Army Paint Schemes for rules

[Ollie Grimwood]

Yeah and what are the paint requirements  for the Destruction and Death abilities in Firestorm? 

[Terry Pike]

37 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. 

The Tempest Stormcast also have different shields and shoulder pads. These should be present on the models, if you are doing the scheme, do it right

 

[stato]

2 minutes ago, Terry Pike said:

The Tempest Stormcast also have different shields and shoulder pads. These should be present on the models, if you are doing the scheme, do it right

 

Now now!  It only says paint as, not model your army as...  though ive just bought 2 of the Tempest lords conversion kits so what a sucker i must be! 

[rokapoke]

51 minutes ago, Thomas Lyons said:

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

 

45 minutes ago, Rhellion said:

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

So if writing in all capital letters is SHOUTING, is writing in a larger font a stage whisper?

[Ratatatata]

10 hours ago, Nico said:

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.

Quote for truth! The elephant in the room is not so much the sudden ruling about colors, but the really odd adding of a very narrative concept onto matched play/tournament play.

I was really hyped for Firestorm before this silliness. Now I hope it just dies a quick death and are never mentioned again. 

I'm a bit concerned if this is the future of AoS - more and more rules-bloat with add-ons from campaign books, formations from old books lagging on in the app etc etc. If not controlled that could turn AoS into 7th edition 40K on crack.

I'll probably be playing Firestorm down the club, but would never in a million years allow those rules in my tournaments. Neither would I demand specific army paint schemes, but I really cannot see that be a problem either if we keep things like Firestorm out of tournament matched play.

[BunkhouseBuster]

You know, I had a thought today about this whole "playing with painted models" thing.

There are some people I know who like to play tabletop games.  These old friends of mine from college like RPGs, board games, card games, and wargames.  They like the idea of getting a Space Marine army, or a Serahpon army, or a Cygnar army, or whatever.  But they struggle to get the models painted up to a decent tabletop "standard".  For some reason, they just can't get it.

Why you may ask?  Because they literally cannot, or at the very least it is difficult for them.  In a couple cases, I know fellow wargamers that suffer from medical conditions that cause their hands to shake enough that there will always be blemishes on their models or they can't assemble them well, or their vision is so poor that they cannot discern fine details and features on the models, or other conditions that make the hobbying aspect difficult in some way.  And often times, they struggle to splurge on this hobby and don't have much in their budget for wargaming.

But sometimes they can pull through and surprise themselves.  They managed to keep their hand steady long enough to color the lenses on the helmets or touch up the teeth on their dragons.  Or they were able to save up and have a commission service paint their models for them.  Or they got lucky on finding a used, pre-painted army in decent quality.  And then there comes along a new set of rules that sets a dangerous precedent that models should be painted in "official" schemes?  Unless they happened to have that color scheme picked out, then they are going to be in a bad spot, don't you think?

Not letting people play with rules because their models are not painted a certain way is an elitist attitude to take, and will only be damaging to the hobby.  As soon as someone says "no, you have to play this way," we start moving towards excluding others, which is not a good idea to have at any point.  There is no "one right way to play" the game, heck, Age of Sigmar has 3 ways to play in many flavors of each.  It would be far better to just have tournaments restrict the optional rules than to enforce a painting standard on the players.  Because once that standard is in place, how can you objectively judge something on subjective traits?  Eventually, it will be a question of making sure the models are painted "good enough" on top of being the "correct" color scheme.

The hobby is already exclusive to many on virtue of the costs involved and the social stigma that some fear for enjoying "nerdy" hobbies.  We don't need to further divide who can or can't enjoy pushing little toy soldiers around and rolling dice.

[awcamawn]

The real problem with the firestorm paint requirements is that they're not clear enough on what the paint schemes are. Sure you can try to follow to be box art for the three City box sets and you can read in the book that the Living City has "green livery" but the three allegiances for death, destruction, and chaos are not pictured anywhere in the book nor are any colors mentioned for them. So some of them you have a vague idea but some seem completely unknown. Or did I just miss where they showed or spelled out the schemes for the gutstompas, wraith fleet, and everchosen's fist?

[HadrielCaine]

Paint things how you want to. You can always say its the army's away kit.

A practical example from 4th ed 40k:

My Dark Angels scouts were painted entirely in camo, no distinctive markings

Opponent: 'how do I know they're dark angels?'

Me: 'Your army can't see them because they're camouflaged and aren't interested in what chapter they are anyway, the bolt pistol is still going to fail to wound. The Dark Angels know that they are Dark Angels and want to keep that a secret.'

Firestorm is narrative/ open. The Community article saying 'matched' is almost certainly misleading.

As a side note if your opponent is being difficult about it make sure you brought a copy of Bloodbowl with you and play a game thats well written instead. AoS is fun, fluffy and ridiculous, especially in matched play. 

Alternatively ask them if they are @Jack Armstrong and will be winning with the flavour of the month either way, and if not whether the result of their game then really matters in the grand scheme of things, and buy them a drink.

[Arkiham]

wasnt this thread covered, like twice already ? and locked twice already as people cannot behave themselves...

 

jesus people, games workshop know people dont like forced painting standards and are never going to enforce it( unless for a special event where they want it....) , tournament organisers know it, the ones which host it obviously arent aiming for people who dont want to compete in it. 

 

all getting worked up over nothing

 

 

[Thomas Lyons]

2 minutes ago, Arkiham said:

 

 

jesus people, games workshop know people dont like forced painting standards and are never going to enforce it( unless for a special event where they want it...)

...

all getting worked up over nothing

 

 

GW said they are enforcing it this weekend at the final Grand Tournament. 

[Waizer]

To join in on the conversation and perhaps add something...

I'm pretty new around here so I hope being a relative newbie to aos and these forums will give a slightly different perspective. I previously have dabbled in aos, played a few games and painted a few things up but never really got into it. That changed recently, no idea why but I had a sudden urge to see how aos was doing and I got hooked. I've just bought an army and it should be arriving in a few days... and things like this (enforced paint schemes) are making me wonder if I should just return my order

I've gone from up till 2am reading different lore websites, watching painting tutorials and of course browsing here to being not sure if it's worth the hassle. And that is what's worrying me the most. Whilst I know I don't represent everyone who is just starting aos I'm sure more than a few will be put off by the notion that you can't paint how you want to and that can't be good for the games overall player base/longevity.

Personally I'm all for creativity in this hobby. You want pink SCE go for it... I bet there's a cool story behind it! I'm not going to then say, "awesome story... btw now you lose these rules because they're pink and not official colours." I find it quite sad if GW are enforcing it this weekend at the GT and hope it's not a sign of things to come.

Sorry if my post came off a little negative, but it has been bothering me since I first heard about this and has got me quite worried.

[chord]

4 hours ago, Ratatatata said:

'm a bit concerned if this is the future of AoS - more and more rules-bloat with add-ons from campaign books, formations from old books lagging on in the app etc etc. If not controlled that could turn AoS into 7th edition 40K on crack.

THIS!    Original AOS was great, you had 4 pages of rules, your warscrolls, and a battle plan. That's it.  Now you have rules, warscrolls, battle plan, command traits, artifacts, prayers/spells, etc.

I'm new to AOS, started before the GHB2016.  Seems to me like the older WHFB are really liking all the extra rules, and that the newer players are the ones looking back at a simpler time.

Please GW, slow down the rules bloat.

[Aegisgrimm]

As several people have said, if we are going to use Space Marine chapters and their special rules as an example, then fine.  My steel and gold, bare-faced Stormcast using rules from a certain Chamber is exactly like how I can have a bright green Successor chapter of the Ultramarines, which uses absolutely no Ultramarine iconography but still be played as Ultramarines as that's the doctrine the Chapter follows. 

Because I can find at least a dozen examples of Ultramarines successors that follow that same pattern, way back into the 90's.

 

[Thebiggesthat]

3 hours ago, Arkiham said:

wasnt this thread covered, like twice already ? and locked twice already as people cannot behave themselves...

 

jesus people, games workshop know people dont like forced painting standards and are never going to enforce it( unless for a special event where they want it....) , tournament organisers know it, the ones which host it obviously arent aiming for people who dont want to compete in it. 

 

all getting worked up over nothing

 

 

If you had read the thread, instead of just steaming in, you'd see that they are literally doing the opposite this weekend. 

If you don't want to contribute, or think this has all been said, rather than just ignorantly steam in, read what people are discussing. I'm not being rude, I'm simply asking for a bit of common courtesy for those that have been having an adult and well measured conversation.

[Arkiham]

2 minutes ago, Thebiggesthat said:

If you had read the thread, instead of just steaming in, you'd see that they are literally doing the opposite this weekend. 

If you don't want to contribute, or think this has all been said, rather than just ignorantly steam in, read what people are discussing. I'm not being rude, I'm simply asking for a bit of common courtesy for those that have been having an adult and well measured conversation.

Yes but everyone is banging on about their army an how they decided to paint it, and how to them it's a successor chamber or what ever and ****** gw if they think they will enforce it.

 

It's all been said. Very little which is new has been contributed towards this. 

 

Instead. Why not make a thread for people who are actually going, to all give someone their details and have that representative  (the more well known the better) goto games workshop and say. 

"Hey here is 60-75% of your player base for tbat tournament making a formal complaint about this sudden and unwelcome  addtion to the rules, we'd like you to remove it or we won't turn up" or what ever 

 

Instead of repeating the same paragraphs of text we see on a near monthly basis...this entire thread so far has made no progress over what's already been said, If so many of you are so dam mad about it stop moaning and do something.

[Thebiggesthat]

Again, you have not read something properly, you just seem wound up yourself about people having an adult conversation.

 

Again, this chat thread has a multitude of opinions. It's been started after hundreds of tweets yesterday. It's no different to talking about any AoS hot topic, and probably the burning issue right now since the GT this weekend is running it. 

You seem the only one interested in derailing or moaning without adding anything constructive, and it's not helpful. It's bordering on trolling, and if so well done as I've bitten. If it's not, and this subject annoys you, then what's the point in commenting?

[Ollie Grimwood]

So it’s emerging that practically at the moment the restrictions only really apply to Order forces. Do the colour schemes fit with any existing Stormhost or for stuff from the World that Was? (Elf cities or Empire States)

Although I’d agree there are better ways of balancing out the forces this could mean a well needed boost for Death and Destruction stuff for the GT finals. It could of course push some lucky Stormcast players armies further ahead.

Really interested to see how it plays out 

[Sheriff]

Can someone paste the destruction Firestorm allegiance D66 tables please? Tried buying it myself but it's sold out.  

[Thebiggesthat]

Think that's frowned upon here dude

[Killax]

As before though I think it's easy to lose the context in which this Firestorm topic is put in. There indeed is now one event where they are going to implement it. If I recall correctly the same was done with other things like Storm of Chaos and End Times in the WFB past. Despite this occuring it isn't like all tournaments and gameplay after that included all these additional rules.

The way I continue to view Firestorm is that in some cases it can be cool to use with organized play, it can be used with organised play. Almost all the organized play has an alteration to the ruleset just provided by GH2017 or the GH2016 in the past for that matter. Despite these alterations there never really was one set of "golden rules" that are applied to all events.

So my moral remains, hold your horses, just because it's used somewhere doesn't mean it will be used everywhere. If you have a larger event with a massive showing the Firestorm rules are really cool to use. Especially for Narrative events I think it adds more as the win of the game isn't as important as complete Matched events. The mix GW will present soon is just an example of what it can do, not the new version of Age of Sigmar and I don't think GW has made any claims that it will.

In the end every Tournament Organizer has it's own choice in rules, which he, she or the team can choose to use or not. Just because GW says X or Y doesn't mean TO's must abide to it. If that was the case we wouldn't even have a Generals Handbook to begin with...

[HadrielCaine]

2 hours ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

So it’s emerging that practically at the moment the restrictions only really apply to Order forces. Do the colour schemes fit with any existing Stormhost or for stuff from the World that Was? (Elf cities or Empire States)

Although I’d agree there are better ways of balancing out the forces this could mean a well needed boost for Death and Destruction stuff for the GT finals. It could of course push some lucky Stormcast players armies further ahead.

Really interested to see how it plays out 

Destruction won heat 3. Admittedly they've got worse in GHB2017. Players better than me often win with less efficient lists than me I find. 

I don't disagree in principle however. 

[HadrielCaine]

1 hour ago, Killax said:

As before though I think it's easy to lose the context in which this Firestorm topic is put in. There indeed is now one event where they are going to implement it. If I recall correctly the same was done with other things like Storm of Chaos and End Times in the WFB past. Despite this occuring it isn't like all tournaments and gameplay after that included all these additional rules.

The way I continue to view Firestorm is that in some cases it can be cool to use with organized play, it can be used with organised play. Almost all the organized play has an alteration to the ruleset just provided by GH2017 or the GH2016 in the past for that matter. Despite these alterations there never really was one set of "golden rules" that are applied to all events.

So my moral remains, hold your horses, just because it's used somewhere doesn't mean it will be used everywhere. If you have a larger event with a massive showing the Firestorm rules are really cool to use. Especially for Narrative events I think it adds more as the win of the game isn't as important as complete Matched events. The mix GW will present soon is just an example of what it can do, not the new version of Age of Sigmar and I don't think GW has made any claims that it will.

In the end every Tournament Organizer has it's own choice in rules, which he, she or the team can choose to use or not. Just because GW says X or Y doesn't mean TO's must abide to it. If that was the case we wouldn't even have a Generals Handbook to begin with...

*applause* QFT and rationality. 

[Moonlightwolf]

Just to add to the confusion https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/10/04/converting-your-own-free-city-oct-4gw-homepage-post-3/ Here they specifically mention using firestorm free cities rules to represent forces from free cities of your own creation. presumably they don't mean you to convert for a custom city then paint for an existing one. Kind of suggests even GW aren't really sure what they're doing regarding painting rules.

[Nico]

Quote

Although I’d agree there are better ways of balancing out the forces this could mean a well needed boost for Death and Destruction stuff for the GT finals. It could of course push some lucky Stormcast players armies further ahead.

The issue being that this is their flagship matched play event - new rules which are anti-balance being added in 4 days before the event.

The Death bonuses are hot garbage and Death are on any view the worst GA now.

The Destruction ones are random but ok.

The Chaos one is ok, but forgettable.

However, at least 3 of the Order ones are very strong - comparable to Cunning Deceiver. 

Hopefully people will voluntarily not use these at the event (unless their opponent is happy to use them, e.g. Both players are playing Order).

 

 

[Ollie Grimwood]

39 minutes ago, Nico said:

The issue being that this is their flagship matched play event - new rules which are anti-balance being added in 4 days before the event.

The Death bonuses are hot garbage and Death are on any view the worst GA now.

The Destruction ones are random but ok.

The Chaos one is ok, but forgettable.

However, at least 3 of the Order ones are very strong - comparable to Cunning Deceiver. 

Hopefully people will voluntarily not use these at the event (unless their opponent is happy to use them, e.g. Both players are playing Order).

 

 

Good point the Death ones are a bit pants. 

I suppose it’ll come down to how easy  the Order ones are to fulfil the painting reqs with on how many you’ll see at the finals.