Season of war: Firestorm - Painting for rules debate.

[ageofpaddsmar]

46 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.

 

But people are saying you have to paint them a certain way. Thats the whole argument.  They are saying if your army isnt painted as hammers of sigmar you cant use those rules. 

Solaris is spot on when he says they should be treated as templates. 

What if i want to run hammers of sigmar one day but cant stand the gold paint scheme? Answer me that and then tell me your not saying i have to paint a certain way. 

I get if you were using totally the wrong models but a liberater is a liberater nomatter the colour of his armour

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Solaris said:

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?

I needed a shorthand to refer to this particular group of people. I'm not particularly happy with it but it's a short, accurate description of the approach and attitude being discussed. Any derogatory intention is pure projection.

Call me 'paint to win' if you like but unlike 'rules cherry picker' it's an obvious and bizarre mischaracterisation of my views because winning is irrelevant to me and I haven't said anything that would suggest otherwise.

This is especially bizarre because you're insinuating that the person who sees a new rule and then spends time and resources painting an army in the appropriate colour scheme is the one primarily concerned with winning, rather than the person who sees a newly published rule and thinks 'I'm taking that for the army I've already got'. And you're arguing that the later person is more concerned with creative freedom and the hobby side of things? Madness.

 

1 hour ago, Solaris said:

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.

No, the Hammers of Sigmar is the Hammers of Sigmar. You show me where it says that the Hammers of Sigmar rules are just a template and that changes things. Again, my position on this isn't one I would ever enforce on someone, but you sure do seem hell-bent on enforcing your position on me, so I feel that the burden of proof is on you to show that your interpretation is the orthodox way and mine is unorthodox.

 

1 hour ago, ageofpaddsmar said:

But people are saying you have to paint them a certain way. Thats the whole argument.  They are saying if your army isnt painted as hammers of sigmar you cant use those rules.

No, this is a fundamental misunderstanding. No one is trying to make the decision on how to paint your models for you. You make that decision yourself, freely, and after you've made it I respectfully request that you honour the consequences of that decision by not trying to use rules that aren't meant to apply to the army you've chosen.

I want you to paint your models however you want, then use the appropriate rules. It's that simple.

[Burf]

4 hours 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.

This brings up an interesting point:

What actually IS the correct color scheme for Hammers of Sigmar? Yeah, they're blue and gold but there's a pretty big difference visually between Kantor Blue+ Bathazar Gold+ Agrax Earthshade and Teclis Blue+ Liberator Gold+ Reikland Flesh Shade gloss. Both methods are Blue and Gold though, so is one of them wrong? If so which one? Are they both wrong?

And what about techniques? Duncan's tutorial uses fairly simple edge highlighting and shading but the box models use more complex techniques.

What about NMM? That looks radically different than how they look on the box, but actually very close to how they look in the art. Do I have to NMM every Liberator to be able to use Hammers of Sigmar rules?

 

This I think is the single biggest problem with the idea of tying painting and rules together. When you start making color scheme apart of your armies rules, you have treat color scheme AS rules. If Hammers of Sigmar are Macragge blue, with drakenhof nightshade, edge highlighted up through teclis and Retributor armor washed with reikland flesh shade edge highlighted with auric armor and liberator gold then that's what they are. 

If paint matters for rules than you have to paint to the rules. Any variance from the established color scheme would make your army non-wysiwyg. Which is objectively ridiculous, which is why paint mattering for rules is dumb.

[Burf]

21 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

 You make that decision yourself, freely, and after you've made it I respectfully request that you honour the consequences of that decision by not trying to use rules that aren't meant to apply to the army you've chosen.

The army I chose is 'Stormcast Eternals' so I should be fine then. 

[Thebiggesthat]

13 minutes ago, Burf said:

This brings up an interesting point:

What actually IS the correct color scheme for Hammers of Sigmar? Yeah, they're blue and gold but there's a pretty big difference visually between Kantor Blue+ Bathazar Gold+ Agrax Earthshade and Teclis Blue+ Liberator Gold+ Reikland Flesh Shade gloss. Both methods are Blue and Gold though, so is one of them wrong? If so which one? Are they both wrong?

And what about techniques? Duncan's tutorial uses fairly simple edge highlighting and shading but the box models use more complex techniques.

What about NMM? That looks radically different than how they look on the box, but actually very close to how they look in the art. Do I have to NMM every Liberator to be able to use Hammers of Sigmar rules?

 

This I think is the single biggest problem with the idea of tying painting and rules together. When you start making color scheme apart of your armies rules, you have treat color scheme AS rules. If Hammers of Sigmar are Macragge blue, with drakenhof nightshade, edge highlighted up through teclis and Retributor armor washed with reikland flesh shade edge highlighted with auric armor and liberator gold then that's what they are. 

If paint matters for rules than you have to paint to the rules. Any variance from the established color scheme would make your army non-wysiwyg. Which is objectively ridiculous, which is why paint mattering for rules is dumb.

I'm sorry but it's not an interesting point. It's you being facetious in an attempt to undermine a position, nothing more.

[FRoper]

it really does not matter, how you paint your models, my High Elves were painted in a Caledorian scheme and the majority of the collection was centred around the prince and his quest to eliminate his traitorous sister who became a duchii, this is the background that i created and despite not giving any benefits, it was fun and gave me inspiration. 

as the realms expand and we gain more information about what they consist of and what is inside them. the paint scheme should only matter to you and only you. if we go down the route of paint mattering to gain rules then we might as well pay GW to sell prepainted models.so all our armies look the same with no variations. 

[budebear]

On 9/22/2017 at 2:38 PM, Jamie the Jasper said:

Right, you hold the minority position and practically demand that the majority should accommodate you because apparently you're right and they're wrong, but somehow I'm being intolerant for pointing out the absurdity of this attitude. How does that make me intolerant? I honestly don't know how to conduct a rational and civilised discussion with someone who prefers to cast lazy aspersions on my character rather than engaging with any of the points I've made, so I too am now done.

you're DEFINITELY in the minority here. Go to any shop or gaming club and nobody would bat an eye at your different colour scheme, in all my years of playing, seeing your comments on this is the very first instance of someone sperging out over paint that ive seen

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Burf said:

The army I chose is 'Stormcast Eternals' so I should be fine then. 

If you're using the generic Stormcast Eternals rules, yes. If you've painted your army as Celestial Vindicators but want to use Hammers of Sigmar rules instead of Celestial Vindicators rules then that's less cut and dried.

[budebear]

2 hours ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

 

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. 

 

wow, 6 whole pages of your same strawman argument. Nobody is saying they wanna use ogre kingdoms rules for their free peoples, nor are they saying they wanna use demigryph rules for their handgunners.

people want to use army rules for the army they play.

 

 

[Guest]

Just now, budebear said:

people want to use army rules for the army they play

That's the exact opposite of what the people I disagree with want. This is what I want. The level of deliberate misrepresentation and obfuscation is becoming absurd now.

[budebear]

Just now, Jamie the Jasper said:

That's the exact opposite of what the people I disagree with want. This is what I want. The level of deliberate misrepresentation and obfuscation is becoming absurd now.

I'm glad we agree then. As long as I use free peoples and the correct units then I can use whatever free peoples rules I want

 

great, now go back and delete some of your comments that were saying otherwise because this contradicts everything else you said

[Galas]

16 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

If you're using the generic Stormcast Eternals rules, yes. If you've painted your army as Celestial Vindicators but want to use Hammers of Sigmar rules instead of Celestial Vindicators rules then that's less cut and dried.

So it comes down to "I can use my custom paintjob or I can have better rules"? And this ignores the problem of people that paint his army a certain way, even before GW gives that place specific rules, and then is "obligated" to use certain rules that maybe he thinks they don't fit is army. Should he repaint all of his army?

And personally, I'm a casual and narrative player, but I don't understand whats the problem with people cherry picking rules? Is offensive to you that people want to have good rules? I ask this in a honest way, personally I think this is a pure narrative vs competitive mindset dichotomy here.

For me, rules are templates, the name they have attached to them is irrelevant. Just as I use a Krull from Mierce to use my Blood Thirster and Saint Celestine Rules in 40k for my Saint Azálea, I don't see the obligation to literally go the only "orthodox GW" way. (Always in a respecfull maner to my opponent, I try to be WYSIWYG as much as possible, please don't do a slippery slope about using Goblin units to represent Bloodletters here)

This was a game about freedom (It didn't even had points at the beginning, how times and community mentality changes!), not replication. Thats why I say that this kind of rules shouldn't be attached to a place or group. They should be generic. 

[Thebiggesthat]

16 minutes ago, budebear said:

I'm glad we agree then. As long as I use free peoples and the correct units then I can use whatever free peoples rules I want

 

great, now go back and delete some of your comments that were saying otherwise because this contradicts everything else you said

If took the time to read and understand what he was saying then you would feel pretty stupid.

Bounding into a conversation and making sweeping statements based on nothing but your own personal experience will get very little positive reaction. This has been a heated, but grown up and adult conversation. Please try and contribute accordingly, it's not much to ask.

[Ollie Grimwood]

I'm a little bit of both sides, if you paint your Stormcast as Hammers of Sigmar then I'd expect you to be playing them as such however it you'd done them as a custom Stormhost you'd created I'd wouldn't be surprised if you used any of the special Stormhost rules.  In fact I'd say that may in fact encourage creativity as it makes a home brew Stormhost  more versatile in term of rules choice. 

[budebear]

1 minute ago, Thebiggesthat said:

If took the time to read and understand what he was saying then you would feel pretty stupid.

Bounding into a conversation and making sweeping statements based on nothing but your own personal experience will get very little positive reaction. This has been a heated, but grown up and adult conversation. Please try and contribute accordingly, it's not much to ask.

It's 3 people repeating the same paragraphs over and over with literally everybody else telling them theyre wrong and no-one cares.

 

I took the time to read it and there is literally no merit to anything you have to say on the topic. You are sperging out over paints. just stop

[Galas]

4 minutes ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

I'm a little bit of both sides, if you paint your Stormcast as Hammers of Sigmar then I'd expect you to be playing them as such however it you'd done them as a custom Stormhost you'd created I'd wouldn't be surprised if you used any of the special Stormhost rules.  In fact I'd say that may in fact encourage creativity as it makes a home brew Stormhost  more versatile in term of rules choice. 

Thats something that everybody (Ok, near everybody) accept in 40k. If you have a custom Space Marine Chapter you can use whatever chapter rules you want because nobody can discuss whos the parent Chapter of yours. (And to be honest, in 40k you are OBLIGATED to have some kind of chapter tactics, so...)

I don't see why people have problems with that in AoS. If you have a custom Stormhost, you pick the rules you see that are more fitting to your playstile. And even, if when they change the rules, you use your advantage of having a custom paintjob to pick another rules... whats the problem? I pick rules that I like to play, not based in pure power, but in a competitive enviroment, I don't see a problem with people being... competitive.

[Solaris]

54 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

I needed a shorthand to refer to this particular group of people. I'm not particularly happy with it but it's a short, accurate description of the approach and attitude being discussed. Any derogatory intention is pure projection.

Call me 'paint to win' if you like but unlike 'rules cherry picker' it's an obvious and bizarre mischaracterisation of my views because winning is irrelevant to me and I haven't said anything that would suggest otherwise.

It's no more bizarre than calling me a rules cherry picker. If you disagree, then you completely fail to understand my argument and where I'm coming from. I'm saying that I want to design my own Stormhost, with it's own character, narrative and paint scheme. If the rules for the Hammers of Sigmar is the best way to represent my narrative on the tabletop, then those are the rules I will use. Cherry picking implies that I change from game to game, based on what happens to be the most beneficial at the time. This is a plain incorrect interpretation of my argument, and is just as bizarre as calling your argument "paint to win". I understand that the core of your argument is otherwise, but a side effect of your stance is that people should get advantages through special rules on the tabletop if they conform to using specific color schemes.

If I wanted to be a passive aggressive ******, I would call your argument "paint to win". I don't. I see that you come from another position, even if "paint to win" is a natural side effect of your argument. I'm saying that calling me a "rules cherry picker" is just as bad however.

54 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

This is especially bizarre because you're insinuating that the person who sees a new rule and then spends time and resources painting an army in the appropriate colour scheme is the one primarily concerned with winning, rather than the person who sees a newly published rule and thinks 'I'm taking that for the army I've already got'. And you're arguing that the later person is more concerned with creative freedom and the hobby side of things? Madness.

Nope. I'm saying that either person is free to use the rule as they please. If one of them wants to repaint their army first, then that's a personal and separate decision that should in no way be forced upon anyone, nor should anyone be judged or shunned because of deciding not to repaint their army for the sake of using a silly rule.

54 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

No, the Hammers of Sigmar is the Hammers of Sigmar. You show me where it says that the Hammers of Sigmar rules are just a template and that changes things. Again, my position on this isn't one I would ever enforce on someone, but you sure do seem hell-bent on enforcing your position on me, so I feel that the burden of proof is on you to show that your interpretation is the orthodox way and mine is unorthodox.

I use them as templates for my own creations. That is my decision. I don't need written permission from you, GW or anyone else to do so, and it doesn't give me any unfair advantages in game. I'm telling you to be more open minded and less judgmental and intolerant towards people with different priorities. If I tried to force my position on you, I would tell you to repaint your Hammers of Sigmar as something else, because clearly mimicking someone else's color scheme is unimaginative and boring. Am I trying to force this upon you? No, because I think you should be allowed to paint your army however you like - your color choices are none of my business. Whether you paint them gold, black or pink with lime green polka dots, I will be happy to play against your Stormcast using the Hammers of Sigmar rules =)

10 minutes ago, Thebiggesthat said:

If took the time to read and understand what he was saying then you would feel pretty stupid.

Bounding into a conversation and making sweeping statements based on nothing but your own personal experience will get very little positive reaction. This has been a heated, but grown up and adult conversation. Please try and contribute accordingly, it's not much to ask.

Frankly, you are being very passive aggressive here. Calling people stupid is hardly indicative of a grown up and adult conversation.

[Tidings]

8 hours ago, Sleboda said:

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.

This is a viewpoint that I don't agree with entirely, but if my opponent has a problem with it, I'll understand. The solution will be to either play someone else who is more casual and friendly, or to just play them as generic space marines that game. I'm fine with either but would prefer the more accepting opponent.

2 hours ago, ageofpaddsmar said:

What if i want to run hammers of sigmar one day but cant stand the gold paint scheme? Answer me that and then tell me your not saying i have to paint a certain way. 

I get if you were using totally the wrong models but a liberater is a liberater nomatter the colour of his armour

If you were playing me, I'd be totally cool with it. All it takes is 5 minutes before a game for you to explain what's what. I just played a tournament yesterday where my Liberators were actually some Warmachine models that I put Glade Guard shields on and did some weapon swaps. Wanted them to look like Wanderers. All it took was telling my opponents, and everyone was cool with it. 

[CappyTan]

As a player new to Warhammer and AOS, who has never played a game of 40k ever, I think however space marine chapters work is shading people's perspectives on this. I am not sure how they work, but given that in my local GW store they all are categorized into different sections, they probably also have their own books? They would be the equivalent of different factions in AOS?

 

This is not true with the Stormcast.  All the stormhosts come from the same book.  On top of that, each stormhost doesn't just automatically get different rules.  Each stormhost has a set of battalions that are required to be used to take that stormhost, so you can't just bounce between them for free rules.  They are the same army in different formations.  Lastly, in any matched play format they cost a lot of points.  All these things combine mean you aren't getting to swap stormhosts for advantage, they are already balanced via battalion options and points on top of the stormhost battalion cost itself.

 

i may be off base here as I am new to a gaming world that includes narrative, but as a somewhat outside perspective it seems like people are trying to compare space marine rules to stormcast rules, and they don't seem like the same thing to me. I'm not aware of this painting issue anywhere else in AOS as I'm not aware of other factions with these kinds of battalion options.  

 

Edit - somewhat implied piece of this.  Even if you paint Hammers of Sigmar, you most likely aren't even getting their rules.  I've literally never seen a list that uses that battalion.  

[Turragor]

29 minutes ago, CappyTan said:

Edit - somewhat implied piece of this.  Even if you paint Hammers of Sigmar, you most likely aren't even getting their rules.  I've literally never seen a list that uses that battalion.  

This is a good point. The battalion grants the rules not the faction. Hammers of sigmar painted storm hosts (like mine) don't often run their rules. 

Maybe all storm hosts know the formations and battalions and yet some make a habit of using a battalion exclusively. 

For me it's not so important as I'm firmly in the freedom of expression camp. 

Even if my opponent crossed  some of my own boundaries (say all grey or bases and no models or even  toy proxies) I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt but in those cases just for one game.  

[Ben]

I’m locking this. Nothing new is being added and some people can’t restrain themselves from being argumentative and offensive.