Jump to content

Behold the Kharadron Overlords!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, Mohojoe said:

, its saying that unless i paint a certain colour I cant play a battalion rule I like.

If you don't model scythes on your hunters, you can't play with the rules for scythes either.

You don'r always get to use the rules you want for the models you have.  It's really kinda a basic part of the hobby. You want that cool in-game effect that a certain game piece grants, you gotta put that piece out there, not something that mostly looks like it.  Heck, a gobbo and an orc are both almost the same orher than size, right down to being green.  Why not use gobbos as orcs?

I know I keep going there, but I genuinely don't understand why we accept one part of this and not the other. Not irritated or accusatory, just mystified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most likely because the Warscroll says "The unit is armed with X or Y" and until a battalion says "the battalion is painted with Blue and Yellow liveries" it's a different category. You can be as uncharitable or charitable as you like in your interpretation of the rules, you could even say a conversion where someone has given all their kurnoth hunters axe-heads instead of scythes should be disqualified because they are no longer scythes but at that point it's personal prerogative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same reason we accept that the models should have the proper weapons and not accept that people should play with the models still sealed in their boxes.

Because its not "All or nothing"

EDIT: And what DynamicCalories says too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sleboda said:

If you don't model scythes on your hunters, you can't play with the rules for scythes either.

You don'r always get to use the rules you want for the models you have.  It's really kinda a basic part of the hobby.

I know I keep going there, but I genuinely don't understand why we accept one part of this and not the other. Not irritated or accusatory, just mystified.

Its not that its an alien concept, I do understand it, I just don't particularly like the direction myself as someone who finds the best part of the hobby in converting, painting a unique scheme and writing narrative based on my own force.

I am not that bothered by it as I don't see it being enforced and it will be prone to the same rulings as proxy models. As long as you state it and its not  rule abusive its fine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

I know I keep going there, but I genuinely don't understand why we accept one part of this and not the other. Not irritated or accusatory, just mystified.

Because they are completely distinct, in effect if not in type.

99% of players can tell from a glance whether a model is holding a scythe or a sword.

0.01% of players can tell whether the shade of brown on the top highlight of a leather belt is the right shade of brown to exactly match the colour on the box, if you handed them the box as a reference. 

Or, in a less extreme example where you only need to come close but not hit it exactly, maybe 3% of players can remember whether the secondary colour of Celestial Vindicators is vaguely red or vaguely purple (surprise twist: I can't remember the primary colour, let alone the secondary colours - I made those up).  And maybe half of those who can't remember wouldn't be able to find the section where it's defined in the SCE book if you handed it to them, without giving up in apathy.

 

What we've got is a sliding scale of what we consider acceptable for the other guy to do with his army.  Let's not pretend - this isn't about what you want to do with your own army; if you want the colours to match a sp[ecific scheme for any reason, you can make them match.  This is about minimum standards you demand of the other guy.  And let's not pretend again - by making this demand, we are saying "meet this standard or stay home" - we are explicitly excluding the other guy if he won't meet this standard.  And we're, as a community, OK with this.

As a wider community, we're more or less agreed on what we demand as a minimum standard at events from the other guy:  best effort WYSIWYG for larger equipment like weapons and shields; no WYSIWYG for small things like rings; models painted to an easily attainable standard (often so-called "3 colour"); appropriately sized bases that are one step more detailed than simply painting them.

Other standards that see some regional variation, especially contrasting between areas with GW-heavy presence compared to FLGS/indy dominated:  3rd party models are allowed (or are not allowed); unambiguous proxies are allowed (or are not allowed);  WYSIWYG extends to the majority of models in a unit (or to every model in the unit).

Demanding specific paint schemes to match specific rules from the other guy is, in my opinion, a dramatic step to the next level of exclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I know I went into it in detail in another thread, but in brief -

We are already limited by shape, so why not color? 

Is just another visual identifier that immediately links the model on the table to a set of rules.

My counter arguement would be most people who dont play a particular faction wouldnt even know the difference.  I would actually be impressed if someone could name and color identify every wargrove or stormcast warrior chamber and their corresponding rule set to go along with them.  Most people know that hunter scythes have -2 rend or starsoul maces deal d3 mortal wounds but, i would think that if you put your models on the table and said these black and gold stormcast were a tempest lords battalion  the first question would be what does that do.  I have been playing gw games for over 20 years and I have never seen anyone have a problem with a color scheme not matching being a problem nor causing confusion in a game.  All based on personal experience of course.  So maybe issues do arise I just never seen it.  It could also be that my armies are usually grey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should add - we all have desires that we'd like the other guy to meet, but are willing to concede.  This isn't about what you hope to see - it's about how far you're willing to compromise in order to meet the other guy who doesn't care about the same things that you do halfway for a friendly game.

I'd like my opponent to have his basic army rules memorized.  But I'm not going to send him home if he refers to his tablet the 7th time he attacks with his general.  I do demand that he has those rules available though, and I won't play if he's got no reference at all.  That's the difference between a minimum standard and a preference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, DynamicCalories said:

Most likely because the Warscroll says "The unit is armed with X or Y" and until a battalion says "the battalion is painted with Blue and Yellow liveries" it's a different category. 

Fair point. Do the stormcast ones not say something about their colors? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

This is about minimum standards you demand of the other guy

Interesting and illuminating.

Sort of like (rather like, in fact) eastern vs western golden rule.

For me it is the standards I need to meet to not impose on the other guy. 

Same result, just one puts the consideration requirements on someone else, and the other puts it in oneself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Interesting and illuminating.

Sort of like (rather like, in fact) eastern vs western golden rule.

For me it is the standards I need to meet to not impose on the other guy. 

Same result, just one puts the consideration requirements on someone else, and the other puts it in oneself. 

Kind of in that direction, but it doesn't quite line up for me.  Because it is the sort of thing that you can fairly easily meet yourself (or just choose not to do, in the case of paint matching rules) - it's only an issue at all when it's the other guy.  Unless you don't care about whether the other guy does it or not, in which case why rules?

I have all sorts of standards beyond the minimums that I have for myself, that I don't hold others to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, DynamicCalories said:

I don't *think* they do, from what I have seen. Happy to defer to a Stormcast Gold Polisher.

They do not mention colors but do have a picture of the colors on the page for the battalions.

I think this new duardin faction will be the first to mention colors specifically based on the snippet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also disagree with the WYSIWYG colour thing. It's fun as a one off (go faster stripes etc) but really just no.

As for modelling requirements. I threw that out of the window when skinks all got blowpipes not bows. I am not going to change a whole bunch of archers into blowpipes.... That's nuts. They are missile skinks.... If you can't deal with that then whatever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, chord said:

They do not mention colors but do have a picture of the colors on the page for the battalions.

I think this new duardin faction will be the first to mention colors specifically based on the snippet.

Latest WD has some colour schemes and Fluff for the colours. Nothing crunch based though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

  Unless you don't care about whether the other guy does it or not, in which case why rules?

I do care if he does, but as you said earlier, I'll still play the guy.  I'm unlikely to even comment.  It does tick in my brain, though, which in turn makes me think "hmm, are there thing I'm doing that my opponent dislikes but isn't verbalizing?" It's that thinking that makes me feel this way. 

Heck, I was once matched up against what i consider to be the most horrifying abuse of creativity-over-considerstion-of-others I've ever seen (you know who you are, and the army was freaking awesome, and I still love you ?), and I still played the game with only a few good-natured jabs thrown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

I do care if he does, but as you said earlier, I'll still play the guy.  I'm unlikely to even comment.  It does tick in my brain, though, which in turn makes me think "hmm, are there thing I'm doing that my opponent dislikes but isn't verbalizing?" It's that thinking that makes me feel this way. 

Heck, I was once matched up against what i consider to be the most horrifying abuse of creativity-over-considerstion-of-others I've ever seen (you know who you are, and the army was freaking awesome, and I still love you ?), and I still played the game with only a few good-natured jabs thrown.

Yeah I can pretty easily find any excuse for self-doubt and anxiety too hahahaha

 

(And I think I can even guess what you're talking about, but won't go farther than that.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard that the plan was to have gumball dispensers at every LGS full of Fyreslayer models instead of doing a Start Collecting set for them.

I'm also kind of curious, but I don't think there will be a Start Collecting: Kharadron Overlords for a while yet. I'm usually willing to wait, but I love this release so much I'm jumping right in wallet first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dez said:

I heard that the plan was to have gumball dispensers at every LGS full of Fyreslayer models instead of doing a Start Collecting set for them.

I'm also kind of curious, but I don't think there will be a Start Collecting: Kharadron Overlords for a while yet. I'm usually willing to wait, but I love this release so much I'm jumping right in wallet first.

Hes at it again! 

 

But yeah agreed. I keep emptying my wallet and then filling it back up only to empty it again, just to prepare me for the devastation this is going to bring to my finances

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...