Army Paint Schemes for rules

[Jack Armstrong]

There was a lot of talk on twitter about this yesterday and I wanted to post in something more than 140 characters as I feel strongly about this.

The argument is that in the Stormcast book and the new Firestorm book there are passages of text, which could be interpreted as rules, which say that if you want to play a certain City or Battalion then the army needs to be painted in a certain way.  This debate was already had around the time of the SCE book and I had a healthy debate with Ben Curry on one of his daily episodes about it.

One of the main arguments I've heard in favour of it is linked to 40k and that you wouldn't bring for instance a Space Wolf army and say it was Blood Angels.  I just want to extrapolate slightly on this example and show why I think it isn't valid in AoS.

In AoS the models are exactly the same for every 'Chambers' (Tempest Lords, Harbringers, etc) there is just a different 'recommended' colour scheme.  Now I agree that if you have an army that is painted in the Tempest Lords scheme and you bring them along and say they are Harbringers then it could confuse people and not be that appropriate (although I still actually wouldn't mind at a tournament, but I get the argument!).  If however you painted an army in your own colour scheme and background, then I see no reason what so ever why you shouldn't be able to use them as any of the chambers.

If you compare this to 40k, if I have a unit of 10 basic marines and a rhino and I paint them in a unique colour scheme of say brown/blue (no idea why that combo came to mind!).  You then buy something unique to a chapter like a unit of Dark Angel Deathwing Knights and you paint them in the same colour scheme.  I don't know anyone who would have a problem with you using those 10 marines and rhino as Dark Angels.  If you then bought a unit of Blood Angel Sanguinary Guard and painted them in the same colour scheme and brought the same 10 marines and rhino and used them with your sanginary guard, I don't see anyone who would have a problem as you using the marines as blood angels.

That is where I think the big differnce is - GW is trying to get us to have unique 'chapters' in AoS but all of the models are the same.  If they bring out a new say dracoth unit that can only be used in Tempest Lords then for sure you can't proxy them as something else to use in a Harbringer chamber.  If however you are just using the same bog standard models painted in your own scheme/background/theme - why shouldn't you be able to use them as a chamber of your choosing?

I've also heard the argument that if some new person turns up to a GW event with their painted Tempest Lords chamber in the GW colours and play against you who are using your own colour scheme tempest lords it might be confusing for them.  But I don't really buy that argument and think it's much worse if someone spend months painting up their own custom chamber with background and then wants to theme it around the rules for one of the official chambers.

Just my opinions.

Jack

[RuneBrush]

Was wondering if we might see a post following Ben's Tweet's yesterday   First off, I think this is quite a "hot topic" and we're going to see lots of people's opinions on this - we're all entitled to debate, discuss and defend our opinions, but lets keep this friendly  

There was a similar discussion recently on here which has helped me define my own opinions so I can explain them a little more clearly in a typed medium.

My own personal view is that custom chambers/colour schemes are ace.  It goes back pretty much as far as GW games go (to a time when all Space Marines were identical - both loyalist and traitor).  No reason why your custom chamber/tribe/city couldn't be a sub-chamber of another, the background appears deliberately loose to allow you to do this.  I've recently started a Destruction army that isn't an off-the-shelfer and looking forward to building the background for them.

Where I have more of an issue is using a pre-defined colour scheme and use the rules for something else.  That in my eyes can cause confusion and effectively means you're ignoring the background GW have given us.  Yes there may be cases where people painted their army before they knew the rules (Stormcast and Bloodbound didn't have the rules initially for example), but there's no reason why a shoulderpad/shield repaint couldn't convert your pre-defined chamber/tribe into a custom one to allow you to play how you wish.

The line is however a little fuzzy - if you're playing a friendly game and you've spoken to your opponent beforehand about what you want to do, then not a problem with what you want to do providing you're both in agreement.  If you're playing against somebody who you don't know (in fact even if you do know them) then it's pretty unfair to drop it on them at the last minute in the same way as suddenly changing the points value you're playing or bringing a different army to the one you originally agreed on.  As with many things in life, good communication goes a long way to ensure things are harmonious - we're playing toy soldiers after all

[Gotrek]

Creativity should never be penalized. If someone expects me to adhere to a specific paint scheme for rules then there had better not be a single conversion in their army because "thats not what was in the box". 

[Thebiggesthat]

The issue you have is that their are free rules. These rules are a no brainer to take (+4 inch move on my stardrake first turn? Why would I not take it) so in an attempt to control this (and sell more models potentially IMO) GW have clearly stated that the model MUST be painted in the scheme. 

I have 4k of Stormcast. They are loosely based on the Hallowed Warriors, but I've gone for a more Roman Empire theme, deep reds instead of blues, and will be adding some iconography to make them look more legion. The idea will be eventually to write more backstory, having them choose warriors that fought as part of disciplined legions for their reforging. 

I wouldn't be expecting to use the rules for the chambers, but if I did, I'm paying (through the nose, but that's another issue) points for it. That's fair. 

But free abilities? It's fair game. If no painting restriction is enforced, then everyone will do it. Then you do the principled stance, and put yourself at a disadvantage, you don't attend events that use these rules, which limit your enjoyment, or you join in, choose the best one for your army and laugh as the other armies that got ****** all get annoyed.

 If you painting restriction, it stops these rules being used. You then have this awkward position where people are going to be flagging up illegal armies as they don't match the book. I would hope this happens at the GT at WHW, as it forces the issue where it needs to be. 

 

This issue has come to the surface again as a result of Firestorm. It's totally down to GW, and therefore they should be able to put out a definitive ruling. Either they provide a list of colour schemes that qualify for the bonuses, or they accept it's an ill thought out idea, rule the offending rules to campaign or at discretion of the players, or provide a points cost. 

 

 

[Terry Pike]

I've had lengthy back on fourth discussions over this "hot topic" on army colour schemes and free rules. There are some simple fixes to this in my opinion.

• a) Nothing for free, if its a bunch of special rules, make them pay for it like formations
• b) Don't allow these rules in competitive play and just keep them for open/narrative
• c) If its going to be a thing, be clear on what colours are required, where on the model they should be present as a guideline and actually enforce it at events

The game is not 40k, Space Marine chapters can't be used as examples because as Jack has said above there just aren't the model ranges to support the idea. If each chamber for Stormcast had its own battletome, upgrade packs, characters, units etc then I could get on board with that. But if someone paints an army their own unique colour scheme they should be free to do so, while also being able to use any free special rules.

[Nico]

I have no issue with the painting aspect - my concern is that these Firestorm abilities were written in the context of a more narrative campaign and perhaps without the same level of rigorous playtesting as the GHB 2017. It's hard not to see the +1 save for Battleround One Trait for Order (and especially Freeguild and Stormcast) as game changing  or the Death Pirates ability as duplicative, really weak and designed poorly (such that Deathlords who are notionally able to take it, cannot in fact do so as they necessarily have named characters who are eligible).

It's also clear that some of the best armies (Stormcast, Free People, KO and funlines in general) are wholly undeserving of this bonanza.

If they use these abilities at a matched play event , then they should be for armies without specific faction allegiances - so you can get Grand Alliance Order allegiance plus your new Tempest's Eye ability - that might actually be pro-balance. At the moment - I'm deeply concerned about this.

[heywoah_twitch]

New Player: "There we go, my first army glued together and primed."

Friend: "Nice dude, but I have to warn you - do not paint them yet, you don't know what obscure chapter colors you'll need to have to cross qualify for special abilities from multiple books when you start caring about matched play lists after a month of getting used to the game. Just trying to save you the headache I went through repainting my first guys from the creative ones I made up myself to the standard city ones everyone is required to paint if they want the good abilities."

[Thebiggesthat]

7 minutes ago, Terry Pike said:

I've had lengthy back on fourth discussions over this "hot topic" on army colour schemes and free rules. There are some simple fixes to this in my opinion.

• a) Nothing for free, if its a bunch of special rules, make them pay for it like formations
• b) Don't allow these rules in competitive play and just keep them for open/narrative
• c) If its going to be a thing, be clear on what colours are required, where on the model they should be present as a guideline and actually enforce it at events

The game is not 40k, Space Marine chapters can't be used as examples because as Jack has said above there just aren't the model ranges to support the idea. If each chamber for Stormcast had its own battletome, upgrade packs, characters, units etc then I could get on board with that. But if someone paints an army their own unique colour scheme they should be free to do so, while also being able to use any free special rules.

This is absolutely spot on. Fancy writing this on a big slab of wood and taking a trip to Nottingham?

[stato]

You are playing another person, probably an adult, decide between you what you want to do about it.

If you are a tournament organiser, make a decision, there is no standard way to run a tournament, scoring is different at every event (Blood and Glory gives you points if you have the right scheme, thats one way to do it).

This is supposed to be a fun hobby with a guy in  a cupboard making up rules, most of you are talking about it like its some sort of legal document.

 

[polarbear]

I prefer army variances to be part of the models, not the paint scheme. So upgrade kits, different shield styles, preference for certain weapons, different helmets, etc. Mandating paint schemes feels very shallow.

On a somewhat related note, it's strange in the Kharadron book that they nudge you to having to paint the skyports in their colours to get the rules, but there's no similar nudge about Brokk Grungsson, lord-magnate of Barak-Nar. Surely with such strict rules he couldn't be used in a non-Barak-Nar army, right? It puts me off the model slightly, even though it's my favourite in the range. I find it a bit weird they do this but at the same time seem to stretch the lore so that every army can be present in every realm so battles don't feel wrong. 

[Ollie Grimwood]

Just so no one has to repeat themselves. 

 

The Chapter thing is a false equivalency. 

Stormcast are the most powerful faction may be the painting thing is an extra balancing mechanic? Same with the Firestorm abilities painting restrictions may stop some from using them over the standard rules. Blimey the logistics of painting Horde armies has restricted their popularity and use for ages. 

[Thebiggesthat]

There is a balancing mechanic. It's called points. They came in when people couldn't get things to balance in open play enough.

Please, the 'it's just toy soldiers' argument is so pointless. If that was the case, and everyone in the hobby felt the same, we would be playing open play, no points, lots of adult reasonable discussion on what to take. 

12 minutes ago, stato said:

If you are a tournament organiser, make a decision, there is no standard way to run a tournament, scoring is different at every event (Blood and Glory gives you points if you have the right scheme, thats one way to do it).

What's the right scheme? Genuine question, not something said to get a reaction. I run Tempest Eye, where do I go to get the right scheme?

[Ollie Grimwood]

33 minutes ago, Thebiggesthat said:

There is a balancing mechanic. It's called points. They came in when people couldn't get things to balance in open play enough.

 

Thanks for that. 

I said extra as in extra layer of balancing. Much like how they’ve used Allegiance abilities (with varying success) 

Just a idea I’m throwing out I’d ask you not to be condescending 

[RuneBrush]

14 minutes ago, Thebiggesthat said:

Please, the 'it's just toy soldiers' argument is so pointless. If that was the case, and everyone in the hobby felt the same, we would be playing open play, no points, lots of adult reasonable discussion on what to take. 

I wouldn't have said it was pointless (or infact an argument).  We're discussing painting miniatures, regardless of how you look at it, it's not quite the same level as deciding what stocks and shares to invest in, what house to buy or potentially life-threatening matters.  Yes it's important to us as a group & individually, we all have our own opinions and feelings, but many of us do this hobby to take a break from real life so need to remind ourselves that it is only a game and we are painting and playing with toy soldiers (a phrase often said by GW staff).

32 minutes ago, Thebiggesthat said:

I run Tempest Eye, where do I go to get the right scheme?

The source I'd head to would be the GW site - https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Age-Of-Sigmar-Tempests-Eye-2017.  I've not (yet) picked up the Firestorm book so not sure if there are pictures/descriptions in there.

[Chris Tomlin]

Morning,

Just a friendly reminder to play nice please. @Jack Armstrong has set out a great first post for some sensible discussion here (and most of the replies are in line with that). I get that this is an emotive topic, but try to be respectful to one another yeah?

Don't make me put the mod hat on guys, I prefer the Megaboss one!  

[Killax]

As per the Firestorm topic, I think the rules in it are awesome for narrative and larger group play. 

I personally won't use it for every matched game I play from now on. I think that from a narrative standpoint I can understand that a mix of different 'clans' within a faction a colourscheme could make a difference but this really only adds to a game in multiplayer games.

In any case, despite Firestorm indeed also being possible to use with Matched Play, I don't forsee Firestorm being used with every future Matched Play game. Models painted not the same matter the moment multiple players are running the same army and you want to know which unit belongs to which player.

[Thebiggesthat]

11 minutes ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

Thanks for that. 

I said extra as in extra layer of balancing. Much like how they’ve used Allegiance abilities (with varying success) 

Just a idea I’m throwing out I’d ask you not to be condescending 

It wasn't meant to be in the least bit condescending, so apologies if you have read it that way.

What I meant was it's a layer of balancing that isn't needed, as we have a perfectly functional one. Which is already used for the exact same thing. Consistency is all that's needed. 

[Ollie Grimwood]

7 minutes ago, Thebiggesthat said:

It wasn't meant to be in the least bit condescending, so apologies if you have read it that way.

What I meant was it's a layer of balancing that isn't needed, as we have a perfectly functional one. Which is already used for the exact same thing. Consistency is all that's needed. 

Cheers pal 

And you’re right points should cover it all 

[RoyalDachshund]

Required paint schemes? Count me out.

- You can get thousand and one lore-friendly reasons why your X is not painted like X should. Perhaps they are stationed in some other place? Or maybe they are paying homage to other dudes? Or they are just another sub-faction of said X?

- If  they want/need specific paint schemes to get specific bonuses/boons/units then... start selling pre-painted miniatures (and say goodbye to a chunk of your player base)

- Hey, Billy, nice paint job on your Stormcasts. But you can't play them like that. What do you say? ****** this game?

- This entire hobby is based on a friendship, creativity, and little plastic toys that you move across the board. Honestly, would you attend a tournament/event so hardcore that you need to have your army painted in a strict way? I was playing 40k versus Blood Angels painted like Ultramarines, Ultramarines painted green and black and so on. As long as you let your opponent know what's the deal it never should be a problem. If it is - then you are playing against an ass.

[Thebiggesthat]

1 minute ago, RoyalDachshund said:

If it is - then you are playing against an ass.

Or, you are playing in a system that has the rule written down.

For removal of doubt, I 100% agree that in normal play, down a club or at your mates etc, this is an absolute non-issue. If it is, you are correct, and this person learns the hard way. 

But in a tournament system it's more difficult. Take Blood and Glory. Ben and Co. is putting together an awesome event. Potentially one of the highlights of the year, and GW will be in attendance. It's a GW rule, in black and white. So does Ben house rule it? Does he state himself the correct schemes? do we come up with a community points scheme? What happens in the first game, when someone who dislikes this, calls a TO over and says 'this breaks a rule'. 

This is GWs mess, and is the first test in ages of their much improved community team. 

[RoyalDachshund]

5 minutes ago, Thebiggesthat said:

Or, you are playing in a system that has the rule written down.

Boiling down to the age-old question - should men follow the faulted system even when he sees it's bad? I've spent a hella lot of time researching this topic for my university degree in law. Most of the philosophers and legal theorists agree that men indeed should follow it (because, after all, this is the system), but not enjoy it and try to abuse it (shows it weaknesses) as much as possible within its boundaries. Ergo, house rules it, just like measuring from model instead of a base.

After all those years playing with GW toys, I still have high hopes for them and I believe that was a poor choice of words, not intended rule.

[Xasz]

2 hours ago, Terry Pike said:

• a) Nothing for free, if its a bunch of special rules, make them pay for it like formations
• b) Don't allow these rules in competitive play and just keep them for open/narrative
• c) If its going to be a thing, be clear on what colours are required, where on the model they should be present as a guideline and actually enforce it at events

Just roll with b) and be done with it.

The paint scheme discussion pops up ever so often in AoS and 40k and the conclusion is always the same. 

Firestorm seems really awesome and was clearly designed with narrative/open/campaign play in mind. The community team is no help either, if you'd ask them if sudden death rules or other wonky things can be added over the matched play rules, they would surely agree. They are doing a great job but they are no source for legitimacy.

[Thebiggesthat]

9 minutes ago, Xasz said:

Just roll with b) and be done with it.

That's a great choice. Now put yourself in Ben's shoes. Or Chris'. Both Tournament organisers. Both lucky enough to have a good relationship, thanks to their community work. Both get some cool product ahead of time to review. Ben getting invited into the GHB playtest team (apologies if you were there Chris, I could only remember Ben).

GW have made their current position clear. You must, not may, not can, MUST paint the models in the correct colour. So b) is going against GW, and in B&G, where I think GW are attending/streaming, will be a huge call for Ben to make. Does he comp something that GW want to see on the tabletop, at an event that will be published on the Twitch stream?

[Toddy]

I think you over-estimate how much GW care. They are interested in promoting their product, and want Ben and Chris's events to show it off what a fun hobby it is on their stream. As long that that is achieved, they likely don't care how the TO rules on this.

 

[Gaz Taylor]

My thoughts....

As a simple person, these are fairly simple but for me you do what you want to do in your own gaming groups. For events, it's all down to the Organiser and if you don't like it, don't go.

4 minutes ago, Thebiggesthat said:

That's a great choice. Now put yourself in Ben's shoes. Or Chris'. Both Tournament organisers. Both lucky enough to have a good relationship, thanks to their community work. Both get some cool product ahead of time to review. Ben getting invited into the GHB playtest team (apologies if you were there Chris, I could only remember Ben).

GW have made their current position clear. You must, not may, not can, MUST paint the models in the correct colour. So b) is going against GW, and in B&G, where I think GW are attending/streaming, will be a huge call for Ben to make. Does he comp something that GW want to see on the tabletop, at an event that will be published on the Twitch stream?

Completely up to the Organiser in my opinion. If GW are coming along to stream any games, they may ask for this to be enforced. But also remember GW can show whatever games they want to show, so if somebody is doing something they don't like, they show something else. The great thing about the game is that it can change and it provides a frame work for you to do what you want to do with it.