Jump to content

AoS 3 New Rules Discussion


Recommended Posts

Quote

Again, as someone mentioned gatekeeping and poking holes in opponent's army is pure powerplay and mindgame and it has nothing to do with practicality. Person playing the game with what they have is not being tricky or underhanded, the person who is trying to leverage the opponent's lack of models into an advantage is.

The whole "modeling for advantage" and "WYSIWYG" does not hold much whater, IMHO. I certainly do not know why players jump on that wagon, as it is strictly against our interest.

There are many ways to model however you want and still ensuring that the opponent both knows what things are and gets frequent reminders, far better than memorizing the shape of whatever killer-thing-of-doom is sculpted for all armies. Tokens, numbering squads, handing in your list, and other tings we have come up with over the years.

I also think it is outrageous that anyone would speak of "gotcha" refering to modeling when GW has riddled their rule books with gotcha moments and gated it behind hefty paywalls. Gone are the days of special weapon blisters (I think?), but those were pretty nasty too.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well, to be fair to GW, they have this weird position where if your paint scheme doesn't match any of the "official" ones, then it can be anything.

But this produces the perverse result that you're actually encouraged to make sure your paint scheme doesn't match any of the official ones. And is very problematic in a game that keeps coming up with new paint schemes for new sub-factions. I don't want to wake up one day and find my Cities of Sigmar army I run as Tempest's Eye has suddenly become Arglebargle's Armpit because they introduced that new city in the new Double Broken Realms: This Time For Real supplement that happens to share most of the same colors. And I don't want to be fighting off people telling me I have to run it as Arglebargle's Armpit by pointing out that in fact some of the pouches on my army are blue green, whereas in the Arglebargle's Armpit army, they are simply blue. 

What color your army is painted shouldn't have any impact on what rules you can utilize in AOS. To the extent that the rule says otherwise, all it does is empower gate-keepers and bad faith rules abusers. If they were really caring about clarity, they would just say: "make sure to tell your opponent before the game what sub-faction your army is from, especially if it deviates from the standard paint scheme." 

Edited by yukishiro1
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

But this produces the perverse result that you're actually encouraged to make sure your paint scheme doesn't match any of the official ones.

AKA as the ultramarines-not-wait-white-scars-or-are-they army that art of war 40k keeps using in their streams?

Once I was pointed that out and it is funny.

I also think it is bad when we have to start magnitizing arms because some loadouts are clearly better rules wise and that changes every X months. I want to model for aesthethic reasons, does it really matter if it is a sword or a dagger?

As long as the opponent understands what it is (and there are easier ways than for them to memorize what the pointy things are), it should be fine.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Golub87 said:

I mean... if a potato is all they have on hand, then why should I stop them? Just make sure it has an appropriate sized base.

People want to try out things on the table before investing significant money in the plastic and that is 100% fine. Also, someone might not have the money to afford all the units for an army right now, and might buy it incrementally, over time.

As for "gotcha" moments - I use Splintered Fang cultist models mounted on 25mm instead of marauders. Marauders are ugly and old models (1997 I think), Splintered Fang cultists fit Slaaneshi aesthetics much better and it is not like cultist rules are of much use to begin with. I assure you that there is exactly 0 people on this planet Earth of ours who have the intellectual capacity to remember different rules for Splintered Fangs and Marauders and plan their moves accordingly, but also lack the intellectual capacity to remember that this blob of half-naked guys on 25mm bases are in fact Marauders and not this other unit that no one ever uses.

Again, as someone mentioned gatekeeping and poking holes in opponent's army is pure powerplay and mindgame and it has nothing to do with practicality. Person playing the game with what they have is not being tricky or underhanded, the person who is trying to leverage the opponent's lack of models into an advantage is.

Which is why I'm perplexed with the replies. It feels like people are fixated on the literal rule as opposed to how it might be used and similarly the replies seem to be tied to something very different than I actually wrote. Might be my fault for not being clear but just in case my first point got lost in the walls of text (underlined the bits which makes me even more confused about comments like "gatekeeping" etc);

I wouldn't mind though and I do not think GW expect people to enforce these rules with an iron fist. It is, however, good to be aware of so you 1) make it VERY clear to your opponent which sub-faction you are, 2) clearly distinguish the differences, 3) give opportunity for your opponent to ask questions and clarify things.

The spirit of the rule is clarity. That's my interpretation anyways.

I have no issue admitting I care about the lore though. :D

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, pnkdth said:

Which is why I'm perplexed with the replies. It feels like people are fixated on the literal rule as opposed to how it might be used and similarly the replies seem to be tied to something very different than I actually wrote. Might be my fault for not being clear but just in case my first point got lost in the walls of text (underlined the bits which makes me even more confused about comments like "gatekeeping" etc);

I wouldn't mind though and I do not think GW expect people to enforce these rules with an iron fist. It is, however, good to be aware of so you 1) make it VERY clear to your opponent which sub-faction you are, 2) clearly distinguish the differences, 3) give opportunity for your opponent to ask questions and clarify things.

The spirit of the rule is clarity. That's my interpretation anyways.

I have no issue admitting I care about the lore though. :D

Unfortunately this (very reasonable) approach is not what the FAQ says:

image.png.9e31823dfb9c33ad950ed41d5c7b7972.png

To me, saying that something is allowed "with your opponent's permission" is like saying that something is outside of the rules of the game -after all, legends are allowed "with your opponent's permission", and in fact, with your opponent permissin you can play with different rules or whatever.

Again, I have been made aware that this was already included in the previous FAQs (I am still relatively new) so I just hope that the playerbase will continue to ignore it.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I often use different color schemes within the same unit, especially when there's a lot variety in the builds do options like heads, helmets, arm positioning, etc. I love the way my Saurus Guards look and they're a real hodgepodge of colors. I've never heard a complaint from an opponent or other player. I doubt I'll ever win best paint job at a tournament or an Armies on Parade contest, but that's of little concern to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

Unfortunately this (very reasonable) approach is not what the FAQ says:

image.png.9e31823dfb9c33ad950ed41d5c7b7972.png

To me, saying that something is allowed "with your opponent's permission" is like saying that something is outside of the rules of the game -after all, legends are allowed "with your opponent's permission", and in fact, with your opponent permissin you can play with different rules or whatever.

Again, I have been made aware that this was already included in the previous FAQs (I am still relatively new) so I just hope that the playerbase will continue to ignore it.

 

 

You can count on me (bolded text).

For instance, if someone is new or is struggling to afford stuff I will gladly make exceptions or even lend them my stuff to proxy (in some cases sell entire armies on the cheap). When I first saw this rule I kind immediately assumed it was to prevent malicious or "creative" ways to bend the rules.

But I get the reaction to my points now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

AKA as the ultramarines-not-wait-white-scars-or-are-they army that art of war 40k keeps using in their streams?

Once I was pointed that out and it is funny.

I also think it is bad when we have to start magnitizing arms because some loadouts are clearly better rules wise and that changes every X months. I want to model for aesthethic reasons, does it really matter if it is a sword or a dagger?

As long as the opponent understands what it is (and there are easier ways than for them to memorize what the pointy things are), it should be fine.

The solution is clearly pink and purple marines with rainbow flags, and Sailormoons of Battle.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, pnkdth said:

You can count on me (bolded text).

For instance, if someone is new or is struggling to afford stuff I will gladly make exceptions or even lend them my stuff to proxy (in some cases sell entire armies on the cheap). When I first saw this rule I kind immediately assumed it was to prevent malicious or "creative" ways to bend the rules.

But I get the reaction to my points now!

True, I suppose, it does prevent malicious use of proxies, but I am struggling to think of a case where someone would get a genuine game advantage with proxies. The only example I can think of, is "the teleporting unit champion" which is quite minor in the grand scheme of things.

Putting potato on a base is kind of ugly and sad, but I would not say it gives the player game advantage.

On the other hand this ruling does open the door to the unsportsmanlike behavior in the other direction. Given the wording, you can legitimately object to a person playing chamber X because they are not in those colors and nitpick someone's army to death, with 100% full support of the rules as written.

No one goes "ah your models are red, that means you are faction X", rather, you look at the opponent's list.

I do not think that preventing shenanigans is the motivation behind this ruling...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The motivation (for the paint scheme stuff, the actual proxying is just because they want you spending money on GW minis, not other stuff) is that some people in 40k have multiple space marines armies of the same models they have bought over and over again, painted in different colors. Which is 100% fine if that's what they want to do from a hobby point of view, of course - but it has sent the message to GW that there is the potential to tap people to buy the same models multiple times to paint different colors. So they try to support that income stream with rules design by telling you you have to have your models painted the right color.

Luckily everybody seems to ignore it. It's probably good this issue gets dredged up now and then when a new FAQ comes out, just to remind us to continue to be vigilant not to let GW get away with it. 

 

Edited by yukishiro1
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

The motivation (for the paint scheme stuff, the actual proxying is just because they want you spending money on GW minis, not other stuff) is that some people in 40k have multiple space marines armies of the same models they have bought over and over again, painted in different colors. Which is 100% fine if that's what they want to do from a hobby point of view, of course - but it has sent the message to GW that there is the potential to tap people to buy the same models multiple times to paint different colors. So they try to support that income stream with rules design by telling you you have to have your models painted the right color.

 

Shhhhhh...

<.<

>.>

Not so loud.


Seriously, though, of course that is the reason, everybody knows it.

That said, I do not think that is going to work the way they hope. People that buy 5 whole SM armies just so they can have Dark Angels, Ultramarines, White Scars... they were going to do that anyway. They do it because they like it and because they have enough disposable income.

If they keep tightening the grip they might actually lose some sales. Back in 2000-2002, when I was a high school kid, I played a bit of WHFB (thank god I got out of it in 2002 and went into 40k, so I was not there for the end times).

Guys at the store allowed me to play with paper proxies, gave me models and eventually I got my first box of chaos warriors. Then I got my hands on some chaos knights knockoffs that were ugly as sin. No one at the GW store made a big deal out of it, so after a while I got a box of marauders (the same box you can get today :D) and so on...

If they were super strict, there is no way they would have gotten those sales out of me.

Turns out if you let people try out stuff for free and experiment, eventually they will want to own the official thing.
If you put up fences and gates... people will look to a different hobby.
 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yep, it's something GW has always struggled to appreciate. 

The idea that GW is seriously telling you that you are doing something wrong that you need to "ask permission for" by playing a GW game with painted GW brand miniatures because they're painted the "wrong" color...it shows such a tremendous taking for granted of the customer. GW should be thrilled if you are playing a GW game with painted GW miniatures. That should be the Holy Grail, not something to judge people for because of the combination of colors and rules they want to play with. 

Edited by yukishiro1
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kodos der Henker said:

the idea behind is a very simple one, GW wants you to take the army because of the background and not because of the rules

so you don't care about how good or bad that specific sub faction is because you play it anyway or different reasons

there was also once hints in the FAQ that if GW made one sub faction stronger, you should not be "that guy" and play it (hard time for those who played it before the change because of the fluff, and sometimes resulting in people put the old army on the shelf to avoid the hate in the stores)

this is the reason why we see ot again, people might have started an Anvil army because it was strong and painted it that way, to avoid now that everyone starts to play something else that is now strong, they put the "don't be that guy and play to win" in the FAQ

 Oh come on. GW wants you to buy their stuff. Stop dreaming up reasons beyond that point.  And if there is one kind of player gw loves. It is that guy. Cause that guy buys a lot of ****** to stay on top. Gw loves that Guy. Gw wants you to be that guy. They just want to make sure that , that guy needs to buy more stuff. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Zappgrot said:

 Oh come on. GW wants you to buy their stuff. Stop dreaming up reasons beyond that point.  And if there is one kind of player gw loves. It is that guy. Cause that guy buys a lot of ****** to stay on top. Gw loves that Guy. Gw wants you to be that guy. They just want to make sure that , that guy needs to buy more stuff. 

Indeed, the only purpose any corporation has is extraction of as much wealth as possible for as little effort as possible.

Everything else is PR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zappgrot said:

 Oh come on. GW wants you to buy their stuff.

you give evil GW way too much credits here, they don't even try to get that far when writing rules
the same way as new models are always better than old ones (they are not) to sell more, while in reality they just are not able to do better even if they try

the idea behind was an "emergency balance batch" in 40k because the Legion that no one really played except those that liked the fluff, got really overpowered rules, play tester told this GW and were ignored, people told them after release and were ignored, and instead of trying to fix the problem (and admit that mistakes were made), their solution was that only people who use the right colours are allowed to play with the OP faction

that people are supposed to buy more would be a side effect, their main goal is that everyone stops playing the OP stuff so they don't need to admit that they were wrong and the problem is solved

that we see now the same here is more a hint that they messed up something with the Subfaction rules and are not going to fix it anytime soon and not to try to increase sales intentionally (from their point of view, everyone already buys their stuff because they like the models, not because there are special rules that make some modes/factions better than others)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kodos der Henker said:

you give evil GW way too much credits here, they don't even try to get that far when writing rules
the same way as new models are always better than old ones (they are not) to sell more, while in reality they just are not able to do better even if they try

the idea behind was an "emergency balance batch" in 40k because the Legion that no one really played except those that liked the fluff, got really overpowered rules, play tester told this GW and were ignored, people told them after release and were ignored, and instead of trying to fix the problem (and admit that mistakes were made), their solution was that only people who use the right colours are allowed to play with the OP faction

that people are supposed to buy more would be a side effect, their main goal is that everyone stops playing the OP stuff so they don't need to admit that they were wrong and the problem is solved

that we see now the same here is more a hint that they messed up something with the Subfaction rules and are not going to fix it anytime soon and not to try to increase sales intentionally (from their point of view, everyone already buys their stuff because they like the models, not because there are special rules that make some modes/factions better than others)

 

GW knows how to make money. They are looking for more ways to make money. The dudes in charge of the company couldn't give a flying fig about balance. They care about money. 

 

The people having to write these FAQ rulings roll their eyes out of their heads over them. Which is why, incidentally, it is almost never enforced at GW venues. Because the people supposed to be enforcing it think it is dumb as poop. It's just the men in suits sitting in offices looking at numbers going up that care.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Marcvs said:

Unfortunately this (very reasonable) approach is not what the FAQ says:

image.png.9e31823dfb9c33ad950ed41d5c7b7972.png

To me, saying that something is allowed "with your opponent's permission" is like saying that something is outside of the rules of the game -after all, legends are allowed "with your opponent's permission", and in fact, with your opponent permissin you can play with different rules or whatever.

Again, I have been made aware that this was already included in the previous FAQs (I am still relatively new) so I just hope that the playerbase will continue to ignore it.

 

 

I mean, theoretically it is already in the game.

As for tournaments, the TO usually has the last word, when it comes down to proxies, and I kinda doubt that that will change in any way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, stratigo said:

But I see you backed the heck off on trying to claim armies must be painted their subfaction huh?

Not sure where you get that.

No. I support the idea. If I play a dozen games against a Salamanders army, I will learn to quickly identify threats based on the visual keys presented and I will get better against that army with experience. If, then, I am told they now "count as" Blood Angels, it will create confusion and small hesitations in my play, countering my experiences and giving my "Blood Angel" opponent an unearned advantage.

So, yes, I still support having models look like what they represent within the rules, including their paint scheme.

 

At this point I'd like to point out two important things:

1. I'm not upset with/arguing with anyone here. It's just opinion. This is a discussion forum. Its nature means discussing opinions. It's much better to have these conversations here rather than at a table top while holding up a game.

2. I'm discussing ideals. I have, like most, a set of what I, personally, believe the to the "best" (or at least preferred) parameters for creating the "perfect" hobby experience. That does not mean I'm going to show up at a house, store, or event and loudly proclaim that all present must do as I say. Heck, I am highly unlikely to refuse a game against anyone who doesn't fit my ideals. Sure, some things are deal breakers, but very few. Even the guy who has no money for models can get a game with me. I'll just provide the models! 

We all strive to create better experiences. For me, having models showing the equipment, colors, and any other visuals that match the thing in the rules to which they are tied is, frankly, a pretty basic concept for miniatures based gaming. That's a fundamental, essential element of these kinds of games. It's what makes them distinct from RPGs, Jenga, and so on.

Again, no harm meant to anyone. Just trying to openly discuss a thing on a discussion forum.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole proxy discussion seems like a pointless distraction. GW has pushed people towards official paint schemes and GW-only model conversions for ages, and nobody takes any notice. It's just standard corporate guff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Telling hobbyists that because you decided on green hats instead of blue hats, I am going to have to insist that you cannot use the rules for the blue hat subfaction, and since no rules exist for a green hat faction, you must not use any subfaction rules at all is the absolute worst gatekeeping imaginable.

At that point you are telling someone who has paid the initial fee for models, the initial time commitment of assembly and painting, the mental time to learn and practice a complicated rules system that because of MINOR aesthetic decisions, that they cannot play the game equally. You tell the creative that this is a game for the uncreative. You tell the artist that this is a game for color-by-numbers. This kills the hobby.

Take a look at the excellent Golden Daemon-winning painted models and realize how few of those would be painted if you limited the palette of the artist. How many neat and excellent converted armies that counts-as something to be playable and tell the owners that their awesome army is a great show piece, but no one gets to challenge it. No one gets to play against the cool thing because 'someone might get confused'. Or does the 'spectacle' outweigh the 'aesthetic' of the game?

Look at the PR of GW, heralding all the conversions and epic paint jobs that don't completely perfectly model their schemes. Are all of those paint jobs now useless because the artist decided on a different accent color? If accent colors don't change the idea, then what percentage must be official? 51%? 70% Where is the confusion percentage? Is that by volume or area?

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Kodos der Henker said:

you give evil GW way too much credits here, they don't even try to get that far when writing rules
the same way as new models are always better than old ones (they are not) to sell more, while in reality they just are not able to do better even if they try

the idea behind was an "emergency balance batch" in 40k because the Legion that no one really played except those that liked the fluff, got really overpowered rules, play tester told this GW and were ignored, people told them after release and were ignored, and instead of trying to fix the problem (and admit that mistakes were made), their solution was that only people who use the right colours are allowed to play with the OP faction

that people are supposed to buy more would be a side effect, their main goal is that everyone stops playing the OP stuff so they don't need to admit that they were wrong and the problem is solved

that we see now the same here is more a hint that they messed up something with the Subfaction rules and are not going to fix it anytime soon and not to try to increase sales intentionally (from their point of view, everyone already buys their stuff because they like the models, not because there are special rules that make some modes/factions better than others)

What do you mean evil?  Gw isn't evil. If GW is evil then capitalisme is evil. Cause Gw is just a company. They are there to make money and all their actions are focused on makeing money.  Wheter or not they always suceed is not  importent. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Zappgrot said:

What do you mean evil?  Gw isn't evil. If GW is evil then capitalisme is evil. Cause Gw is just a company. They are there to make money and all their actions are focused on makeing money.  Wheter or not they always suceed is not  importent. 

Unchecked capitalism is evil (except when it's Kharadron).

That is why regulations exist, and that is why customers and investors decide not to use certain companies.

I won't shop at Amazon or buy stocks in fossil fuel or tobacco companies for instance.

Now GW is not at that level by a long shot, but it isn't a bad idea to steer them the right way every now and again.

Edited by zilberfrid
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Not sure where you get that.

No. I support the idea. If I play a dozen games against a Salamanders army, I will learn to quickly identify threats based on the visual keys presented and I will get better against that army with experience. If, then, I am told they now "count as" Blood Angels, it will create confusion and small hesitations in my play, countering my experiences and giving my "Blood Angel" opponent an unearned advantage.

So, yes, I still support having models look like what they represent within the rules, including their paint scheme.

 

At this point I'd like to point out two important things:

1. I'm not upset with/arguing with anyone here. It's just opinion. This is a discussion forum. Its nature means discussing opinions. It's much better to have these conversations here rather than at a table top while holding up a game.

2. I'm discussing ideals. I have, like most, a set of what I, personally, believe the to the "best" (or at least preferred) parameters for creating the "perfect" hobby experience. That does not mean I'm going to show up at a house, store, or event and loudly proclaim that all present must do as I say. Heck, I am highly unlikely to refuse a game against anyone who doesn't fit my ideals. Sure, some things are deal breakers, but very few. Even the guy who has no money for models can get a game with me. I'll just provide the models! 

We all strive to create better experiences. For me, having models showing the equipment, colors, and any other visuals that match the thing in the rules to which they are tied is, frankly, a pretty basic concept for miniatures based gaming. That's a fundamental, essential element of these kinds of games. It's what makes them distinct from RPGs, Jenga, and so on.

Again, no harm meant to anyone. Just trying to openly discuss a thing on a discussion forum.

 

 

I guess we got triggered because you used big words like “greatest hobby evil”. Or because you said you wanted GW to have stronger wording to be able to use that ruling to prevent proxying.

Honest question: if you are open to a chat about it and this are just opinions and preferences, why do you need GW to print such rules? 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

Unchecked capitalism is evil (except when it's Kharadron).

That is why regulations exist, and that is why customers and investors decide not to use certain companies.

I won't shop at Amazon or buy stocks in fossil fuel or tobacco companies for instance.

Now GW is not at that level by a long shot, but it isn't a bad idea to steer them the right way every now and again.

 No, anti trust competition does not claim that monopolies are evil. Or environmental protection laws do not claim polluting companies are evil.

We have such regulations because we provided evidence that, in absence of regulation, the decentralized equilibrium was “bad” in a welfare sense. 

GW will sometimes be tempted to do things that are good for GW but bad for the consumers. They are not evil, just self interested. Sometimes they push it too far (end times + AoS 1, or recently chorfs). In those instances we need react and voice our concern. And act accordingly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...