AoS 3 New Rules Discussion

[Liquidsteel]

I feel like this is something that has carried over from 40K, but in practice wouldn't really matter in AoS.

In 40k you can mix and match different "allegiances" and even different armies in the same list, for example you can take an Ultramarines Detachment along with a Blood Angels or Imperial Guard Detachment.

In this case, if you have half the Space Marines as one allegiance (with all their rules) and half as another, it would not be fair on the opponent if they were all painted in one scheme, so it's more enforced that you paint them different, or at least use rubber bands around the bases to distinguish them. There's also decades of history tied to the chapters so bringing Ultramarines but playing them as Iron Hands is a bit off, but of course is still "okay" if cleared with the opponent or TO.

In AoS you have your army which falls under one Allegiance; you can take allies but they are separate. It doesn't matter if your Hammers of Sigmar are painted as Celestial Vindicators, or if your Syar Lumineth are painted as Ymetrica, because when you pick Syar the whole army is Syar, and there's no need for your opponent to try and work out which units are what.

[Wordy9th]

What makes sense to me is the taking into consideration the degree of establishment in the universe and the prevalence of some factions schemes and options regarding subfactions than others.

For example, Space Wolves and Blood Angels are decades old schemes which have had separate books and models for many years. 

In Soulblight Gravelords, I can take Belladama Volga, Matriarch of the Vrykos in my Legion of Night Army. Neither faction has an established colour scheme, and skeletons are skeletons (though in the legion of Blood section it does detail that Neferata loves to paint her skeletons with tatoos and dress them in fine reds and the like so I'm waiting on a TO to tell me my skeletons aren't pretty enough to be considered LOB xD).

I think once the universe is far more established then colour schemes can play a bigger and more official role in WYSIWYG, until then the comparison with 40k and AoS (the former having much more establishment across time, books and models) makes a case that while I can see the argument for colour schemes in 40k, in AoS GW needs to 'earn' their proxy colour scheme rules by developing and establishing the game for a longer period of time.

[Marcvs]

5 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

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.

Good I have painted my army in a scheme which is not codified. Now a new battletome comes out and there is a subfaction which matches (even loosely) my own scheme. A subfaction whose rules and lore I might despise. Your answer would be that to be "sportmanlike" and to be inside the rules of the game (not risking someone / a TO telling them NO you HAVE to play this faction you don't like) they should: a) buy the army again; b) paint it from scratch; c) stop playing?

I cannot shake the impression that all this only detracts from the community without gaining us anything.

The point on the confusion is faintly ridiculous: if I know the rules of that subfaction, I will have them in my head as soon as I read the list (so before I even see their colours!) or they tell me which subfaction they are using. if I don't know the rules, nothing changes.

I would also add that this is also a perfect trap for new players, who might pick (often) the box art or one of the codified schemes before finding the "courage" to create their own. It was exactly my experience.

I would also like to know how do people who are so attached to the one scheme = one subfaction rule define the colour scheme. Is it down to the colour composition? My gold looks very different from the one from GW: are my guys even Hammers of Sigmar? Oh I see your army is painted like Hammers, you have to use their subfacton now. Nonono, I used macragge blue not some kantor trash!

[PrimeElectrid]

I painted my Stormcast silver and blue because I like that combination and I found the gold of Hammers to be too garish. Later I learned silver and blue is the colour of Hallowed Knights. However, although I use the same colours, I don’t follow the Hallowed Knights scheme ie I have silver where they have gold, silver where they have blue, and I paint the robes completely differently, and so on.

Looking at them however you could be forgiven for thinking it was the hallowed knights scheme, after all it’s silver and blue.

Does this mean I must only play Hallowed Knights because my opponent has memorised all the Stormcast sub faction rules strictly by their colour scheme?

[whispersofblood]

16 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

Good I have painted my army in a scheme which is not codified. Now a new battletome comes out and there is a subfaction which matches (even loosely) my own scheme. A subfaction whose rules and lore I might despise. Your answer would be that to be "sportmanlike" and to be inside the rules of the game (not risking someone / a TO telling them NO you HAVE to play this faction you don't like) they should: a) buy the army again; b) paint it from scratch; c) stop playing?

I cannot shake the impression that all this only detracts from the community without gaining us anything.

The point on the confusion is faintly ridiculous: if I know the rules of that subfaction, I will have them in my head as soon as I read the list (so before I even see their colours!) or they tell me which subfaction they are using. if I don't know the rules, nothing changes.

I would also add that this is also a perfect trap for new players, who might pick (often) the box art or one of the codified schemes before finding the "courage" to create their own. It was exactly my experience.

I would also like to know how do people who are so attached to the one scheme = one subfaction rule define the colour scheme. Is it down to the colour composition? My gold looks very different from the one from GW: are my guys even Hammers of Sigmar? Oh I see your army is painted like Hammers, you have to use their subfacton now. Nonono, I used macragge blue not some kantor trash!

 

1 minute ago, PrimeElectrid said:

I painted my Stormcast silver and blue because I like that combination and I found the gold of Hammers to be too garish. Later I learned silver and blue is the colour of Hallowed Knights. However, although I use the same colours, I don’t follow the Hallowed Knights scheme ie I have silver where they have gold, silver where they have blue, and I paint the robes completely differently, and so on.

Looking at them however you could be forgiven for thinking it was the hallowed knights scheme, after all it’s silver and blue.

Does this mean I must only play Hallowed Knights because my opponent has memorised all the Stormcast sub faction rules strictly by their colour scheme?

Stretching it a bit yeah? Subfactions have specific colour schemes. Even to the particular paint. They can be generalized to a shade of colour, however, they do have specific details which both of you have pointed out you don't adhere to. Now this is where two developed or developing human beings can finish the communication the paint scheme started. "Yeah my SCE look "similar" to stormhost xyc, but they clearly are not, because ABC, and I'm playing them as stormhost 123. See Silver accents instead of gold, yellow instead of blue, etc etc. The language here doesn't say similar schemes should be applied as if they are specific schemes. 

Like the faq answers effectively says subfaction colour schemes are a specific thing and as such mean something. The nature of specificity is that it excludes things not of that thing. Now if you take the ****** most people will say fine and form an opinion about you internally but that is like anything else in life. 

[PrimeElectrid]

13 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

 

Stretching it a bit yeah? Subfactions have specific colour schemes. Even to the particular paint. They can be generalized to a shade of colour, however, they do have specific details which both of you have pointed out you don't adhere to. Now this is where two developed or developing human beings can finish the communication the paint scheme started. "Yeah my SCE look "similar" to stormhost xyc, but they clearly are not, because ABC, and I'm playing them as stormhost 123. See Silver accents instead of gold, yellow instead of blue, etc etc. The language here doesn't say similar schemes should be applied as if they are specific schemes. 

Like the faq answers effectively says subfaction colour schemes are a specific thing and as such mean something. The nature of specificity is that it excludes things not of that thing. Now if you take the ****** most people will say fine and form an opinion about you internally but that is like anything else in life. 

Yeah but this is the point though. Where’s the line? Is everyone learning the exact scheme of every sub faction, down to the precise shade of colour? How much of a variation to the official scheme is allowed before it’s no longer the official scheme and a custom one? If I paint my models in the Hammers of Sigmar scheme, but now go back and change one small detail like leather straps or something, is this still the official Hammers of Sigmar?
 

Remember the objection raised isn’t that Player A is painting their armies in a way to gain an advantage; but that player B is at a disadvantage because they associate colour schemes with rules. If player B associates blue, silver and gold with Hallowes Knights, which I use but in a different way, then the argument is they must be Hallowed Knights. Because it looks similar.

If this sounds like an absurd argument then good because it is. The solution is simply to refer to the army list which will state unequivocally what army is being played.

We have already established that it’s possible to use a custom scheme to play a sub faction.  The link between scheme and rules is broken right there. If you can do it for custom schemes you can do it for any scheme.

This is how the majority of my games go. Please explain to me how exactly this is THE GREATEST EVIL in the hobby:

Hello, these are my Stormcast. 
Oh cool, silver and blue. 
Yeah I’m playing Astral Templars, they do xyz. Here’s my list, check my book if you want.
Got it thanks.

Edited July 6, 2021 by PrimeElectrid

[Marcvs]

11 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

 

Stretching it a bit yeah? Subfactions have specific colour schemes. Even to the particular paint. They can be generalized to a shade of colour, however, they do have specific details which both of you have pointed out you don't adhere to. Now this is where two developed or developing human beings can finish the communication the paint scheme started. "Yeah my SCE look "similar" to stormhost xyc, but they clearly are not, because ABC, and I'm playing them as stormhost 123. See Silver accents instead of gold, yellow instead of blue, etc etc. The language here doesn't say similar schemes should be applied as if they are specific schemes.

You see where this "answer" leads us? At having to discuss/justify accent colours and shades because otherwise our opponent / TO might force us to play a subfaction we don't want to play. Again, my question is: what does this get us? How does this increase the enjoyment of the game? And, more importantly, how does this broaden the community and allows more people to play this game (which should be our shared goal)?

If your answer is: immersion, then you should be happy to play against a fully painted army, full stop. Who cares about which rules it uses, those are just words we're here for the immersion!

If your answer is: clarity, see my previous point:

37 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

The point on the confusion is faintly ridiculous: if I know the rules of that subfaction, I will have them in my head as soon as I read the list (so before I even see their colours!) or they tell me which subfaction they are using. if I don't know the rules, nothing changes.

Again, I have the feeling that a lot of people who want to enforce this rule come from a privileged position where they can turn up their nose at an opponent combination of colour scheme and subfaction choice because they have dozens of players in their area and can pick which event to attend any given weekend/month.

Edited July 6, 2021 by Marcvs

[stratigo]

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

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?

 

 

It's always about how you feel about your opponent's army, never about them. There's no consideration here about the other player's fun. It's always about how what their army looks like makes you feel or not, and all this concern trolling is just utter nonsense of "No, YOU are the bad person for not fulfilling MY expectations".

 

It is a miserable experience to set up your army and have someone tell you that your paint scheme isn't acceptable, or that you aren't allowed to try new things, or whatever. And this gets particularly malicious in competitive gaming or against awkward hobbyists. 

59 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

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.

 

You know what communicates better? Words. Words communicate better. Use them. 

 

You know, most people don't memorize either subfaction color schemes OR the subfaction rules. They have to ask what subfaction is being played and what they do in a normal game. 

 

For stormcast, I couldn't tell you what host I was playing against or what their rules are, and so I'd ASK my opponent about them.

[whispersofblood]

1 minute ago, PrimeElectrid said:

Yeah but this is the point though. Where’s the line? Is everyone learning the exact scheme of every sub faction, down to the precise shade of colour? How much of a variation to the official scheme is allowed before it’s no longer the official scheme and a custom one? If I paint my models in the Hammers of Sigmar scheme, but now go back and change one small detail like leather straps or something, is this still the official Hammers of Sigmar?
 

Remember the objection raised isn’t that Player A is painting their armies in a way to gain an advantage; but that player B is at a disadvantage because they associate colour schemes with rules. If player B associates blue, silver and gold with Hallowes Knights, which I use but in a different way, then the argument is they must be Hallowed Knights.

If this sounds like an absurd argument then good because it is. The solution is simply to refer to the army list which will state unequivocally what army is being played.

We have already established that it’s possible to use a custom scheme to play a sub faction.  The link between scheme and rules is broken right there. If you can do it for custom schemes you can do it for any scheme.

I wouldn't exactly articulate it that way. Player B is reasonably reacting to what Player A is reasonably communicating. If that makes sense? Im doing a lot of public law at the moment so maybe I'm just in a particular state of mind about powers and responsibilities 🤔

I'd put the responsibility on Player A to reseasonable distinguish the colour scheme, and if they have done so we can then start asking questions of Player B.

[GrimDork]

To be honest, I think the FAQ issue of colours schemes isn't really an issue for AoS.

For 40k, I totally get it, trying to play space wolves rules (or blood angels etc etc) with models painted as ultramarines  would be very confusing. Those SM chapters, colour schemes and iconography have existed for years and are so well established in the consciousness of gamers that telling that anyone that a blue marine with a "U" on his shoulder pad is anything but an ultramarine doesn't really fly. And it's not just marines, eldar have very distinct craftworld schemes, even orks have clan colours that have existed 25-30 years.

But the colour schemes of AoS are much less well known, except perhaps by a fan of that faction. I couldn't tell you what the colours for the factions for Daughters of Khaine are? I only really know that of the stormcast hammers of sigmar are the gold ones. Also, colour schemes aside, the iconography in AoS is much less well known and less used on models in general.

Ultimately, for me in AoS if anyone insisted that my painted scheme could not use certain sub faction rules, I'm not sure they are the type of opponent I really want to play against. If there's drama before the game even starts I think I'd rather just say let's leave it.

[PrimeElectrid]

7 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

I wouldn't exactly articulate it that way. Player B is reasonably reacting to what Player A is reasonably communicating. If that makes sense? Im doing a lot of public law at the moment so maybe I'm just in a particular state of mind about powers and responsibilities 🤔

I'd put the responsibility on Player A to reseasonable distinguish the colour scheme, and if they have done so we can then start asking questions of Player B.

Player A is reasonably communicating with their army list.

Edit: also, again, once you start throwing in qualifiers like “reasonable” the whole thing falls apart, because what’s reasonable to one person is different to another. Once you invite interpretation that requires communication you might as well do away with the whole thing and expect it all the time.

Edited July 6, 2021 by PrimeElectrid

[AaronWilson]

A lot of these arguments honestly only seem to actually happen on the internet.

Attending a event with SCE painted like Hammers but when to run them as Anvils? Contact the TO, politely explain, I'm 99.9% sure the answer will be "no problem, just be clear with your opponent"

Playing a buddy in real life "Hey man, can I use these SCE as anvils rather then hammers"?

Pretty sure that's the whole issue resolved. 

[stratigo]

5 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

I wouldn't exactly articulate it that way. Player B is reasonably reacting to what Player A is reasonably communicating. If that makes sense? Im doing a lot of public law at the moment so maybe I'm just in a particular state of mind about powers and responsibilities 🤔

I'd put the responsibility on Player A to reseasonable distinguish the colour scheme, and if they have done so we can then start asking questions of Player B.

Public law huh? Maybe you need to drag out of theory and into reality, cause things don't tend to go in real life the way the law clearly delineates. After all, rich and poor alike are barred from sleeping under bridges.

 

And, again, words are better at communicating things. You know, that thing we evolved specifically to communicate complicated concepts?

1 minute ago, AaronWilson said:

A lot of these arguments honestly only seem to actually happen on the internet.

Attending a event with SCE painted like Hammers but when to run them as Anvils? Contact the TO, politely explain, I'm 99.9% sure the answer will be "no problem, just be clear with your opponent"

Playing a buddy in real life "Hey man, can I use these SCE as anvils rather then hammers"?

Pretty sure that's the whole issue resolved. 

Yes, most of the time it isn't a problem. But then you come up against a bully who goes "Oh, well of coooourse you aren't playing faction X when you are clearly painted faction X you powergamer" or goes to whine to a TO about how your paint scheme and faction don't match and they should be given a free victory. Because this hobby has plenty of bad folks who play it who are looking for any edge to win, or just demanding you cater to their whims and your own opinions matter not. I mean, particularly because of the price range of this hobby you get folks who go through life expecting that sort of thing.

[AaronWilson]

5 minutes ago, stratigo said:

Public law huh? Maybe you need to drag out of theory and into reality, cause things don't tend to go in real life the way the law clearly delineates. After all, rich and poor alike are barred from sleeping under bridges.

 

And, again, words are better at communicating things. You know, that thing we evolved specifically to communicate complicated concepts?

Yes, most of the time it isn't a problem. But then you come up against a bully who goes "Oh, well of coooourse you aren't playing faction X when you are clearly painted faction X you powergamer" or goes to whine to a TO about how your paint scheme and faction don't match and they should be given a free victory. Because this hobby has plenty of bad folks who play it who are looking for any edge to win, or just demanding you cater to their whims and your own opinions matter not. I mean, particularly because of the price range of this hobby you get folks who go through life expecting that sort of thing.

How many times in real life has that actually happened to you? 

[Marcvs]

12 minutes ago, AaronWilson said:

A lot of these arguments honestly only seem to actually happen on the internet.

Attending a event with SCE painted like Hammers but when to run them as Anvils? Contact the TO, politely explain, I'm 99.9% sure the answer will be "no problem, just be clear with your opponent"

Playing a buddy in real life "Hey man, can I use these SCE as anvils rather then hammers"?

Pretty sure that's the whole issue resolved. 

2 minutes ago, AaronWilson said:

How many times in real life has that actually happened to you? 

Agreed about what happens in most cases right now.

My goal in participating in this internet debate is to pre-emptively push back against the enforcement of this rule (as made clear by the discussion, there are people who would like it to be enforced), in order to reduce the likelihood for me and my clubmates to meet someone who wants it applied or to see it included in an event pack -context: if ONE event includes it in its pack that more or less halves the events I can attend in my area during a given year.

Concerning your "politely explain" point, my ultimate position is that different paint schemes should not fall under the obligation of obtaining the prior consent of the TO, but only under the one of communicating clearly with your opponent. No TO should be given any basis in the rules or FAQs to deny the participation of a player to a tournament with their subfaction of choice because it doesn't match the paint scheme.

Edited July 6, 2021 by Marcvs

[stratigo]

4 minutes ago, AaronWilson said:

How many times in real life has that actually happened to you? 

A few. For not having fully painted armies, or for having poorly painted models.

 

Like, there's a lot of fascists circling around the NOVA hobby community and they are unpleasant to be around and generally quite mean.

[Enoby]

2 minutes ago, AaronWilson said:

How many times in real life has that actually happened to you? 

It's not happened to me, but @insomniaftw did post an example

You're correct that it doesn't usually happen. In fact, it's probably a once in a lifetime annoyance. I think people's trepidation comes from the potential power it could give 'that guy'. The last thing you want is some twerp to turn up to a tournament and make a fuss every time they go up against something they don't want to play against (as what happened in Insomnia's post). 

[Golub87]

I do not really feel like this debate leads anywhere at this point because I do not think that the people who support this kind of nitpicking are honest in their arguments.

It is clear that GW makes rulings like these because they feel like that will help them push more plastic, regardless of it potentially encouraging toxic behavior. Of course, like any company they will come up with whatever flimsy excuse to make the rule appear customer friendly.

A minority of the community has clearly adopted these reasons and repeat them with a straight face.

"I know the rules and factions so well that I know that your guys must be Red, but they are Blue and that paradox hurts my performance" is such a poor, flimsy excuse. It is such an absurd premise that I am not capable of taking it seriously as an argument. The foremost question in my mind is not what is the correct answer here, as that is clear, but what hides behind these arguments.

Edited July 6, 2021 by Golub87

[whispersofblood]

32 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:

Player A is reasonably communicating with their army list.

Edit: also, again, once you start throwing in qualifiers like “reasonable” the whole thing falls apart, because what’s reasonable to one person is different to another. Once you invite interpretation that requires communication you might as well do away with the whole thing and expect it all the time.

Thankfully most events have TOs who are the ultimate authority and already determine "reasonableness". 

But in law reasonable basically is short hand for the relevant authority has room for discretion. Which I think the faq answers leaves. In a lot of cases that are being brought up a TO isn't going to rule against them. And if the TO is a "fascist" well then you have to decide if complying is worth it for you as an individual. 

But I don't really have a horse in this fight even when I like a scheme I can't bring myself to do it, and I'm so used to Whfb I often don't even care what's in my opponent's list specifically. And, this has been a rule at Warhammer World events, and to get on Warhammer Live for a long time already so I'm pretty sure It's reached peak penetration.

[Greybeard86]

1 hour ago, AaronWilson said:

A lot of these arguments honestly only seem to actually happen on the internet.

Attending a event with SCE painted like Hammers but when to run them as Anvils? Contact the TO, politely explain, I'm 99.9% sure the answer will be "no problem, just be clear with your opponent"

Playing a buddy in real life "Hey man, can I use these SCE as anvils rather then hammers"?

Pretty sure that's the whole issue resolved. 

And thus the rule serves what purpose, if it is to be ignored?

[whispersofblood]

52 minutes ago, stratigo said:

You know what communicates better? Words. Words communicate better. Use them

You wouldn't say that if you had ever read a judgement 🤣. Words are often the most confusing form of communication. As someone from one English speaking country who moved to another I have lots of examples of this. 

This conversation does remind me of a dissertation I read about the morality and practicality of plain clothes officers. The thesis being the whole point of plain clothes was obscuring the truth to catch crime rather than being visible and preventing crime. It was an interesting read, but I suppose not really that relevant beyond the fact that uniforms are communication, that is the whole reason these faction have colour schemes after all. 

If the words and sights are at cross purpose one can expect confusion. And, given that when painting you have absolute control I think it's ok for each person to make an effort to minimize that risk. But, maybe I'm over stepping?

[Kamose]

7 pages.  That's how long this "discussion" has gone on. 7 pages, a full 8% of this thread, and 3 days of endlessly going on and on about this nonrule.  Truly the spirt of Warseer of old lives on this thread. 😖

Here's my advice for everybody:

1. Paint your army however you like and make conversions to your heart's content.  An FAQ is very specifically not an ironclad rule but a clarification just in case the word "discouraged" didn't give that away.  No one has to follow this "rule" and, like many of you have said nobody ever will.

2.  Answer any questions that your opponent may have, particularly if there are obvious points of confusions such as proxy models or subfaction rules that do not match your paint scheme.  This is common courtesy and a reasonable expectation in all social activities.  It is your obligation to ensure that your opponent knows exactly what rules you are using.

3. If you encounter the one person on Earth who will actually try to use this FAQ to bully you during a game then stop playing immediately and make it clear that you will not play with them again.  This is a hard pill for some people to swallow but you are responsible for the health of your gaming community. 

Our game is one that requires real life social interaction between actual people and in that situation it is everyone's responsibility to support and nurture their gaming community.  Part of that is not tolerating disrespect and bullying, actively calling it out, and, if necessary, removing offending individuals from the community. 

4.  Please discuss some actual rules in the "AoS3 New Rules Discussion" thread.  I know this seems like a big deal to some of you but I promise you are just working yourself into a lather over a nonissue that everyone will ignore.

To end on a positive note, if this really is all anyone can talk about then I guess the rest of the rules and FAQ's must be pretty tight!  Maybe this is the best ruleset ever! 👍

[Greybeard86]

11 minutes ago, Kamose said:

7 pages.  That's how long this "discussion" has gone on. 7 pages, a full 8% of this thread, and 3 days of endlessly going on and on about this nonrule.

I think it was a very interesting discussion. It is now clear to me that there are people who care about it and want such rules to be enforced. I was also told why they care.

Quote

If you encounter the one person on Earth who will actually try to use this FAQ

I think you got a handful around here

[PrimeElectrid]

2 hours ago, whispersofblood said:

Thankfully most events have TOs who are the ultimate authority and already determine "reasonableness". 

But in law reasonable basically is short hand for the relevant authority has room for discretion. Which I think the faq answers leaves. In a lot of cases that are being brought up a TO isn't going to rule against them. And if the TO is a "fascist" well then you have to decide if complying is worth it for you as an individual. 

But I don't really have a horse in this fight even when I like a scheme I can't bring myself to do it, and I'm so used to Whfb I often don't even care what's in my opponent's list specifically. And, this has been a rule at Warhammer World events, and to get on Warhammer Live for a long time already so I'm pretty sure It's reached peak penetration.

This doesn’t resolve the issue as raised, though. Yes you can get the TO to approve a Hammers of Sigmar army playing as Astral Templars. But you still have to have the conversation at the table with your opponent because they associate schemes with rules (supposedly).

The argument being put forward is that it is somehow unfair to your opponent if you paint your models silver but use gold model rules. Getting a TO to approve it doesn’t make it less fair in that regard; it just makes it legal.

My counter argument is that this is absurd given that we already allow armies with custom schemes to use official scheme rules, so the additional brain computation to process official schemes using different rules is minimal; that army lists exists expressly to clarify this because it is *not* solely a visual game, and nobody - nobody - has memorised every single sub faction rules by official paint scheme anyway for this to be an issue. 

Edited July 6, 2021 by PrimeElectrid

[Christopher Rowe]

I'll be really glad when this subject has finally been hashed to death.

I asked this in the Rules Forum, but nobody has answered. Are Realms of War rules officially dead since they're not mentioned anywhere? I'm guessing yes. Because while I'm taking Battlemage Ghur as an ally in my first Seraphon list (consisting of models that are painted with wild dissonance from the "official" colors) whatever the case, because I'm aiming for mobility and like his spell, it would be pretty sweet to get that +1 to casting etc. Of course, if that were the case, almost every Order army would be allying him in!