Army Paint Schemes for rules

[Thebiggesthat]

4 minutes ago, Gaz Taylor said:

For events, it's all down to the Organiser and if you don't like it, don't go.

 

This is what it essentially will boil down too, and simultaneously could be the saddest thing to happen to the tournament scene, especially as it could be easy sorted if GW wanted.

You never want to have a scene where certain events are certain rules. And I was hoping with GHB, this would never be the case. Same as when looking at how quickly GW have been sorting issues with 40k (that broken list you have, it's done), I hope this is clarified. 

I don't want to have to check which rules are in force before I buy a ticket. I want to go to a Narrative event, I attend a Narrative event. I want to go to a Matched play GHB2017 event, I do just that. Now, i understand that soft scores have different impacts, that is a great addition. But picking and choosing rules only ends in segregating the community. 

Making apologies and fixes for ambiguous GW rules is the old way of doing it, I was kind of hoping we were past this...

[Terry Pike]

There are so many great events all over the country now the "vote with your feet" method of choosing tournaments couldn't be more valid. If the event you are looking at is "forcing" (very loose use of force there lol)  painting schemes or campaign rules then that's up to them and you can either put up with it or choose to not support it.

I'll be cutting back my 10-15 tournaments next year down quite a bit and being pretty picky about what I attend. SCGT, Blacksun event, FaceHammer (obviously!) and Adepticon will be my main 4, the rest will be down to the tournament packs on offer at the time.

[Thebiggesthat]

Conformation that FaceHammer is not enforcing it next year 

[Solaris]

8 minutes ago, Thebiggesthat said:

Making apologies and fixes for ambiguous GW rules is the old way of doing it, I was kind of hoping we were past this...

Completely agree with this, don't know what they are thinking with this one. That being said, I haven't read the book, so I don't know how strongly worded this paint scheme requirement is.

I fully agree with @Gaz Taylor though, if GW don't want to stream a game because of the players not adhering to the color schemes they can simply stream another game.

In my opinion, there is no need for event organizers to cater to needlessly restrictive rules that don't add any value. In a narrative event centered around one of these cities, the painting restriction does add value, because it's tied to the purpose of the event. In a matched play event, these restrictions hardly add any value and just seem poorly thought out.

[Thebiggesthat]

Another thing to consider for all those that enjoy the higher hobby standard in AoS over 40k. Will a 'painting arms race' lead to a poorer standard on the table?

[Morglum StormBasha]

Personally my hope is that the background for aos develops to a point where it and the model range are good enough that they justify a paint job rules distinction. This is the case in 40k where people waited years for rules to distinguish between different chapters because the background called for it and they thought it would make the game more fun.

But before 40k got to that point there was already a named special character hq model for each chapter and normally as jack said a certain unit type. (Naeve and vandus are a start in this regard ) Imperial guard even had multiple model regiments for the same rule and only now are getting differentiated rules at a time when ironically only 2 regiments have model support. 

So personally if I've chosen a gw paint scheme for an army I'll only use that paint scheme rules... but in the short term - I certainly wouldn't expect that from my oppponent in friendly or matched play.

with 1 exception - if a future army book allows multiple different rules battalions  for the same model because they are 2 allies storm hosts then we would need different paint jobs. The new imperial guard codex has this problem as people are wanting to take some troops as valhallans and some as tallarn but use the same cadian models and an undifferentiated paint scheme which makes the game a lot harder to follow.

 

[stato]

2 hours ago, Thebiggesthat said:

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'. 

Blood and Glory give you 2 additional painting points if you paint in the scheme of the force your are using.  How do you know the correct scheme? Simple, you as the painter try and replicate the portrayed schemes in artwork or photos of miniatures, or follow the general theme where images are not available.  The painting judges decide (judge) if you have tried to do this, just as they do for all other aspects of the painting.  Ive got red Kharadrons and Tempest Lord Stormcast, so id not get any points if i ran a named Skyport, i might get points if i run Tempest eye (my painting is just about ok enough to see ive tried to match the scheme on the Tempest box photo). Seems pretty simple.  

[Thebiggesthat]

You are referring to soft scores though. This is a printed rule. I'm aware you probably aren't trying to come off passive aggressive but it's not as simple as you make out.

 

[stato]

4 minutes ago, Thebiggesthat said:

You are referring to soft scores though. This is a printed rule. I'm aware you probably aren't trying to come off passive aggressive but it's not as simple as you make out.

 

Is it not written in the same way as the Kharadron rule then? ive not seen it. 

[BunkhouseBuster]

4 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

... 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.

I'm in this camp myself.  While it has not yet been presented in Age of Sigmar, looking at how Successor Chapters work for Space Marines is a good way to figure out how we ought to be treating this issue.  Look at the Kharadron Overlords book and how it presents its army rules - pick one each from three tables.  Your army rules could match one of the predetermined Fleets and still be your own color scheme.  No, there are no "Successor Chapters" equivalents in AoS currently, but it is a fair comparison since it is something that GW also handles in another range with very (aesthetically) similar models.

1 hour ago, Thebiggesthat said:

You never want to have a scene where certain events are certain rules. And I was hoping with GHB, this would never be the case. Same as when looking at how quickly GW have been sorting issues with 40k (that broken list you have, it's done), I hope this is clarified. 

I don't want to have to check which rules are in force before I buy a ticket. I want to go to a Narrative event, I attend a Narrative event. I want to go to a Matched play GHB2017 event, I do just that. Now, i understand that soft scores have different impacts, that is a great addition. But picking and choosing rules only ends in segregating the community.

Man, I would just like to have Age of Sigmar events, PERIOD.  Within an hour's drive of my home, there are like 5 or 6 AoS players, including myself.  I'm lucky to get in a game a week, and that's pretty much because my FLGS is on my way home from work (and the wife lets me stay out for that since she takes the kids to a separate function one night a week).  There is no real presence for Age of Sigmar in Mid-Missouri, at least not for anything beyond pickup games.  If we want something more, then we have to drive the 2 or so hours to either Kansas City or St. Louis (and even then, it's just the GW shops hosting events, which is fine, but don't expect custom scenarios or anything).  If I ever do get a chance to attend a wargaming event again, I'm sure not going to complain about someone's color scheme.  Just tell me what your army is or counts as, and I'll be good.  Playing Ultramarines but painted up your models in pink?  That's cool.

Really, every single model is "counts as" on the tabletop.  A model is a representation of something, and in the case of AoS, the models are representations of a combination of rules and fluff that become part of the player's army.  We don't see near as many "counts as" models on the table anymore, especially for AoS, since they don't release rules without models these days, but back when I first started, there were several armies that were missing units or character options for a lack of available GW models.  Maybe it's just my area, but I've never seen or heard anyone complain about color schemes that didn't match the box, even on unique characters.

Back when I was excited for 40K, I was painting up Space Wolves in an award-winning custom color scheme, and then kept on using that same scheme to carry over onto Iron Hands, Grey Knights, and a few Black Templar models.  With a copious amount of kitbashing and green stuffing, I was able to get them all to fit my pseudo-wolfy style, and their color scheme was cohesive, and it is an awesome sight to behold when I set them all out on display (covering my parent's dining table for a time to my mother's chagrin).  The thing is, I found a color scheme that I basically fell in love with painting, and I couldn't help myself.  It was just so much fun to paint them up in those colors and know that ever model I painted added into that larger force that looked awesome on the table.  That said, at no point did I mix up my army willy-nilly - I still adhered to whichever army book I was playing and used the Ally rules as presented in the rules when necessary.  But my color scheme is what drove me to paint up my army, not the rules or anything.  Heck, I picked up Space Wolves for it because the Thunderwolf kit had just come out and I thought it was just awesome, and that was back when they weren't over powered or anything.  And many times I would purposefully handicap myself so as to prevent my army from being as powerful as it could, choosing a "weaker" army to play with so my opponents would know I'm not one of the local competitive players.  I picked the color scheme from the Saxon faction from Rome Total War: Barbarian Invasion since that was favorite faction to play in that game, and no where else have I ever seen a color scheme similar to my Space Marines.

When GW first announced the new city rules for AoS, I was excited.  Now that we know that these rules can be added on top of the Allegiance abilities, my excitement is waning.  I will not be the guy who uses the shenanigans and cheese to win.  I would rather lose every game in any system for the rest of my life before using the latest and greatest rules to chase the "meta".  As such, I will probably not use said city rules, with the exception of in a Narrative scenario, and probably not with any of the Allegiance abilities (unless my opponent and I agree on their use within a context).  Now, I'm not the one to talk about points or other balancing mechanics (since I'm about ready to ditch points altogether) but there shouldn't just be these layers and layers of rules that can keep getting added on top of the armies.  It's what killed 40K for me back in 7th Edition what with all the "chapter tactics" for every army, formations, detachments, max-sized unit bonuses, et cetera.  I really, REALLY hope that AoS doesn't get that same rules bloat.  Sure, I may be championing that the modularity of AoS is its greatest strength, but the modules up to this point were spread evenly across the entire game system.  Now it seems that it might start piling up in one spot - the army rules.

If my options are "play our way with our colors" or "you  can't play with your color scheme", then I will pack up my models and go home, and probably quit the hobby at that point.  If GW wants us to have the models painted a certain color, then they can supply the models to us in that color scheme.  I have far too many ideas for projects in my head to follow a predetermined color.  It's the reason why I have never tried a historical wargame - the community shuns that sort of thing.  Privateer Press was in a similar boat early on, and, while there was no outright rules against custom color schemes or conversion work, it was never encouraged, and you were a weirdo for not sticking to what's on the box, especially at tournaments.  Come on GW, don't make a mistake that Privateer Press did!

To put another way, TLDR, I'm not interested in a paint by numbers kit, especially on thousand of dollars of models that I can barely afford anyways.

I will never make painting certain colors a requirement for anyone.  It's hard enough to get people to even paint their models, why make it even harder for them to do so?

1 hour ago, Thebiggesthat said:

Another thing to consider for all those that enjoy the higher hobby standard in AoS over 40k. Will a 'painting arms race' lead to a poorer standard on the table?

I could easily see that being an issue.  I have played as many games against bare grey plastic or primer coated as I have painted models.  And I am guilty of it for Age of Sigmar, I'm working on fixing that (one brush stroke at a time...).  If someone's options are "don't paint models to use the rules" or "can't use the rules because your models are colored wrong", then they won't paint the models.

[stato]

41 minutes ago, stato said:

Is it not written in the same way as the Kharadron rule then? ive not seen it. 

Ok so..

Firestorm:   In order to organise..  blah blah.. all you need to is paint the appropriate colours.

Kharadrons:  You  can organise.. blah .. as a major skyport simply by painting it the appropriate colours.

 

B&G soft score says not painted to match the rules, so therefore it must be allowed in bother cases?

EDIT:  From B&G pack..

Quote

WYSISYG Paint Job – Models are painted in the correct colour scheme for the army they are being used as (i.e. Celestical Vindicators, Barak-Zifin) – 2 points

 

[HobbyHammer]

GW are giving us extra rules for different narratively built armies. In my opinion, you should stick to the colour schemes to gain the extra rules, this counts for Stormcast, Kharadron, Firestorm... whatever it may be. 

I am currently painting up some Astral Templars, not because I particularly like the colour scheme, in fact I would rather it be Silver and Blue... but I love the chamber narratively and so went with it. 

If you want to use the extra rules for the Firestorm cities, play by the rules and paint them in that scheme. 

Again, this is my opinion and would in no way refuse to play anyone who hasn't stuck to that little ruling. 

Edit: Go easy on me guys... it is only my humble opinion

[Paul Buckler]

2 hours ago, Thebiggesthat said:

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?

Except at the heats this was not enforced at all, at least with the overlords.

For me a guide say - faction x uses green/yellow is fine, loads of room for hobby, just include them as spot colours in your chosen scheme.  A specific scheme with specific paints for parts of the model is un-enforceable from a TO point of view.

 

[Sheriff]

What are the colours for the new orc & goblin allegiance in firestorm? Not bought it yet. 

[chord]

Having read the newest stormcast book multiple times, where does it say that the Hammers of Sigmar chamber "MUST" be painted a certain color.  I believe it is left very ambiguous .  With no clear wording saying "MUST".

 

[Thebiggesthat]

It doesn't in the Stormcast book, and you pay the cost to have the abilities. It's the KO and Firestorm where you get it for free if it's painted. I believe it's written more firmly in the Firestorm book.

 

[Ollie Grimwood]

47 minutes ago, Sheriff said:

What are the colours for the new orc & goblin allegiance in firestorm? Not bought it yet. 

Neither have I but I’m hoping for Green ?. 

On the event subject I’m all for having as varied a selection as possible, there’s a lot of different views on how things shouuld be done in AoS so I’d like it that we’ve a range of event to cover it (as is feasible).  I’m not sure officialdom needs to be that important in the first year of AoS events came up with their own balancing mechanics or chose from the ones others had come up with.  It was rather cool (in my opinion) and kept things fresh.  GW doesn’t expect everything  to be “official” either they still covered the SCGT which used it own Battleplans.  

I’d support an event that chooses to enforce paint scheme rules and I’d do the same for one that didn’t.  I think it’s import that TO/NEOs make the events they think will be the best.  The attendees then can pick and choose which they’d like to attend.  

I’ve always thought GW to be somewhat laissez faire when it comes to rules usage, not so much when it comes to models but very much when it comes to rules  

 

 

[chord]

14 minutes ago, Thebiggesthat said:

It doesn't in the Stormcast book, and you pay the cost to have the abilities. It's the KO and Firestorm where you get it for free if it's painted. I believe it's written more firmly in the Firestorm book.

 

Ah thanks for the info.  I've been traveling so I'm very out of the loop on firestorm.  If it's part of the rules I'm ok with it being enforced I guess, but in things like stormcast where it's not a rule then I'm ok with the colors not matching. 

[sirflukesalot]

IMO if you are using rules for a specific faction it MUST be on your list. i don't personally care what colour they are painted as long as its clear what i am playing against

And what i am playing. 

 

though doesn't it say in the online  shop "There are also 9 sets of Allegiance Abilities for use in the campaign"

implying they arent applicable for mathed play?

 

[Cinncinnatus]

Quick question: I have Swifthawk Agents army that's painted in a custom scheme. Is there a set color scheme that the Swifthawks should be in to benefit from the Tempest's Eye rules? For the Stormcast, obviously the Tempest Lord's scheme applies (Which I've already got my Stormcast painted as) but what about the other factions? The website is no help, as the Duardin in the photos are in the stock paintjob they have in all marketing materials. I don't have the book yet so was just curious how it handles this.

[Thomas Lyons]

7 minutes ago, Cinncinnatus said:

Quick question: I have Swifthawk Agents army that's painted in a custom scheme. Is there a set color scheme that the Swifthawks should be in to benefit from the Tempest's Eye rules? For the Stormcast, obviously the Tempest Lord's scheme applies (Which I've already got my Stormcast painted as) but what about the other factions? The website is no help, as the Duardin in the photos are in the stock paintjob they have in all marketing materials. I don't have the book yet so was just curious how it handles this.

It seems for Tempest's Eye, the color scheme is a darker blue, maybe some white or black accents alongside silver and gold. 

 

For the larger discussion, this is my simple response: 
 

I disagree with any move to punish creativity with rules penalties & create an unequal competitive environment by leveraging paint schemes.

[Thebiggesthat]

So they will be policing it properly at the GT finals it seems......

[Rhellion]

5 minutes ago, Thomas Lyons said:

It seems for Tempest's Eye, the color scheme is a darker blue, maybe some white or black accents alongside silver and gold. 

 

For the larger discussion, this is my simple response: 
 

I disagree with any move to punish creativity with rules penalties & create an unequal competitive environment by leveraging paint schemes.

I am definitely more inclined to agree because you wrote in larger text.

[Thomas Lyons]

1 minute ago, Rhellion said:

I am definitely more inclined to agree because you wrote in larger text.

(It was a copy-paste from my tweet on the topic and I'm too lazy to edit the font)

[Sheriff]

I just wish the app and the army builder would update to include Firestorm allegiance stuff. I'm still not sure if I can include trolls as allies within the new greenskins allegiance, without breaking it. 

[I welcome large text for emphasis]