AoS 3 New Rules Discussion

[zilberfrid]

55 minutes ago, 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.

My paint scheme is literally older than its battletome. I think it's Hammerhal now, which my army isn't. Which technically already was a thing in Firestorm (and with an uglier blue Altdorf), but I just wanted red and blue with gold accents, and put that on the colour wheel .

I'm not that interested in the lore. Or the rules. Couldn't tell you what the colours of my city should be (though it's not exactly Tempest's eye, just uses those rules).

Edited July 6, 2021 by zilberfrid

[Chikout]

So is this whole thing technically a rule though? It's not an errata, just an answer to the question. If gw really wanted to enforce it, they would change 1.2. 

They also don't specify what a proxy model is. A model painted a different colour is pretty much by definition not a different model. 

This is what I would say to someone who had issues with me playing a particular colour scheme. 

I could also say that my gold and blue army is not exactly the same shade of gold and blue as the eavy metal colour scheme, so it's not actually a Hammers of Sigmar army. 

Finally I haven't seen a single person in this thread say they would forbid someone from using an alternative paint scheme. 

To me it's a non issue simply because what else would GW say?  "Yeah f*** Phil Kelly, Nick Horth,  all the artists and the eavy metal team. Use what you like." 

[yukishiro1]

They could have said nothing at all. Nobody held a gun to their head and forced them to issue a FAQ telling people that painting their models how they wanted was "frowned upon" and that it "spoils the spectacle and aesthetic of the game" and that it was the same as using one model to represent a different one. Which yes, makes zero sense...but it's what they said. 

Even if they wanted to answer the proxy question, they could have just answered as to actual proxies, not thrown in the nonsense about painting schemes. 

They went out of their way to give people the message that their armies spoil the spectacle and aesthetic of the game if the colors don't match what GW considers the correct colors. People can say "oh well surely they didn't mean what they said..." but they said it.

It's classic GW insulting the customer for no reason, something they just can't seem to resist the temptation to do at regular intervals. They actually used the word "spoil" to talk about peoples' choice of what color to paint their models. What sort of company does that?

 

edit: Ok, I've said my bit, I'll stop boring people now. 😀

 

Edited July 6, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Envyus]

This was a question so yes it was asked. Also this thing has been the case for a while, it’s not a rule or being enforced, it’s just “if your opponent says sure it’s ok.” 
 

shocked people are still complaining about it.

 

Its the same as 40K if your guys are painted as Ultramarines but play as Salamanders, it’s a little odd so you should ask if it’s ok.

Edited July 6, 2021 by Envyus

[Fyrm]

2 hours ago, 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.

See, here’s my issue with this answer. I’m coming from the exact same starting point. I love the lore, I want my army to look beautiful and be painted stunningly and for my army lists to ooze the lore I’ve presented. 

But here’s the rub. This rule stops me from doing that. My Sylvaneth glade? The one run by a princeling treelord? Can’t make a pretty conversion for him if this rule is to be enforced. I can’t paint my spirit of durthu all corrupted, scars from when he rescued the seed pod of his closest friend, the Treelord Ancient who used to rule this glade, and returned it to the sacred soil to regrow into the princeling. I’m discouraged from painting my plant folk after gumbo limbo trees. At least I think I am. I’d have to look into what the official color schemes for each glade even is, and how to apply it to the army?

You claim that the only way to enjoy the lore is to follow lockstep with what is presented. Can’t deviate, can’t expand, can’t carve out your own little niche so your army feels like yours, and not just some generic derps thrown together with no personality. 
 

I want my glade to be my glade, for it to play on the table like the lore I’ve written for it would indicate. I want my troops to overflow with life and soul. This rule discourages me from doing that. That’s all I’m saying. 

[Chikout]

19 minutes ago, Fyrm said:

See, here’s my issue with this answer. I’m coming from the exact same starting point. I love the lore, I want my army to look beautiful and be painted stunningly and for my army lists to ooze the lore I’ve presented. 

But here’s the rub. This rule stops me from doing that. My Sylvaneth glade? The one run by a princeling treelord? Can’t make a pretty conversion for him if this rule is to be enforced. I can’t paint my spirit of durthu all corrupted, scars from when he rescued the seed pod of his closest friend, the Treelord Ancient who used to rule this glade, and returned it to the sacred soil to regrow into the princeling. I’m discouraged from painting my plant folk after gumbo limbo trees. At least I think I am. I’d have to look into what the official color schemes for each glade even is, and how to apply it to the army?

You claim that the only way to enjoy the lore is to follow lockstep with what is presented. Can’t deviate, can’t expand, can’t carve out your own little niche so your army feels like yours, and not just some generic derps thrown together with no personality. 
 

I want my glade to be my glade, for it to play on the table like the lore I’ve written for it would indicate. I want my troops to overflow with life and soul. This rule discourages me from doing that. That’s all I’m saying. 

It doesn't do that though. Firstly it's not a rule. Secondly the intent of the answer is to stop you using something that is clearly one thing and running it as something else without first checking with your opponent. 

The second edition Stormcast battletome clearly says that you can create your own stormhost and give it rules that suit it. 

It just doesn't want you to paint a hammers of Sigmar army in gold and blue with the words Hammers of Sigmar on all the banners, but run it as Anvils of Heldenhammer. 

In a way it actively encourages creativity, since if you create your own colour scheme you can  run it as anything, but if you slavishly copy a GW scheme, you are encouraged to  run it as the faction GW created. 

[stratigo]

4 hours ago, Chikout said:

So is this whole thing technically a rule though? It's not an errata, just an answer to the question. If gw really wanted to enforce it, they would change 1.2. 

They also don't specify what a proxy model is. A model painted a different colour is pretty much by definition not a different model. 

This is what I would say to someone who had issues with me playing a particular colour scheme. 

I could also say that my gold and blue army is not exactly the same shade of gold and blue as the eavy metal colour scheme, so it's not actually a Hammers of Sigmar army. 

Finally I haven't seen a single person in this thread say they would forbid someone from using an alternative paint scheme. 

To me it's a non issue simply because what else would GW say?  "Yeah f*** Phil Kelly, Nick Horth,  all the artists and the eavy metal team. Use what you like." 

They tossed it into their tournament packs.

 

Now I know for a fact that a number of people working at GW think this is really asinine and stupid and it's unlikely to be enforced by GW tourney organizers unless their bosses are watching close, but that's kind of the underlying point is this is a ruling made by bosses out of greed.

 

But the issue isn't TOs. It's players. This game is not ****** free, and I know people who will either be in your face about how you paint your models, or will passive aggressively eyeroll and shoot snide comments that "you aren't painted right". And, again, I ain't got time for rulings that promote bullying in a hobby where I already see enough of it.

 

 

[insomniaftw]

2 hours ago, Chikout said:

It doesn't do that though. Firstly it's not a rule. Secondly the intent of the answer is to stop you using something that is clearly one thing and running it as something else without first checking with your opponent. 

The second edition Stormcast battletome clearly says that you can create your own stormhost and give it rules that suit it. 

It just doesn't want you to paint a hammers of Sigmar army in gold and blue with the words Hammers of Sigmar on all the banners, but run it as Anvils of Heldenhammer. 

In a way it actively encourages creativity, since if you create your own colour scheme you can  run it as anything, but if you slavishly copy a GW scheme, you are encouraged to  run it as the faction GW created. 

What about in the cases where a sub-faction is expressly REQUIRED? This FAQ specifically says that in order to have a living city army it must abide by exactly the living city color scheme. A color scheme they show in exactly 8 close-ups.

So, I guess it must be confusing to see a living city army based on cherry blossoms and with 3 treelords in it. You might think its something else entirely, even though none of the cities have a pink theme, and only one city can have more than 400 points of Sylvaneth.

If my opponent says that my pink and purple scheme is not the living city, it matches no city. That makes it fully 100% un-usable. This is, in general, unacceptable to me. I find the last-minute nature of having to beg my opponent to understand what he is looking at to be one bridge too far.

This rule means that - full stop - I should not paint, plan, or practice that army. Every single Tournament packet I have seen every clearly calls for no proxy models, and GW has said that models painted in non-book schemes are proxies. So if I don't have a connection to a specific city's color scheme, I just shouldn't play Cities. Or Soulblight. Or StD. All require subfactions, so all require specific paint schemes now.

Also, flip what you just said. If you get creative , you are denying yourself access to the extra free rules available to subfactions. Creativity (even as little as a single shade difference) carries a gameplay penalty. How far off of the scheme can you go? What if I paint the weapons as if they are trapped ghosts with the contrast ghost paints? Does that invalidate the paint on the armor and cloth? Does ANY variation change this? What if I paint the leather as a yellow-brown instead of a warm tan-brown? Does that invalidate my rules? What about basing? Can I base them on non-book basing designs? Like on tile or marble instead of grass and dirt?

[stratigo]

2 minutes ago, insomniaftw said:

What about in the cases where a sub-faction is expressly REQUIRED? This FAQ specifically says that in order to have a living city army it must abide by exactly the living city color scheme. A color scheme they show in exactly 8 close-ups.

So, I guess it must be confusing to see a living city army based on cherry blossoms and with 3 treelords in it. You might think its something else entirely, even though none of the cities have a pink theme, and only one city can have more than 400 points of Sylvaneth.

If my opponent says that my pink and purple scheme is not the living city, it matches no city. That makes it fully 100% un-usable. This is, in general, unacceptable to me. I find the last-minute nature of having to beg my opponent to understand what he is looking at to be one bridge too far.

This rule means that - full stop - I should not paint, plan, or practice that army. Every single Tournament packet I have seen every clearly calls for no proxy models, and GW has said that models painted in non-book schemes are proxies. So if I don't have a connection to a specific city's color scheme, I just shouldn't play Cities. Or Soulblight. Or StD. All require subfactions, so all require specific paint schemes now.

Also, flip what you just said. If you get creative , you are denying yourself access to the extra free rules available to subfactions. Creativity (even as little as a single shade difference) carries a gameplay penalty. How far off of the scheme can you go? What if I paint the weapons as if they are trapped ghosts with the contrast ghost paints? Does that invalidate the paint on the armor and cloth? Does ANY variation change this? What if I paint the leather as a yellow-brown instead of a warm tan-brown? Does that invalidate my rules? What about basing? Can I base them on non-book basing designs? Like on tile or marble instead of grass and dirt?

I mean, I do worry that GW suits will push this hard enough that GW staff and eventually even GW affiliated TOs will comply, but we're not there yet.

 

Again, this is mostly a problem from other players getting a wider avenue to be jerks their opponents. Rules lawyering gets bad, and I game see the mid table heroes (you know the type) whining to TOs about how the army they are playing isn't perfectly shaded in hopes they can get a forced forfeit. 

[overtninja]

I don't honestly believe that the painting-as-proxy rule is a 'paint and model your collection exactly this way, with no modifications, or don't play the game' rule, it's more an 'if you paint your models to be this faction, don't call it another faction' situation. Like, if you do paint your army a specific sub-faction color scheme, then you should play them that way. That's how it works in 40k as far as I know - you can't paint Ultramarines with decals and all that and then call them another faction.

The solution is what it's always been - never paint your army in an official color scheme for a specific faction if you don't want to run them in that faction all the time.

Similarly, there's a difference between customizing your models with bits and greenstuff and fielding 3rd-party or entirely 3d-printed models, or fielding one model and saying it's a completely different model.

Also, if it really becomes a problem where a given GW store won't let people play with their collections at their stores? Stop going to that store, organize with your friends, and play elsewhere, maybe at home or at another location.

 

[yukishiro1]

30 minutes ago, overtninja said:

 

Similarly, there's a difference between customizing your models with bits and greenstuff and fielding 3rd-party or entirely 3d-printed models, or fielding one model and saying it's a completely different model.

 

You would think so...but then GW apparently thinks that using a completely different model is effectively the same as painting your models the "wrong" color, because both are treated as identical examples of "proxying." So common sense and appreciating differences that the vast majority of people would appreciate doesn't seem to be high on their list. 

Edited July 6, 2021 by yukishiro1

[EMMachine]

4 hours ago, Fyrm said:

See, here’s my issue with this answer. I’m coming from the exact same starting point. I love the lore, I want my army to look beautiful and be painted stunningly and for my army lists to ooze the lore I’ve presented. 

But here’s the rub. This rule stops me from doing that. My Sylvaneth glade? The one run by a princeling treelord? Can’t make a pretty conversion for him if this rule is to be enforced. I can’t paint my spirit of durthu all corrupted, scars from when he rescued the seed pod of his closest friend, the Treelord Ancient who used to rule this glade, and returned it to the sacred soil to regrow into the princeling. I’m discouraged from painting my plant folk after gumbo limbo trees. At least I think I am. I’d have to look into what the official color schemes for each glade even is, and how to apply it to the army?

 

47 minutes ago, insomniaftw said:

What about in the cases where a sub-faction is expressly REQUIRED? This FAQ specifically says that in order to have a living city army it must abide by exactly the living city color scheme. A color scheme they show in exactly 8 close-ups.

So, I guess it must be confusing to see a living city army based on cherry blossoms and with 3 treelords in it. You might think its something else entirely, even though none of the cities have a pink theme, and only one city can have more than 400 points of Sylvaneth.

 

I have the feeling you are reading the FAQ-Point wrong. The FAQ about Proxies doesn't force you guys to paint the models in the official painting theme. It only tells you, If you are using the painting theme of an official subfaction, than use the rules.

I have painted my Stormcast Eternals in the colors of the Celestial Vindicators:

That way I will either use the Celestial Vindicators Subfaction or no subfaction because of lore-reasons (so not playing them with the "Anvils of the Heldenhammer" subfaction). I could have chosen to make my own stormhost to choose freely (+when I painted the first models, subfactions haven't existed yet, instead their were the megabattalions that nobody could use).

In most cases it is not the colortheme alone but also an iconography.

For example Hallowheart has a blue/white colortheme (that was shown in Firestorm) and as iconography a burning diamond with something that looks like the Ironhalo from the Stormcast Helmets below.

You still can have blue and white colorthemes with your own iconography being your own guard but if you use the official colors of hallowheart and the official iconography than play the subfaction hallowheart

Their is absolutly no problem with a cherry blossoms themed army played with the living City rules.

In the end you have to tell your opponent at the start of the game anyway what subfaction you play

[overtninja]

12 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

You would think so...but then GW apparently thinks that using a completely different model is effectively the same as painting your models the "wrong" color, because both are treated as identical examples of "proxying." So common sense and appreciating differences that the vast majority of people would appreciate doesn't seem to be high on their list. 

I know it's in vogue to be extremely upset about the supposed intentions and inneptitudes of GW as if they are a single person who is being a big meanie, but it seems like you're choosing an interperetation of the FAQ in the way that makes you saltiest, which is not the healthiest tack, or the most accurate reading of what's written.

[stratigo]

1 minute ago, overtninja said:

I know it's in vogue to be extremely upset about the supposed intentions and inneptitudes of GW as if they are a single person who is being a big meanie, but it seems like you're choosing an interperetation of the FAQ in the way that makes you saltiest, which is not the healthiest tack, or the most accurate reading of what's written.

 

I mean, you got people in this thread going "Oh you better use the rules if you painted your models in a particular way, or you a baddie"

 

 

[overtninja]

Just now, stratigo said:

 

I mean, you got people in this thread going "Oh you better use the rules if you painted your models in a particular way, or you a baddie"

 

 

I mean, yes? If you painted your dudes as a specific faction, there is a reasonable expectation that those dudes are from that faction, especially if you're got a whole force painted that way. If you're not intending to (for a variety of reasons, like you bought some of them second-hand and they came that way and you've not repainted them yet, or even that you're borrowing them from a friend to try a list, or whatever), then that's something we can talk about before the game. In most every case, this won't honestly be a problem for either party - unless you're at a tournament, where there are indeed rules about the presentation of your army.

The proxy thing is a bit of a question, because while there's a big difference between "these orc models are actually idoneth deepkin, their bases are the same size" and "I've got old metal waywatchers that I use as Shadow Warriors". At the same point, if I were going to a major regional tournament, I'd ask the organizers about their rulings for the venue they are running, and if they said 'nah, you have to bring actual Shadow Warriors models', then I'd not argue the point, because it's their venue. With that said, outside tournament play, it's largely a non-issue, especially if you're just playing with friends, or at a FLGS. If GW stores start being real sticklers about it people will just stop playing there (though from what I've seen most GW stores don't have space to play anyway!).

tl;dr - as long as you discuss things with people and you agree, those suggestions don't matter. If we take the FAQ as GW's official stance on the issue, then you probably shouldn't proxy one model for another or paint your dudes as one faction and play them as another faction in their stores or at their events.

[stratigo]

11 minutes ago, overtninja said:

I mean, yes? If you painted your dudes as a specific faction, there is a reasonable expectation that those dudes are from that faction, especially if you're got a whole force painted that way. If you're not intending to (for a variety of reasons, like you bought some of them second-hand and they came that way and you've not repainted them yet, or even that you're borrowing them from a friend to try a list, or whatever), then that's something we can talk about before the game. In most every case, this won't honestly be a problem for either party - unless you're at a tournament, where there are indeed rules about the presentation of your army.

The proxy thing is a bit of a question, because while there's a big difference between "these orc models are actually idoneth deepkin, their bases are the same size" and "I've got old metal waywatchers that I use as Shadow Warriors". At the same point, if I were going to a major regional tournament, I'd ask the organizers about their rulings for the venue they are running, and if they said 'nah, you have to bring actual Shadow Warriors models', then I'd not argue the point, because it's their venue. With that said, outside tournament play, it's largely a non-issue, especially if you're just playing with friends, or at a FLGS. If GW stores start being real sticklers about it people will just stop playing there (though from what I've seen most GW stores don't have space to play anyway!).

tl;dr - as long as you discuss things with people and you agree, those suggestions don't matter. If we take the FAQ as GW's official stance on the issue, then you probably shouldn't proxy one model for another or paint your dudes as one faction and play them as another faction in their stores or at their events.

And thus we get to what is, essentially, bullying of people who ever change their mind or see their rules change for the worse or even just like a paint scheme but not the rules. 

[frostfire]

Is ward working as the way as previous wound shrug ability? The ward says it’s “before” you allocate a wound while previous wound shrug says “when” you allocate a wound.

Gw didn’t change the old rules in the FAQ, is it intended that the ward and wound shrug are two different things and therefore can be stacked?

[baiardo]

So if I want to play all the sub-factions along time I can't?

Or should I have the same army in a different scheme color for every sub-faction?

If I have a color scheme similar to a sub-faction I'm stuck with that faction or no sub-faction at all? that's plain stupid to me, once I said to my opponent what sub-faction I play there's no confusion, and viceversa.

Edited July 6, 2021 by baiardo

[Golub87]

35 minutes ago, overtninja said:

as long as you discuss things with people and you agree, those suggestions don't matter.

This here is the essence of the problem - it opens rooms for bullies and mindgamers to latch onto this. It is like saying "as long as you discuss who won and agree, you can ignore the victory points scored during the game".

There is no benefit for the players or the community in this ruling.

Edited July 6, 2021 by Golub87

[Beastmaster]

Conversions and the development of a unique color scheme are the main fields of creativity in this hobby. Discouraging this sucks way more blood out of the hobby than GW seems to be aware of.

[sandlemad]

The rule seems entirely unnecessary and seems much more closely related to GW’s own weirdness than anything connected to players’ experience.

Moreover it seems to have prompted some questionable conflation between “liking the lore/background/spectacle/creativity” and “adhering to an extremely narrow and prescriptive idea of mandated-from-above canon and policing how exactly that comes out on the table”.

Someone can be 100% into the background and still have little interest in using e.g. the hammers of Sigmar rules specifically for Their Dudes.

Edited July 6, 2021 by sandlemad

[Sleboda]

18 hours ago, Kodos der Henker said:

the argument is a very simple one, GW needs to be clear here and don't let it be on the players to decide

Indeed. It takes some reflection to come around to the thought, but it's actually the person asking for permission to do something uncomfortable or optional who is being the "bad" sport. Think about it. Player A plays the game by not only the actual rules of the game, but also by the game's strong recommendations. That player realized that the approach most likely to include others is the one that is regulated and recommended by the set of rules and guidelines that literally all players worldwide get at the entry point. Player A meets all sorts of fine folks who are on the same page (because every single one of them has the same rules) and many great games are played.

Player B wants to step outside of either the standard rules or strong recommendations of the game's designer. The designer, not wanting to be accountable for negative feelings their rule might create (because of business reasons, design preferences, or whatever - the reason doesn't matter here), tells Player B that if they can convince Player A to let them step around the universal general experience, then they can.

Player B asks Player A to let them do something Player A is uncomfortable with - something not included as the standard play experience.

What is Player A to do? How can the player who has the designer and their rules on his side tell Player B that they would like to stick to the rules without risking being told they are being a cow biscuit?

"Permission Only" rules are a cop out by designers. Yes, I know, all the rules are optional at a base level. You can ask to be allowed to hit on 2+ all the time, and your opponent can decide for or against it. Nobody does that because, I believe, things like mathematical systems in rules are taken as background, built-in, or whatever. They're just part of it. You could ask, though. But then the designer says "here is this thing that we really think you shouldn't do, but if you are willing to guilt your opponent into allowing it, have at it." It's just cowardly by the designer. Make a rule. Present it as equal to the rest. See how many players take it upon themselves to put their rules-abiding opponent in an uncomfortable situation.

I hated Permission Only rules for Special Characters in Warhammer Fantasy old editions, and I hate it in this situation as well. It's lazy and allows designers to decide that they don't need to make balanced rules and it also leads to situations like this, where one player wants to stick to the rules, and another wants to break them, but the former player comes out looking like the bad guy. Just tell us that colors don't matter or that they do. Don't leave it to us to have to put each other in bad spots.

 

Edit:

BTW, an old standby just popped back into my brain. This is a topic that's been around for ages. My response to people who wonder what I find acceptable has always been:

"If you can put your army on the table, and I can tell not only which army it is, but also what the units are and which upgrades (weapons, command options, etc.) they've been given, without you saying a word, then I'm good."

I don't care which models you use, what colors you paint them, or how crazy your conversions are, just as long as I can tell what they are by looking at the models. If I can't, then why are we playing with representative models at all?

Edited July 6, 2021 by Sleboda

[whispersofblood]

I'm a bit shocked this is the most controversial faq answer the logic seems pretty clear.

How you paint your models regardless of whether you intend it or not communicates something to the person standing across from you. The FAQ references when the colours you've chosen specifically communicate something that is not true. For example if your models look like Hammers of Sigmar a reasonable person would assume they are Hammers of Sigmar, so it would not be sporting to say that are Anvils of the Heldenhammer. 

What people seem to then be assuming is also true is the counter factual. Where if my army doesn't look like something that it can't be that thing. Which the battletomes to my knowledge address giving room for individual paint schemes to use specific sub-factions. 

The individual with the Living City army for example would be fine. As a) it couldn't be anything else besides living city. And b) not being something, is not the same as, not being something else, but being something else.

Anyway this is super boring, paint your models how you'd like but appreciate you might constrain yourself in the future from using the "best" rules.

Edited July 6, 2021 by whispersofblood

[baiardo]

SCE have plenty of sub-factions, I would feel limited if I can't play all of them in the time I play SCE.

Obviously, I can paint my army only with one scheme-color.

Also, sometimes happen that you have almost finished to paint the sub-faction you like playing and also like the background story of it, but an important nerf/new edition/errata encourage another sub-faction, maybe the only playable.

So, the solution is let me play with the army I bought and painted as I liked, otherwise this address people to let the army basic plastic grey or paint with 3shadow of grey for tournament purpose.

 

[Sleboda]

2 hours ago, overtninja said:

don't honestly believe that the painting-as-proxy rule is a 'paint and model your collection exactly this way, with no modifications, or don't play the game' rule, it's more an 'if you paint your models to be this faction, don't call it another faction' situation. Like, if you do paint your army a specific sub-faction color scheme, then you should play them that way.

Exactly. I think this distinction is being overlooked here. It's not saying don't use a generic scheme with the rules of a subchapter (or AoS equivalent). It's saying that if your scheme matches one that gives players the cue that it's tied to an existing and specific set of rules, then use those rules.

It's no different, at all, from saying that if you give a model a heavy bolter, then it has the rules for a heavy bolter and *not* the rules for a lascannon. It's a visual that directly connects to a rule.

Why do we think so many people magnetize their options? The thing that makes this color stuff seem different is the inability to changen colors on the fly, but the effect is the same. You see a heavy bolter and you know both what it is and wish what it isn't. You see Ultramarines colors and symbols, and you know what it is and what it isn't.

Someone earlier mentioned that this may oddly encourage people to never paint their army in one of the codified schemes, this keeping them flexible to be successors of any chapter (or AoS equivalent). Fair enough. That is indeed a likely unintended consequence, but that doesn't mean the premise is wrong. If I see a heavy bolter, I'll keep my infantry away from it and send in a tank. If that heavy bolter is "really" a lascannon, well, grrr.

Color scheme is, effectively, just another visual cue that ties to a rule in exactly the same way as a weapon option.

Thinking about it, it's like magic items. In oldhammer, you didn't have to model things like magic rings, magic amulets, and so on. You were free to swap to new items between games, just like now. There was also an item called the Crown of Command (effects not important here). I was free to give my little goblin general that item or not. One day painted "Follow Me!" on his helmet. From then on, whenever I used that model in my army, he had the Crown. Period. If I didn't want my general to have it, I used a different model. It was my choice to restrict that model's option. After I did it, I respected my opponents enough to not ask them to ignore what they saw in him and the lessons of several games against him. 

I chose to create the limitation. Myself. 

Edit: @whispersofbloodsaid it better as I was typing. Yep. Well said.

Edited July 6, 2021 by Sleboda