Painting for Advantage

[darkelf]

edited for Sigmar's glory

[Sleboda]

On the surface, it's super easy to go "What?  Geeze.  No. Of course your colors don't matter.  Of course."

For the sake of discussion and to provide a different view, though, I'll say a bit.

Let me be clear - I'm not telling someone that they are not welcome on my table for using alternate colors.  I'm just putting this out there because I think there is a layer beneath the surface that is worth attention.

 

The appearance of models matters. We play with these things instead of chits/bases/tokens for a reason.  You can look at a model and assess its capabilities. I would not put out a dude with a hammer and call it a dude with a crossbow. I would not field a unit with no banners and expect my opponent to remember which units actually do have banners and which don't.

I would not use Dark Angels models painted green and ask my opponent to treat them as if they were Blood Angels.

Yes, they are similar, but so is a model with and without a banner or one with or without a star mace thingie.

If a particular visual reference means a model can or cannot do X, then the visual is important.  It's not just "pay the points and you're good to go." Again, we use models, not chits. If a chit is 10 points or 50 points it does not mean anything to me until it's the correct model, visually.

I'm just saying we should cut the opposing view a little slack.  The visuals mean a lot to some folks.

For more reading on this that you might want, read this.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Fair point, but at the same time you're discussing models, not paintjobs. You gave the example of trading a hammer for a crossbow, but that's not in the purview of this thread, we're discussing just the paintjobs.

In your example, Dark Angels models have a different base kit with a subtly different aesthetic. Blood Angels also have a unique Tactical box, so you're either using some models to represent the wrong faction, or not. At which point if you painted the standard Tac Marine boxset red, you haven't used the official Blood Angels boxset, and thus should it be banned?

What if it's a gift? I mean, the ol' example of a parent getting Little Timmy a box of them Space Marines gets a bit awkward if you then have to impress that buying the box and painting it wrong means it is now forbidden. Got a Deathwatch box of Marines because dad said, "the black ones," when you play Black Templars? Sorry man, you're like literally the worst, you power gamer.

Plus it barely matters what colour you paint your Sigmarines, because they're all mostly uniform anyway. The best schemes I've seen for them weren't from those five minute photoshop swatches GW does colour scheme variations in these days, they're from creative types you're now denying the ability to play with them because that is not the box art scheme and therefore it is wrong. How does this approach in any way improve the hobby or the game?

(Not making this post to you directly, Sleboda, more to the room in general.)

[rokapoke]

So on the idea of WYSIWYG, let's say I'm running a battalion plus a handful of additional models in any faction. If I have my army painted in one coherent theme, how do you differentiate a unit that is part of the battalion from an otherwise identical-in-appearance unit that isn't part of the battalion? Simple - I keep reminding my opponent that this unit gets whatever bonus and that unit doesn't. 

By the exact same logic, I can remind you throughout the game that my custom-painted Stormcast will be benefiting from these bonuses associated with whatever Stormhost I've built the list for that game. In the end, even WYSIWYG has some common-sense limitations. 

[Sleboda]

Would you also task your opponent with remembering that *this* star mace guy *actually* has one, but *that* star mace guy doesn't? 

Not provoking. Genuinely wondering. 

Essentially, where is the line where it is ok to expect your opponent to take on more responsibility to facilitate your creative expression (or lack of desire to paint more models)?

[HeadHunter]

5 hours ago, wayniac said:

In 40k, you get around it by saying your guys are a "successor chapter" and use the parent chapter's rules, but people might still roll their eyes at using Space Wolf rules for a homebrew chapter (as Space Wolves can't have successors). 

"No known successors" is a bit different than "can't have successors".  Yes, we know the fate of (most of) the Wolf Brothers, but there are at least 1000 Chapters in the Astartes.  no player can possibly name them all - even the Astartes and High Lords of Terra can't name them all.  The Emperor only knows their names and their progenitors.

Unless someone can name me all of the 1000 chapters and their parent Legion, I'd be damned if they dare to tell me I can't play according to some particular Codex I've chosen.

[Arkiham]

so, you're taking offence to someone/ some people who are floating the idea of making a tournament for people who want to keep it " correct " to the story and fluff presented by games-workshop? this theoretical tournament no one is forcing anyone to go to, this theoretical tournament whose success will depend on people who, also wish to play in that environment?  

 

i remember a heelanhammer podcast where they were saying that back in the day they couldn't find a tournament which done things how they wanted things to be done, so instead of whining an moaning about it they decided to make their own. this is now the biggest event in the UK ( SCGT ) 

if someone wants to arrange a event, where they proclaim that wysiwyg/wisiwig is mandatory ( both paint and models ) then so be it. who are we to tell them no? it's their tournament, don't like it? don't go. 

if it becomes popular to the extent of it becoming a major event then it shows that there is obvious demand for such an event, no one in your local club or your mates will suddenly turn their nose up at you and refuse a game.

as, people who want a game, will more often than not, take any game.

if they only want to play a certain sort of game, they will ask for that sort of game, and they have as much right to deny playing you as they wish to play that type of game, as you have to deny them one as you don't. 

games-workshop absolutely do not hold this stance, and never will. 

so it will never  become an official rule.

 

if you don't like it, then don't concern yourself over it, as it won't affect you. 

 

[Shoe]

I played 40k before space marines had special rules for their chapters. Once that happened, people began painting them appropriately, or repainting them but most people didn't give a ******. Within a year everyone was just expected you to field what you were playing. 

What a lot of us did was keep our color schemes and just paint one shoulder to match the chapter we chose. 

[rokapoke]

8 minutes ago, Arkiham said:

games-workshop absolutely do not hold this stance, and never will. 

so it will never  become an official rule.

"Never" is a dangerous word. Remember when the internet was so sure that AoS would never succeed?

[Sleboda]

2 hours ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

Fair point, but at the same time you're discussing models, not paintjobs. You gave the example of trading a hammer for a crossbow, but that's not in the purview of this thread, we're discussing just the paintjobs.

 

(Not making this post to you directly, Sleboda, more to the room in general.)

(Back atchya.  Just good talkie stuff.)

On the top bit-

I've failed to be clear enough then, because my point is that they are the same. Shape and color are both visual cues. If the question is about painting for advantage, what the topic really is is "Modifying the model's appearance for advantage."

It's why I linked to the thing I did. My example on that chart shows that for old timers like me, painting something bronze, black, and red signifies Khorne, and thus attacks from hell, whereas painting the same model in pastels would signify Slaanesh, and thus no fear of running away. Two different threats based on the colors used - Just as two swords on a model vs one really huge sword conveys two different threats.

Also:

Quote

Blood Angels also have a unique Tactical box, so you're either using some models to represent the wrong faction, or not. At which point if you painted the standard Tac Marine boxset red, you haven't used the official Blood Angels boxset, and thus should it be banned?

More of a square thing as opposed to a rectangle.  All red marines are not BA, but BAs are painted red, often with wing designs and blood drops, etc.  Your red marines might work fine as BA, but if you have followed the full on BA look, then it's worth considering not confusing your foe by claiming they are not BAs.

I dunno. I just pretty much always take the option that places the onus on me to hit the mark, rather than assuming or expecting my opponent to allow me to slide. A way to sum up my thought process is this -

When I would build armies I would think "Can I put my force on the table and know that, without me saying a word to my opponent, he or she would know the army type, the units, the equipment ... all the non-hidden stuff?"  If not, if a conversion got too crazy or a color scheme too confusing, then I took it as poke to pull me back a bit and make different choices so that I didn't have to expect my opponent to have to add my creative expression to the list of things that he had to remember when when in-game, heat of the moment decisions. I never felt like my creativity was squashed.  I always found ways to have fun and not put subtle pressures (intended or not) on the other player.

Besides, is it really so horrible to have to paint more models and have and even bigger collection when you are done?

[Arkiham]

1 minute ago, rokapoke said:

"Never" is a dangerous word. Remember when the internet was so sure that AoS would never succeed?

meh

[Saproling]

I don't think there's anything to stop people from using rules of a particular faction even if the models 'aren't painted correctly'. Painting an army takes time, patience and effort which is a real labour of love to get everything completed. Having someone turn around and say 'you can't use X rules for Z faction because you've painted all your Z's in Y's colour scheme' is quite frankly rude and off-putting considering when the rules are immaterial. I'm making this argument under the presumption that the rules aren't part of the newest power-faction hotness. If someone painted up Blue chaos warriors but wanted to run nurgle or slaanesh, I'd be fine with it as long as it's consistent. If there's 3 units of blue chaos warriors and one's Tzeentch, one's Khorne and one's Slaanesh, then I'd have a bit of a problem if there was nothing to distinctly distinguish them.

I'm still quite new to AoS, with one game under my belt but I'll throw this out there:

How is painting an army in the "wrong colours" worse than keeping an army in bare plastic and jumping from rules to rules?

[Thomas Lyons]

3 hours ago, darkelf said:

so what you're saying is that @Ben is discriminating against elves at his events? interesting.

Please don't get me in trouble.  I've not said any such thing.  All I did was tease all the social implications and point out the incentive structure that our most competitive players are going to follow.  I've simply pointed out the limitations and pitfalls of any such approach. If an event wants to incentivize stock coloration, its their prerogative.  I'm just walking down that road and showing people what the down stream consequence is for such a design decision.

[darkelf]

51 minutes ago, Thomas Lyons said:

I've not said any such thing

no you did not. By Sigmar those SC are amazing.

[rokapoke]

2 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Would you also task your opponent with remembering that *this* star mace guy *actually* has one, but *that* star mace guy doesn't? 

Not provoking. Genuinely wondering. 

Essentially, where is the line where it is ok to expect your opponent to take on more responsibility to facilitate your creative expression (or lack of desire to paint more models)?

Not sure how that relates to my point regarding identical units where one is part of a battalion but the other is not. Battalion bonuses, which are at the heart of this discussion about color scheme garnering certain abilities, inherently require both players to differentiate units without any visible cues other than tracking their movements around the battlefield. Therefore, I don't see a big deal with giving the bonuses to an army that is "listed" properly as whatever stormhost even if it's not painted as such, because it's the same mental gymnastics, in my opinion. 

[Sleboda]

3 hours ago, rokapoke said:

how do you differentiate a unit that is part of the battalion from an otherwise identical-in-appearance unit that isn't part of the battalion?

...

Not sure how that relates to my point regarding identical units where one is part of a battalion but the other is not 

That _is_ the relationship.  Two identical models, one with a bonus and one not. Just like two models with star maces, but only one gets the bonus.

I saw that you said you would frequently remind the opponent about the confusing situation you've presented when it comes to paint jobs. I just wondered if you would use the same approach to cover other visual (non)differences.

My solution would be to create a distinction or forgo the option that gave me a bonus, but not all players opt to take the responsibility for clarity as far as I do.  I'm just getting an understanding for your "line."

 

Side note - I find it fascinating how much in life (including gaming) can be boiled down to where we draw our individual lines.  No point to that really.  It just interests me.

[rokapoke]

If I have two Maces in my unit, they're both Maces. If I have two units of Retributors in my army, however, it's entirely possible that only one is part of a battalion. Distinct difference. 

Further, if I tell you that I'm using a single stormhost bonus at the beginning of the game, I don't see the big deal, even if my paint job is different. I dunno, I'm not super entrenched in Warhammer, having only started the hobby after AoS dropped, so maybe that's why I'm pretty lax about this whole thing. 

[Sleboda]

I hear ya.  (And welcome to the hobby!)

I do go to pretty nutso extremes to make sure my opponents don't ever have to feel put upon for my decisions (other than them feeling the pain of their loss at my ancient hands, of course {insert cackle}).  

[Galas]

5 hours ago, Sleboda said:

 

Besides, is it really so horrible to have to paint more models and have and even bigger collection when you are done?

Horrible? No! Expensive? Yes

Im gonna say first that i had never have this problem, basically because It's always a problem of the poster boys (stormcast and marines) and i go full green! ( and pink, blue, white... I have orcs of all the colours of the rainbow)

I want to use and example of a friend of mine. He loves ultramarines, their fluff, their roman aesthetics, but he find his rules totally dull and boring. This friend loves bikes, he has 3 motorcycles and powerdudes killing robots with a sword in a bike It's what hook him to warhammer in the first place. So he has a lovely ultramarines army of all bikes with a cato sicarius converted into samael and uses white scars and ravenwing rules. It's that bad? Every model has the weapons they bring to the table. It's really that hard to remember that this all bike ultramarine army uses other rules? Should we handicap all this hard work?

Should my friend say that this army iS really the blue omega scars, a white scar sucesor? Just saying that iS ok then?

I put this example, because i heard all the time "why change rules all the time? If you do that im sure you go with the most op rules!" and i have no doubt that someone will do it for that reason.

But something like this iS a rule where innocent people pay for a guilty minority. Creative people, the same people this hobby was made for. 

(No, im not saying that the ones of you that defend something like this arent Creative. Just that this rule hurt creativity)

[Ollie Grimwood]

As far as hobby scores go at events, the colours you paint your models do matter already as does your choice of miniatures/proxies and theme. 

I've certainly discounted an army  when voting for best army because the way it was painted doesn't represent what it is supposed to be. As a sort of side point you won't win a Golden Daemon with a Hello Kitty* Stormcast no matter how well it is painted. 

The thing is if an event has a hobby element to it, these things do matter. So much so that  players will alter their unit choices depending on how hobby scores are weighted, taking less optimum units or models because they will get them better hobby scores. 

* chosen at random feel free to add any other obviously non appropriate paint job. 

[RuneBrush]

Although I have put in my opinion on this earlier, I just thought I'd throw an extra point of view in.  The argument for/against this is primarily because GW have now released battalion rules for specific warrior chambers (which have a defined colour scheme), whereas previously you had nothing quite as clear cut.  If we're all being honest, if this had happened in the first Stormcast Battletome, we'd not be having this discussion at all.

Let's put it another way, we already have this in place in AoS - for Chaos.  If I paint up a unit of Marauders in manky green, which Mark of Chaos do they have?  If I paint the same models in Blue it'll be pretty obvious which Mark they have.  Each Mark of Chaos confers a specific rules bonus in game.  I've yet to see somebody put down a Chaos unit painted Red and state they have a Mark of Slaanesh.  

Now I'll also argue that there is a lot of flexibility in this, you've probably got a dozen different blues in the Citadel range alone, whereas the Warrior Chambers are much more regimented.  But the principal argument is largely the same, should I be allowed to express my creativity and paint a model up in a scheme that makes it confusing to my opponent what it does in game?  For me this actually put the decision whether or not to enforce specific colour schemes in the hands of Tournament Organisers.  I've seen quite a few event packs state that models must "represent the warscroll" or similar wording so there is an argument that this decision has already been made.

7 hours ago, HeadHunter said:

"No known successors" is a bit different than "can't have successors".  Yes, we know the fate of (most of) the Wolf Brothers, but there are at least 1000 Chapters in the Astartes.  no player can possibly name them all - even the Astartes and High Lords of Terra can't name them all.  The Emperor only knows their names and their progenitors.

Unless someone can name me all of the 1000 chapters and their parent Legion, I'd be damned if they dare to tell me I can't play according to some particular Codex I've chosen.

Actually I'd argue that Space Wolves are the exception to the rule on that and there's quite a bit of background stating why they can't have a second founding.  That said if you had a high number of Wulfen you could theoretically justify a second founding.  However this is AoS so I'll pop my 40k anorak on the coat rack  

[CoffeeGrunt]

I think everyone is discussing a different argument here tbh. Some are arguing over what tournament organisers should do, some are arguing it from a casual viewpoint, and most are arguing about 40k. ?

Personally my local area isn't thriving enough to even enforce for painted armies yet, and I'm a player who likes to switch things up to prevent the game getting stale , so despite having 4k painted I still tend to have a unit or two hitting the table WIP. I still have a more painted army than the majority of my opponents. 

[Gaz Taylor]

13 minutes ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

I think everyone is discussing a different argument here tbh. Some are arguing over what tournament organisers should do, some are arguing it from a casual viewpoint, and most are arguing about 40k. ?

Yup. I think a lot of people are forgetting that one aspect of the hobby you enjoy, somebody may not enjoy as much.

This is pretty much the same discussion that happened when this all came round when this concept was introduced in 40K and still goes on now. 

[Galas]

So... First was painted models (im totally ok with that. As a narrative player i only use painted models! )

Then come what you see iS what you get ( in a tournament i find it pretty mandatory)

Now is apropiate colours (The point about chaos... I had seen yellow khorne armys, yellow nurgle armies, violet tzeentch, white and orange slaanesh, are actually color regulations un the chaos armys?!...nobody saw john blanche white and black bloodletters? Those are malal colours!) 

What will be next? If you dont put together your models in the exact  same way that gw photos do in the boxes you cant play tournaments? 

It helps clarity, doesnt it? 

At what point the "clarity" argument It's more similar to "people cant remember 2 variations from the company standart"?

[Uveron]

14 hours ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

It erases any ability to "forge your own narrative" though. Plus how do you dictate how Death should look? I've got skeletal Necromancers, is that legal? My Blood Knights ride undead Cold Ones, is that legal? How far down this rabbit hole do we go? Or so we declare anything but the most boring, vanilla models and paint jobs to be verboten? For a point that claims to come from the view of "preserving the hobby," this only cripples it in my opinion.

It not only cripples it, it basicly shoots it dead. 

I will spend more time painting and converting models than playing. Personally,  Someone who paints and models fantastic works of art, should not be punished.

At the end of the day , there is not a easy solution to this problem.  The best solution is for TO's to say that there is a " Potential to give reduced hobby scores ".. based on how much they have violated the ' spirit of the game '  which is a bit wishy-washy but when players do it.. its noticeable. (Like in 40k when the expertly painted Ultra's show up using white scars rules...