[AoS 3 - Daughters of Khaine Discussion]

17 minutes ago, Charleston said:

Short question: Do DoK have any Coalition Units? I can't find anything about it. 

Uh, no. 

 

DoK can only take book units and allies up to their allotment.

 

Har Kuron CoS can take DoK as a Coaltion unit.

[3.0 Actual Games Conversation]

3 hours ago, whispersofblood said:

I think the real lack of symmetry is due to the fact that saves rolls are the least influencial roll. All Out Attack influences the full stack, All out Attack the bottom of the stack . Realistically All out Defence should be -1 to hit rolls or - 1 A to a minimum of 1 to be as beneficial, or relevant, alternatively a ward would have been interesting.  

"Save rolls are the least influential"

 

This is how you can tell a LRL player.

 

 

[A Very Small Sneak Peek Into the 3.0 Metagame]

On 7/10/2021 at 1:05 PM, yukishiro1 said:

A few lists can kill Archaon T1, but it's riskier than it used to due to how much he can heal now if you don't kill him. Often the better play is to kill his support instead, while just blocking him off with cheap junk until he loses his super buffs and is much less effective.  His base is so huge that you can often moveblock him and vastly restrict his options re: what he can charge pretty effectively, and if he's only killing 100 points of junk a turn while you delete the rest of his army, you're winning that game easy.

It's a list that does well against other badly balanced lists that take only a few big expensive units, but if you take a more balanced list and realize that focusing on him is usually a trap, it's really not that strong. 

KO really can't one turn alpha him anymore I am pretty sure.

[Tournaments and the GHB21/3.0 Core rules]

1 hour ago, NinthMusketeer said:

While GHB21 does offer a lot to players using monsters it offers a lot for players KILLING monsters as well. The extra benefits to using monsters are offset by said monsters being a liability if not handled carefully. It is an artful dynamic that from my initial impression works well mechanically and is a great example of just how much fun GW's thematic rules writing is when they get it right.

Also, there are problems which completely overshadow those potentially caused by a monster-heavy skew anyways. Compared to double turn shooting, heroic recovery/amulet of destiny exploits, and hell even just the abysmal point cost balancing there's nothing about GHB21's matched rules that cause more than a ripple.

I have been distinctly less than impressed with non mortal wound shooting into 3 or even 4 plus save units. Save stacking is a strong counter to things that don't pile mortal wounds on

[AoS 2 - Kharadron Overlords Discussion]

17 minutes ago, Gauche said:

I guess I'm on a similar wave-length in I think it works that way just because I've been playing GW games for so long and I have a good "feel" for what they intend which is almost always correct. But the rules are very, very murky on this one while also being of extreme importance. It's something I would check with a TO before going to an event for sure, it's that murky. I will likely play it this way until either another consensus is made or we get a better FAQ/new book but I just wish I felt better about it.

The only murkiness is the reference to defensible terrain. Ships are garrisons (in bold), and the only definition of garrisons is in the core book (And if it isn't, there literally isn't anything that says you can't put units inside it). Just they have a specific modification to when units can get in and out of them.

 

Now, sure, I suspect you will have people using troll logic to try and be giant dicks about the word defensible terrain. And if any TO goes with these people, that TO really shouldn't be one. I guess this is up to how you feel about your TOs

[AoS 2 - Kharadron Overlords Discussion]

1 hour ago, Gauche said:

I've played him in a few games, he's good but he still felt very expensive and slow. I think he'd do better if you played a foot style KO army, along with the Runelord and some other pieces. He will also just die to armies that can put out a lot of decent ranged attacks, people still seem to think Terrain shouldn't exist in AoS games.

---------------------------------------------------------

Question about various parts of the Flying Transport rule now that we are post FAQ. As I read and understand it Skyvessels have nothing to do with Garrisons for the most part, we can leave during the Movement Phase as long as the Skyvessel itself hasn't moved for example. But that also seems to suggest we can't start models inside Skyvessels since there is no allowance for that UNLESS they're part of the same Warscroll Battalion, which are illegal for Matched Play. This would preclude something like Alpha Beast Pack from having any use since you'd be Fly High'ing empty boats. The only way I see around that is if we are Garrisons and then we take the bad parts of that too. Really wish the FAQ had done a better job of explaining the interaction.....

you can deploy inside of garrisons. The people arguing you can't are using moon logic.

[Tournaments and the GHB21/3.0 Core rules]

On 7/6/2021 at 7:43 AM, Maddpainting said:

Ignore those people they have no idea what they are talking about. Not only does literally every army have monsters, the very few that wouldn't want to take them even has ways to add in monsters anyways. You also don't need many of them, 1 is good enough for most armies. Having more monsters can make you LOSE the game b.c of the rule Predators and Prey. 

I have a friend that play Deepkin and he was complaining that the turtle wouldn't do enough for him b.c I take 4 Monsters. I should him that not a single one of my Monsters can kill a single one of his units by themselves, that he can use Predators and Prey each turn to get +4 more VP's over me and his turtle (Leviadon) can literally get him +1 extra VP a turn where mine most likely couldn't. After that he changed his mind and is now looking at it differently. 

When people don't look at all the pieces and tries to make house rules it sets up a bad habit and understanding of the game that then also influence other actions later as well, its very bad for the game.

I am not sure you are using the word literally right.

 

 

 

Bad monsters are worse then no monsters, but good monsters will beat everyone with no or bad monsters unless those armies are LRL (The only army with questionable monsters AND high MW output)

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

1 hour ago, whispersofblood said:

Forget it, I suddenly remember why I don't talk shop with laymen. 

 

don't let yourself be willfully blind to the injustices inside the justice system, cause they are many. Ignoring them is the path to darker things. Like the federalist society.

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

24 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

There is a legal standard for "anti-customer" and GW is a long way away from that. 

Yes the law system written largely to the benefit of the wealthy is the best way to judge things truly.

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

3 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

I don't think it's anything as coordinated as a deliberate plan. It's more just a happy side effect from GW's point of view. Balance isn't a priority in GW's design philosophy - they're upfront about it, miniatures come first then they stick some rules on the miniatures that they think fit, rather than starting with a vision of a balanced game and figuring out what rules and minis they need to achieve that vision - and if that means that you get some nice churn as a side effect that prompts people to start new collections or buy new stuff, that's a bonus. But if they were actually trying to systematically distort the balance to promote buying certain miniatures, I think they'd be better at it than they are. 

I think we'd also know more about it. There are a couple infamous examples of the developers being told to deliberately overpower something to sell it - the Wraithknight being the most notorious - but there aren't many. Given how leaky GW is, if it was a regular practice, I think we'd know about it. 

GW barely leaks at all anymore except by design.

[AoS 2 - Kharadron Overlords Discussion]

2 hours ago, Beliman said:

It's not just big 3+ save monsters that I can't kill. Slaves to Darkness with Mark of Tzeentch are a bunch of dudes that just don't want to die. I don't know their abilities, but I couldn't even kill a 20 man-blob.

I'm going to change my lists to take bomblets and look for more ranged mw output.

StD have a LOT of save buffing abilities. Like a lot.

 

 

[AoS 2 - Kharadron Overlords Discussion]

4 hours ago, Gauche said:

I'm thinking of running 2x10 Thunderers, never wanted them to be Battleline though. I like my Arkanauts and a 15 man unit means they're walking or all alone in a Skyvessel, or making that Skyvessel very ineffective.

Looking at options for killing durable Monsters/Heroes all I can see are Gotrek, Celestant-Prime, Bomblets + Hope, Irondrakes + Runelord, and that's it. Feels like that is going to be a big problem for the army, we just don't have that fighty or shooty piece with Rend 2 or better. There's not an overwhelming amount of those threats out there: VLoZD, Mawkrusha, Bastiladons, SCE Stuff, Mortarchs, and Archaon is about the extent (might have missed a few).

So thinking to KO it's basically either fight fire with fire, or ignore and kill other stuff. Redeploy and either multi-level Terrain or the Galeforce Stave seem like the choices to ignore stuff, that's not so bad. Then you can handle the defensively souped up offering and kill the others, if any. Remaining downside is Artifact for +1 Saves or similar effect combined with Mystic Shield, then you're back to square one. At least Mystic Shield can be interacted with.....

KO can skew into mortal wounds.

 

A key part of that is the WLV, still quite good even after a positioning nerf. 

 

Then there's a few ways to generate mortals in shooting, and a few more in combat. 

 

The main trick is killing a three plus save monster before it heals too much. Both the VLoZD and the mawcrusha have self healing based on damage, and archaon can just pop an ability, all on top of healing hero ability.

 

That said, the ironclad is also very hard to kill and can act as a counter to one big monster if you can buff it (but not archaon, he still rocks and rolls it the second he's in combat)

 

Like, I actually think the skyhook battleboat might be the way to go now for the mortal wound ram combined with bombs and hero attacks to take down a wounded monster hero.

 

 

The big issue is that I think the armies with big monster heroes are gonna start just taking two, and then whatchya gonna do? KO I believe can skew hard enough to eliminate one in a round or two, but them a lot of tools get expended.

[General's Handbook 2021 - oh, FFS!!!]

6 minutes ago, KrispyXIV said:

Except that there's pretty much zero chance that they decided to hurt one market segment to generate more profit, and there's certainly zero evidence of that.  Its an unsupported hypothesis that appears to be based on the presupposition that GW is evil, because capitalism.

Almost certainly, this issue arose from ignorance - and again, a desire to meet the desires of the most numerous and vocal market segment.  Should they do better?  Absolutely.

But that's not malice.  Suggesting that they are actually evil because they made a product people wanted, and it turned out that product wasn't good or usable for some people (its not actually hurtful, that is also a word that means things, and in this case it would mean it actually has to do harm), is ludicrous hyperbole.

Companies are either not ignorant, or actively cultivate ignorance, of the externalities of many of their actions. As a population we really need to stop letting them get away with pretending bafflement of negative externalities and going "Well they didn't know any better". They don't know any better because they deliberately refuse to learn, and destroy any attempts to teach them.

 

 

[General's Handbook 2021 - oh, FFS!!!]

1 minute ago, KrispyXIV said:

Malice literally requires intent to do evil (or harm), by actual definition.  

Making a product that a major market segment demands, to meet that demand, is not malicious.  

I'm not saying people shouldn't ask them to do better, but suggesting that they set out intentionally to hurt people with disabilities with this product is beyond ridiculous.

Saying there is no malice when companies do harm to individuals because they believe that by doing harm they generate more profit is just providing defenses for corporations to act badly. It is malicious when a company takes an action that hurts people because they believe it will make them more profit. It is an active decision they make to hurt people. That is malice.

[General's Handbook 2021 - oh, FFS!!!]

7 hours ago, Nizrah said:

Maybe you should go to the ophthalmologist if you can't read it? 

What is wrong with people in this hobby being so exclusionary

"Oh your eyesight isn't perfect, well this hobby isn't for you then" kind of BS

6 hours ago, KrispyXIV said:

Me and everyone I know who bought the book thought the form factor and design were excellent - the best version of this sort of book put out yet.  

Rather than assuming malice OR incompetence, I'd assume that this design was intentionally chosen to address market demand - which unfortunately, clearly has issues for a segment of the market which finds it hard to read.  

I'd absolutely reccomend sending feedback to GW, but I'd definitely consider the tone and manner in which it is presented.  It needs to be taken seriously alongside any amount of generally positive feedback they're receiving on the design (which at least locally is a lot), and "extreme negativity and direct accusations of malice and incompetence" feel likely to be ignored to me.  

Best solution IMO would be proper digital releases, but currently we seem to be tracking away from that as well...

Hmmm capitalism deciding that market demands mean that marginalized people should be ignored or harmed isn't malice now?

Sounds to me like the system bakes in malice to marginalized groups.

 

4 hours ago, KaptainWalrus said:

I'm confused what people actually want GW to do here.   Which of these has a greater burden; a company producing multiple different versions of a single book, in multiple languages, with different sized texts for each language; or the reader getting a better pair of glasses, or a magnifying lens?

I have never before heard anyone complain about the size of the text in GW books before.  And it seems rather strange that somehow the burden is on GW here. By that logic, shouldn't all copies of the books also be printed in braille, and all rules text also come with an audio version?

My grandmother has been reading the newspaper for decades.  That has some of the smallest print in the world, and she makes due by keeping a magnifying lens near her reading table.  I've never heard her call and complain at the newspaper company for not making the text bigger.

I'm not trying to disparage or degrade anyone for a deficiency or disability, I just don't see how it's GW's job to take every possible disability into account here, especially when the end user likely has this same issue with any printed publication, and their solution is so much cheaper and easier than any solution GW would have to come up with.

 

The reader who isn't a multi million dollar corporation.

 

But also "I'm not disparaging any disabilities, but my grandma manages, so suck it up"

 

3 hours ago, KaptainWalrus said:

Perhaps you would do better to read my response?   I'm not confused about the initial complaint.  Rather what GW should do about that.  Since you didn't really address the point I made about the burden involved, I'll assume you have no suggestion.

Make the font bigger.

 

Duh.

 

 

[3.0 Actual Games Conversation]

1 hour ago, Reinholt said:

This is my read as well.

I have been chatting with a few people to talk about winners and losers locally and here is what I would say:

Winners

1. Armies with efficient melee on 25mm bases
2. Armies with efficient minimum unit size (5 or less) melee on any size bases (as there are less giant blocks)
3. Shooting, especially if you can condense into a unit that can use Unleash Hell effectively, but in general shooting because large melee on non-25mm bases are less effective
4. Heroes, and especially Heroic Monsters, though the small former ones are still solid if you can self-heal to avoid the Tecnado type issues
5. Self-sufficient units or units that did not rely on overlapping buffs but rather army-wide abilities (as many of the latter you cannot stack and/or can use only once)
6. Fast armies

Losers

1. Melee on >25mm bases without 2" reach or better
2. Units that relied on stacking buffs or repeated buffs (e.g. if you can't use a command ability more than once you can't spam it all over now)
3. Slow armies (several of the new ways to score points will hugely benefit those who can either pick their fights or pick their situations)
4. "Balanced" armies that are neither MSU nor single-unit deathstars that can still be adequately buffed
5. Regular monsters (this may be counter to popular opinion, but they will give up a lot of points in contexts and don't bring enough vs. heroic monsters; some exceptions if a warscroll is great but in general they may be more of a liability than people expect)

TBD:

1. Endless Spells
2. Toughness based non-offense armies (I think with things being more survivable there may be builds where an army kind of doesn't need to hurt the opponent much except in specific moments but instead runs around just doing their thing)

 

So based on that, obviously there's a lot of internal balance shifts within armies, but in terms of entire armies I just have no idea what I would do to win, it would be this list: FEC, Sylvaneth, Slaanesh, and to a lesser extent Fyreslayers, Nighthaunt, and Khorne. I am ignoring Stormcast (ex Shootcast) because they will be outdated momentarily.

 

Thus I can see the frustration from those players: the core thing that made the army work is gone in many cases, the units that should be good are hamstrung either by base size or move limitations, and some of them (like FEC and Fyreslayers) just don't really have other things to go to that I see. I've played two games against an opponent with Fyreslayers now, and rolled him so hard it was uncompetitive twice; we played a third where we swapped armies and he rolled me (so clearly I had no idea what to do with the little guys either). HBG just don't have the critical mass now, the priests not throwing multiple prayers sucks, and the lack of speed really harms them on some objectives. Maybe there would be a list with magmas and more shooting and like one unit of HBG; I think there is something there? I'm not an expert with them so I don't know which way I would go but I can see frustration for a lot of factions in the new system because the things they would like as answers just aren't in the book in size. Certainly someone like FEC I have no idea what I would even do to make that work...

I actually think the meta is going to shake out competitively as

 

Winners:

Armies with 3 plus to save hero monsters

Armies with a lot of mortal wounds, and particularly mortal wound shooting

 

Losers:

Everyone else

 

 

The current state of save stacking means high base save monsters are unfathomably difficult to kill without mortal wounds, and trivially trounce over every unit in the game except themselves or strong mortal wounds. 

 

I think 3.0 is gonna actually narrow what armies are tournament viable. 

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

2 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

Personally in many years of gaming, I've never come across that guy in my gaming group, local club or when I've attended events.  If somebody started insulting me about my army in a pick up game, I'd likely pack my stuff up and leave.  That type of player isn't welcome in most environments.

You are lucky.

 

I am not joking about the fascists in my gaming community. 

 

There was a player who, every time he started to lose, would become a pillar of salt and start sniping you over every little imperfection. He also liked to call everything bad that happened ******. He also opined one time that the world would be more peaceful if hitler won. He was in the military and got redeployed shortly before covid and left the community. But he was only the worst (to play, others are worse to just be around) of an entire circle of gaming friends. And these are only the people that hung out at the shop I went to and not the people OTHERS told me about that hung out in other shops.

 

And the thing is, here in NOVA, they currently have the iron grip on events and informal clubs. Cause they thought covid was a hoax, or just didn't care about others getting sick, and so kept playing and organizing when everyone else did the right thing and followed lockdown protocols. The rest of us, as lockdown faded and things reopened, are scrambling to regain some control of the community so it isn't just the top most fashy warhammer players running all the events and maybe using it to recruit impressionable youths into their ideology.

 

 

So, yes, warhammer has bad players. And a rather lot of them. If you don't experience this, you are lucky.

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

4 minutes ago, AaronWilson said:

How many times in real life has that actually happened to you? 

A few. For not having fully painted armies, or for having poorly painted models.

 

Like, there's a lot of fascists circling around the NOVA hobby community and they are unpleasant to be around and generally quite mean.

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

5 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

I wouldn't exactly articulate it that way. Player B is reasonably reacting to what Player A is reasonably communicating. If that makes sense? Im doing a lot of public law at the moment so maybe I'm just in a particular state of mind about powers and responsibilities 🤔

I'd put the responsibility on Player A to reseasonable distinguish the colour scheme, and if they have done so we can then start asking questions of Player B.

Public law huh? Maybe you need to drag out of theory and into reality, cause things don't tend to go in real life the way the law clearly delineates. After all, rich and poor alike are barred from sleeping under bridges.

 

And, again, words are better at communicating things. You know, that thing we evolved specifically to communicate complicated concepts?

1 minute ago, AaronWilson said:

A lot of these arguments honestly only seem to actually happen on the internet.

Attending a event with SCE painted like Hammers but when to run them as Anvils? Contact the TO, politely explain, I'm 99.9% sure the answer will be "no problem, just be clear with your opponent"

Playing a buddy in real life "Hey man, can I use these SCE as anvils rather then hammers"?

Pretty sure that's the whole issue resolved. 

Yes, most of the time it isn't a problem. But then you come up against a bully who goes "Oh, well of coooourse you aren't playing faction X when you are clearly painted faction X you powergamer" or goes to whine to a TO about how your paint scheme and faction don't match and they should be given a free victory. Because this hobby has plenty of bad folks who play it who are looking for any edge to win, or just demanding you cater to their whims and your own opinions matter not. I mean, particularly because of the price range of this hobby you get folks who go through life expecting that sort of thing.

[3.0 Actual Games Conversation]

The petrifex FAQ change might make OBR good enough to play at competitive levels. 

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

Indeed. It takes some reflection to come around to the thought, but it's actually the person asking for permission to do something uncomfortable or optional who is being the "bad" sport. Think about it. Player A plays the game by not only the actual rules of the game, but also by the game's strong recommendations. That player realized that the approach most likely to include others is the one that is regulated and recommended by the set of rules and guidelines that literally all players worldwide get at the entry point. Player A meets all sorts of fine folks who are on the same page (because every single one of them has the same rules) and many great games are played.

Player B wants to step outside of either the standard rules or strong recommendations of the game's designer. The designer, not wanting to be accountable for negative feelings their rule might create (because of business reasons, design preferences, or whatever - the reason doesn't matter here), tells Player B that if they can convince Player A to let them step around the universal general experience, then they can.

Player B asks Player A to let them do something Player A is uncomfortable with - something not included as the standard play experience.

What is Player A to do? How can the player who has the designer and their rules on his side tell Player B that they would like to stick to the rules without risking being told they are being a cow biscuit?

"Permission Only" rules are a cop out by designers. Yes, I know, all the rules are optional at a base level. You can ask to be allowed to hit on 2+ all the time, and your opponent can decide for or against it. Nobody does that because, I believe, things like mathematical systems in rules are taken as background, built-in, or whatever. They're just part of it. You could ask, though. But then the designer says "here is this thing that we really think you shouldn't do, but if you are willing to guilt your opponent into allowing it, have at it." It's just cowardly by the designer. Make a rule. Present it as equal to the rest. See how many players take it upon themselves to put their rules-abiding opponent in an uncomfortable situation.

I hated Permission Only rules for Special Characters in Warhammer Fantasy old editions, and I hate it in this situation as well. It's lazy and allows designers to decide that they don't need to make balanced rules and it also leads to situations like this, where one player wants to stick to the rules, and another wants to break them, but the former player comes out looking like the bad guy. Just tell us that colors don't matter or that they do. Don't leave it to us to have to put each other in bad spots.

 

Edit:

BTW, an old standby just popped back into my brain. This is a topic that's been around for ages. My response to people who wonder what I find acceptable has always been:

"If you can put your army on the table, and I can tell not only which army it is, but also what the units are and which upgrades (weapons, command options, etc.) they've been given, without you saying a word, then I'm good."

I don't care which models you use, what colors you paint them, or how crazy your conversions are, just as long as I can tell what they are by looking at the models. If I can't, then why are we playing with representative models at all?

 

 

It's always about how you feel about your opponent's army, never about them. There's no consideration here about the other player's fun. It's always about how what their army looks like makes you feel or not, and all this concern trolling is just utter nonsense of "No, YOU are the bad person for not fulfilling MY expectations".

 

It is a miserable experience to set up your army and have someone tell you that your paint scheme isn't acceptable, or that you aren't allowed to try new things, or whatever. And this gets particularly malicious in competitive gaming or against awkward hobbyists. 

59 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

I'm a bit shocked this is the most controversial faq answer the logic seems pretty clear.

How you paint your models regardless of whether you intend it or not communicates something to the person standing across from you. The FAQ references when the colours you've chosen specifically communicate something that is not true. For example if your models look like Hammers of Sigmar a reasonable person would assume they are Hammers of Sigmar, so it would not be sporting to say that are Anvils of the Heldenhammer. 

What people seem to then be assuming is also true is the counter factual. Where if my army doesn't look like something that it can't be that thing. Which the battletomes to my knowledge address giving room for individual paint schemes to use specific sub-factions. 

The individual with the Living City army for example would be fine. As a) it couldn't be anything else besides living city. And b) not being something, is not the same as, not being something else, but being something else.

Anyway this is super boring, paint your models how you'd like but appreciate you might constrain yourself in the future from using the "best" rules.

 

You know what communicates better? Words. Words communicate better. Use them. 

 

You know, most people don't memorize either subfaction color schemes OR the subfaction rules. They have to ask what subfaction is being played and what they do in a normal game. 

 

For stormcast, I couldn't tell you what host I was playing against or what their rules are, and so I'd ASK my opponent about them.

[3.0 Actual Games Conversation]

23 minutes ago, Voand said:

Sorry if this is the wrong space to reply but - 

I'm beyond a layman but it really seems to me like the new edition is favoring specialized lists with lots of hero/monster characters gaining extra points on their tactics/being able to easily pick and complete a tactic every turn and a list leaning on this pretty much stomps any old style list focused on sitting on objectives when it comes to points.

Have you guys found this to be the case and how do you feel about it either way?

You want to score at least 2 points on primaries a turn, but that isn't super hard, so focusing in on secondaries is pretty important.

 

I suspect some strong lists are gonna be ones where secondaries are hard to score against. Ultra tank skew.

[AoS 2 - Kharadron Overlords Discussion]

1 hour ago, Beliman said:

Wich enhancements do you think are the best ones? And how many do you think we need?

I used 2 enhancements: Staff of Ocular Optimisation and  Spell in the Bottle (Zilfin list with a Collector Khemist in a one big Battle Regiment).

The spell in a bottle is key, but you can free up a general trait, or take a third. I like bomblets or grudgebearer on a dirigible suit master. Both good for trying to nuke that key enemy. Always a sad day when the bomblets roll a one though XD.

[AoS 3 New Rules Discussion]

11 minutes ago, overtninja said:

I mean, yes? If you painted your dudes as a specific faction, there is a reasonable expectation that those dudes are from that faction, especially if you're got a whole force painted that way. If you're not intending to (for a variety of reasons, like you bought some of them second-hand and they came that way and you've not repainted them yet, or even that you're borrowing them from a friend to try a list, or whatever), then that's something we can talk about before the game. In most every case, this won't honestly be a problem for either party - unless you're at a tournament, where there are indeed rules about the presentation of your army.

The proxy thing is a bit of a question, because while there's a big difference between "these orc models are actually idoneth deepkin, their bases are the same size" and "I've got old metal waywatchers that I use as Shadow Warriors". At the same point, if I were going to a major regional tournament, I'd ask the organizers about their rulings for the venue they are running, and if they said 'nah, you have to bring actual Shadow Warriors models', then I'd not argue the point, because it's their venue. With that said, outside tournament play, it's largely a non-issue, especially if you're just playing with friends, or at a FLGS. If GW stores start being real sticklers about it people will just stop playing there (though from what I've seen most GW stores don't have space to play anyway!).

tl;dr - as long as you discuss things with people and you agree, those suggestions don't matter. If we take the FAQ as GW's official stance on the issue, then you probably shouldn't proxy one model for another or paint your dudes as one faction and play them as another faction in their stores or at their events.

And thus we get to what is, essentially, bullying of people who ever change their mind or see their rules change for the worse or even just like a paint scheme but not the rules. 

[AoS 2 - Kharadron Overlords Discussion]

9 minutes ago, Beliman said:

I have two games with one-drop list Zilfin and I'm really struggling with a Zilfin Alpha-list. Even with my full buffed Ironclad, I'm doing a lot less dmg than I expected even If I'm missing a lot less shoots.

I'm switching to a less alpha-lists now. They are a bit more fun and I can play for objectives unless the enemy uses some type of 3+save monster. 

I'm using the Great Sky Cannon to switch between -1 and -2. With 30" range and some mindgames (Inspire Thunderers and make it clear that you are going for a big shoot to try to bait enemies AoD and then AoA Ironclad), I can put some wounds on other things that are not overbuffed.

We have a lot of buffs to manage: +1hit, +1 wound, re-rolls 1 to hit, re-rolls 1 to wound. And some of them can be stacked (Khemist+AoA+Triumph, Khemist+Triumph+OnMyMark, etc...). I need more games to manage them because I'm playing really poorly.

Fly High is still one of the best things that we have, but I need to kill some units in the first turn or I will run out of space really fast.

Anyone tryied Barak-Zon with Skywardens? Another source of high quality rend -1 attacks without using any CP seems really awesome in my book. I don't know why but eat CPs like chips.

I think a 4 drop list is superior to a 1 drop. You want that extra enhancement