Painting for Advantage

[roberto]

6 hours ago, Criti said:

Heck - back in the 4th ed Ork book, I used to freehand the words "Red Paint Job" into my vehicles.  The rule simply said "a model with a red paint job goes faster."  Not "a model painted red."  So I wrote the words on there and boom - still kosher.

LOL!  Clever!

I'll be sure to write "3 colors" on all the bases of my gray-primered army next time!

[Kramer]

6 hours ago, Criti said:

Actually, yes.  I do.

And here's why.  This game has always been meant to be a while hobby experience.  The whole idea of painting the miniatures is part of what the companies who make these games is selling.  So I embraced that when I came in board.

I'm by no means Golden Daemon level, but I endeavor to present good looking models to my opponent.  I often bring terrain as well, just in case the local terrain is just a bunch of 2d piece of cut felt.  I consider this a courtesy to my opponents.  We're about to give each other 2-3 hours of our time.  I feel like we should be presenting something pleasing to look at while we play.  When my opponent doesn't paint his or her army, it annoys me and eads me to believe that my opponent is not as concerned with my visual experience as I am with his or hers.  And that leads me to wonder if my opponent has any actual consideration for me as an opponent, or if I'm just a means to end end for his or her gaming.

Is that a logical argument with rock solid supporting evidence?  No.  It's purely an emotional one.  And given that I've carried it the last 15 years, I doubt it's changing anytime soon.

Where do I draw the line?  Simple - is effort going into it?  If we play today,  and you're completely unpainted, I'm annoyed a little but probably won't say anything.  If next time we play, something is primed, I am actually no longer annoyed.  Because I see you're just not done yet.

But if I play the same unpainted minis for a year and no progress is made on them, I'm probably going to eventually say, "hey man - I'm sorry, but I don't enjoy facing "the gray tide" week after week and I don't want to play against your unpainted minis anymore,  so what can we do about this?"  If the problem is cost of supplies, I'll let you borrkw my paints.  If your problem is lack of skill, I'll teach you what techniques I do know.  If the problem is time, I'll either help you find a commission painter, or I'll sit down and help you paint your minis myself - if you'll let me.

But maybe your response is "forget you, man.  I don't care if you don't like thst I don't paint."  If that's the case, I'll  thank you for listening, and I'll politely decline games from you in the future.

Some might call that elitist or exclusionary, but you know what?  I'm a 31 year old man with a wife, a son, and a good-yet-demanding job.  My gaming time is limited.  So I'm going to be picky, and I'm going to try and spend that time either with established like-minded people, or with new people I can share what I enjoy about the hobby with.

That said, to the original point, I don't care HOW models are painted, just that they are painted.

We could have thousands of Stormhosts out there.  It saysright in the Battletome that only Sigmar knows the true number.  With that possibility, it stands to reason there's someone out there with green armour who fights like a Hammer of Sigmar.

Heck - back in the 4th ed Ork book, I used to freehand the words "Red Paint Job" into my vehicles.  The rule simply said "a model with a red paint job goes faster."  Not "a model painted red."  So I wrote the words on there and boom - still kosher.

Well said. And this is why I think this is a valid conversation to have. It hopefully will help other people understand that these things go both ways. 

[amysrevenge]

16 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Just curious - how do you feel about the fireballs-as-heavy-weapons option posted earlier? 

Not opposed - I'm not that great of a player of Warhammer, but I'm not so terrible that having to remember proxies or conversions will turn my win into a loss (and if the models were all stock I'd probably have to ask which was which just as often).  And beyond that I'm not so fussed about what other folk do (see above lol).

[Captain Marius]

I played against Nurgle Chos Warriors with converted scythes using the rules for halberds yesterday - not as extreme as the fireballs but same principle. Opponent says what is what, it is consistent, let battle commence!

Another example is all the magic items that havesprung up in AoS - should these be suitably displayed on the model?

[CoffeeGrunt]

How does one represent the Ring of Immortality in a way that can be easily seen from across the table?

[amysrevenge]

WYSIWYG(WSE) is the new black

 

What you see is what you get (with some explanation)

[VBS]

58 minutes ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

How does one represent the Ring of Immortality in a way that can be easily seen from across the table?

You better add a little green stuff on a finger.  Might offend someone otherwise for not being WYSIWYG 

[Requizen]

To keep this short:
Using an alternative part or colour scheme that isn't already represented under the rules to add variety to your army = converting and modelling. Explain this to your opponent before hand.
Using something (model, paint scheme etc) that already has rules as something else because you prefer the other ruleside = proxying. Ask your opponent's permission first. They in turn should say yes unless you're really taking the p***
To my mind, using hallowed knights as celestial vindicators is no different to counting board and sword Liberators as dual hammerers because you haven't got the minis for the latter and want to try them. It's fine by me as long as you chat through it first, and don't always do it.
The chamber specific rules were added to add some depth and help the table top game better reflect the background. As a narrative player if you're going to try and flip that for advantage I wouldn't be keen, but then again that's why I play narrative, not tournaments.
Tl;dr: Play with your toys.

That would be great if I had not already painted a bunch before the book came out. I don't consider myself a powergamer, but you bet your butt I would have painted a different scheme (probably custom to have flexibility) if I knew Stormhost-flavored rules were coming.

In the meantime, there's no reason why a tactical leader wouldn't use the strategies of another Stormhost if it fit the situation better, and Lord-Celestants are supposed to be pretty good generals.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

[rokapoke]

2 hours ago, amysrevenge said:

WYSIWYG(WSE) is the new black

 

What you see is what you get (with some explanation)

I would've also accepted "(with some exceptions)".

[Sleboda]

4 hours ago, Captain Marius said:

Another example is all the magic items that havesprung up in AoS - should these be suitably displayed on the model?

Little story -

In Old Warhammer, my gobbo with the Crown of Command had "FOLLOW ME!" painted on his fancy helmet.

[amysrevenge]

I thought about editing lol

[Captain Marius]

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

Little story -

In Old Warhammer, my gobbo with the Crown of Command had "FOLLOW ME!" painted on his fancy helmet.

That is ace!

[deynon]

7 hours ago, VBS said:

You better add a little green stuff on a finger.  Might offend someone otherwise for not being WYSIWYG 

the last time someones answered me such a thing in a TO I showed it on the model and I askesd him to show me the same on his models or to remove them... he shut up. 

[Riavan]

I'd be ok with it in non competitive matches, IE non tournaments. In tournies I would want the list so they can't change ****** inbetween battles at the very least.

In friendly games I would be ok with it unless I was playing against some spergy edgelord or someone who already had enough cheese on their list.

[VBS]

1 hour ago, deynon said:

the last time someones answered me such a thing in a TO I showed it on the model and I askesd him to show me the same on his models or to remove them... he shut up. 

Hahaha, excellent! Nothing like a taste of their own medecine to destroy them 

[deynon]

Hahaha, excellent! Nothing like a taste of their own medecine to destroy them [emoji14]

In all my game years it happened 2 times:

1) as I described at the beginning of a tournament a player was saying to a new one that thing and I aswered him such. Cause each my model was modified to ensure each equipment, magic or normal one was such...
The player changed trail immediately

2) always a TO, a player said me cause I taken out my "special rooms" (movement bases totally converted) to present masses of skellies and zombies "if you don't have the proper models I make you remove"
I simply opened my miniatures boxes and showed him then "if it's not enough I can retrieve the models I lent your two friends and make them lose immediately and verify if each your model, even heroes match exactly your list... Your choice..."

It's really rare situation, I hade 2 in more than thousands of TO. I found many more nice and wonderful players in TO and not mind the result of the match, really had fun.
Unlucky some really rare time you find some "unpolite"guy. Such things make me really annoying and I answer making their game a hell like real one is paradise.

Inviato dal mio Nexus 5X utilizzando Tapatalk

[BURF1]

On 3/7/2017 at 5:45 AM, CoffeeGrunt said:

Except the Warmachine problem you cite is one born of strict adherence to WYSIWYG. It ensures that by using 2D foam shapes you can place models completely without hindrance from terrain bumps, wobbly model syndrome, etc, allowing you to get millimeter-perfect positioning because that's what that game's about. The fact it only considers terrain to exist in two dimensions means that having any verticality is utterly irrelevant to the rules, which is what ultimately has Warmachine players attending tournaments.

Now, I find nothing in the world more dull than spectating a Warmachine game and no aspect of said game appeals to me, so I'm not really fussed about it.

Also your note about Knife vs Sword is irrelevant due to the fact that there is no such thing as a Power Knife/Dagger in 40K, and only one faction in 30K may take them. Therefore it's not a WYSIWYG problem because there is no similar item it may be mistaken for. It's an edged weapon with a glow paint effect? Probably a power sword.

This is why trying to drag 40K analogies into this discussion is fruitless.

As far as representing weapons in AoS, that's not exactly difficult. Units more often than not have uniform weapons, with may one special. A few unit types have more than one special weapon, and so need to be modelled appropriately.

But again, you keep pulling this into a, "but WYSIWYG models," discussion, when the remit is about paint.

 power knives do exist in 30k though, they're an alpha legion thing S-1 AP3

[BURF1]

On 3/7/2017 at 4:58 AM, PVG said:

If we get into the topic of community standards it's easy to take the live and let live philosophy without understanding the cost of such an idea.

Lets take a tournament setting as an example. You're at a convention and to the left of you is an AoS table, it has beautiful terrain. A nice fluffy building and some cool forests, it looks really nice and it's enjoyable just to oogle. Then on the table next to it you have a game of Warmachine where they're using 2D terrain and everything is kidney shaped foam of a different colour with "House" printed on it. Which of those games is going to be more appealing to you? Which game is likely to draw in new players and to sustain it's community? Dominate for 2 is a competitive Warmachine podcast that did a topic on this very subject recently and pointed out how unappealing Warmachine looked even to those playing it. The episodes worth a listen to.

We can't ever know the cost of non-painted vs painted armies in community participation but if the topic is on hand why not ask the question? How much does a community with low painting standards sacrifice to include those "sub standard" players? Are you gaining more with your shiny silver and grey models or are they costing you community growth that is higher than the players you're keeping in by having that philosophy?

People often default to that idea because it's easy and comfortable, but it's always worth discussing if that idea is of net benefit to the group or not. You might not enjoy painting but if every one being fully painted drew in 10% more players to your group is it a worth while trade off to suffer through some dry brushing and inks to have that growth?

It's interesting to hear this kind of take on things because the idea that the level of painting would impact the growth of the game is so alien to me it would have never occured if other people hadn't said it. It just goes to show how different perspectives can be.

I have to be honest, I don't really see the models anymore once they hit the table. When they're all set up on their fancy display board I'll ooh and ah with everyone else but that's about as far as it goes. Once they're not on display all I see when I look at my opponents army is '4+3+ -1 d3, mortal wounds on 5+ as long as the character next to them is alive, character priority 1, unit priority 2'. Honestly I've been to several major tournaments and played people who were nominated or even won best painted and if you had asked me at the end of those games if my opponent had painted his models to at least a 3 color standard, I would have had to go check. I'm very glad that none of the events I go to have player's choice best painted because it means I don't have to feel guilty about voting for whatever the first thing I saw in a bright color was.

I come to AoS and 40k 80% because of the gameplay, 20% because of the lore. I actively dislike painting, I see it as something you do because the TO said to. If I had enough money I would never paint another model. I don't like conversions, I've never really understood the point of a conversion beyond a weapon swap because in my head, it doesn't change anything, it's still the exact same model. I don't like that some tournaments use paint score as part of determining who actually wins the event as is, I accept it as having merit I just don't like it.

Coming from this gameplay oriented mindset the whole 'color matching' thing is infuriating because it changes so much for such a piddly little reason. Okay so if I use one of the stormhost battalions with the right color scheme I get bonus points at 1 tournament out of 5 events I attend. To start with this means that if I have several lists that are roughly the same power level, this small change means there's 0 reason to not use the stormhost battalion list so long as no other list is noticeably superior. It also means there's now no point in painting my army in any color scheme other than that stormhost, so one event has limited down my options immensely. This might seem insane to someone who approaches the hobby differently, but for me leaving essentially free points on the table is as abhorrant as trying to pass off a table lamp as a Glottkin at a GT level event would be to someone who really loves painting, modeling, or the background.

[CoffeeGrunt]

3 hours ago, BURF1 said:

 power knives do exist in 30k though, they're an alpha legion thing S-1 AP3

That's exactly what I said. 

"there is no such thing as a Power Knife/Dagger in 40K, and only one faction in 30K may take them"

 

[Criti]

22 hours ago, Captain Marius said:

 

Another example is all the magic items that havesprung up in AoS - should these be suitably displayed on the model?

That's not always reasonable.  There still are areas that roll for Commans Traits and Artifacts before each game, including tournaments - Crucible Orlando comes to mind - although considering the general non-responsiveness that TO has to questions, I have this growing concern that I should just drop and ask for my money back (I have 3 submitted myself that haven't been answered in over a month.  A buddy has 2, same time frame - but I digress). 

I don't think I'll ask my Destruction opponents to show me a Hammerblade, a Gem, a Talisman, a blade, and some kind of flask for the Battle Brew all on one model just in case he rolls them up..

That may be asking too much.

[Ollie Grimwood]

If someone did I'd certainly rate their sportsmanship/theme pretty highly.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CoffeeGrunt]

But what if midway through the game you can't remember which one he rolled up, and they're all represented on the model? We can't trust other players to be forthright after all, not with their paint-cheatin' and such.

[deynon]

General tris and objects can be choses at the beginning of the match, so they can change each one during a TO. I'ts totally unreasonable to think to represent them on the models. On some it's possible ok, but not on everyone.

And even a crazy maniac magnetizator like me wouldn't be able to represent every combination. Morever some are totally unrepresentable.

Eventually if someones really want can be prepare a marker to say which bject has that model, but I don't think it's suitable to be strict on such things.

[amysrevenge]

Ultimately, regarding the level of WYSIWYG, just using that one acronym is clearly not sufficient.  A TO needs to say what they mean by WYSIWYG.  Things like to what level of detail equipment must be appropriately modelled are on a WYSIWYG spectrum - you have to pick where on the spectrum you wish to land.

Any of the following could be the minimum WYSIWYG standard for a hypothetical TO.  Just saying "WYSIWYG" in a pack could result in an expectation from players of any of these.  And there are other stops in between these...

1. "The majority of models in a unit must be armed with the gear (weapon types, shields, etc.) of the unit."
2. "All models must be armed with the appropriate gear (weapon types, shields, etc.) of the unit."
3. "All models must be from the current/most recent GW version, and must be kitted out exactly according to their warscroll."
4. "All models must be from the current/most recent GW version, must be kitted out exactly according to their warscroll, and must either be painted to match the photos on the box/website, or one of the published alternate paint schemes in a Battletome or White Dwarf."

Realistically, I think, only 1 or 2 are what a TO could possibly ever intend to have people meet, but I've been surprised by people's standards in the past...

[PVG]

On 07/03/2017 at 1:52 PM, Lord Aquillor said:

So the less stringent you can be and still allow everyone to have a good time is the best.  The goal should always be inclusion and enjoyment.

I respectfully disagree. The goal of wargaming is to play a wargame, that is the start and finish of the objective when playing the game. Fun is what you have while doing it but it's a byproduct not the main objective. If someone turns up and says "I want to play dubstep on my mp3 player all game because I'm playing Noise marines" then I will kindly tell him to go find someone else to play. His enjoyment of the game doesn't matter to me enough to tolerate his behaviour in that case. When you start being "inclusive" you stop being what your original intention to be.

We can use tournaments as a good example here. When you go to a tournament you go to win, which can mean playing broken lists and having comp scores for painting. Well lets be more inclusive, no more painting comp, models don't have to be fully build and we're going to use some home brew war scrolls because Bob really likes his Skaven riding Lizardmen conversions.

Not everything you do has to be inclusive at the expense of it's own existence. If you want your casual games where points don't exist and you play entirely free form then go for it, but some things should be exclusively for one group or another. I'm personally never going to play balls to the wall AoS tournament style but I want that to exist because it makes for an interesting community for people who are interested in it. I don't want it to water it's self down to be inclusive of me. I want it to say "Hey dude, you're not good enough for this. Get stuffed". It gives you something to strive for, so you can be one of the best people at playing or painting or whatever. In short, having standards and making people raise themselves up to meet them is better than having no standards and leaving people stagnant in their wargaming development.