. But in mixing this with the generic story most of us have built too, it makes both sides unhappy (to varying degrees obviously). I'd have prefered to have the option to do this without it being an option for everyone. But as Chris says, maybe this will be the case when it's released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Double Misfire said:

It's all fun and games until someone turns up with pink orcs

Well, pink necrons with butterflies were long before that...

22 minutes ago, Thebiggesthat said:

Unfortunately AoS is at the beginning of a timeline.

It isn't. Age of Sigmar is the last of the three (Age of Myth, Age of Chaos, Age of Sigmar). They have lots of room to go back like in 40k.

But otherwise to paint accordingly to something is a very dangerous path that leads nowhere, and 40k is not an example - it's way too different (and even then you can play with DA rules but paint in the scheme of a Successor Chapter without any problem).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Thebiggesthat said:

Unfortunately AoS is at the beginning of a timeline. Case in point with Neve. She has rules that state 'model must be painted in the right colours' in as many words. I wouldn't want my opponent painting Mephiston as an ultramarine and using him in the wrong chapter. It doesn't fit the core lore. But AoS really doesn't have that weight, that volume of story to justify that yet.

This is all absolutely true, and is one of the reasons why I would never try to force my position on this subject onto someone else, not for AoS certainly. In 40K, if someone tries to jump on the new Death Guard bandwagon by using DG rules with their Iron Warriors army that's hard to justify and feels completely wrong because both of those armies have very distinctive and detailed background and themes built up over 30 years of stories.

On the other hand, not even the most well known Stormhosts or Great Cities have distinguished themselves from each other to any great degree - they're pretty much interchangeable in terms of background and appearance at this stage. Aside from a few throwaway details that haven't really been expanded upon (e.g. Astral Templars are supposedly excellent at hunting monsters) the only distinguishing feature is the colour scheme. With that being the case it's hard to throw yourself into building an Anvilgard or Astral Templars army with the same kind of passion for the background or dedication to the theme that you'd expect for Space Wolves or Thousand Sons.

So I wouldn't insist that someone dedicate their hobby time and resources to building a whole new army around such shallow background, just for the sake of gaining access to a single special rule - it's asking too much. In an ideal world I would prefer that people who want to use these rules build and paint their armies according the background where it exists, then use their imagination to expand on it and fill in the blanks with thematically appropriate conversions and army composition. But not everyone has the mentality, skill or inclination to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Thebiggesthat said:

Unfortunately AoS is at the beginning of a timeline. Case in point with Neve. She has rules that state 'model must be painted in the right colours' in as many words. I wouldn't want my opponent painting Mephiston as an ultramarine and using him in the wrong chapter. It doesn't fit the core lore. But AoS really doesn't have that weight, that volume of story to justify that yet.

Sadly AoS seems to have struggled to pin the identity of factional groups in the same way as we've got with Space Marines.  Show a player a red Space Marine and they'll likely go "Blood Angel", show them a silver Stormcast and they'll go "Stormcast Eternal".  This is compounded by some people having a pretty lax attitude "I want to paint my Kharadron in colour scheme X but use the rules for Y".

Variation of scheme is fine, it's where you pick a "defined" scheme that it introduces confusion and ultimately stop people bothering to learn the background (developing a "it doesn't matter" attitude).  The equivalent of successor chapters is fine - paint your stormcast in brass with blue trim and it's all well and dandy to say they're part of the Hammers of Sigmar chamber.  Paint them up in turquoise with white shoulders and gold trim and they're Celestial Vindicators as that's their defined scheme.

And I'm sorry but the argument of the background being thin on the ground doesn't wash.  Originally every Space Marine was the same, the only difference being their armour colour and their home world, yet people adopted them and with relatively little background helped to shape them into what we know today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Menkeroth said:

Well, pink necrons with butterflies were long before that...

It isn't. Age of Sigmar is the last of the three (Age of Myth, Age of Chaos, Age of Sigmar). They have lots of room to go back like in 40k.

But otherwise to paint accordingly to something is a very dangerous path that leads nowhere, and 40k is not an example - it's way too different (and even then you can play with DA rules but paint in the scheme of a Successor Chapter without any problem).

I'm not usually one for a blanket 'you are wrong', but I have to here. We are in an age that has totally destroyed the last two. A conscious desision to remove the characters from the old world has been made. And it's not in a Horus Heresy 'ooh look, this dude might be dead but we never saw the shot' type action. They are gone. Removed from the rule set, dead. 

If you read into what happened with the timeline moving in 40k, it was probably the wrong way to do it. But the old world is dead dead dead. 

You are being rather vague with your example there, I think purposely, as it suits your opinion regarding painting.  A truer example, and this will be the same in AoS in time guaranteed, is that you could paint your minis in any colour and use them as a successor. But you would be using named characters then, as the new rules clearly state they work only for the original chapter. So you can paint your stormcast in any colour, and say they are a offshoot (or however they want to develop the story and organisation of the SC) of a chamber. But certain special rules/characters will not be available. I paint my Stormcast in the Hallowed knights scheme, but with a different spot colour (Silver, gold trim and red spot rather than blue) so I would be happy to use Hallowed Knights rules (not for the current points though!) but I don't think I should be able to say, oh these guys are actually from Hammerhal, if part of the story ( and the addition of city forces is story) says this isn't the case.  But then I don't think these abilities have any place outside the campaign.

1 hour ago, RuneBrush said:

Sadly AoS seems to have struggled to pin the identity of factional groups in the same way as we've got with Space Marines.  Show a player a red Space Marine and they'll likely go "Blood Angel", show them a silver Stormcast and they'll go "Stormcast Eternal".  This is compounded by some people having a pretty lax attitude "I want to paint my Kharadron in colour scheme X but use the rules for Y".

Variation of scheme is fine, it's where you pick a "defined" scheme that it introduces confusion and ultimately stop people bothering to learn the background (developing a "it doesn't matter" attitude).  The equivalent of successor chapters is fine - paint your stormcast in brass with blue trim and it's all well and dandy to say they're part of the Hammers of Sigmar chamber.  Paint them up in turquoise with white shoulders and gold trim and they're Celestial Vindicators as that's their defined scheme.

And I'm sorry but the argument of the background being thin on the ground doesn't wash.  Originally every Space Marine was the same, the only difference being their armour colour and their home world, yet people adopted them and with relatively little background helped to shape them into what we know today.

Give it time, and I hope the world will start to flesh out. My point is that it's a little more difficult to get people to buy in to an identity when everything is available to everyone. I get why GW are doing it, it's money, but it's a shame. The counter point is that unless they make an effort to flesh out and not this drip drip drip of rules, it's not a short term fix.

Case in point for Stormcast is Blacktalon again. Its awesome that there are finally named characters. I saw her, then saw the painting rule, and cried bull. Because the first (we aren't counting Vandus, that's a cynical release because GW know you can build a LCoD from the unit) time we get someone cool, only a certain chamber can use her. 

Release me a named character for the Hallowed Knights, that fits the theme (relictor please) and I'll be happy. In fact, release a few that span the different chambers, and we start to build up that narrative. It doesn't become 'oh man, that new shiny model only works if I buy more models', it becomes a cool option for every player. 

I'm talking Stormcast because I play them, you could do this for many different armies. I'm hoping this is the way Shadespire does the rules for AoS. I'm hoping that the new upcoming Portants compaign brings in some characters. Mainly because I'm looking forward to things fleshing out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Thebiggesthat said:

Give it time, and I hope the world will start to flesh out. My point is that it's a little more difficult to get people to buy in to an identity when everything is available to everyone. I get why GW are doing it, it's money, but it's a shame. The counter point is that unless they make an effort to flesh out and not this drip drip drip of rules, it's not a short term fix.

Case in point for Stormcast is Blacktalon again. Its awesome that there are finally named characters. I saw her, then saw the painting rule, and cried bull. Because the first (we aren't counting Vandus, that's a cynical release because GW know you can build a LCoD from the unit) time we get someone cool, only a certain chamber can use her. 

Release me a named character for the Hallowed Knights, that fits the theme (relictor please) and I'll be happy. In fact, release a few that span the different chambers, and we start to build up that narrative. It doesn't become 'oh man, that new shiny model only works if I buy more models', it becomes a cool option for every player. 

I'm talking Stormcast because I play them, you could do this for many different armies. I'm hoping this is the way Shadespire does the rules for AoS. I'm hoping that the new upcoming Portants compaign brings in some characters. Mainly because I'm looking forward to things fleshing out.

Oddly I'd like to see something slightly different - a "Hero Creator" where you can basically build a hero from a set of different rules and abilities and each has a points cost.  It'd allow us to pick a model we love (e.g. Blacktalon) and then come up with some custom rules we can use for our own army.  This would allow us to create our own Gardus or whatever and be a lot quicker than GW releasing single characters - and give us (the community) the ability to start to shape the world.  It'd be amazing to see (in)famous Megabosses, Mighty Lords, Admirals etc gracing the tabletop with their own custom warscroll that's legitimate :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

I can empathise with where you're coming from, but I'm also a heavily narrative-focused person and I have completely the opposite position on this. If people want to tell a narrative using Anvilgard that army should look like it comes from Anvilgard. Applying Anvilgard rules to an army that was built and painted to look like they're from somewhere else entirely comes across to me as just jumping on the bandwagon - using shiny new rules because you like them from a mechanics standpoint rather than because you're trying to tell a story about an Anvilgard force. Not being able to use the Anvilgard rules (or any other theme-specific rules) doesn't restrict your creativity or storytelling in any way as far as I can see - you're still free to develop the theme, story and look of your army in any way you choose.

Isn't it interesting that we can have completely opposing viewpoints that we've arrived at for the same underlying reasons?

At least we aren't getting into the whole "us versus them" mentality that has infiltrated 40K and most other real-world issues.  That's why I like wargaming - there's something for everyone.

Back when I was playing D&D on a regular basis, I would create my own stories and plots.  Never once did I use one of the pre-published modules or pre-made campaign settings.  I got the Forgotten Realms and Ebberon book not for the setting itself, but for further ideas to enhance what I can create.  My mind buzzes at a million miles an hour sometimes, and these creative outlets are one of the ways I can apply my mental energies.   Creating my own armies and characters to fit a setting is an extension of my passion for RPGs and story telling that I can share with others.

When it comes to painting my miniatures, I don't want to paint them to match what's on the box.

And speaking of painting things that don't match...

3 hours ago, Thebiggesthat said:

I agree. If you are honestly interested in a narrative focused, fluffy army, with the backstory of the Anvilguard for example, I'd expect someone to paint the models to match that. 

The only issue as I see it is that these are only just coming out now. If I play 40k, I can see the developed themes, the stories, the differing units, the characters, and apply them to my force appropriately. I pick up a space marine, and because I like the idea/artwork/story of the blood angels, I do that scheme. I would not want to play that army as another chapter, and would not play an opponent that said 'oh these are something different', conveniently just as the new codex is released.

Unfortunately AoS is at the beginning of a timeline. Case in point with Neve. She has rules that state 'model must be painted in the right colours' in as many words. I wouldn't want my opponent painting Mephiston as an ultramarine and using him in the wrong chapter. It doesn't fit the core lore. But AoS really doesn't have that weight, that volume of story to justify that yet.

You might not like me then B|  I am one of those Space Marine players that picked a custom color scheme for my Space Wolves.  To be fair, in my personal fluff, they were a White Scars Successor Chapter, who used the large creatures of their recruitment worlds (played as Thunderwolves) to match the "relentless mounted hunter" aspect of White Scars.  Later on, I began using  different Chapter Tactics, and because I like it better at a point, and the Space Wolves army rules no longer fit what I wanted out of my army's playstyle.  But I kept on using the same color schemes, throwing wolfy bits and pelts on my models, and keeping all of my Astartes models in a cohesive scheme.

The point I am getting at is that I can find plenty of ways for an army to represent some rules from the fluff.  Successor Chapters of Space Marines in 40K work perfectly for this.  Sure, it might be hard to have a Mephiston in a Lamenters or Flesh Tearer army, but you could still paint the model up in the colors and use Mephiston's rules to represent the Chapters most powerful psyker.

In this case of Age of Sigmar with the new city rules, I will pick which rules I like and fits my personal head-canon.  I have my own custom color schemes in mind for each army I plan on getting.  Sure, my army isn't from the exact city that is using those rules, but they could be using the same tactics and rules by chance, or some people left the actual city to later found the city where my army is from, or my city is copying what they saw another city do, or my city is a "sister-city" to the established one.  The justifications are there, and I look forward to changing up how we can play our armies.

With my plans for a united Duardin, Aelf, and Human army in the works, I would also like to use the rules that best fit what I want to play.  I'm not going to pick the most powerful combos and use shenanigans just to win.  I will pick, if any, the one that fits my image of what I want in my army.  In this case, it's a stubborn tide of heavy infantry that doesn't move much and has some ranged support.  It's not about victory, but coming up with something cool and fun that I enjoy, and hopefully others can enjoy it as well.

3 hours ago, Thebiggesthat said:

You kind of have to have a relaxed view of these sorts of things, in both competitive and non-competitive play. If you flesh out places like hammerhal, then that's amazing. It's cool as hell to have this new depth of narrative. But in mixing this with the generic story most of us have built too, it makes both sides unhappy (to varying degrees obviously). I'd have prefered to have the option to do this without it being an option for everyone. But as Chris says, maybe this will be the case when it's released.

Dude, I am practically ZEN about wargaming.  It's my escape from the stress and chaos of life, and I take my time to make the most out of this hobby.  I'm not too worried about what GW releases that might change the fluff, becuase, thanks to Age of Sigmar's undefined nature, it nearly all fits in together.  The realms have not been mapped out, nor has everything been fleshed out and set in stone.  The Old World was set, it was a world where there were no empty spots on the map (except the polar caps) and you knew what all was there.  AoS is still fluid and loose as a setting, and there are plenty of opportunities for everyone to stake their own little piece of the setting for themselves without invalidating anyone else's fluff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are more than welcome to pick and choose what rules you want. Hopefully you have a gaming group that's fine with that. but please don't pretend it's anything other that choosing what gives you the best result on the table xD

You can paint up some necrons in stormast livery and make a story of why they use seraphon abilities if you want.  

Personally, if I pitched up and the opponent put down some blood angels, and said, oh yeah, these are now space wolves because it suits how I want to play, I'd shake hands and pack up. It's the beauty of the hobby, you'll always find someone that wants to play your way I'm sure

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

I can empathise with where you're coming from, but I'm also a heavily narrative-focused person and I have completely the opposite position on this. If people want to tell a narrative using Anvilgard that army should look like it comes from Anvilgard. Applying Anvilgard rules to an army that was built and painted to look like they're from somewhere else entirely comes across to me as just jumping on the bandwagon - using shiny new rules because you like them from a mechanics standpoint rather than because you're trying to tell a story about an Anvilgard force. Not being able to use the Anvilgard rules (or any other theme-specific rules) doesn't restrict your creativity or storytelling in any way as far as I can see - you're still free to develop the theme, story and look of your army in any way you choose.

Isn't it interesting that we can have completely opposing viewpoints that we've arrived at for the same underlying reasons?

Thats why I say that they souldn't link rules with a place. Instead of "Anvilgard rules" and "Hammerhall rules" you have "Great Defenders Rules" and "Savage Atakers rules", then that problem dissapears.  They could say "For an Anvilgard army we recommend using X rules but you can select other if you want".

I have the same opinion for example with Space Marine Chapters. If you have a Ultramarine army and use "White Scars" rules as you say, many people is gonna accuse you of jumping on the bandwagon, but if Ultramarines rules where called "Honourable Heroes" and "White Scars" where called "Fast Skirmishers", then voylá, no more prejudices. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Solaris said:

I don't see how this is bad manners at all. I'm completely on board with @BunkhouseBuster on this - I would never ever in my life paint an army according to a predefined color scheme. To me, that is a complete buzz kill. I see and read the official stuff, and then I use that to enrich my own theme and backstory. This creative process of doing my own thing is what gets my juices flowing, and I'd consider it rude if someone told me I couldn't use interesting new rules just because I decided to be more creative than copy the color scheme on the box art.

I'm not knocking anybody for creating their own background and colour schemes and all well and dandy when you're playing with friends (I'm painting non-green Orruks at the moment so really don't have an issue ;)).  What I was saying is that I don't think it's on to plonk down a load of purple and bronze armoured Stormcast and proceed to try and justify how they're Hammers of Sigmar but don't have a lick of gold paint on them when anybody who knows the Stormcast chambers will recognise them as Lions of Sigmar.  Specifically when you don't know your opponent very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Galas said:

Thats why I say that they souldn't link rules with a place. Instead of "Anvilgard rules" and "Hammerhall rules" you have "Great Defenders Rules" and "Savage Atakers rules", then that problem dissapears.  They could say "For an Anvilgard army we recommend using X rules but you can select other if you want".

I have the same opinion for example with Space Marine Chapters. If you have a Ultramarine army and use "White Scars" rules as you say, many people is gonna accuse you of jumping on the bandwagon, but if Ultramarines rules where called "Honourable Heroes" and "White Scars" where called "Fast Skirmishers", then voylá, no more prejudices. 

I like this plan.  I feel like Kharadron Overlords handled their army tactics in a similar way to what you suggested.  While on one hand I am all for abstraction and removing of rules bloat, on the other I do like the options available for army construction and how they interact with the units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

I'm not knocking anybody for creating their own background and colour schemes and all well and dandy when you're playing with friends (I'm painting non-green Orruks at the moment so really don't have an issue ;)).  What I was saying is that I don't think it's on to plonk down a load of purple and bronze armoured Stormcast and proceed to try and justify how they're Hammers of Sigmar but don't have a lick of gold paint on them when anybody who knows the Stormcast chambers will recognise them as Lions of Sigmar.  Specifically when you don't know your opponent very well.

And what if your opponent says, "Hey, I know they're painted like Lions of Sigmar, but I want to try out the Hammers of Sigmar formation, is that ok?"

Or, what if he has painted his entire army as animated statues guarding a lost, ancient city ruin and had several pages of fluff written on his paint log on the internet, and wanted to run them as Hammers of Sigmar? (Yes, this is an army that I was/am planning to do at some point :P )

I honestly think that you'd have to be a complete jackass to object in either case, but maybe that's just me.

Edit: @tea_wild_owl Holy ****** dude, that ship is wild! Love it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, SideshowLucifer said:

Wow, I can't believe someone who be upset by the paint scheme of an army not matching the fluff. Seems like complaining just to complain at that point.

Preach it. I ran the alpha legion color scheme for my whitescars, ultramarines, and ravenguard through all of 7th and have blood raven ravenguard that you bet your behind I'm still running Shrike with in 8th. My stormcasts are all Gold and purple and my Neave and her shadowhammers will be too.

If you want a fluff accurate paintjob, play a historical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Burf said:

Preach it. I ran the alpha legion color scheme for my whitescars, ultramarines, and ravenguard through all of 7th and have blood raven ravenguard that you bet your behind I'm still running Shrike with in 8th. My stormcasts are all Gold and purple and my Neave and her shadowhammers will be too.

If you want a fluff accurate paintjob, play a historical.

Don't make the mistake of assuming your preference is in anyway representative of the hobby. But as long as you get games I'm sure your behaviors will be reinforced. The point people were making that for differing reasons (effort that one player goes to painting, the feeling immersion, enjoying the experience of the game when things look like'they should') lots of people like to see things painted right. 

My personal hope is that AoS continues to set these high standards, and those that want to push around grey plastic regularly or swap books for maximum benefit rules wise, can go play 40k. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Thebiggesthat said:

Don't make the mistake of assuming your preference is in anyway representative of the hobby. But as long as you get games I'm sure your behaviors will be reinforced. The point people were making that for differing reasons (effort that one player goes to painting, the feeling immersion, enjoying the experience of the game when things look like'they should') lots of people like to see things painted right. 

My personal hope is that AoS continues to set these high standards, and those that want to push around grey plastic regularly or swap books for maximum benefit rules wise, can go play 40k. 

I think you will find we don't push grey plastic in 40k and in fact every model is painted in tournament play. We also can paint our models how we want, and since when is a game of toy soldiers about looking how "they should". Why does your opinion on what "they should" look like apparel to someone else's view on what "they should" look like? Seriously, this bugs me, and putting 40k players in a specific boat is unnecessary when we have more variety to choose from (GW produced successor chapters for a reason).  Stop going off topic and trolling please, you're just inciting posts like this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...