Season of war: Firestorm - Painting for rules debate.

[Solaris]

2 hours ago, Auticus said:

But I come from the days when special characters were player permission only and banned at events so my opinions are influenced with how I was brought up in the hobby.

This used to be my stance as well, no special characters! Thinking that Tyrion would lead my pesky 1500 point High Elf force used to totally kill my immersion, why would he ever bother with something that small? Surely he would only participate in the kind of grand battles that my army would never see!

Then I started thinking of special characters as templates to base my own fictional characters on instead, which is where I am now. For my Tomb Kings, for example, I started working on High King Djoser, who was to be based on the Arkhan Mortarch model with a chariot converted from an Engine of the Gods pulled by two Mirliton Skeletal War Mammoths, using the rules for Settra. I also started on the Shard of Djaf, which was going to be the Deceiver with an Anubis head, a scale and possibly some other trinkets and robes added, pointing and directing a Dread Abyssal flying over his shoulder. I'd use that as either Mortarch, whenever I felt like trying out lists based on them. The theme for my army was the undead hosts from the White Palace of Quatar, led by a Tomb King on a quest to revive Djaf, the true God of Death, dethrone Nagash the Usurper and reinstate Djaf as the rightful ruler of Shyish. Then other projects came in the way, and now TK are all but dead. Sad times.

Either way, that's how I think of special characters now - templates for me to base my own conversions and fiction on.

[Keldaur]

@Jamie the Jasper You don't need to apologize. We are just discussing about something that is kind of a passion in some regards. Attempting to explain our positions is a big part of it, nothing pompous about it. Same as when i am saying something about your position, i am attempting to show what i am reading so you can correct me in what i could had gotten wrong from your previous posts.

My main disagreement will continue to be, to use your words,  what is the unorthodox and if you can really define it. I think you won't find an universal truth about how a reasonable person would feel about what is expected to be polite or impolite,  or atleast, none that will convince me that is better than just to have a more relativistic approach where noone has the rights to define on what is polite, since i feel it is better to walk through that line through talking and casually playing to ease any discomfort or friction that might happen at first glance.  To me it works this way, everyone will rationalize their internal choices to be the orthodox or reasonable ones. For you, if it is not used by the book, it isn't orthodox, for me, doing whatever he wants with his minis, is the orthodox. The difference is that i won't argue what you find orthodox is not orthodox, and therefore it is more rare for me to get that discomfort i get some people feel when they are playing something that for them isn't right.  Sorry for the crappy english in this one, i hope  i managed to convey the point.

 The majority of people have good intentions, specially when meeting people they want to play with, it is very rare you will find someone so entrenched in his position that they won't play. That's why i asked anyone who said they would pack up and leave in this thread, because i have little doubt they would act differently in RL. Not because they are liers, but because the majority of us will get down  our very own ideological horses and get the best out of that time we scheduled if it is possible. I am sure everyone will have bad experiences from time to time tho.

@Galas To be honest, i don't really think it's a narrative-competitive discussion. Pure competitive players have their own expectations that are also quite limiting in what kind of experience they want to get out of the game. If you are practicing the month before a tournament, playing with strangers withouth knowing beforehand if they are competitive can result in a massive dissapointment for both players, so it's normal for you to stick longer with the people you know that also want to practice or be a sparring, and they are expected to play competitively, with everything it entails. 

But it is rare that you will find a player that are only into narrative, or only competitive, we tend to overlap, and i would put most people are somewhere in that triangle around the center leaning to one or two sides, rather than being closer to the extremes (if we add the painters in there, who are not really interested in playing or narrative), sorry if my explanation isn't good enough, it has been a very long week  

[Gaz Taylor]

 Guys just a friendly nudge here - play nice. I'm really pleased a lot of you are discussing this and putting a lot of effort into the replies but there is some bad mojo going on here. 

I have no issue with people discussing this topic but remember it's going to be like marmite for a lot of people, so don't get annoyed if they don't agree with you. 

Cheers

[Burf]

8 hours 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.

Even if the Stormhosts had rules that were worth a damn it still wouldn't matter. I run a red Kayvaan Shrike, I'm running a purple Neave.

No one uses moustache length rules, why use paint color rules?

That said, if it said something like hammerhand does that he only buffs a Hammers of Sigmar battalion or How guilammen only buffs ultramarines, they only buff those models. You don't just get to give Sanguinary guard guilydude rerolls. That said again, If I paint girlyman and his associated force pink then whatavah man, they were feeling fabulous that day.

[Arkiham]

Jesus this thread is hostile...hope my post doesn't come across that way.

 

If you are a narrative gamer you know what to expect from the narrative game, painting a army one colour and then using rules from another legion/race/faction simply for a certain rule is meta gaming. 

Sure, if you're running your own narrative campaign and your army is a splinter force of so an so as of blah blah and they are looking to do what ever then sure. 

if you wanna just do that you'll need 2 things, a dam good story as to why, and a general painted to the related army on the field to lead the troops.

But if you rock up to a match saying that you're playing your own special thing and create all this back story for them etc then go "

oh I'll be using the rules for this completely different unrelated force just so you know "

That's meta gaming .

Not really a narrative thing to do, it's about building a story not stomping faces.

In my view,

 

[Turragor]

I find it odd that it seems the hard line is drawn with narrative players rather than competitive players. But in both cases, because this is also where the two worlds collide - matched and narrative/open -  I think there's a scale of acceptability here. That scale is personal and founded in the fact that it's not always easy to find opponents for a lot of people (due to their location, their life situation - what have you).

Here's my thoughts on my own scale:

The Grey

It's never fun to play against only grey against someone who clearly doesn't value painted minis. Someone with an entire grey army who plays with that gamey feel. This is a universal feeling - every tournament I've been to has a minimum paint requirement because otherwise you'd just attract that type. Someone who is all numbers and no aesthetic.

TOs already account for the fact some people are only interested in min-maxing some hellish list of the month to win. They want to make sure tournaments don't devolve into 'who has the biggest wallet' affairs.

Realistically you're not going to meet this type of person often playing casually and if there's a risk of that in your game group you, dear reader (who I assume cares about fluff a little) are far more capable of temporarily playing only narrative than this opponent will be. That'll instantly make them choose not to play you.

Ooooh, he's tryin'!

Here's where I am lenient in all matches. Sometimes my opponent has little time for hobby in life and has grey detachments in their part painted army.  Or maybe they want to try out (and this may open us up to proxies too if we agree) something out before a competitive tournament before buying and painting say 80 skinks.

I understand.

Personally I play all painted 95% of the time but have cut myself some slack when I am thinking of testing a list. I won't play with units that aren't ready but I have a large SCE army to draw on so am never short for points.

But anyway, yime is precious and hobby is always a work in progress. I won't prohibit them taking units they'd like to try to a game they might not have the painted points for.

They drew first blood!

And by they I mean GW and by first blood I mean they introduced colour schemes to add a bit of flavour (it's not always an advantage to use these colour scheme rules, some are just FUN - bear that in mind) and sell models.

So I've got vanilla stormcast (hammers of sigmar) as I painted them after the boxart and because I liked the idea of the hammers. With a job, life, kid, family, other hobbies and projects, I've got myself maybe 4,000 points over 2 years. That's 2 years of painting that I loved but won't do again for Stormcast to try out some nice rules.

And I understand those that say colour schemes and rules must match but I'm here to tell you you are wrong (sorry! I can't think of a better way to put it).

By that I mean that:

Fluff wise - The mortal realms are for all intents and purposes endless. There are hosts without number. Legions that exhaust all possible colour scheme combinations. So you just know that the hammers of sigmar and the golden denisian gods of aruziheimer have the same colours and get really embarassed at parties together. Particularly if they have totally different styles of fighting on the field. The golden gods are a brother host to the Celestial Vindicators after all.

You can find fluff to support any interpretation for your hobby within reason. The limits here DO shift for everyone (hence this long debate) but I honestly can't see how a player who likes immersion and the lore can't grasp that schemes are easily more limited than stormhosts.

Even named character rules - have you guys seen or read (random example) Troy? The idea that Achilles had trained his young boyfriend to fight like him fooled even Hector.

I think if you say that they absolutely have to be hammers of sigmar when using hammers of sigmar rules you're not embracing the high metal fantasy worlds we're playing in.

Dare I say it, you're being a bit inflexible. (Note - I do believe that the player saying theyre the golden denisian gods of aruziheimer should make some fluff efforts! You've got to work with your opponents.

Competitive - I'm actually more open to restrictions here. This is an area where people will jump their own stormhost around in fighting style as the rules for one grow stronger due to new units, FAQ clarifications or what have you.

Therefore if the TO says the schemes must match then they must.  That's a given anyway. The TO is god.

However if I were a TO I'd be thinking about the Golden Denisian Gods example and just be glad if the armies coming are nicely painted and not drybrushed and brought stacked together, parts broken off lying in shoe boxes like old bits of lego... (I've met these armies!)

So, there's my thoughts...

tl;dr

Open/Narrative - how can you possibly be mad if your opponent has a convincing backstory for why their gold and blue boys play like dark red and ivory boys?

Competitive - The TO decides. In the absence of a TO you're not playing a tournament but gentleperson's matched. In which case you can let your opponent trial any legal rules they willst. Surely?

 

[Solaris]

17 minutes ago, Arkiham said:

"Oh I'll be using the rules for this completely different unrelated force just so you know "

That's meta gaming .

Not to me, it isn't. To me, that is simply playing the game. If someone shows up with a painted army and tells me "Hey, this is the formation and the rules I will run", then I'll say "Cool" and have fun playing the game. If their army is mostly painted, it will be the same. If it's all grey, I'll still play, but I'll expect progress before next time we play. Nowhere do I even consider their color choices, because it's clear that this person is playing the game for the game, and not for the narrative. That's what I do as well, and the vast majority of my games are not narratively oriented. The norm, for me and the people I play with, is to show up with a rules legal army that is hopefully getting closer and closer to being fully painted and playing a random Matched Play scenario.

When I play Narrative Games, I am much more interested in writing my own narrative than I am in following GWs narrative. I have plans to run a narrative campaign over a few months, and if someone shows up with their Pinkcast Eternals and a Hammers of Sigmar battalion I'll be fine with it. They went through the trouble of buying and painting it, so of course I'll let them play with it! I will demand they write an immersive army background for them though

I also hope that I don't come off as hostile, that is in no way my intent. Cheers!

[Arkiham]

26 minutes ago, Solaris said:

Not to me, it isn't. To me, that is simply playing the game. If someone shows up with a painted army and tells me "Hey, this is the formation and the rules I will run", then I'll say "Cool" and have fun playing the game. If their army is mostly painted, it will be the same. If it's all grey, I'll still play, but I'll expect progress before next time we play. Nowhere do I even consider their color choices, because it's clear that this person is playing the game for the game, and not for the narrative. That's what I do as well, and the vast majority of my games are not narratively oriented. The norm, for me and the people I play with, is to show up with a rules legal army that is hopefully getting closer and closer to being fully painted and playing a random Matched Play scenario.

When I play Narrative Games, I am much more interested in writing my own narrative than I am in following GWs narrative. I have plans to run a narrative campaign over a few months, and if someone shows up with their Pinkcast Eternals and a Hammers of Sigmar battalion I'll be fine with it. They went through the trouble of buying and painting it, so of course I'll let them play with it! I will demand they write an immersive army background for them though

I also hope that I don't come off as hostile, that is in no way my intent. Cheers!

taking one small line of a reply and quoting it and replying as an entirety to that line is a bit misleading... 

 

if the army is grey, what ever, no weapons on the arms what ever work in progress what ever i dont care, a game is a game it doesnt break my immersion to be honest. 

but i you say in your back story for instance... 

 

"this is my army, they've never trained in large scale open warfare specifically as they are a gorilla force designed to go in to enemy territory and disrupt communication, mislead troops, blow up weapon caches basically be spies and saboteurs etc etc, thats all they've known they're the elite of the elite; relying on fear instilled on the enemy from talk of them being unkillable ghosts who leave nothing but destruction and death in their wake to demoralise the enemy, using their blood red armour and skull helmets to terrify any survivors "

then go ahead and line them up rank and file as suddenly Games-workshop released a shiny new battalion.

or 

"this huge army is the bulk head of a massive force using sheer weight of numbers and armour rather than skill to grind down and obliterate any and all enemies standing in their way, slaughtering all that stand before them,  none can hope to survive against this mighty force of...... etc etc "

 

then split them up into smaller units designed to hit and run or avoid combat rather than take them on head on as of that new more powerful rule

sorry but that is massively meta gaming. 

the point of narrative gaming is to build a story up so use it, want to use that new battalion?

then get the general from that battalion and create a story behind it, he was captured and you freed him returned him to your base to prepare for a large scale fight in a different location etc etc rather than " this is bob, bob felt like leading today so my entire army will change how they fight and will follow him " 

[Solaris]

@Arkiham Sure, I agree with you, but that only applies to narrative games. The point I'm trying to make is that the vast majority of games aren't narrative, and that players can't be expected to have a narrative mindset when playing non-narrative games.

If I play in a narrative campaign, I'm going to think of a cool army concept (for example the infiltrator concept you brought up), and build a fun list around that. If the best way to represent the feel I want for that army is to use the rules for a specific Stormhost, then I'm going to use that even if I painted my miniatures differently. I'm working with concepts and how to best represent them on the battlefield, if the Hammers of Sigmar battalion is the best way to represent my camouflage infiltrator Stormcast then that is the battalion I will use.

In non-narrative games, anything goes. If it's rules legal, then it's fine, within certain limits as written by @Turragor.

[Keldaur]

Well, i have to admit that i would never play against and army trained for gorila warfare no matter how well painted their fur is(sorry i could not help myself).

Now more seriously, i have no problem with that as i have no problems with people playing however they want with their models. Neither i have a problem with people who would find it a deal-breaker.

[Thomas Lyons]

I disagree wholeheartedly with anyone who wants to punish creativity with rules penalties.  Even having a previously painted Stormhost shouldn't be penalitized for wanting to switch when GW releases their next SCE battletome.  I will speak against and shun any attempt to create an unequal competitive environment by leveraging paint schemes for their advantage.

That said, it is always up to the TO to enforce whatever event rules they want.  But they need to be consistent in their application. If I choose to attend such an event, everyone better be following the rules for every named Stormhost, Wargrove, named characters and every anything that has an associated paint scheme.  If the Mephiston Reds aren't Mephiston Red, or the highlights are wrong, I'm going to call them on it and expect the TO to strip them of their special rules because fair is fair.  

You don't want that world;  I don't want that world. So let's just let each other paint our models how we find aesthetically pleasing, ignore paint schemes and give everyone equal access to the rules, and enjoy some Warhammer.

[Lysandestolpe]

My ironjawz are yellow, but I can finally play a list that can bring a realm gate to the table. I will never ever pay a bunch of money and spend another year painting the same army I already have to satisfy someone who disagree with my color palette. My yellow orruks are the "Goldtoof" company, a pack of brutes in ever searching for the realmgate to join Gordrakk and the most epic battles and brawls. 

If anybody does have a probelm with that we can just not play. And if a TO sets that restriction I'll either bring something else to play, or most likely wont show up in respect for the hobby and creativity. I would be shocked if even GW sets that restriction as they encourage creativity in all: narrative, painting, kitbashing, and rules wise even.

Those are my two cents... happy hobbying everyone!

[polarbear]

Yes, painting requirements are offensive. 

My preferred method of differentiation between forces in one faction is stuff like upgrade sprues, different shield designs, a preference for certain weapons, etc. Something about the model itself, not the colours.

[Tidings]

On 9/21/2017 at 5:32 AM, 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?

Just to chime in, I think the difference is one person wants the freedom to create their own narrative while the other wants people to adhere to the existing narrative. I'm in the freedom to create bandwagon personally, since I fully support people doing elaborate custom models, interesting paint jobs, and having back stories for their army.

I'm mid project making an army of Wanderers that have settled down for many generations and built their own culture in their home forest. They have a higher population, more varied units, and stronger relationships with other factions. This represents the wide unit selection of mixed Order. Their culture is based on the Ashenall of Athel Loren, where death is revered and it is always autumn. Because they have a much higher population than nomadic Wanderers, and their culture views death as natural and not sad, they are more willing to die defending their home. This fits the lack of teleporting that a pure Wanderer allegiance would have. 

Part of this project is doing lots of heavy conversions to make everything feel like it was designed as a Wanderer unit. I'm using lots of non-GW models kitbashed with GW stuff, and am doing a cohesive paint scheme. I'm even making custom Warscrolls to explain abilities and fluff for the units. 

If someone said that a Frostheart Phoenix has to be blue and Liberators have to be gold, I would tell them to %@&*$! off lol. 

[Trout]

Games Workshop isn't going to create new rules for our own custom armies. Neither are we likely to find opponents who are OK with letting us come up with our own rules for them. So it makes sense to pick whatever rules for a force come closest to our vision for our armies. We shouldn't view rules that are for a specific force as being unique to only that specific force and no one else anywhere in the realms. We should view that specific force as an example of the kind of force you would apply those rules to.

 

If this were the world that was, I think it would make a lot of sense to say things like, "only Franz' royal guard have demigryphs fast enough to take that battalion." But in this infinite multiverse I don't see the case for saying no one else could do X or Y. The setting should be the baseline from which we build our own forces, our own armies, our own stories, it should not be a set of chains that tie you to building and painting a certain way in order to have the kind of army you want.

[Sleboda]

On 9/22/2017 at 11:02 AM, Jamie the Jasper said:

what's written down in black and white by definition has to be the 'orthodox' default position, and any other position is 'unorthodox'

If people would accept that, 90% of Warhammer arguments would go away.

[Sleboda]

On 9/22/2017 at 4:18 PM, Solaris said:

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.

Based on...what, exactly?

[Sleboda]

2 hours ago, Tidings said:

hink the difference is one person wants the freedom to create their own narrative while the other wants people to adhere to the existing narrative.

Excellent distinction.

Yes, by all means, paint your Space Marines purple and put green flames on their shoulders.  Call them the Burning Redeemers. Use the generic Space Marine rules or invent your own rules that your group will allow. I did.

No, please don't paintt your Space Marines purple and put green flames on their shoulders.  Call them the Burning Redeemers. Use the rules for Blood Angels.  They are not.

In a hobby where we use three dimensional, colored models as stand-ins for entries in rule books, and not just little chits or scraps of paper that say "Blood Angel" or what have you, the appearance of the models matters. Putting a lascannon on a model and calling it a multi-melta is no different than painting a model in Blood Angel color and using the rules for Dark Angels.

The visual does not match the rules and that is discourteous to your opponent.

There are scads of games where tokens are just that, tokens, and the visual has no game impact.  Monopoly has models that are just tokens. You could use a bottle cap in place of the shoe and nothing about that would have the slightest chance to confuse your opponent and give you a small unfair advantage. If your opponent forgets that your unit has shields because you didn't model them, or forgets that your Chamber Whatever can teleport (or whatever) because they don't look like the ones that can but you are treating them as if they look that way,, then you have done wrong by your opponent.

[Solaris]

2 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Based on...what, exactly?

Based on the fact that every other rule that forces players to do things outside of the game is considered a silly rule.

[Solaris]

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

Excellent distinction.

Yes, by all means, paint your Space Marines purple and put green flames on their shoulders.  Call them the Burning Redeemers. Use the generic Space Marine rules or invent your own rules that your group will allow. I did.

No, please don't paintt your Space Marines purple and put green flames on their shoulders.  Call them the Burning Redeemers. Use the rules for Blood Angels.  They are not.

If Blood Angels rules are the most fitting for the character you want your army to have, then by all means use them. Generic Space Marine rules or homebrew is cool as well.

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

In a hobby where we use three dimensional, colored models as stand-ins for entries in rule books, and not just little chits or scraps of paper that say "Blood Angel" or what have you, the appearance of the models matters. Putting a lascannon on a model and calling it a multi-melta is no different than painting a model in Blood Angel color and using the rules for Dark Angels.

The visual does not match the rules and that is discourteous to your opponent.

There's a massive difference between using the wrong equipment and painting with different colors. One is misleading, the other is not. The first one you should clarify with your opponent before the game, the second one is a non issue.

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

There are scads of games where tokens are just that, tokens, and the visual has no game impact.  Monopoly has models that are just tokens. You could use a bottle cap in place of the shoe and nothing about that would have the slightest chance to confuse your opponent and give you a small unfair advantage. If your opponent forgets that your unit has shields because you didn't model them, or forgets that your Chamber Whatever can teleport (or whatever) because they don't look like the ones that can but you are treating them as if they look that way,, then you have done wrong by your opponent.

Noone is going to forget that your Stormhost can teleport just because of the paint job. Frankly, most people don't know the differences between the Stormhosts in the first place. There is a massive difference between modeling the wrong equipment, and using a different paint job. Either way, as long as you make perfectly clear what's what before the game starts, it's on your opponent to remember or ask again if they forget.

[ageofpaddsmar]

This is so ridiculous . Next some of you guys will be saying you cant use blood angels rules as your space marines are not the correct shade of red. 

People are free to paint their models anyway they dam well please. Say I have space marines painted green but I like the blood angels rules whats wrong with me saying they are Greenbloods  an offshoot of blood angels and trained with them hence they fight like them.

[Thebiggesthat]

38 minutes ago, ageofpaddsmar said:

This is so ridiculous . Next some of you guys will be saying you cant use blood angels rules as your space marines are not the correct shade of red. 

People are free to paint their models anyway they dam well please. Say I have space marines painted green but I like the blood angels rules whats wrong with me saying they are Greenbloods  an offshoot of blood angels and trained with them hence they fight like them.

Again, part of having an adult conversation is not immediately dismissing a contradicting opinion like you have.

 

People have given various reasons why they feel the way they do, and you example adds literally nothing. People are free to paint how they want, exactly, but as some people have said, if it cheapens or ruins the experience to play someone like that, then more power to them for expecting more. 

Your example in isolation is the exact reason I'm on the side of the fence I am. 'oh these guys train with the blood angels so they get the rules' is against the established story both for how genetic traits caused by mutation of gene seed, it's not the point at all of the rules. I love the lore and background , that some very talented people have poured blood and sweat into. So I'm going to respect that by remaining true to it.

Going back to AoS, I saw a comment about how people can't tell the differences with chambers in SC. This was one of my original points that the fluff isn't quite as fleshed out yet, but I can see a time, fingers crossed, when we get the diversity in lore to make these guys and stories and individual as Space Marines.

[ageofpaddsmar]

20 minutes ago, Thebiggesthat said:

Again, part of having an adult conversation is not immediately dismissing a contradicting opinion like you have.

 

People have given various reasons why they feel the way they do, and you example adds literally nothing. People are free to paint how they want, exactly, but as some people have said, if it cheapens or ruins the experience to play someone like that, then more power to them for expecting more. 

Your example in isolation is the exact reason I'm on the side of the fence I am. 'oh these guys train with the blood angels so they get the rules' is against the established story both for how genetic traits caused by mutation of gene seed, it's not the point at all of the rules. I love the lore and background , that some very talented people have poured blood and sweat into. So I'm going to respect that by remaining true to it.

Going back to AoS, I saw a comment about how people can't tell the differences with chambers in SC. This was one of my original points that the fluff isn't quite as fleshed out yet, but I can see a time, fingers crossed, when we get the diversity in lore to make these guys and stories and individual as Space Marines.

Actually the first part of my post just points out how silly it could get if people expect people to paint in a colour scheme thats official. 

For my next part why cant they bee blood angels that break away from the main force. 

I appreciate I came across a bit aggressive in a part of my post and I apologize for that. But to expect people to buy and paint more models anytime they want to try a new formation is stupid. 

Now i can understand with space marines it may be different as they are factions. But with stormcast battalions why should it matter how they are painted it just a battalion. As long as the opponent tells you before whats the problem?

[Guest]

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.

 

[Solaris]

1 hour ago, Thebiggesthat said:

Again, part of having an adult conversation is not immediately dismissing a contradicting opinion like you have.

 

People have given various reasons why they feel the way they do, and you example adds literally nothing. People are free to paint how they want, exactly, but as some people have said, if it cheapens or ruins the experience to play someone like that, then more power to them for expecting more. 

Your example in isolation is the exact reason I'm on the side of the fence I am. 'oh these guys train with the blood angels so they get the rules' is against the established story both for how genetic traits caused by mutation of gene seed, it's not the point at all of the rules. I love the lore and background , that some very talented people have poured blood and sweat into. So I'm going to respect that by remaining true to it.

Going back to AoS, I saw a comment about how people can't tell the differences with chambers in SC. This was one of my original points that the fluff isn't quite as fleshed out yet, but I can see a time, fingers crossed, when we get the diversity in lore to make these guys and stories and individual as Space Marines.

I think what it comes down to, in the end, is that people have different reasons to play. Playing to immerse oneself in the lore and background is perfectly fine, as is writing ones' own background and using an existing faction's rules to represent them on the tabletop, as is playing the game for the strategy and tactics involved without ever reading a paragraph of background. The important part is understanding and respecting that people have different reasons to play, and not being judgemental about it.

3 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

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.

Calling us "rules cherry-pickers" is derogatory and cheapens the discussion. Please refrain from slander, I thought we had left that part of the discussion behind us. If I was so inclined, I could call you the paint-to-win side of the argument, but that would hardly add anything constructive, would it?

To comment on the actual content of your post, I think people just think of these things in different ways. I think of Stormhosts, Chapters, Special Characters and so on as templates for me to build my own force around. If I wanted a force that fought similar to the Hammers of Sigmar, but preferred to create my own thing rather than copy their paint scheme, I would do that. The Hammers of Sigmar is an example and a template, and there is enough room in the Mortal Realms for another force  similar in nature to the Hammers to exist.

That's what I like about the Mortal Realms - it's a vast sandbox for me to let my imagination and creativity run wild in! It's also one of the reasons I wasn't so much into the old world - everything was so predefined and static that I felt restricted and choked in what I could and could not do with my armies.