Painting for Advantage

[CoffeeGrunt]

Some of the best schemes I've seen are non-standard, because they nail the character of a force in a way you never considered before. It's easily my favourite aspect of the hobby.

[amysrevenge]

Another part of the issue is this:  I'm a pretty heavily invested AoS player.  I've read all of the campaign books, and over half of the battle tomes - that probably puts me in about the 85th percentile of all AoS players as far as lore goes (maybe 40th percentile of TGA posters but this is a self-selecting group).

I can name maybe 4-5 SCE chambers, and I know the "main" colour scheme of just 3 of those (ie. the dominant colours), and the full colour scheme (down to tertiary colours) of just 1, and even then I'd have to look up some of the tiny details.

My opponent could tell me they are in Chamber X, with colours Y and Z, and I would believe them.  Because what do I know?    You'd need to be in like the 95th percentile of knowledgeable players to know all of those colours.  The vast majority of players will have no idea, and yet will find a way to get through the game.  The tiny minorty who know better should, I hope, have the wherewithal to find somewhere in their wide gaming experience the moral resolve to struggle, as their eyes continue to lie to them, to complete the game without losing their sanity.  "But...  You say these are Hambones of Signoid...  But their scabbards are Gorthor Brown instead of Baneblade Brown...  This cannot be...  Is everything I know in this world a lie?" *jumps out window*

Now, the bar for knowing the difference between a hammer and a sword (ie. WYSIWYG between Retributors and Protectors) is MUCH lower, like 5th percentile.

[HeadHunter]

On 2/27/2017 at 8:34 PM, Arkiham said:

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?

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. 

They certainly have the right to do so, but unless they find a bunch of like-minded people, they may have some issues with attendance.  

Personally, I don't care as much about the authenticity of a color scheme as I do about how nice they turned out.  I'd rather play against a nicely-painted army in the opposite color, rather than a poorly-painted one in the textbook scheme.

If I wanted to play something with absolute by-the-book adherence, I'd sell my AoS and 40K armies and just play Ultramarines.

[Arkiham]

1 hour ago, HeadHunter said:

They certainly have the right to do so, but unless they find a bunch of like-minded people, they may have some issues with attendance.  

That is precisely the point.

If people don't like it. It won't work.

[DynamicCalories]

I can see the issues at a Tournament, but in casual local play, I think it would be a bit miserly to say... disallow a unit of Chaos Warriors to have the mark of Tzeentch because they're painted red, or the Mark of Slaanesh because they're painted green. They're mortals, and no matter how devoted they are, they're susceptible to the wiles of the gods. Maybe they're in thrall for some reason.

It gets a bit tougher when you look at more specific and less flexible paint schemes in Stormcast, Sylvaneth etc, but I'd be pretty bummed out if I wanted to run a variation on an army and my opponent discredited it because I hadn't spent the extra time and effort on stuff just for a few different dice rolls. the last game I had against Ironjawz the guy got the Mawkrusha rules wrong because he hadn't read how to equip his boss, because he hadn't built his boss. 

However I am probably in a minority because I am building my force based on the idea of getting one of every kind of unit that I like and throwing them together on the table. Lukcily I like the Nurgle Aesthetic the most, but if one day down the line I want some Tzangor, I hope my opponent lets me run my oily Slaves to Darkness forces with them.

[Kuma]

Creativity and Hobbying should not be stifled by some fluff snob's view on what color my widow pwastic mans are.

If someone said my stormcasts were painted the wrong scheme I would laugh in their face. Literally.

That kind of thing is what keeps people from participating more fully. 

 

[CoffeeGrunt]

It's also the kinda anally-retentive behaviour that fuels Big Bang Theory "gags." Don't make TBBT accurate, guys. 

[amysrevenge]

I guess I kinda get what the impulse is - from that perspective it's not about stifling creativity, it's about sorta comping-without-comping army lists. 

You can still paint your armymans any colour you like, but ostensibly not choose chambers/battalions/rules without matching the colour scheme.  It's a way to put some limits on army selection while still being able to claim you're playing uncomped AoS.  It's an attempt to have it both ways - get the comp you want without having to explicitly concede it in your rules pack. 

Ultimately I don't think it's a honest attempt - either do comp or don't do comp, none of this trying to sneak it in under paint rules.

[Kuma]

there is no rule for what color something should be. Its just fluff.  Just an example.  Its not comp. if the rules stated that they had to be a certain color, then you would have something. But you dont. You just have a schema that is rigid and incorrect. its stifling to creativity and anti-fun.

[BURF1]

I'd be fine as long as they went FULL wysiwyg, and I mean FULL. If wysiwyg is so important that your color scheme makes a difference than no one should be allowed to use any model that isn't the EXACT SPECIFIC model that appears on the box art. Not one painted just like them, not one that was part of the same batch paint job in the GW studio, the EXACT model that appears on the cover art are the ONLY models that are truly wysiwyg and should be the only ones allowed at any event. Ever.

[Arkiham]

3 hours ago, BURF1 said:

I'd be fine as long as they went FULL wysiwyg, and I mean FULL. If wysiwyg is so important that your color scheme makes a difference than no one should be allowed to use any model that isn't the EXACT SPECIFIC model that appears on the box art. Not one painted just like them, not one that was part of the same batch paint job in the GW studio, the EXACT model that appears on the cover art are the ONLY models that are truly wysiwyg and should be the only ones allowed at any event. Ever.

comments like this detract from valid points. 

 

[Arkiham]

its amazing that people are taking this completely out of context an treating it like the TO's are trying to convince GW that this should be a rule...

an not one person that i've seen has acknowledged that fact if the to wants his tournament to be this sort of setting then why cant they ?

instead of being " stop trying to suppress creativity and ruin people's hobby just let them do what they want " see it instead of " oh thats cool, but not my thing ill pass " the number of people choosing to do that or " hey thats a nice idea, im in! " will define if it becomes a success.

but this person organising their own tournament has chosen to try this rule out as a proposal and wants constructive feedback on things relevant to it things which could make it a uniquely fun tournament.

not what you do, no one cares what colour you choose to paint your models, or what you want to pose them like. no one is imposing on you new rules to paint to a standard or scheme. stop over-reacting.

you want to paint stormcast bright pink with fluffy hammers and chaos heads? sure go ahead, but this person doesnt want that at their tournament. find another one or make your own which allows it.

 

this is no different to current TO's introducing houserules for other things. if you dont like those house rules you dont go..

[Kuma]

Actually noone was talking about a tournament. the question posed was this:

 

 

"So simple question, should we have to paint our models in a certain colour to get the benefits, or should there be a more relaxed attitude?"

 

And I believe that is what was being discussed. 

[Arkiham]

1 minute ago, Kuma said:

Actually noone was talking about a tournament. the question posed was this:

 

 

"So simple question, should we have to paint our models in a certain colour to get the benefits, or should there be a more relaxed attitude?"

 

And I believe that is what was being discussed. 

and this all stemmed from a twitter post about a TO who runs successful tournaments considering making it a minor rule for his tournaments for stormcast/sylvaneth and other relevant factions 

[BURF1]

3 hours ago, Arkiham said:

comments like this detract from valid points. 

 

Comments like this utilize satire and hyperbole to emphasize valid points. TL;DR: Wysiwyg is not a sufficient basis for a policy like suggested by Ben Curry because wysiwyg is inherently a sliding scale due the nature of the game.

[BootyKnight]

Edit

 

 

[BootyKnight]

its amazing that people are taking this completely out of context an treating it like the TO's are trying to convince GW that this should be a rule...
an not one person that i've seen has acknowledged that fact if the to wants his tournament to be this sort of setting then why cant they ?
instead of being " stop trying to suppress creativity and ruin people's hobby just let them do what they want " see it instead of " oh thats cool, but not my thing ill pass " the number of people choosing to do that or " hey thats a nice idea, im in! " will define if it becomes a success.
but this person organising their own tournament has chosen to try this rule out as a proposal and wants constructive feedback on things relevant to it things which could make it a uniquely fun tournament.
not what you do, no one cares what colour you choose to paint your models, or what you want to pose them like. no one is imposing on you new rules to paint to a standard or scheme. stop over-reacting.
you want to paint stormcast bright pink with fluffy hammers and chaos heads? sure go ahead, but this person doesnt want that at their tournament. find another one or make your own which allows it.
 
this is no different to current TO's introducing houserules for other things. if you dont like those house rules you dont go..

It sets a bad precedent though, doesn't it? Big successful tournament alienates certain percentage of player base due to not following strict paint schemes. Now you could just ignore it and not attend, but it's a successful tournament, and you want to compete in it and see how well you do, or maybe it's the only tournament accessible to you. Where does that leave you? Either you repaint your forces or you organize your own tournament. Not everyone has the ability or patience or time or experience to set something like that up, even more so to set something up that compares to something that's been running successfully for awhile now.

Now if you choose to repaint your forces, that's non value added time for your hobby. You're not doing it for the spirit of your hobby or your enjoyment, you're doing to fulfill a requirement to be able to field your army at a tournament. It also sets a bad example, I should think, for new players. They'll see that "oh I can paint my guys any scheme I like", then they see how the competitive scene is and say "but if I wanna do well with a certain force I should paint them this way".

I'm sure I've exaggerated my points on this, but I think people who feel so strongly against feel that this could get out of hand pretty quickly considering that there are members of the community who are *that guy*.

My 2 cents.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Ollie Grimwood]

4 hours ago, BURF1 said:

Comments like this utilize satire and hyperbole to emphasize valid points. TL;DR: Wysiwyg is not a sufficient basis for a policy like suggested by Ben Curry because wysiwyg is inherently a sliding scale due the nature of the game.

Not really because it doesn't actually address the policy that @Ben suggested which wasn't about allowing or not allow the use of rules or models but rather how he would approach hobby scores at his events.  

If we just want to stretch it to the longest possible degree, I could say something in the lines of, well if what the model looks like doesn't matter I should be allowed to use any models or proxies I like at any tournament I decide to go to. To represent anything I like. But no  oneis suggesting that it's just something to distract and deflect, or maybe use misinformation to try and get others to side with my view point, which is what the thread feels like. 

[Ollie Grimwood]

45 minutes ago, BootyKnight said:

 

It sets a bad precedent though, doesn't it? Big successful tournament alienates certain percentage of player base due to not following strict paint schemes. Now you could just ignore it and not attend, but it's a successful tournament, and you want to compete in it and see how well you do, or maybe it's the only tournament accessible to you. Where does that leave you? Either you repaint your forces or you organize your own tournament. Not everyone has the ability or patience or time or experience to set something like that up, even more so to set something up that compares to something that's been running successfully for awhile now.

Now if you choose to repaint your forces, that's non value added time for your hobby. You're not doing it for the spirit of your hobby or your enjoyment, you're doing to fulfill a requirement to be able to field your army at a tournament. It also sets a bad example, I should think, for new players. They'll see that "oh I can paint my guys any scheme I like", then they see how the competitive scene is and say "but if I wanna do well with a certain force I should paint them this way".

I'm sure I've exaggerated my points on this, but I think people who feel so strongly against feel that this could get out of hand pretty quickly considering that there are members of the community who are *that guy*.

My 2 cents.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 

 

Why is that any different to "3 paint minimum" or "all models need appropriate round/oval bases"? Why does the TO have to write their pack based on the wants this hypothetical player.  What if they want a narrative event and the TO is running a hard core tournament? ( I'm getting into this Hyperbole thing now ?) 

Surely TOs and NEOs run events to attract a certain group of like minded folks attend their tournament? 

We do also need to remember that @Ben does like to stir the pot to get a conversation going 

[BootyKnight]

Why is that any different to "3 paint minimum" or "all models need appropriate round/oval bases"? Why does the TO have to write their pack based on the wants this hypothetical player.  What if they want a narrative event and the TO is running a hard core tournament? ( I'm getting into this Hyperbole thing now ?) 
Surely TOs and NEOs run events to attract a certain group of like minded folks attend their tournament? 
We do also need to remember that [mention=2]Ben[/mention] does like to stir the pot to get a conversation going 

I guess that because the 3 paint minimum and based has sort of become the tournament standard now? But what if painting for certain schemes to use certain abilities becomes the norm and kills all creativity (hyperbole! [emoji16]), wouldn't that hurt the game for painter/modelers vs gamers? I certainly think it's a nice conversation to have. I'm expecting this to come up in a future podcast. Though I do think I came off a tad too riled up in my earlier response.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Arkiham]

If it becomes the standard it's become it as it's popular .

If it's not popular people would create tournaments which don't enforce it and they would be successful.

It's success is entirely dependant upon attendees. And attendees only attend things they want to. 

And as I've said games workshop would never back such a stance so it'll never take hold. 

[Ollie Grimwood]

2 hours ago, BootyKnight said:

 

I guess that because the 3 paint minimum and based has sort of become the tournament standard now? But what if painting for certain schemes to use certain abilities becomes the norm and kills all creativity (hyperbole! ), wouldn't that hurt the game for painter/modelers vs gamers? I certainly think it's a nice conversation to have. I'm expecting this to come up in a future podcast. Though I do think I came off a tad too riled up in my earlier response.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 

 

There's already a bad dice daily podcast on the subject which is rather good as it comes straight from the horse's mouth as it were. 

I wouldn't say 3 paint minimum is necessarily a standard, it's certainly popular but GW use "fully painted and based" at their events. The 3 paint thing does seem to mean different things depending on each event as well. 

As to creativity it would all depend on how any ruling was worded, if it allowed for more flexibility with people's homebrew paint schemes it could encourage creativity.  That's not to say that wording it in other ways couldn't have a negative affect on creativity. 

[Captain Marius]

It seems different in AoS as you pay points to use these battalion abilities. In 40k the marine ranges are so distinct by now that it should be clear what is a blood angel and what is a space wolf etc. It gets more complicated with all the other chapters lumped into codex space marines and all those pointless detachments havent helped things - i hope the prophecied AoSpocalypse comes to 40k soon and makes it easy to plonk down minis and play again, regardless of what colour your marines are!

[RuneBrush]

4 minutes ago, Captain Marius said:

i hope the prophecied AoSpocalypse comes to 40k soon and makes it easy to plonk down minis and play again, regardless of what colour your marines are!

Sorry to say that from what GW has said on numerous occasions, this isn't going to happen - 40k "end times" doesn't exist.  What we're likely to get is a streamlining of the rules and three ways to play like AoS has (which is also happening in Adeptus Titanicus).

[Captain Marius]

11 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

Sorry to say that from what GW has said on numerous occasions, this isn't going to happen - 40k "end times" doesn't exist.  What we're likely to get is a streamlining of the rules and three ways to play like AoS has (which is also happening in Adeptus Titanicus).

Thatll do for me, i can take or leave the fluff but need those rules rejigging before ill give 40k another go. Marines with 2 wounds and no points would make me very happy! Then itll be a tough choice whether i use my red marines, yellow marines or alien hunting black marines!