AoS 3 New Rules Discussion

[Kodos der Henker]

I guess I am the only one to know the reference/memes for "evil GW"

GW is a company that wants to make money, not a company run by gamers who play their own games

yet by thinking that the management decides on rules/FAQ to increase profit gives them way to much credit and assume they know enough about the game to make those changes

same going a level lower on the designer level, they are not good enough to make a FAQ that covers the obvious questions asked by the community a week prior release, yet we assume they are good enough to think around 3 corners and play 4D underwater chess to increase sales with specific design choices

[Sleboda]

2 hours ago, insomniaftw said:

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.

Consider it from the opposite approach.

They are saying that if you've painted green hats, you get access to certain bonuses. If not, you don't.

The green hats, just like giving a hammer instead of a bow, tell your opponent "Aha! That unit can make silly faces at my army. I better watch out." So, you see green hats or hammers and play accordingly.

It's important to remember that this is indeed a 3D miniatures game where the things you see on the table give you an instant cue as to what those things can do.

All GW is saying is that it's not right to ask your opponent to have to ignore what they see and constantly remember what they are "supposed" to be seeing instead.

It's a matter of putting your opponent's enjoyment and play-experience ahead of your own desires. I think that's actually a pretty good way to approach a social situation: don't assume your quirks trump the standard and your opponent's desire to stick to that standard.

[Chikout]

The proxy/paint scheme discussion is as old as the hills. Of Course GW wants to discourage proxies. Using proxies means you don't buy the official models. It really as simple as that. 

From a player point of view there's a bit more nuance. If I turn up to a tournament with a Soulblight army but decide to play it as Lumineth (these deadwalkers are sentinels now) , it would probably raise some eyebrows. Now of I'd taken some deadwalkers mixed them with archer parts and Aelf parts to make an undead Lumineth themed army, that's much more reasonable. 

Personally as a player, if I was playing a tournament and another player had a unit of wardens and proxied them as sentinels, I'd probably be a bit unhappy, especially if they had a second unit of regular sentinels and another unit of regular wardens. This would definitely cause quite a bit of confusion. 

With colour schemes it's a bit more complicated. Lots of armies have subfactions and most AoS players don't much the rules to their chosen colour scheme to the rules. For me this is fine as long as it's clear to the other player what sub faction you are using. As a colourblind person I can't tell the difference between blood angels and Salamanders in any case. 

I understand why gw wants to discourage it though.They are a company that puts theme ahead of anything else. They want to encourage players to invest in the lore of the subfactions they create as much as the rules and that includes using the colour schemes that the eavy metal team painstakingly create. 

it is discourage and not forbid though. As I said this is hardly a new debate. If they really wanted to enforce it, they could have written it onto the core rules. That fact that they didn't  and instead discussed it in the faq strongly suggests to me that they will allow it even at their own official tournaments. 

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, Greybeard86 said:

 

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? 

 

 

I don't need them to. I just appreciate that they did. In life in general, I'm a big believer in following the rules of the group. Sure, we can work to change those rules, but I would expect a society (or community) to do so from within the rules that govern it. Vigilantism is anarchy (in a society). Extrajudicial revenge is anarchy (in a society). Not following the the rules of a game is anarchy (in a gaming community).

GW publishes a set of rules that we all buy (or read from a buddy's copy) and use as the basis of our games. It's why we know that if an attack hits on a 3+, a roll of 2 fails and we don't get to just tell the opponent that it hits. We agree to follow the set of rules presented to our entire group. Sure, we can suggest that we change it on a local level, but if there is disagreement, we should default to the base rules. If not, then I can simply declare that all my attacks hit on 2+ and you have to accept it. That would be silly (and anarchy! 😁).

I like GW having a stance on proxies. It makes it as legit as needing a 3+ on a unit that says it needs a 3+ on its warscroll. It gives our entire group a base rule.

I happen to be on the side of this rule even before it was published.

So, to answer your question in a TL;DR fashion, I don't need them to publish the rule, but I'm glad they did because I agree with it and , more importantly, it brings consistency to the entire community.

Edited July 5, 2021 by Sleboda

[Kodos der Henker]

there is a difference between proxy, count as, and conversion.

a different head on a model is a conversion, a different model with the right equipment is count as, and using an empty base (or a fish can) is a proxy

different colours are "count as" not a proxy, using Halflings instead of Dwarfs, is count as not a proxy

Proxies should always be asked for and are ok if you want to test something before you buy it

Count as should never be a problem, not how GW constantly changes their games

[Enoby]

Besides Stormhosts, can anyone name subfaction colours off the top of their head? If someone played against me with a bright pink Kharadron army, I wouldn't be able to say if it was an official scheme or not for certain. 

I think telling someone that their unofficial scheme should be punished (by not allowing special subfaction rules) lessens creativity in a hobby that should be creative. If someone paints their Khorne in a Lich King colour scheme and gets told they have to play without subfaction, I see that as an absolute loss from a hobby perspective. 

If someone can't get their head around an army being part of one subfaction without a matching colour scheme, I'd assume they were arguing in bad faith and just trying to bully their opponent out of an allegiance ability. If someone tells their opponent that their green Lumineth are Illithia, then I cannot imagine someone having the capacity to remember that Illithia's colour is orange (?) but not being able to remember that the green Lumineth are Illithia for this battle. Thankfully, I have never ever seen this be an issue - it'll almost certainly be one of those rules that gets ignored by 99% of the playbase. 

[insomniaftw]

36 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Consider it from the opposite approach.

They are saying that if you've painted green hats, you get access to certain bonuses. If not, you don't.

The green hats, just like giving a hammer instead of a bow, tell your opponent "Aha! That unit can make silly faces at my army. I better watch out." So, you see green hats or hammers and play accordingly.

It's important to remember that this is indeed a 3D miniatures game where the things you see on the table give you an instant cue as to what those things can do.

All GW is saying is that it's not right to ask your opponent to have to ignore what they see and constantly remember what they are "supposed" to be seeing instead.

It's a matter of putting your opponent's enjoyment and play-experience ahead of your own desires. I think that's actually a pretty good way to approach a social situation: don't assume your quirks trump the standard and your opponent's desire to stick to that standard.

Let me explain why I hate this idea so much:

I wanted to play 40k, and I liked the Eldar. I spent my money, painted my mostly aspect warrior force up according to the color schemes (or at least as close as I could get), and had the whole force ready to go. I got to the store for a game with a friend, and watched as on another table, a game finished, and one player was complaining that he felt that the game had been unfair.

You see, in a game of Blood Angels v Ultramarines, the ultramarine player had painted his army slightly darker (think one shade above navy blue) and the Blood Angels player thought that that was unfair as they didn't match the book. The Ultramarines player asked what they had been confused for, or what had been difficult to understand. No examples were given. Two grown men were having an argument that escalated to a shouting match over the shades of paint on plastic models.

I looked at my models. They weren't perfect, but if that was the standard, I wanted nothing to do with the game. I felt my creative connection to my models die.

I sold the army unplayed because in my local store, 'that guy' existed, and he did check for exact shades. 40k died off in our store within a year.

I played fantasy instead because the world was big enough that color schemes didn't matter. My HElves could be tan and green and just be a minor lordling's from Caledor. I had thought that with the size of the Mortal Realms, that there would be room for expansion and color variations. I stand corrected.

Now this rule is in AOS. You may like it. I find it empowers the worst type of player: the player who not only wants to win, but to win while the other player is denied as much of his own enjoyment as possible.

[Kodos der Henker]

4 hours ago, Zappgrot said:

What do you mean evil?  Gw isn't evil.

for reference only:

PS: capitalism is evil.....

 

[Greybeard86]

2 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I don't need them to. I just appreciate that they did. In life in general, I'm a big believer in following the rules of the group. [...]

I like GW having a stance on proxies. [...]It gives our entire group a base rule.

I happen to be on the side of this rule even before it was published.

So, to answer your question in a TL;DR fashion, I don't need them to publish the rule, but I'm glad they did because I agree with it and , more importantly, it brings consistency to the entire community.

So, in other words, you want GW to print that rule to make it easier to enforce, as you believe we should all follow (GW's) rules.

A whole lot of us truly dislike that rule and would certainly be put off by someone sticking it to our face in the club. Which is what is likely going to happen when someone of your persuasion meets with someone like me.

I also believe that it is better to agree on a good set of rules. But I firmly believe that GW is not good at handling rules (imbalanced armies, excessive rule releases) and, what's more, I believe they have the wrong incentives when it comes to designing them. So I am firm proponent of tournament packs crafted by the community. This latest rule is, IMHO, a clear example of that as it is something designed in their interest but not in the interest of the broader hobby.

[Sleboda]

8 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

A whole lot of us truly dislike that rule and would certainly be put off by someone sticking it to our face in the club.

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

[PrimeElectrid]

Imagine forcing people to paint their armies in colours they don’t like simply because you’re unwilling or incapable of recognising rules without exact visual aids.

I couldn’t even tell you the colour schemes for all Stormhosts, an army I’ve played for 4 years, let alone the colour schemes for every variation in every army. It is laughable to suggest that someone is memorising all this. 

You know how you can tell what stormhost/city/enclave/etc is being played? You look at the army list where it is all written down.

In any case the discussion is largely moot, as that FAQ has been there for a while now, and hasn’t resulted in the One True Way to have fun. We can all go straight back to ignoring it as we have been.

 

[Sleboda]

8 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:

Imagine forcing people to paint their armies in colours they don’t like simply because you’re unwilling or incapable of recognising rules without exact visual aids.

Imagine forcing people to model their troops with the correct weapons and armor when they would rather make them look like cotton balls on Q-tips because you're incapable of keeping track of which things are actually something else when the entire hobby experience of the game is intrinsically linked to the appearance of the models.

The horror.

Thor forbid that the person who knows he can't use a pogo stick in a 500 meter hurdle race speak up and asks the person wanting to use a pogo stick in said race to either leave the pogo stick at home or go find a pogo stick race.

 

And that's what it boils down to. If you prefer to tell those who do follow the rules of the experience that they are wrong for wanting to follow those rules, it's just weird. Also, be prepared for them to expect you to allow them to just keep bringing on new units each turn or automatically hitting with every attack.

Seriously, when you go to a restaurant with friends, do you expect to be allowed to bring in food from another restaurant, or to bring your own drinks or do you accept that they want you to buy the food from their food-selling business?

 

 

Edited July 5, 2021 by Sleboda

[Golub87]

2 hours ago, Enoby said:

If someone can't get their head around an army being part of one subfaction without a matching colour scheme, I'd assume they were arguing in bad faith and just trying to bully their opponent out of an allegiance ability. If someone tells their opponent that their green Lumineth are Illithia, then I cannot imagine someone having the capacity to remember that Illithia's colour is orange (?) but not being able to remember that the green Lumineth are Illithia for this battle.

Exactly!

Pretty much any argument that has been presented in favor of this ruling is wet-paper-thin excuse.

The idea that GW is pushing rulings like these because they are concerned about the malicious use of proxies or because that they are deeply invested in army themes, and that the fact that it supports the sales of more plastic is just an unrelated coincidence is ridiculous.

Equally ridiculous as the idea that a person has genuine trouble and is at a disadvantage if the opponent uses proxies so that is why they insist on nitpicking the enemy army and not because they want to dominate the social space around the game in order to gain advantage within the game.

I am sorry, but I am not buying this and I am really glad that community as a whole does not seem to buy it either.

[Golub87]

9 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

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

Sure:

1. I might have half of an army and it will take another year before I can afford/paint the rest.
2. I want to test out different units and configurations but I am not ready to splurge that much money and/or effort just for the test.
3. I like the faction, but I do not like that one sculpt that is bad (ex: chaos marauders)
4. I have an amazing conversion idea.
5. I like paint scheme A, but I enjoy the game play of faction B more.

Also, your baseball example is quite bad to the point where I wonder if it is even made in good faith. You are not tossing out someone for trying to play basketball while everyone else is playing baseball. You are tossing them out because they do not have the official dress or got their equipment second hand and not trough the very expensive local club.

[Greybeard86]

17 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

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

[...]

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

[...]

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

Cannot speak for everyone, but in my case:

I do not believe that the strength of the game is following exactly rules with models. The vast majority of players I know cannot distinguish between weapon types, let alone faction colors.

I believe that it makes for a nicer game when models are painted and the roughly represent what they are meant to model (cavalry aren't infantry, giants aren't dwarfs, and so on). But I certainly wouldn't mind if someone modelled a giant with a club and then wanted to use the cleaver for rule purposes. Or multiple other things more aggressive things, such as (gasp!) using some Mierce giant as a megagargant or more heavily converted armies.

The whole WYSIWYG relies on players focusing completely on visual cues, when we know that there are multiple ways for efficient information transmission (tokens, unit identifiers, or similar things). In fact, visual cues are often very misleading due to the myriad of armies and equipments they carry.

So, to sum it up, appreciating the visuals of the armies on the table does not equate to needing strict equivalente between what you see and what you have in rules. I'd rather habve people modeling what they think is good and pleasant for them to build and paint. This is NOT a game based on fast reactions, you can take your time, and ask if something is unclear.

[PrimeElectrid]

30 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Imagine forcing people to model their troops with the correct weapons and armor when they would rather make them look like cotton balls on Q-tips because you're incapable of keeping track of which things are actually something else when the entire hobby experience of the game is intrinsically linked to the appearance of the models.

The horror.

Thor forbid that the person who knows he can't use a pogo stick in a 500 meter hurdle race speak up and asks the person wanting to use a pogo stick in said race to either leave the pogo stick at home or go find a pogo stick race.

 

And that's what it boils down to. If you prefer to tell those who do follow the rules of the experience that they are wrong for wanting to follow those rules, it's just weird. Also, be prepared for them to expect you to allow them to just keep bringing on new units each turn or automatically hitting with every attack.

Seriously, when you go to a restaurant with friends, do you expect to be allowed to bring in food from another restaurant, or to bring your own drinks or do you accept that they want you to buy the food from their food-selling business?

 

 

Note how my post doesn’t actually talk about those kinds of proxies. Please stay on topic. We’re discussing painting armies differently to the official schemes. Save your silly strawmen for someone actually making that argument.

 

How do you cope with people painting their army in a non official scheme? Do you insist that they don’t use the stormhost rules, even though page 117 states to “pick the stormhost that most closely matches the nature of your own stormhost?” (Not colour scheme). Do you insist that they must create their own unique fluff to go with their own scheme and stick rigorously to it? Do you vet the fluff of every opponent beforehand? Or do you insist that they must use the generic Stormcast traits? Are they allowed to change them or must they stick with the first one they picked forever because you now associate that rule with their colour scheme?

See how ridiculous this is?

Edited July 5, 2021 by PrimeElectrid

[pnkdth]

I think we're arguing about different scenarios.

S1: The player is new and/or is slowly getting into the hobby. In this scenario proxies are fine for the vast majority of players.

S2: The player is not new and changes things around to the point where it is difficult to keep track of (model-wise). This can get troublesome and disruptive to the game. You can get around this with markers and stuff. 

S3: Painting scheme. I do not think anyone here has expressed an issue with "the wrong" paint scheme.

S4: You arrive in a narrative setting where matched play is secondary to the lore/background. Here you might end up in a situation where disregarding or showing disinterest in representing your models on the tabletop can be downright disrespectful (and the group might not be a good fit).

S5: You have an amazing idea for a conversion or theme of an army. I do not think anyone would have an issue with this scenario. I've never ever come into contact with this anyways. Conversions, however, least how I understand it does not fall under 'proxying'.

From my POV it seems everyone is fine with proxying in S1, S3, S5. S2 can be fine but it depends on the player. I enjoy WYSIWYG but I'm not pedantic. S3 is also something which I've never really seen much of being an issue. S4 you're in a hobbyist first-scenario where it isn't about being a gatekeeper but rather getting into the narrative/hobbyist aspect. In that case it becomes about respecting the community you joined.

Overall, it comes down to the community you play in. Non-tournament play is likely going to be more relaxed whereas competitive players are probably going to demand WYSIWYG(...ish). Then there's hobbyist and narrative play which might be more strict/lenient.

There are probably more scenarios but overall, as seen in this discussions most of us use these particular rules as guidelines.

[Kadeton]

31 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Thor forbid that the person who knows he can't use a pogo stick in a 500 meter hurdle race speak up and asks the person wanting to use a pogo stick in said race to either leave the pogo stick at home or go find a pogo stick race.

When one runner demands that another competitor be disqualified because they're wearing a certain colour of shorts, that runner is an idiot who should themselves be disqualified for unsporting conduct and causing an unnecessary disturbance with their spurious objections. The more that person raises their voice and gets mad about stylistic choices, the more foolish they look.

[rosa]

17 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:

Note how my post doesn’t actually talk about those kinds of proxies. Please stay on topic. We’re discussing painting armies differently to the official schemes. Save your silly strawmen for someone actually making that argument.

 

How do you cope with people painting their army in a non official scheme? Do you insist that they don’t use the stormhost rules, even though page 117 states to “pick the stormhost that most closely matches the nature of your own stormhost?” (Not colour scheme). Do you insist that they must create their own unique fluff to go with their own scheme and stick rigorously to it? Do you vet the fluff of every opponent beforehand? Or do you insist that they must use the generic Stormcast traits? Are they allowed to change them or must they stick with the first one they picked forever because you now associate that rule with their colour scheme?

See how ridiculous this is?

100% this!

[Kodos der Henker]

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

for the pro side, I have Stormcast with the wong weapons, mainly because I ended with 2 many core box models, so my Liberator with two-handed hammer also has a shield

should not be a problem, but if my opponent think it is one it want me to remove it, I will insist that he uses the subfaction matching the colours he painted his army

[NauticalSoup]

Sleboda is at least doing an excellent job illustrating why that paragraph is so unpopular, if nothing else.

[Ragest]

My wardens have different colors depending on the spell they are carrying (Red for Solar and yellow for lambent), same with Sentinels that are light blue (Ethereal) and green (speed)

So I can't play them because they can be confusing even when I painted them to help my opponent to identify their spells.

Hilarious.

[Marcvs]

 

...hope you didn't plan on playing them as any of the codified subfactions... 🤣

 

 

[Ahriman]

Its incredible how venomous this subject has become here, and its made it a tad intimidating to jump into the coversation for one side or the other, but here goes!

For me two main issues keep being brought up:

- the disbelief that someone would be genuinely confused by the paint colour on the plastic miniatures before them, to the point it would create tactical mistakes

- and the question of whether any number of people actually know what the different sub-faction schemes are.

 

To me, the conflict comes from the arguments being made by differing kinds of players (though I don't want to put words in people's mouths, so apologies in advance).

If you're playing the hobby largely for the test of wit that is the game, and also with an interest in the painting side of the hobby, to you the ruling seems like an infringement on your ability to try out different rules and discover what works best, while also painting your models in a way you enjoy (colour choose, difficulty of that scheme, personal meaning, ect).

 

On the other side of the argument (which for disclosure, is where I sit), are those who are invested in the lore of these worlds, and how that comes to life on the tabletop. To them, this ruling means they can put their toy models on the table opposite a Hag Narr force, and think oooh this should be different to that awesome game against the Kailebron temple I played last week, should be fun!

Its can be a shame to discover that every game against X faction turns out the same, because everyone's using the same faction trait (Ossiarchs had this problem when they first came out as Petrifex Elite was the clear winner for rules).

 

These FAQs are to cover Matched, Narrative and Open play - and as such they want to encourage you using the correct rules for the correct faction.

 

 

The reason whhhyyy leads me on to the second point I noticed like I said above - few people know what the sub-factions are.

Some in this thread have claimed the reason they want to enforce this rule is so that you have to purchase multiple Stormcast armies like people own mulitple marine armies (which I think is a ludicrous assessment btw).

But I believe the reason people own mulitple marine armies, is because they think that, for example, "Salamanders are awesome, but Black Templars are just insaane, and I do also love the stoicism of the Ultramarines. I'll do an army of each as I just can't choose". And these opinions will be based on a mix of rules, lore and colour schemes.

And I bet that GW would looooove for the vast majority of people to be able to go through a similiar thought process for AoS armies. They know that the lore of their worlds is what makes them the biggest player in this market, and they want people to be invested in the stories and characters of the Mortal Realms in the same way people are invested in 40k.

 

So, in short (my god that was a wordy post, sorry!) - yes they want to make more money, but they'll want it to be through your investment in the worlds they've created.

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

[Fyrm]

This got super long, so I’m going to add up here that I do not mean any offense, I just have strong opinions about this subject. Also a TLDR is at the bottom. 
 

One of my roommates plays cities of sigmar. Not because of the cities as a whole. Because he’s a dispossessed player at heart. He dabbles in the other Dawi, but he’s a traditionalist in the most dwarves way. 
 

According to these rules, he has one option for ranged units. Sure, they’re good, but iron drakes are a particular type of shooting. Very slow, very elite. Sometimes he wants to run a big blob of shooting. So he proxies. Technically some would call it “counts as”, but he runs old thunderers as hand gunners and dwarven crossbowmen as free guild crossbowmen. He is very clear that he’s doing it, and there isn’t much room for confusion there. There aren’t any dwarven gunners or crossbowmen he could be using, so it’s not like there’s a model that the enemy will think of when they see them. 

 

but now, any hope of me convincing him to take his dwarves to a tournament are greatly hampered. He’s already weary of dealing with “that guy”, and now that guy has far more ammunition to throw at him. And if someone tries to argue that “this rule isn’t for him”, a rule that isn’t enforced isn’t really there, and a rule that is only enforced some of the time is even worse. 
 

 

relatedly, I love conversions. For my Sylvaneth army, I’m planning a treelord with a flowing cape of leaves, maybe also try to give him a scepter if I can think of a way to do it without making him look too much like an Ancient. Because I’m my lore the Glade is run by a Treelord princeling, only a couple centuries old but the descendant [in as much as treefolk can have those] of the most glorious ruler the Glade has seen. Now I’m not so sure I should, because “that guy” has ammunition to use to disqualify me should I play that marvelous conversion. 
 

same for my daughters of khaine. I have a group of Melusai who collect the crystalline arms of their slain foes, still holding their weapons, as trophies. A way to use bits and to give them a bit more personality. There’s no rules for having backup weapons on Melusai, just a silly thingy I did. But now, by the rules, the rules I want to follow, I am labeled a cheater for wanting to be creative. 
 

 

that what this boils down to for me. I’m glad GW has a stance on this sort of thingy. It tells me where they stand, by definition. But where they fell pushed me and my friends out of official games. We’ll still play, but less, and not in any place that will act as advertising for them. We’ll play at home mostly. 
 

As I said, a rule unenforced doesn’t actually exist as a rule, and a rule only enforced against some people is even worse. If a rule exists, it should be followed by everyone. Not just “the people it’s meant for”. No one thinks a rule is meant for them, especially not the people it’s meant for. If there was a rule that said “if your opponent is using a top meta chasing list, all your units get a 3+ ward”, I’d be very frustrated, as would many I believe. Every rule must be equally applied. 
 

another thingy [sorry, I know I’m rambly 😅] is that I’m not going to open up my opponents battletome to check color schemes. I will go over their units and faction and sub faction rules, but I’m not pulling out a set of color swatches to check color schemes. And if that doesn’t become the new norm, then this rule isn’t being applied. If a rule isn’t being applied, it should be examined and revised. 
 

 

I love warhammer. Because of how much creativity and strategy both it encourages. This new edition has its flaws, but it looks on the whole fun!!! If I have to play in the safety of my own home to be allowed to ignore a rule that would disqualify my and my friends unless we plopped down more money. Disqualify us for investing into the lore of the game. For getting into the fun of the hobby. 
 

TLDR: In my estimation this rule, as written, reduces engagement in the lore and fluff of the setting.