Painting for Advantage

[Captain Marius]

2 hours ago, Sleboda said:

You pay points for a lascannon, too. You still need to show it on the model.  Points+visual representation = fair to the opponent. 

Yeah but you can use something else to represent it, eg my mates Tzeentch worshipping chaos marines have fireballs of different sizes and colours representing different heavy weapons, my ork guns are cobbled together from anything and everything. So long as its in ur army list, consistent, and for tourneys has been oked by the TOs then i think thats fine, and i havent seen any evidence to the contrary. Id be interested to read some examples tho!

[Kramer]

Personally I think this is a very one sided discussion but a very good one to have because it looks at the edges of WYSIWYG. So I'll take the opposite view. 

Most comments refer to the time and effort people invest in their army and it being unplayable at the tournament they wanted to attent (which could be the only one available, fair point). And this being related to the competitive side of the hobby. 

But what about fictitious me?! 

I invest heavily in my army and the lore. I love the realms and the narrative that GW's forged. I might even heavily convert my army but at the end of the day it will be a representation of the lore that draws me in. So when building my army I take every effort to make sure it's those alliances, those factions and those characters that GW created. 

So with my (fictitious) army that I invested heavily in, money and time wise, ready to recreate the stories I know and love. And what happens. I play against blue Khorne daemons, Pink Stormcast and dark skinned elves! That's not how I read the lore, that's not the fluff I fell in love with and devour every chance I get. And even if in the infinite realms it could be possible it's still not the experience i'm looking for. So what do I do?? I set up a tournament with those restrictions to attract the players that feel the same. 

So that's a perfectly (although fictitious and exaggerated) scenario. So for me the five pages of comments discuss two points 1:

1/ Is this valid. Yeah of course, but I doubt you could find enough local like minded players. But this forum might also draw in the creative types, look at the attention the Dark Age of Sigmar thread is getting. 

2/ where does WYSIWYG end? This for me is very good question. Because for models, equipment and even colour it's easy, as long as you can explain it once and then it doesn't hinder your opponent... It's fair game in my opinion. 

And then GW adds battalions, additional rules for a select number of units in your army. Should you mark them? I think it might actually be a good idea. Bring some tokens if you object to painting them different. That would solve the competitive argument IMO (also because I tend to forget them). 

Well that's my commute, my 2 cents and the end of this text wall. Cheers

[amysrevenge]

3 minutes ago, Kramer said:

2/ where does WYSIWYG end? This for me is very good question. Because for models, equipment and even colour it's easy, as long as you can explain it once and then it doesn't hinder your opponent... It's fair game in my opinion.

You're right that this is the actually interesting discussion.  Whether or not a T.O. can make restrictive painting rules is not interesting at all (of course they can), and whether they should is also not particularly interesting to me as a standalone question - it ends up being subsumed into the question of where WYSIWYG ends.

[Arkiham]

2 hours ago, amysrevenge said:

I would immediately flip to demanding 100% adherence to the entire scheme, right down to colour selection for washes and highlight layers and dry brushing.  Because there's no point in between No Requirement and 100% Adherence that makes sense to select.

this sort of attitude is the problem. 

all or nothing. 

 

if this was implemented into a tournament the confines would be laid out and people who are confused would have it explained to.

its not going to be black an white simple.

it was an idea, not something everyone is being forced to do as most seem to feel is happening.

there's absolutely no reason to jump to extremes as people are.

if a TO wants to implement it they'll think about the limitations and how it affects people without defined paint schemes for certain battalions.
 

will the points awarded to it win you the tournament? unlikely, will it contribute towards paint scoring? likely, majorly? unlikely,  should it? yeah sure ( in my opinion ) it's more encompassing of the army you're trying to represent by using their regimental or what have you, colours 

[Lord Aquillor]

Page 5 and still going on...

 

Ok, Ill fix it.  Play with your toys how you like.  If you don't agree with how someone wants to play with their toys, then play elsewhere.  

 

There that should fix it.  

[PVG]

Saying something must be exactly as GW describes in painting guides or all rules should be off the table is creating a strawman argument. It's intentionally trying to be unreasonable because you don't like what might be a reasonable requirement for a tournament. That's the same argument as saying that sword is too short it's clearly a dagger so it doesn't count as a power sword, even though it's painted as a power sword and is sword shaped but a centimeter shorter than the official power sword models. No one is going to do that, it's completely unreasonable.

No one is saying you have to paint your models in the exact 100% official GW colours to the letter or they kick you out of the tournament. It would be perfectly reasonable to apply a Deathwatch style rule where you can have your neon pink faction bonus if you have painted a shoulder pad/loin cloth/helmet neon pink. It doesn't have to be the perfect shade of pink, it doesn't have to be the official colour scheme but it does have to be within the realm of pink.

[amysrevenge]

6 minutes ago, Lord Aquillor said:

Page 5 and still going on...

 

Ok, Ill fix it.  Play with your toys how you like.  If you don't agree with how someone wants to play with their toys, then play elsewhere.  

 

There that should fix it.  

Nope.

Not helpful or valid.  (Sorry to be blunt)

There's all sorts of reasons to talk about this, or any of the other event-specific issues (legacy in/out springs to mind, with exactly the same list of reasons below).

• It's an interesting topic in the abstract.
• It can help to convince fence-sitters (I don't think there's any real chance to change the minds of anyone posting - all we're doing is preaching to the silent readers).
• It can help show T.O.s which way the wind is blowing before they decide to make a rule on a topic that they might not even know is contentious.
• Some parts of the world have fewer events than others - it is altogether possible for there no not be an "elsewhere" for some people to play.

"Vote with your feet" is a solution of limited applicability, for some people in some places.  Not a universal solution.

[amysrevenge]

6 minutes ago, PVG said:

Saying something must be exactly as GW describes in painting guides or all rules should be off the table is creating a strawman argument. It's intentionally trying to be unreasonable because you don't like what might be a reasonable requirement for a tournament. That's the same argument as saying that sword is too short it's clearly a dagger so it doesn't count as a power sword, even though it's painted as a power sword and is sword shaped but a centimeter shorter than the official power sword models. No one is going to do that, it's completely unreasonable.

No one is saying you have to paint your models in the exact 100% official GW colours to the letter or they kick you out of the tournament. It would be perfectly reasonable to apply a Deathwatch style rule where you can have your neon pink faction bonus if you have painted a shoulder pad/loin cloth/helmet neon pink. It doesn't have to be the perfect shade of pink, it doesn't have to be the official colour scheme but it does have to be within the realm of pink.

OK, so an "E for Effort" tick box is what we're talking about then - a token attempt to match the colour scheme, in exchange for bonus points (or maybe to be able to field it at all?). 

If you want to run Hallowed Knights, any SCE models fitting the description "vaguely silver with some bits of blue" would get a tick in the E for Effort box.  Or would "vaguely silver" on its own be enough, without any blue? 

Specifically regarding "No one is saying you have to paint your models in the exact 100% official GW colours to the letter or they kick you out of the tournament."  Well, no.  We have all along been talking about (or at least I have been, as that's the genesis of the topic, but I've seen some folks skirting awfully close to outright not allowing non-standard paint schemes as an acceptable ruling) bonus points for compliance, or de facto point penalties for failure to comply.  But other than a subjective "Did the person make any attempt at all to comply" pass/fail criteria, there's no objective way to judge it.

It's not the same argument as weapons - you can easily and without argument tell the difference between a Grandhammer and a Greatblade.  There's no groudswell of resistance in the community to WYSIWYG event rules that don't let you run Liberators with Hammer and Shield as Liberators with Two Swords - not just for bonus points, but to even be allowed to do it at all.

[PVG]

Aren't all comp scores subjective? The knife example is a good example of WYSIWYG being subjective as well. When does a sword stop being a knife and vice versa? I don't think we have any official length ruling in any of the tournament packs. The exact definition of detachment identity would be up to the organizer the same way you have hard and soft comp. I personally would go 100% the Deathwatch route. Paint a shoulder pad in the primary and secondary colour and everything else is fine.

 

[Lord Aquillor]

33 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

Nope.

Not helpful or valid.  (Sorry to be blunt)

There's all sorts of reasons to talk about this, or any of the other event-specific issues (legacy in/out springs to mind, with exactly the same list of reasons below).

• It's an interesting topic in the abstract.
• It can help to convince fence-sitters (I don't think there's any real chance to change the minds of anyone posting - all we're doing is preaching to the silent readers).
• It can help show T.O.s which way the wind is blowing before they decide to make a rule on a topic that they might not even know is contentious.
• Some parts of the world have fewer events than others - it is altogether possible for there no not be an "elsewhere" for some people to play.

"Vote with your feet" is a solution of limited applicability, for some people in some places.  Not a universal solution.

My point was that this horse has been beaten, resurrected, then beaten again, only to be raised once more and then sacrificially slain to Khorne, over and over and over... you get the point. 

Vote with your feet is always an option.  If someone doesn't want to play with another person than it is on them to find others or build a community.  If they are unhappy with how someone is running their event then I suggest they take it up with the TO and let their voices be heard.  But THIS particular thread is pretty moot at this point.  It's all been hashed out and is basically circular at this point.  Not meant to upset anyone, just encouraging other, more relevant topics to emerge in different threads.  

[amysrevenge]

Is there maybe some distinction in 40k between swords and knives?  None that I know of in AoS...

To be fair to the subject:  I am all in favour of a general Fluff category of subjective points.  I want to reward creativity and investment in AoS.  I want people to have fluff-based reasons for everything they do - whether the fluff leads the hobby work or the hobby work comes first and the fluff comes after, I want there to be prodigious amounts of appropriate fluff.

What I don't want is a pretense to objectivity for what is ultimately subjective.  WYSIWYG for gear (40k examples notwithstanding) are, if not 100% objective, they are very close to 100% objective.  Adherence to a paint scheme is almost entirely subjective.  If all you need is a token effort (like the shoulder pad example), then you're back to objective again.  And I'm OK with that.

But the conversation that started here wasn't "make a token effort and you get the bonus points".  The conversation was "paint your models to match the chamber/chapter (I've lost track of which of those is the proper word)".

[Kramer]

10 hours ago, Lord Aquillor said:

It's all been hashed out and is basically circular at this point.  Not meant to upset anyone, just encouraging other, more relevant topics to emerge in different threads

Parts are. But if you skip the recycled posts, you get a very interesting (although a bit abstract) discussion about where creative freedom pushes against WYSIWYG'ing your army. And your responsibility towards your opponents in that regard. 

Agreed, organise the tournament. Nobody comes: shame, a lot come: yeah for those people. 

But more interestingly, in a more open setting: Do you get annoyed if your opponent hasn't put the effort in to paint his army? Where do you draw the line? Would you still play him/her? Even though it might hurt your immersion/enjoyment of the game? Not trying to be an *ss but I'm genuinely curious. 

 

[amysrevenge]

For me, the number one adage I follow is "care about your own stuff" (well, the version I use has some swears in it, that's the polite version).  I bend over backwards not to require a lot out of the people around me - I'll play against proxies, I'll play against unpainted, whatever.  I'll have more fun with an equally invested opponentpartner to play a game, but who am I to tell someone else how to have fun?  I'll do it my way, you do it yours, and the 4 pages of the rules will mediate our interaction.

Worrying too much about how the other guy is playing is a good way to get stress headaches.  Take care of your own bit.  That's why I tend to go hard against things like this painting business and legacy/compendium.  Ultimately they are all about what the other guy is doing.

[roberto]

2 hours ago, amysrevenge said:

For me, the number one adage I follow is "care about your own stuff" (well, the version I use has some swears in it, that's the polite version).  I bend over backwards not to require a lot out of the people around me - I'll play against proxies, I'll play against unpainted, whatever.  I'll have more fun with an equally invested opponentpartner to play a game, but who am I to tell someone else how to have fun?  I'll do it my way, you do it yours, and the 4 pages of the rules will mediate our interaction.

Worrying too much about how the other guy is playing is a good way to get stress headaches.  Take care of your own bit.  That's why I tend to go hard against things like this painting business and legacy/compendium.  Ultimately they are all about what the other guy is doing.

Really well said {or written}!

"Sportsmanship" is not "what the other fellow is doing";  rather, it's how I react to what the other fellow is doing.  

[Galas]

I'm in the same boat. I love to put on me some lines, but I think that its quite selfish to have expectations on other people when they dind't owe you anything. We can argue that being selfish its actually right because this is a voluntary hobby and one we had to have fun, but as a veteran roleplayer, one that for years has had discusions of "But they didn't know how to roleplay properly!" And see comunitys in the internet split, and friendships broke because people is always looking what the other do instead of what they can do to have fun and just empatize with the others... I always look to evade those things.

 

As I always says: If you want to have the right to have expectations on a person, pay them. 

 

Don't misinterpret this. Obviously we all have a social contrat and minimuns, this is a hobby, and a hobby without rules isn't hobby at all. 

But my point stands!

[PVG]

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?

[CoffeeGrunt]

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.

[roberto]

2 hours ago, PVG said:

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?

I don't see how being exclusionary increases community participation.  In addition, how are standards enforced?  Shunning?  Flogging?  Derision?

[Lord Aquillor]

15 hours ago, Kramer said:

 

But more interestingly, in a more open setting: Do you get annoyed if your opponent hasn't put the effort in to paint his army? Where do you draw the line? Would you still play him/her? Even though it might hurt your immersion/enjoyment of the game? Not trying to be an *ss but I'm genuinely curious. 

 

No... I am all for awarding people at tournaments (I run the large Blood Bowl league in my area) for having painted teams/armies.  But I understand that not everyone has the skill, time, or even care to paint their army.  This is a different discussion that has been hashed out countless times as well.  The models don't need to be painted to play a game.  If someone shows up with all grey plastic, cool... they showed up.  Thats half the battle to be honest.  Organizing gamers is like herding cats.  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.  Simply saying at the beginning of the game to your opponent, "these stormcast are Celestial Vindicators even though they are green (or unpainted)" is not burdensome, nor is it detrimental to the game.  Just let people play with their toys.  

 

Can we wrap this up now  

[Gaz Taylor]

2 minutes ago, Lord Aquillor said:

Just let people play with their toys.  

 

Can we wrap this up now  

I agree 100% with this!  

[Criti]

Quote

o you get annoyed if your opponent hasn't put the effort in to paint his army? Where do you draw the line? Would you still play him/her? 

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.

[rokapoke]

1 hour ago, Criti said:

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.

It doesn't matter what the companies are selling. It matters what the consumer is buying. I got into this not because "Hey, I think it'll be fun to paint a billion models." I got into this because "Hey, I think it would be fun to play a wargame in this fashion." As I (personally) got more into it, I found that I want my models to be relatively well-painted, and I want to do it myself, but that wasn't the only way this could have gone. 

Bottom line, if you feel that way, that's your thing, and I respect it. But please don't tell other people what this hobby is supposed to be, because a lot of people got her coming from a lot of different directions.

If you insist that you'll only play me if I turn up with a reasonably-painted army (or at least indication that I tried hard on it), then that's fine. When I have my army up to that standard I'll be happy to circle back for another game. From your text above, it looks like you're taking a measured response to it, so I'd be all for it. Not everybody will. Some people will still think you're being a less-than-savory individual, and you'll feel they're unreasonable in their approach to their army, so nobody's happy. So be it. I am personally a convert to the idea that painted armies look a hell of a lot better on the battle than gray (or primed) hordes, but not everybody is a believer.

[WoollyMammoth]

I would be all for it .. if the GW paint schemes weren't so completely terrible. IMO their paint color ideas were a major fail and stormcast look insanely better when people get creative.

They should have just done something simple like use the symbols on the transfer sheets so you could for example, just put the crescent moon on the shoulder of most your guys to make them a particular faction.

[AGPO]

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.

[Sleboda]

On 3/6/2017 at 2:46 PM, amysrevenge said:

you can easily and without argument tell the difference between a Grandhammer and a Greatblade

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