Season of war: Firestorm - Painting for rules debate.

[Trout]

I'm sorry I ever asked this question.

 

It's unfortunate the admins decided to let this nonsense continue.

 

This wasn't my intention.

[Twitch of Izalith]

4 minutes ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

They've been cheating filth since second edition (but that's a different story). Cool background though ?

  yeah first codex ever if I remember right. They were kind of OP when no one else had a book... I still have that army and my terminators now look really small 

[Kramer]

4 hours ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

When it comes to politeness what you as an individual think doesn't matter. You have to act in accordance with what the people around you consider to be polite or the whole concept of politeness doesn't work.

 

Ooh, that's interesting thought. Just to take it completely out of the context of this discussion. Because it makes it easier to discuss this and prevents it becoming a hot mess  So in general, in your opinion?

Is it politeness to break your own morals because of what the people around you consider polite? (see quote) Or is it also polite to at a certain point just say 'okay, this goes past what I consider polite/normal/okay, so I'm going to step out of this discussion/setting/conversation'?

Just curious to see what constitutes politeness. Because I would argue that politeness isn't the same as subjugating your own sensibilities just because the people surrounding you don't agree.

[Mikester1487]

6 minutes ago, Trout said:

I'm sorry I ever asked this question.

 

It's unfortunate the admins decided to let this nonsense continue.

 

This wasn't my intention.

It's a really interesting phenomenon that also happened in the KO thread when schemes were brought up.  People are very passionate one way or the other it seems.

I've always held the stance that the realms are a massive place, and I'm sure cities will have a standard paint job.  The cities are also continent sized so having a detachment to paint and use the rules as you want should not be an issue.  

That's how I approach it anyways.

[BunkhouseBuster]

4 minutes ago, Trout said:

I'm sorry I ever asked this question.

It's unfortunate the admins decided to let this nonsense continue.

This wasn't my intention.

Don't fret over it!  It's a legitimate concern, and a legitimate conversation can come from it.  So long as everyone keeps their tempers and maintains their composure, nothing is lost from the discussion.  If anything, we might gain insight into how and why others enjoy the same hobby.  I mean, I can completely understand and empathize with every motivation for playing or painting with models in any different way, and those other ideas can help me realize why I like things the way I do.  By having these discussions, we are opening ourselves up to others, good, bad, and ugly.  We just need to remember that we are each here for our own reasons and be respectful of that.

As the old adage goes, "If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all!"

(And before you ask, no, that does not explain my silence on many threads )

While I may not be as rigid in my hobbying choices (rules or paint schemes) as others, that is fine!  If everyone did everything the same way, then nothing would be interesting.  Sure, others are going to want to stay true to the fluff and lore, but others are more excited to treat their armies and games as a canvas to experiment on.  There is nothing WRONG with either option, just personal, subjective preferences that drive our desired experiences from our shared hobby.

As many times as I have faced off against partially assembled models and grey plastic in tournaments and other games, I'm just happy to see someone with a full painted army with a matching, cohesive color scheme with finished bases.  So long as it looks good, I'll be happy to play with you

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Kramer said:

Ooh, that's interesting thought. Just to take it completely out of the context of this discussion. Because it makes it easier to discuss this and prevents it becoming a hot mess  So in general, in your opinion?

Is it politeness to break your own morals because of what the people around you consider polite? (see quote) Or is it also polite to at a certain point just say 'okay, this goes past what I consider polite/normal/okay, so I'm going to step out of this discussion/setting/conversation'?

Just curious to see what constitutes politeness. Because I would argue that politeness isn't the same as subjugating your own sensibilities just because the people surrounding you don't agree.

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.

[Burf]

2 minutes ago, Auticus said:

This topic has raged heatedly for over twenty years on many forums.

I'm personally a fan of where it settled in 40k, some people grumble about blue white scars or red ultramarines but they're mostly ignored.

 

It's also interesting to me because the 2 people I've brought into AoS both have multiple armies at least partially painted and if I told them 'you can't use X rule unless they're painted hammers of sigmar or w/e they wouldn't even know what that meant. They've been playing for over a year now and neither one knows who Sigmar is, only one can name all 4 chaos gods off the top of his head, neither one know what the other ages are before Sigmar, neither one knows what the mortal realms are, let alone a specific one and neither of them care. They like the game and they like the models, the fluff is just homework that isn't gonna be on the test to them.

[Solaris]

3 minutes ago, BunkhouseBuster said:

While I may not be as rigid in my hobbying choices (rules or paint schemes) as others, that is fine!  If everyone did everything the same way, then nothing would be interesting.  Sure, others are going to want to stay true to the fluff and lore, but others are more excited to treat their armies and games as a canvas to experiment on.  There is nothing WRONG with either option, just personal, subjective preferences that drive our desired experiences from our shared hobby.

As many times as I have faced off against partially assembled models and grey plastic in tournaments and other games, I'm just happy to see someone with a full painted army with a matching, cohesive color scheme with finished bases.  So long as it looks good, I'll be happy to play with you

Of course there is nothing wrong with either preference, it's trying to force that preference onto others that is wrong. I'll play with anyone regardless of paint schemes and the like. If they want to proxy things, I'd appreciate they let me know beforehand, but if someone shows up with a fully painted and based force I have zero complaints. The only thing that would make me not want to play someone again would be if they had a rude or otherwise nasty personality, or if they slow played for advantages in a tournament or similar.

Unless it involved profanity or insults painted onto the banners and shields, I cannot for the life of me see how using a color scheme could be impolite. Even then, I'd find it more hilarious than insulting  A complete lack of effort could bother me somewhat, but really not a whole lot. Some people just prefer playing over painting, and I accept and respect that.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Burf said:

They've been playing for over a year now and neither one knows who Sigmar is, only one can name all 4 chaos gods off the top of his head, neither one know what the other ages are before Sigmar, neither one knows what the mortal realms are, let alone a specific one and neither of them care.

 

2 minutes ago, Auticus said:

I find in my experience most people know little to next to nothing about the narrative.  In campaign events we do the pub quiz and out of say 20 people, three may actually know any answers.

Also as grey plastic is the norm, enforcing a color scheme here would largely never happen.

 

[Keldaur]

To be honest i had been catching on having read quest of ghal maraz. I found it interesting, but not amazing, i remain largely unconvinced in the lore of AoS.

So from there, what do you guys recommend ? (Let's derail the derail, because two wrongs make one right !, i am kidding, PM if you have some suggestions please :))

[Solaris]

4 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

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.

I largely agree with this, however one also has to acknowledge that these politeness rules are not set in stone, but wary between groups, locations and cultures. To some people it may be impolite to not put your feet on the table, what's wrong with my table?!  Other people may also be openly encouraging visitors to put their feet the table, and expect the same treatment back. It becomes somewhat absurd in this example, because there is a clear standard on what is and isn't polite (you don't put your feet on someone's table, duh)!

In the present discussion, as can be gleaned from everyone's different preferences and experiences, there is no indisputable consensus on what is and isn't polite.

[Ollie Grimwood]

45 minutes ago, Keldaur said:

To be honest i had been catching on having read quest of ghal maraz. I found it interesting, but not amazing, i remain largely unconvinced in the lore of AoS.

So from there, what do you guys recommend ? (Let's derail the derail, because two wrongs make one right !, i am kidding, PM if you have some suggestions please :))

I'm going all in on OT, God Beasts, All Points, Fury of Gork, Call of Archaon, City of Secrets and all the Battletomes they really put the AoS factions into the setting(probably Spear of Shadows but I've only just started it) 

[Keldaur]

16 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

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.

Our disagreement comes on who is putting their feet on the table of who. You believe the person who doesn't follow what your community had collectively agreed is impolite. If you don't extend this to different communities, or people who are not part of the community, i would not disagree with you. 

I already said it, it's about being inclusive or exclusive. You and your community, for whatever reasons or past experiences, chose to be exclusive in that front. Fine by me, but just keep in mind that what you are talking about is your anecdotical evidence rather than something you can make broad statements like you did before. To me it's a totally reasonable stance, since people who want to play the game as a game don't require to be that picky because at the end of the day, a game is a game.

People who might play like you are looking for a narrative experience that requires a different number traits and beforehand agreements end up needing to be more picky about it to find what they are looking for.  But you lose me the moment you say that someone who isn't part of your community is rude because he didn't meet a set of rules which he did not neccessarily know beforehand. 

TLDR: If you expect unknown people to behave like your community , you are having unrealistic expectations.  I mean really, if the example that sparked all this would had been "if a person from my regular gaming group showed with X pretending to be Z", or "I told him i am into the lore and i like to play strickly by it", i wouldn't say anything. But saying nothing and thinking your own set of rules that works in your group should work for everyone outside it is kind of funny.

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, Solaris said:

I largely agree with this, however one also has to acknowledge that these politeness rules are not set in stone, but wary between groups, locations and cultures. To some people it may be impolite to not put your feet on the table, what's wrong with my table?!  Other people may also be openly encouraging visitors to put their feet the table, and expect the same treatment back. It becomes somewhat absurd in this example, because there is a clear standard on what is and isn't polite (you don't put your feet on someone's table, duh)!

In the present discussion, as can be gleaned from everyone's different preferences and experiences, there is no indisputable consensus on what is and isn't polite.

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.

[Solaris]

38 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

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.

I do agree that this is what it boils down to, and I think it is pretty clear what my stance is as well. I'm not going to convince anyone either, I think

I just want to promote a live and let live attitude - just as most AoS communities immediately shunned the "silly rules" (lose the game if kneeling with Settra and so on), my experience is that most communities also have shunned the forced color schemes approach. Would I ever criticize someone for fielding an army with a standard color scheme, despite personally finding it boring and unimaginative? Never in a million years! In the same way, I don't think anyone should be criticized , looked down on or accused of being impolite for simply using the paints that they prefer with the special rules that they prefer. Neither should they have to ask for permission beforehand, just as they shouldn't have to ask for permission to tie their shoelaces when fielding Settra.

If the community as a whole shared your opinion, I would probably not be playing this game. For me, one of the major draws in building and painting an army is the creative freedom to do my own thing! If people told me I'd be restricted from using special rules because of that, I would simply not be interested in painting an army at all. And perhaps for you, one of the major draws of the game is building and painting and playing games according to the narrative as defined by GW, and that is of course perfectly fine as well. I don't think that either of us needs to ask for permission to build, paint and play the way we like, nor that anyone is impolite for having a different preference and not giving ahead warning. We should just accept that our preferences are different, but that we can still most likely find common ground and have fun playing this great game together.

There, done with the hippie mumbo jumbo. These last few posts have been way too polite, let's go back to flinging ****** at each other!

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Solaris said:

We should just accept that our preferences are different, but that we can still most likely find common ground and have fun playing this great game together.

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.

 

6 minutes ago, Solaris said:

There, done with the hippie mumbo jumbo. These last few posts have been way too polite, let's go back to flinging ****** at each other!

Where's the poop emoticon when you need one? 

[Trout]

1 hour ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

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.

Yeah, I hate it when people just assume it's ok to measure base to base. The rules say model to model!

[BunkhouseBuster]

You what something is that we can all agree on?

You buy the models, you paint them however you want

[Galas]

I think this comes down to a historically-narrative mindset vs competitive midset. Theres some people that takes offense of some people wanting to have good rules for their army, even if they don't match wathever faction they have painted them in the first place. I always find this strange, because isn't like the "FNP +6" of Iron Hands is that important to define their character. 

Personally, besides Dark Angels, I always paint my armies in custom colours, that way I'm totally free to use whatever rules I want. But as I said early, I think this problem could disappear if GW just stopped using rules for X place/group and instead make those rules generic in name. Because at the end of the day it comes down to the name. The Chapter Tactics or Kharadron Overlords Ports could remain literally the same but with generic names, and then this problem would be non-existant.

But whatever, I'm a casual player, just like my club. 

If somebody wants to make a slippery slopy argument about how using whatever random bonus that GW has associated with the  Paint Scheme that you want will end in using Coke Cans af Bloodthirsters, I recommend him to keep that to himself. 

[Thebiggesthat]

So as we have a large tournament organiser, in @Ben, what's your opinion on Neve Blacktalon. The rules clearly say she only wears the colours of hammers of sigmar. So someone turns up with her painted different. Is it allowed? You have rules for painting that results in the removal of models. Where does this stand? Minus soft score points?

Remember, it's in her actual rules...

[Galas]

Neve is a different matter, as she is a special character, so like isn't good to have a Cato Sicarius with your Salamanders, one should respect that. I don't know if Stormcast Chambers have something like "successors", or well. One can always use his custom chamber, paint her in his custom colours (And give her another name in his list, WC creator even allow you to do that!), but use Hammers of Sigmar's rules to represent his chamber. Like people use Blood Angels rules to represent their Blood Angels Succesors, and Dante's Rules to represent their own customs Chapter Masters (Because theres no option to a custom chapter master with blood angels rules).

If you ban using special characters with custom paintjob for "sucessors" basically why anyone would use custom paintjobs? I can choose between using Hammers of Sigmar rules+Hammer of Sigmar special characters or just... Hammer of Sigmar rules. Basically, you pay having worse rules for the privilege of having a custom paintjob?

EDIT: I know I'm no Ben but I wanted to put my opinion in using Special Characters with derivatives armies. For example, I have a own custom Living Saint in 40k, but I use Saint Celestine rules, because theres literally no rules for a generic Living Saint.

[Galas]

5 minutes ago, Auticus said:

I think to me thats kind of like taking mortarion in a black legion army.  Or magnus in a night lords army.  Or Gulliman in a Dark Angels army.

Thats just me personally.

But you are using the character rules to represent your custom guy. 

Is less Guilliman with Dark Angels and more Guilliman with NovaMarines or White Consuls (Using all Ultramarine rules).  Why should the Ultramarines primarch don't buff and work with their sucessors? 

Guilliman is a bit different because theres no "custom" Primarch you can made. But for example, using the Marneus Calgar rules to represent your custom Chapter Master of your Ultramarine Sucessor custom chapter? I don't see a problem with that. Personally for me theres 0 conection between the rules and the name I put something in my army list. 

Why Federico Espinoza, Custom Chapter Master of the Blue Angels (Random name) with two powerfist with storm bolters attached can't have the same bonuses and auras as Marneus Calgar?

[Galas]

I think thats more about Special Characters and less about paintjobs. Now, to be honest, I'll prefer if they allow me custom rules to create my own characters. My own Living Saints, my own Chapter Masters, my own Ork and Stormcast Heroes. But it sucks when all the cool characters and rules are behind a paint-wall 

[VBS]

It's funny how in wargames (as well as other subjects), the same topics keep on showing up over and over again, no matter the gaming system, place, year,... Certainly a syndrome of the joy it brings to the average wargamer to debate ad nauseam in an endless loop of futility.

I'm 99% sure this was already discussed on TGA before. So, who won last time? I'll side with him to be sure I'm right. 

[Solaris]

2 hours ago, Thebiggesthat said:

So as we have a large tournament organiser, in @Ben, what's your opinion on Neve Blacktalon. The rules clearly say she only wears the colours of hammers of sigmar. So someone turns up with her painted different. Is it allowed? You have rules for painting that results in the removal of models. Where does this stand? Minus soft score points?

Remember, it's in her actual rules...

I'd assume that is to be considered a silly rule, just like the kneeling and shouting stuff from Compendium scrolls. That's how I will rule it in my events if the question ever comes up.