Army Paint Schemes for rules

[BunkhouseBuster]

59 minutes ago, Moonlightwolf said:

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.

Which makes this even more aggravating.  I think I'll just hide in my little hole and wait this out.  I'll check out my copy of Firestorm once it's in, but otherwise, I'll refrain from worrying about it for the time being.

[SuperHappyTime]

On 10/3/2017 at 3:22 AM, Jack Armstrong said:

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.

Is this in the rules section or the "Introduction Section"?  Ex. Matched Play Games begins on pg 68 of GHB17, but the rules don't actually start until pg 74, the four pages before are the "Introduction Section".

Also, I know posting the rules/rulebook is frowned upon here for a good reason, but something like posting a photo of the described should fall under being legally okay under a "Fair Use" legal doctrine.

[discoking]

The passage in question is in the Choosing Your Allegiance section.

Delete if this pic breaks rules and apologies

[Thomas Lyons]

1 hour ago, discoking said:

The passage in question is in the Choosing Your Allegiance section.

Delete if this pic breaks rules and apologies

The real question are "what are a city's colors".  These are not portrayed in Firestorm as far as we know.  The box art for the random sample of cities that we have are things like generic Tempest Lord's SCE for Tempest Eye, etc.  You can't require something that isn't fully spelled out.

[polarbear]

Whoever or whichever faction of GW putting in the painting stuff is probably the same one who put in the silly rules when AoS came out, I speculate. It seems like something most of the employees of the company wouldn't agree with but someone with power likes it for whatever reason. I'd far rather they differentiate factions through army composition rules. Painting rules feel so hollow. 

[GammaMage]

One of the websites that did a Firestorm review posted a page that was similar to the one in the Stormcast book that shows you what colours the famous Stormhosts are. It had 3-4 drawings, including an example of a Stormcast model, along with other possible units from the city like Dispossessed and Free Peoples. I'm not sure which site it was though.

 

I've compromised by using Anvils of the Heldenhammer colours, but with dark purple replacing the black. Most people will be cool with it, especially as I'm using it for Darkling Covens with a couple allies, not a full Stormcast army.

[Terry Pike]

11 minutes ago, GammaMage said:

I've compromised by using Anvils of the Heldenhammer colours, but with dark purple replacing the black. Most people will be cool with it, especially as I'm using it for Darkling Covens with a couple allies, not a full Stormcast army.

So what you're saying is, you haven't followed the colour scheme because you replaced black with purple. This is the problem with colour schemes and rules, where is the line drawn. You've created your own scheme and should be free to do so.

"The Stormcast faction says gold, but I replaced it with red, I'm sure people will be cool with it"

[GammaMage]

You're exactly right. I'm ok with repainting my silver weapons gold, but wasn't going to repaint my entire purple-armoured Darkling Covens army black, despite the fact that I really like the small amount of lore we've been given about Anvilgard. I feel that the Darkling Covens, being inherently cliquey, are not going to completely integrate 100% with the Anvils of the Heldenhammer livery.

 

Though if people tell me I can't use the rules, then I'm not going push the issue. I'll just play without the rules. I really don't like that this is how it works, but not much I can really do about it. My army will still be living in Anvilgard, even if I don't actually use the Anvilgard rules.

[stato]

There was an point put forward on Twitter that you should be painted correctly because your opponent might not understand what they are facing.  The problem with that argument I see is you would then be locked to those rules for ever more.  I have Kharadron, if i paint them Ziflin am I not allowed to play custom port rules?  If I play Ziflin and my opponent castles up incase i deep strike, but I deploy my ironclad on the table rather than in the Aether because I didnt take the endrins artefact, is that considered unfair or is that my opponents fault for not reading the army list i showed him?  

(this is theorectical as in reality id have told him as soon as i saw he was deploying in response to a non-threat, its ****** to not give your opponent fair understanding of what they are facing, which i guess is why i dont have a problem with armies that might not look correct for the rules)

[Ollie Grimwood]

Is it the case that in reality this ruling only really applies to a some of the Order Cities as they are the only ones with and colours specified? 

@HobbyHammer has come up with a nice approach with the similar system he is using from his Event weekend in that if you choose to use the extra Allegiance abilities you can only do so if you’re taking the general Grand Alliance abilities*, so they function much like the Ironjawz ones or Nighthuant one where you get a it of extra flavour over the basic. I think this could be a way to approach restrictions to the Firestorm abilities as well.  

Not sure I’m too keen about just painting a single faction force in a certain colour to get the city rules really. Not in the spirit of the mixed force it’s suppsed to represent. I prefer that it’s to add rules for a mixed force, seems to be more thematic.  This is of course speaking from a narrative stand point. Painting Stormcast shoulders  pads a certain colour for extra free rules is just feels a bit gamey, painting up a cohesive mixed faction on force on the other hand is cool. 

 

* there’s no painting requirement though. 

[Caffran101]

Very late to the party, and this point has probably been made.

In 40k there are the very many successor chapters that dont conform to their "parent" chapter.

This gives people the scope to come up with their own paint scheme and back story but say "oh these guys are a successor chapter to the White scars" (despite being purple). They are still able to use the white scars special abilities.

 

However, having someone tell you that you must paint your army in a very specific way to get a bonus is totally different and quite frankly is absurd.

It penalises creativity and trying something different to the usual.

[Thomas Lyons]

For those interested, Vince and I covered this conversation on our episode of Warhammer Weekly last night.  I've linked the video here to the timestamp where we start the conversation (26:22):
 

 

[mumperpa]

I think everyone is missing the one good thing. If paint is required to get abilities, maybe whenever you play a game, it will be against a fully painted army!  I'm a new to AoS and didn't paint anything in warmahordes, but have got almost 1000 points of Stormcast Eternals done for my 1000 point army. I was really bummed when I realized that my Celestial Vindicators wouldn't work for Tempest's Eye, an all prosecutor (minus battleline and heroes) army would've been fun. I do get the argument that using the rules without the paint is just a way to get more power for your army, but does it make sense for these allegiances to be legal in any realm but Aqshy? Why would the army of Hammerhal be in the realm of beasts? Ultimately, I'm fine with anyone using the abilities so long as they'll admit they don't actually care about the fluff, at which point I'll find a different opponent. I just hope that with all the "Create your own free city" stuff there will be a rule generator for custom cities.  

[heywoah_twitch]

Currently you're supposed to represent options on your models, and yet many people do counts-as. What is the difference between a mournfang ogor with a "skalg crossbow" instead of a skalg pistol, and using a different color for your city requirement? Or two different colors? etc.

[VBS]

Why not use the "supposed" liberty, flexibility and expansiveness offered by the Mortal Realms? As in having a city that happens to be related to that other city, so they fight in a same way but just prefer dyeing their underwear pink instead of purple? Is it that hard to come up with a random story to justify your choice? Why would you care if that guy does so? Or is this game thaaaaat restrictive and unfriendly?

I understand that for many people, the use of minimal imagination is difficult so anything deemed "unofficial" must be banned and only the dogma predicated by the corporation is the righteous path, making it their mission to enforce the law. I however like Breaking The Law  *puts on British Steel in car stereo and speeds up the highway*    

 

[mumperpa]

I think the real problem is the competitive advantage. There don't appear to be many people who are genuinely running the free cities to be able to have a creative, narrative army. Most just want better rules to maximize their armies. The flaw with Firestorm is that the advantages aren't like the stuff in the allegiance abilities, meant to make up for the fact that you're limiting your model choice to get a more coherent army. Rather, Firestorm abilities simply complement what might already be a competitive army.  The real solution is play the way you like, if you want the bonus, take the bonus, but don't be offended when narrative players like me won't play you, and on the other side, if your opponent's only goal is to win, so they take every ability possible, then they don't care about fun and the game is going to be terrible anyway. I would love to actually face an opponent playing, for example, a genuine Anvilguard army, with conversions, and a perfectly painted force. Just remember, the game should be fun. I left Hordes to escape theme forces and overly competitive opponents, and lets not make that an AoS thing.

[Black_Nexus]

It seems like most "Anvilguard" armies will be Stormcast who want the better rules, there will be no conversions or changes to painting.

I wouldn't have an issue with these rules aside from the fact they are from a campaign book and I don't really understand why they should be in matched play when really only Order benefits

[Twitch of Izalith]

I don't get why people are complaining so much about this stuff and not about Fate Dice - they are properly unfair - although I still use them 

I think its also worth remembering that this game literally needs to be unbalanced. We wouldn't play it if some stuff wasn't better than other stuff. 

I can see its more important if you only play tournaments but you should accept you are using a ruleset that was never designed with competitive games as a priority (at any point in the games history). But if you are thinking those Firestorm abilities mean you will never win a tournament game again you probably should have given up before now.

Basing rules on colour is no different to basing them on shape...

Bring it on I say, Warhammer has had silly rules dotted about it for EVER. and it's always FINE and I always enjoy playing it.

 

 

[VBS]

In that case, I belive the painting scheme is not the issue for people. It is the game rules which make them better, more efficient, better than the rest, etc.... because reasons. Which is a trend for AoS since the GHB. The competitive and power creep rules are having a more prominent role, and you can't blame players for making us of the different instruments GW puts to their disposition. 

From a technical point of view, paint on a bunch of plastic gives no advantage, but rather the rules concept behind it. So the "right" paint is fine, yet the "wrong" paint is considered an advantage? I don't think this is the right perspective to deal with the issue. 

[Twitch of Izalith]

Whoever said just give the ability a point cost has the answer anyway. Thats the cost mechanism we all accept and feel comfortable with. Then we can all argue about if its the right point cost or not. 

[Gaz Taylor]

Hot off the Press - https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/10/06/firestorm-matched-play-rules-update/

Hopefully this should end this debate!!!

[Sleboda]

13 hours ago, mumperpa said:

, if your opponent's only goal is to win, so they take every ability possible, then they don't care about fun

That is completely untrue and I feel it is important to combat the idea whenever I see it casually tossed out as truth.

The whole point is to have fun. Just because you have different ideas about what makes something fun doesn't mean the other guy doesn't care about fun.

It would actually be mental to play a game in your spare time without fun being Goal #1.

[polarbear]

That's some great damage control by GW. Awesome to see them respond so quickly and in tune with the community, and nice that they added in the Kharadron/previous painting notes.

[Ollie Grimwood]

Well I’m happy with the clarification GW has given. Very sensible. 

[Trout]

It’s a sensible change but now they have accidentally disinsentivized painting things according to lore. It’s in your best interest to go with a custom scheme now. This is a welcomed development as far as I’m concerned, but probably not what they intended. Their painting suggestions are now “do not paint this way” lists instead.