AoS 3 New Rules Discussion

[RuneBrush]

Just caught up with the current discussion and I think we're looking at some extreme situations.  My interpretation is as follows 😊

First off proxy vs conversion/kit bash.  In this context, a proxy is when you substitute a pre-defined miniature (A) for a different pre-defined miniature (B).  For example if I used a unit of Chaos Marauders in my Khorne army as Blood Reavers.  It could be confusing and would certainly be so if I went "the ones with red trousers are Blood Reavers but the ones with black trousers are Marauders".  If I'd scultped Khorne symbols onto those marauders and used heads from a different box - basically changing them so they physically look different then they'd be considered a conversion.  You have to apply common sense to this and remember we play games 3 feet away from our miniatures.  In fairness at the opposite end of the scale a proxy could be a miniature that is so radically different to the GW models that you genuinely don't recognise what it's meant to be (if you have to declare a model "counts as" then it's likely a proxy).

Painted schemes.  OK, this is always a controversial subject because we all have our own opinions and views.  In my eyes this has never been about preventing people being creative - if you have come up with your own scheme I don't actually think this rule even is about you.  Instead I see this as more about somebody who's painted their army up using a GW created scheme for a particular sub-faction, but chosen the rules for a different sub-faction.  In the vast majority of cases, providing you're consistent and explain what's what, you'll likely be fine, however there will be cases when you're playing somebody who knows exactly how a Khorne Skulltakers Tribe should play, may be playing a team game, have spectators or even have the game being streamed.  Basically anything that would cause a "hang on, I didn't think that unit could do X".

Now that's nothing to say that using proxies and not matching up colour schemes is bad.  Maybe you want to test out how a unit of Blood Knights would work, but only have a unit of Gore Gruntas for example.  What you need to do is to check with your opponent or a TO if you're planning on doing this in the wild so to speak.

[Frowny]

I can see why GW would restrict their tourneys and stores to only GW minis. 

However, as a community, I can't see why we would, except if GW were in actual financial trouble (which it definitely not the case)

For me its all about effort and community. I'm 100% on board with people using different models (as long as the mostly make sense). Especially if there is a good reason to do it @Golub87 gives a great reason with terrible ancient marauder models. Or trying something else out before committing. AoS is expensive enough that I don't want to gatekeep it further by forcing financial hardship on newer players. 

[Fyrm]

Except, as I touched on, the rules aren’t making all these differentiations. Any deviation is against the rules as currently written. Or, to be more accurate, potentially against the rules. As it is a “check with opponent”. So if you bring a beautiful conversion or a potato [to borrow some else’s strawman], the rules treat you as the same. And someone would have equal ground, using this rule, to tell you that you can’t play. 
 

that’s what people are upset about I think. Or at least part of it. If they clarified and separated the situations, then we could get into a discussion about the merits of each, but as it stands if you make a creative conversion or paint a mini not up to their specification, you might as well be bringing a potato. 

[MitGas]

I my opinion it's pretty simple: if you can guess what the figure is supposed to be, then good. It should roughly have the correct size and "feel". Not every generic hero or unit in the game would look exactly the same anyways. GW used to be all about people showing off their conversions. Hell, without Neil Hodgson I wouldn't have collected Thousand Sons and wouldn't have a big scar (my personal mark of Tzeentch) on my thumb as I wouldn't have known the old TS sculpt by Jes Goodwin.

If you take puny Aelves and say they're cool Chaos Warriors, then we got a problem.... just kidding, also okay if it makes you happy. I got no clue what Wendigos have to do with Slaanesh but Enoby has an army like that and not letting her use them because they have custom heads would be a ****** move as it's obvious what each figure represents.

I understand that unofficial bits are not allowed in some contexts (like shots in offical GW books) but nothing sucks more than taking away the creative part of minis and the Warhammer hobby - I don't give a damn if your model has an axe instead of a sword (or another head or uses another base), if I don't know something, I'll just ask - simple solution. In our group we ask each other all the time what a character or unit can do.

Not to mention that many minis got age-old and/or ****** failcast minis. more power to everyone who wants to make their army their own.

 

 

[Greybeard86]

1 hour ago, Ahriman said:

They *want* you to be able to name the sub-factions and their colours.

I read everything, nice post.

They have made sure that people cannot reasonably be expected to try sub-factions and colours by pricing them out of it and making sub-factions too similar. Different color scheme different rules? In other games, you get distinct armies (historicals are a clear example), with distinct models. Having different armies means trying these different aesthethics. But here you have to repaint the same SCE with different tabards or whatever? All that paying 600$ dollars for the privilege?

All that besides the point that it is very restrictive to those who want to have freedom with how they paint the miniatures, and that don't find following "official GW" uniforms as inspiring as you do (it is, after all, a matter of preference).

[Enoby]

8 minutes ago, MitGas said:

I got no clue what Wendigos have to do with Slaanesh but Enoby has an army like that and not letting her use them because they have custom heads would be a ****** move as it's obvious what each figure represents.

Just as an aside, Wendigos don't look very Slaaneshi at all, but they're seen in some versions of the myth as a symbol of "gluttony, greed, and excess" - they look like a Khorne unit with the skulls and the blood, but thematically they're as close to Slaanesh as can be

(Just thought it'd be interesting info if anyone wanted it ) 

[chord]

As a stormcast player from AOS 1.0, the paint scheme thing is annoying. I painted mine in the Hammers of Sigmar, this was before there were any rules for different sub-factions.  Had there been I wouldnt have gone with that scheme, I just figured this was how they were supposed to be painted based on marketing materials.  

Now that there are rules for sub-factions am I supposed to strip my models and repaint?  

[Andalf]

Early AoS-adopter of Stormcast here too, Anvils of the Heldenhammer was what loosely kept me in the fantasy side of the hobby in those early days after the End times.  Soul wars was awesome, I started to have visions of a Glymmsforge city gate with a dwarf Karak kind of influence and all types of neat conversions for my old High Elf and Empire armies.  I got lucky with the fight twice CA, literally carried me in the handful of AoS2 games I played.

I’ll use the crappiest set of whatever rules come out for them because it’s in my nature; there are potentially other gamers out there like me.  If I felt the need to use Hammers of Sigmar rules my gaming circle wouldn’t care, and with forewarning I don’t see any tournaments I play at turning me away. 

Even the actual GW store I frequent where, believe it or not, an actual real human with deductive reasoning managing the store can see a regular customer who just bought that army wanting to get a game in a ‘competitive’ environment isn’t a problem.  It’s just a game and those rules are there, IMO, to give some of us introverted types a small little soap box to stand on when the WAAC jerks come to defeat the true overlords of chaos and end CoVid 19 for all time with their constant and repeated adaptation of Hive Tyrants counting as Maw-Crushas or Daemon Princes, and night haunt armies that use Lumineth rules and nothing but black blank bases...  eerie and confusing.

Edited July 5, 2021 by Andalf

[yukishiro1]

Speaking for myself, the disbelief that anyone even knows what the "official" paint schemes are for more than a tiny handful of armies is genuine, I'm not making some dramatic point. I genuinely do not know what the official paint scheme for my own army is, much less anyone else's. Not a single one. And if anyone I have ever played a game with does, they've never told me so. 

I'm sure GW would love it if I did know the paint schemes, the same way that everyone knows that Ultramarines are blue. But that comes from 40 years of history, and when for most of that history, Ultramarines were actually their own army with their own Codex, or at least supplement. AOS doesn't have this history, and it doesn't have the history of having separate armies based upon how you paint identical miniatures. It's not like if you paint bloodletters red they're Khorne bloodletters but if you paint them pink they're Slaanesh Daemonettes. The game has never worked that way.

I continue to wonder if anyone actually does have that level of knowledge and investment, because nobody in this thread has actually claimed they do - even the people on the side of "it's ok to mandate paint schemes." Unless I missed it, I haven't seen a single person actually claim to know what even, say, half the official paint schemes in the game are. Do these people exist? Maybe. But they're a tiny minority of the playing base. So holding everyone else hostage to their "immersion" by requiring "permission" to use your painted GW miniatures the way you want to seems crazy. It'd be like mandating that nobody is allowed to use miniatures painted green or red because I'm colorblind, unless they get my permission to do so. 

If someone doesn't want to play my army because they don't like the colors I've chosen, that's fine - but don't word it as me being the bad one who has to "seek permission" to use the colors I want to use, and don't put me in the same category as people who want to use a potato to represent Nagash. That's offensive, and it's completely understandable why it puts so many people's noses out of joint. If I have a fully painted army made out of appropriate GW models painted the way I like, I should be held up as the hobby standard, not pooh-poohed because of the shade of blue I chose. 

And beyond being insulting, it's stifling to my creativity, and that is what really rankles about it. I don't want to have to be worrying when I'm deciding what color I want to paint "my dudes" about how some other person might try to use the colors I've chosen against me to tell me I can't play "my dudes" as I envision them. Any rule that promotes that sort of stifling of creativity is a bad rule for a hobby to have, period. My dudes are my dudes, they are not my opponent's dudes, and they are not GW's dudes. I should be entitled to decide how to paint them according to my own preferences, not your preferences or the preferences of some corporate middle manager. 

Edited July 5, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Ahriman]

2 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

[Snip]

If you're after testimonials I can hold my hands up as an example. Though I would also say I've dived into the lore more than most.

I think most people could name 4 Stormhosts by colour, and I could name a lot more.

I know most if not all the skyports, and I think most could identify Barak Narr and Zilfin?

I could label the Cities of Sigmar pretty confidently.

But to me that's besides the point, as GW doesn't want to bring in this kind of rule 40years later when the game is more established, because that will put even more people in an awkward position that it is right now if they're using the 'wrong rules' for their colours.

 

(I honestly have no good answer for those who have found themselves suddenly given faction rules they don't like, it really is a poor situation to be in with no great answers).

 

The point about it stifling creativity - I may be misremembering but don't the Battletomes generally say "if your colours don't match a pre-existing colour scheme, pick the sub-faction that you think fits them the most". If not, they certainly do for Warhammer 40,000, and I imagine the same principles apply (though I understand we don't have that in writing).

 

 

[GTK]

I'm not sure about this rule.Like many people have said I did not know there were different colour schemes for SCE.I think I would just let the person play as long as I knew what the units did.I use sort of proxies in my COS army I'm painting right now.I use old halfling,dwarf and empire models in most of my freeguild units, everyone has the proper weapons so why would this be a problem.The only unit that would be a true proxy would be my Luppin Croop models as shadow warriors, only because COS got rid of their archers and their militia warscroll.

One thing I'm worried about was a problem I saw in old Warhammer when people would yell at others for not painting their Ogres grey or their lizard men blue.It always seemed over the top to me.I understand the comments about Space Marines chapters but that's 40k not AOS.I'm always of the mind paint your models how you want as long as your opponent knows what they are.

[Eldarain]

When the established lore of the factions and game world are one of it's greatest strengths, having people who choose to paint their minis as one of the established factions be at a mechanical disadvantage to those who picked their own scheme sucks.

I've long maintained tying an armies power to how it is painted (free rules outside the points system from subfactions) was a mistake and this is just the most recent symptom of it.

[yukishiro1]

25 minutes ago, Ahriman said:

The point about it stifling creativity - I may be misremembering but don't the Battletomes generally say "if your colours don't match a pre-existing colour scheme, pick the sub-faction that you think fits them the most". If not, they certainly do for Warhammer 40,000, and I imagine the same principles apply (though I understand we don't have that in writing).

 

 

Yes and no. Some battletomes have that, some don't - e.g. the new LRL tome doesn't, unless I missed it somewhere.

But even for the ones that do...the problem is they keep coming out with new ones. My Cities army (run as Tempest's Eye) is painted primarily in bronze and purple because I think it looks great. As far as I know - and again, I don't actually because I've never paid any attention to it - that doesn't match any of the cities they have yet come up with. But that number has increased greatly even since the last tome came out - Broken Realms added at least three, maybe four if there's one I'm forgetting? What happens when they add a new city that happens to be painted in bronze and purple? Does my army become invalid overnight unless I "ask permission" of my opponent, because my current army relies on pistoliers being battleline due to Tempest's Eye and the new rules I am now forced to use don't have that? I've spent dozens, probably hundreds of hours painting this army. Are you really telling me that the "immersion" of a tiny fraction of the player the base who would actually realize should mean I can't play any more without "seeking permission" unless I repaint my army? Do I have to try to argue with people trying to disqualify my army by saying it was painted before the new city came out, and/or that the shade of purple I used is subtly different enough that I'm allowed to still play my army? Why should anyone have to be put in that position? 

I don't see how the gain there possibly outweighs the loss. 

Edited July 5, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Ahriman]

1 minute ago, yukishiro1 said:

Yes and no. Some battletomes have that, some don't - e.g. the new LRL tome doesn't, unless I missed it somewhere.

But even for the ones that do...the problem is they keep coming out with new ones. My Cities army (run as Tempest's Eye) is painted primarily in bronze and purple because I think it looks great. As far as I know - and again, I don't actually because I've never paid any attention to it - that doesn't match any of the cities they have yet come up with. But that number has increased greatly even since the last tome came out - Broken Realms added at least three, maybe four if there's one I'm forgetting? What happens when they add a new army that happens to be painted in bronze and purple? Does my army become invalid overnight unless I "ask permission" of my opponent, because my current army relies on pistoliers being battleline due to Tempest's Eye and the new rules I am now forced to use don't have that? I've spent dozens, probably hundreds of hours painting this army. Are you really telling me that the "immersion" of a tiny fraction of the player the base who would actually realize should mean I can't play any more without "seeking permission" unless I repaint my army? Do I have to try to argue with people trying to disqualify my army by saying it was painted before the new city came out, and/or that the shade of purple I used is subtly different enough that I'm allowed to still play my army? Why should anyone have to be put in that position? 

I don't see how the gain there possibly outweighs the loss. 

Really great point, and with the game ever in flux not one I have an answer too that I'm comfortable with.

I suppose its a situation that's covered by the "ask permission" caveat as you say. But I live in a world where I can't fathom a situation where somebody would say no. But that may just be a luxury I am blessed with that isn't universal.

In a 'casual' game, they either say yes, or they say no at which point there are likely to be better opponents out there.

In a competitive tournament setting, the points raised earlier about it being a complex game, and the colour of your models hardly affecting that tactical decision making come into effect, so people would have to be rather braisen to say that you couldn't play by the rules you wanted. And its something you could ask a TO in advance to cover you as well.

 

So I can't see it ever being a real issue, but again that may well be a luxury I hold.

As such the rule is simply an ideal GW wishes to reach one day. I definitely don't think they maliciously want to put people in an awkward situation.

[yukishiro1]

I don't disagree that it's unlikely to come up in the real world. But "don't worry about what the rule says, it won't actually be enforced" is kind-of the point: those sorts of rule are very rarely good rules. Is my army likely to actually be disqualified? No...but then why have a rule that purportedly allows it? Why create a situation where that could possibly happen? Even if nobody ever disqualifies my army, I don't want to be going hat-in-hand to every opponent I play saying "my army is technically illegal because of the color scheme I chose, will you show mercy on me by allowing me to play?" 

It's not so much about the actual impacts, it's about the message GW is sending to people: no, it's not enough that you buy GW models, it's not enough that you paint them with love and care...if they're the wrong color, you're a second-class player who has to beg permission to use your army. It's so needlessly antagonistic towards someone who should be instead being praised for doing exactly what the hobby used to be about: creativity and building an army that perfectly resembles your own vision.

Is it intended to come off that way? Maybe not. But that's what it says: that painting your army the wrong color is discouraged, ruins the immersion and aesthetics of the game, and therefore you must "ask permission" to be allowed to do it. If that is not what they intended...they should write their rules more carefully. 

Edited July 5, 2021 by yukishiro1

[The Red King]

9 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Well then I ask this in all sincerity and without any form of malice or intent to attack or try to exclude:

Why are you involved in a game that is inherently reliant and developed on the idea that the 3D models on the table top are tied, inextricably, to the rules for which they stand?

Again, no offense intended. It's just that we are playing with actual models that represent the units described in the rules.

If players are disconnecting the models from the rules, I truly, genuinely, seriously have to wonder what the point of the game is. Why play a game where we the models look like masters of we opt to have the models look like something not tied to the rules?

I want to say this again to be clear - I'm not having a go. I'm not criticizing you or others with your mindset. I'm actually confused as to why any person would play this kind of game when one of the defining characteristics of it is being rejected.

 

To me it feels like wanting to play baseball (just as an example) but desiring to be allowed to score a run by shooting the ball into a hoop instead of having to run the bases. Not a perfect comparison, I'll grant you, but as a rough comparison, that's how it feels to me when someone says "I'd like to play a game where the appearance of the models is very important, but I don't care if my models match the rules."

Can you help me understand the "other side" here?

 

Note: You say "stick it in your face." Nobody is advocating the hostile stance that phrase implies. On the contrary, I'm saying that folks like me prefer that folks like you (nothing personal) respect our desire to play within the characters boundaries of what makes a miniature wargame different from a game that uses chits, tokens, graph paper, or other mechanisms for letting track of the action.

I'm happy to play D&D, Scrabble, O.G.R.E, Star Warriors, or Go with folks, but if we opt to play a game where what a model looks like is a key factor in defining the type of game, then I'd prefer to operate within that stricture.

 

Without looking it up tell me which subfaction uses red armor with gold trim and which one uses red armor with gold trim and black shoulders. 

[PrimeElectrid]

4 minutes ago, The Red King said:

Without looking it up tell me which subfaction uses red armor with gold trim and which one uses red armor with gold trim and black shoulders. 

And what their sub faction ability, command ability, artefact, and command trait are.

[Saturmorn Carvilli]

58 minutes ago, The Red King said:

Without looking it up tell me which subfaction uses red armor with gold trim and which one uses red armor with gold trim and black shoulders. 

I don't remember their names, but for the red armor are like beast masters or something and the black armor ones like really hate Chaos and are more likely to not care about collateral damage is what I remember. I can even say the silver and blue Stormcast are like really religious and say something like 'Only the faithful'. You got me on their names, though.

That said, I don't think I could even name half the SCE units.  Heck, I forgot some factions even still exist in AoS.

[Christopher Rowe]

Really, I understand some posters' points about being frustrated that it exists at all, but, as someone else said upthread, I don't live in a world where it's ever going to come up. Or if it does, it will be at a game day I'm hosting, in which case I'll just tell the "non-permission grantor" to get off the property and never come back, or I'm at a shop or tournament, where I'm 99 and 94/100ths percent sure that everyone in hearing distance would join me in mercilessly shaming the "grantor."

I really just don't think it will come up.

It certainly never has for me before, and I paint my Skinks orange, my Saurus various shades of purple and green (sometimes within the same unit!) and my Dinos whatever trippy color scheme I come up with on the fly.

Is it asinine to include it at all? Or course, and they know that. They were at least sharp enough to not include it in a printed book or an errata, but in a FAQ, and even then be mealy-mouthed about it.

Y'all do y'all, but this seems like a lot of digital ink spilled, a lot of sound and fury, over nothing at all important.

[stratigo]

7 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

Just caught up with the current discussion and I think we're looking at some extreme situations.  My interpretation is as follows 😊

First off proxy vs conversion/kit bash.  In this context, a proxy is when you substitute a pre-defined miniature (A) for a different pre-defined miniature (B).  For example if I used a unit of Chaos Marauders in my Khorne army as Blood Reavers.  It could be confusing and would certainly be so if I went "the ones with red trousers are Blood Reavers but the ones with black trousers are Marauders".  If I'd scultped Khorne symbols onto those marauders and used heads from a different box - basically changing them so they physically look different then they'd be considered a conversion.  You have to apply common sense to this and remember we play games 3 feet away from our miniatures.  In fairness at the opposite end of the scale a proxy could be a miniature that is so radically different to the GW models that you genuinely don't recognise what it's meant to be (if you have to declare a model "counts as" then it's likely a proxy).

Painted schemes.  OK, this is always a controversial subject because we all have our own opinions and views.  In my eyes this has never been about preventing people being creative - if you have come up with your own scheme I don't actually think this rule even is about you.  Instead I see this as more about somebody who's painted their army up using a GW created scheme for a particular sub-faction, but chosen the rules for a different sub-faction.  In the vast majority of cases, providing you're consistent and explain what's what, you'll likely be fine, however there will be cases when you're playing somebody who knows exactly how a Khorne Skulltakers Tribe should play, may be playing a team game, have spectators or even have the game being streamed.  Basically anything that would cause a "hang on, I didn't think that unit could do X".

Now that's nothing to say that using proxies and not matching up colour schemes is bad.  Maybe you want to test out how a unit of Blood Knights would work, but only have a unit of Gore Gruntas for example.  What you need to do is to check with your opponent or a TO if you're planning on doing this in the wild so to speak.

The reason people are so against it is that everyone knows that guy who will sit there and ****** and whine and insult you and use every ruling in the book to make the play experience as miserable as possible, and the primary thing the paint scheme ruling does is hand ammo to that guy to make the play experience even worse, usually by concern trolling.

 

 

[stratigo]

2 hours ago, Ahriman said:

Really great point, and with the game ever in flux not one I have an answer too that I'm comfortable with.

I suppose its a situation that's covered by the "ask permission" caveat as you say. But I live in a world where I can't fathom a situation where somebody would say no. But that may just be a luxury I am blessed with that isn't universal.

In a 'casual' game, they either say yes, or they say no at which point there are likely to be better opponents out there.

In a competitive tournament setting, the points raised earlier about it being a complex game, and the colour of your models hardly affecting that tactical decision making come into effect, so people would have to be rather braisen to say that you couldn't play by the rules you wanted. And its something you could ask a TO in advance to cover you as well.

 

So I can't see it ever being a real issue, but again that may well be a luxury I hold.

As such the rule is simply an ideal GW wishes to reach one day. I definitely don't think they maliciously want to put people in an awkward situation.

GW probably wants people to feel pressured to have matching paint schemes and think it'll get people to do a marines and buy 10 different copies of the same models to all paint different.

 

People bullying others are, in this sense, a win cause it adds to that pressure

[zilberfrid]

32 minutes ago, stratigo said:

GW probably wants people to feel pressured to have matching paint schemes and think it'll get people to do a marines and buy 10 different copies of the same models to all paint different.

 

People bullying others are, in this sense, a win cause it adds to that pressure

As per the rules of different detachments in the same army on Warhammer World, they seem not to want matching paint schemes at all.

[Saturmorn Carvilli]

3 minutes ago, stratigo said:

People bullying others are, in this sense, a win cause it adds to that pressure

Or some people put spectacle and lore way ahead of the actual game.  From the posts of yours I have read, I suspect you value gameplay and balance so much, I am not entirely sure whether you would understand that.  Particularly as you seem upset and angry almost all the time here.

 

My GW collections feature a number of codified subfaction paint schemes. Black Legion Chaos Space Marines (~4000pts), Ymetrica Lumineth (~3000pts), Mephrit Necrons (~2000pts), Fallen/30k Dark Angels (~1000pts), Bad Moon Orcs kill team (~500pts), Stygies VIII Admech kill team (~300pts), Jormungandr Tyranids kill team (~250pts), Kabal of the Dying Sun or the Falling Moon Dark Eldar kill team (~200pts).  Each get played in the subfaction they are painted in. No exceptions.  All those kill teams were painted before subfactions were even added to Kill Team.  Since most are 'stealth' based factions, the actual rules are pretty bad in Kill Team (some kind of Obscured when more than 12" away usually).

If the black and gold box art scheme of Slaves to Darkness ever gained subfaction rules, I'd use them too. I am that committed to lore/narrative over how they rules might fall out.  I would prefer my opponent do the same.  It does tend to indicate that they value the lore and the narrative of their army as much as a rpg player values their player character to me. At very least, they glanced at the lore part of these books. I suppose I respect the lore far more than the rules of any GW game.  That said, I am not going to force their paint scheme to be a straight jacket.  People change, rules change, favorite colors happen, cheap E-bay armies happen and a whole host of other things do to.  So I keep my mouth shut on the subject and try and remember the subfaction they say it actually is.  Because to me, it's just like using big centerpiece, unique character models, I really don't make use of them, but I am not the boss of my opponent's army.

 

Still, I can't help to feel the hobby is somehow lesser for it. Likely because I hang so much on the spectacle and lore side of things and have so little respect for the actual rules.

[stratigo]

Just now, zilberfrid said:

As per the rules of different detachments in the same army on Warhammer World, they seem not to want matching paint schemes at all.

the differing detachments thing is just combos with the paintscheme to be even more limiting. Not only do different detachments have to be painted different, they have to be painted their "proper" subfaction.

[stratigo]

Just now, Saturmorn Carvilli said:

Or some people put spectacle and lore way ahead of the actual game.  From the posts of yours I have read, I suspect you value gameplay and balance so much, I am not entirely sure whether you would understand that.  Particularly as you seem upset and angry almost all the time here.

 

My GW collections feature a number of codified subfaction paint schemes. Black Legion Chaos Space Marines (~4000pts), Ymetrica Lumineth (~3000pts), Mephrit Necrons (~2000pts), Fallen/30k Dark Angels (~1000pts), Bad Moon Orcs kill team (~500pts), Stygies VIII Admech kill team (~300pts), Jormungandr Tyranids kill team (~250pts), Kabal of the Dying Sun or the Falling Moon Dark Eldar kill team (~200pts).  Each get played in the subfaction they are painted in. No exceptions.  All those kill teams were painted before subfactions were even added to Kill Team.  Since most are 'stealth' based factions, the actual rules are pretty bad in Kill Team (some kind of Obscured when more than 12" away usually).

If the black and gold box art scheme of Slaves to Darkness ever gained subfaction rules, I'd use them too. I am that committed to lore/narrative over how they rules might fall out.  I would prefer my opponent do the same.  It does tend to indicate that they value the lore and the narrative of their army as much as a rpg player values their player character to me. At very least, they glanced at the lore part of these books. I suppose I respect the lore far more than the rules of any GW game.  That said, I am not going to force their paint scheme to be a straight jacket.  People change, rules change, favorite colors happen, cheap E-bay armies happen and a whole host of other things do to.  So I keep my mouth shut on the subject and try and remember the subfaction they say it actually is.  Because to me, it's just like using big centerpiece, unique character models, I really don't make use of them, but I am not the boss of my opponent's army.

 

Still, I can't help to feel the hobby is somehow lesser for it. Likely because I hang so much on the spectacle and lore side of things and have so little respect for the actual rules.

I actually prefer to build a narrative of games in my head, but there isn't much I can discuss about narratives on a web forum. I do greatly appreciate a well painted, well hobbied army. It looks cool. In 40k, my marines are always ultramarines (albeit I stopped playing marines in the 9th changeover, and I don't give a fudge about what subfaction my custodes are because they introduced rules for them after I painted a bunch). My KO have my own color scheme because I want them to be from my own skyport, I have a design document. And I have absolutely no compunctions about picking whatever subfaction feels fun in the moment, from generic, to nar, to zilfin.

 

Here's a trick though, cept for the marine subfactions you listed, I don't know the paint scheme for any of them. Not a one. Necron lore misses me. Are bad moons the yellow ones? Or is that evil sunz? Why would a race of pirate sadists have a uniform? Do wyches get regulation standard issue thongs?

 

And try to remember like it is hard. Give me a break. 

 

The rule is going to be used by bullies to browbeat people, some of whom are gonna be socially awkward, or new enough to just let them get away with it and find themselves either leaving the hobby, or being bullied, and I am not here for it.

 

I have no patience for bullies, and this rule just enables them.