In addition to the ITC standard modeling and painting guidelines, we are requiring that all models meant to represent a certain faction, for example, <Iron Hands> (or whatever faction) must be painted in a coherent fashion. This means that visually, your opponent must be able to identify which models are <Iron Hands> (or whatever faction).
Sensible exceptions will be made to this rule, for example, if you painted your Space marines Librarian the traditional blue in your <Iron Hands> army, this is fine. What expressly is not allowed is to have multiple different and conflicting paint and basing schemes and to play them all as the same faction.
The picture below illustrates what is NOT acceptable. (Picture of random SM squads painted differently) Despite all models being fully painted and based, playing something like the below as <Iron Hands> (or whatever faction) would NOT be allowed even if you only have 1 detachment of the said <Faction> in your army.
You may have models painted in the same paint scheme count as different <Factions> so long as you clearly visually distinguish them. For example, if you have an army all painted in the same scheme using Cadian models (or whatever models) but distinguish them using something like Squad Marks (who will have a booth in the vendor area of the LVO) that IS acceptable. Something like colored rubber bands put on to models is NOT acceptable. The below picture illustrates what we mean. If all of the red based Cadian models were the same regiment of Astra Militarum, and all of the blue based Cadian models were a different regiment of Astra Militarum that is acceptable so long as you are consistent throughout your army. Models with no base such as Vehicles would require a similar, easily distinguishable and consistent visual indicator of which <Faction> they were. When in doubt, submit pictures to the form linked at the top of the article for judge approval.
Failure to comply with these rulings will result in a judge removing said models from the game, even in the middle of a game. The player in question will not be able to use these models until they at the minimum required standard.
-- comments?
Automatically Appended Next Post: So right before "roll for deployment" will be "remove model phase".
Having different factions painted differently makes sense. With how complicated the game is with various buffs and interactions, clearing signifying what rules each model is using is one way to keep things straight.
This rule kinda sucks for those that have collected and painted over a long span of time.
I have old school space wolves in the traditional blue grey (which I hate) and my newer models are a more metalic blue (which I love).
I can't base half of my detachment with snow and the other half with gravel, WTF?
Is ITC telling me that one of the shades of my space wolves would be removed from play if I wanted to run them in the same detachment alongside a blood angels?
What about my blood angel scouts which 2 units are done with old school GW paints but the newest one is done with GW contrast. My opponent gets to remove whatever one they want?
RAW do you get to pull my death wing termies (classic bone) from my DA army (dark green) since they are not uniform and coherent?
They are already asking me to re-base all of my original space marines (since the new ones come with bigger bases), asking me to re-paint dozens of models just so my paint scheme is consistent is so dumb.
Let's not even talk about how much better of a painter I've gotten since my first couple of models.
So painting my entire space marine force basic three color black and then painting different colors around the rim of the base is good enough but using different color blues for my space wolves will get models removed from the table (only against TFG is my guess)?
BS rule is BS and meant to "solve" a problem that no one was having for some unknown reason.
ITC caving to some GW pressure to stop people from playing borrow hammer I guess? Why would anyone care as long as the red ones are blood angels, the blue ones are space wolves and the green ones (except for the bone ones) are dark angels.
This is a policy to put in place things like "this new army is the hotness, but I don't have time/inclination to make it look nice, so I'm just going with the 3 different colors for my centurions cause the dudes I bought them from on Ebay painted in different schemes.
No. Evolution of Space Wolf paint theme won't affect your army. no Greenwing and Deathwing won't impact your army (why would you even think this?)
Painting guidelines have always been about the spirit of the intent. You want to be good with this? Put good faith work into your army. Don't be a git who is chasing the meta the easiest way possible and putting a bag of ass on the table.
I can't base half of my detachment with snow and the other half with gravel, WTF?
Is ITC telling me that one of the shades of my space wolves would be removed from play if I wanted to run them in the same detachment alongside a blood angels?
What about my blood angel scouts which 2 units are done with old school GW paints but the newest one is done with GW contrast. My opponent gets to remove whatever one they want?
RAW do you get to pull my death wing termies (classic bone) from my DA army (dark green) since they are not uniform and coherent?
The only possible issue on this based on my reading of the rules would be different basing, and I think that if you had similar rim colors and somewhat tied the different bases together, snow and gravel would be fine.
As for your other examples, the rules do not require them to be uniform, but coherent. They specially point out librarians in blue armor as coherent, which bone colored Deathwing clearly would be.
But yes, the goal of this policy is clearly to have armies present with a more uniform look. They can afford to do this since they sell out so quickly.
bananathug wrote:This rule kinda sucks for those that have collected and painted over a long span of time.
BS rule is BS and meant to "solve" a problem that no one was having for some unknown reason.
ITC caving to some GW pressure to stop people from playing borrow hammer I guess? Why would anyone care as long as the red ones are blood angels, the blue ones are space wolves and the green ones (except for the bone ones) are dark angels.
Borrowhammer must be a factor. I agree that the requirement is an over reach and a bit elitist. What about knight armies? 'nids? This better apply to every army and faction.
"Remove model phase" right before roll for deployment. Lol!
Getting players to actually bring their rules with them would be a better concern imo.
djones520 wrote:
This is a policy to put in place things like "this new army is the hotness, but I don't have time/inclination to make it look nice, so I'm just going with the 3 different colors for my centurions cause the dudes I bought them from on Ebay painted in different schemes.
Don't be a git who is chasing the meta the easiest way possible and putting a bag of ass on the table.
Whats the issue with this? Some dudes cant paint. So now somehow buying finished models makes one TFG? Whatever...
Yeah, thinking about it again it's probably an issue that would never come up. As long as some effort has been put in 99% of people are okay as long as you can visually tell what's what (which I guess is the second and to me more important part of the ruling).
My main concern is that 1% which would just need a good TO to step in and make a rational decision. I should probably just slap some snow on the gravel bases and call it a day (will make a good cover for the base extenders anyway) but against TFG I hope the T.O. would let it slide...
I can't base half of my detachment with snow and the other half with gravel, WTF?
Is ITC telling me that one of the shades of my space wolves would be removed from play if I wanted to run them in the same detachment alongside a blood angels?
What about my blood angel scouts which 2 units are done with old school GW paints but the newest one is done with GW contrast. My opponent gets to remove whatever one they want?
RAW do you get to pull my death wing termies (classic bone) from my DA army (dark green) since they are not uniform and coherent?
They can afford to do this since they sell out so quickly.
Can they?
It is yet to be determined how this will impact the common event goers. I predict a hot steamy mess. The exceptions will be so common it wont be worth enforcing the rule. Every judge will have a different standard. Players will show up and not have understood requirements after spending thoasand$ to get there. It will be the same thing as always. "We can't ask them to leave."
I can't base half of my detachment with snow and the other half with gravel, WTF?
Is ITC telling me that one of the shades of my space wolves would be removed from play if I wanted to run them in the same detachment alongside a blood angels?
What about my blood angel scouts which 2 units are done with old school GW paints but the newest one is done with GW contrast. My opponent gets to remove whatever one they want?
RAW do you get to pull my death wing termies (classic bone) from my DA army (dark green) since they are not uniform and coherent?
They can afford to do this since they sell out so quickly.
Can they?
It is yet to be determined how this will impact the common event goers. I predict a hot steamy mess. The exceptions will be so common it wont be worth enforcing the rule. Every judge will have a different standard. Players will show up and not have understood requirements after spending thoasand$ to get there. It will be the same thing as always. "We can't ask them to leave."
See the train? Can't look away...
To be fair, they are essentially asking for something I think is very reasonable anyway.
Just coherency in the long run.
No one likes facing rainbow marines of varying chapters depending on what day of the week it is.
Tournaments (competitive) should always have this in play along with forced models.
So that flamer unit is just a flamer unit.
If you want it to have plasma, give them plasma visually on the model.
In a tournament scene you want things running quick and smooth, not having to guess or look at lists non stop.
I can't base half of my detachment with snow and the other half with gravel, WTF?
Is ITC telling me that one of the shades of my space wolves would be removed from play if I wanted to run them in the same detachment alongside a blood angels?
What about my blood angel scouts which 2 units are done with old school GW paints but the newest one is done with GW contrast. My opponent gets to remove whatever one they want?
RAW do you get to pull my death wing termies (classic bone) from my DA army (dark green) since they are not uniform and coherent?
They can afford to do this since they sell out so quickly.
Can they?
It is yet to be determined how this will impact the common event goers. I predict a hot steamy mess. The exceptions will be so common it wont be worth enforcing the rule. Every judge will have a different standard. Players will show up and not have understood requirements after spending thoasand$ to get there. It will be the same thing as always. "We can't ask them to leave."
See the train? Can't look away...
They've already sold out for the next LVO so they're probably not too worried about the immediate effect. I honestly don't see what the problem with these rules are. I think it's a step in the right direction. Frankly, a lot of tournament games I see pictures of look horrible and are not a good advert for the game or the participants, IMO. All these rules are asking is for a fairly minimal amount of effort to go into your army painting and basing. If you've made a good-faith effort to paint all your stuff the same you'll be fine. Slightly different reds or greys with BA/SW won't be an issue. Borrowing an entire army of the new hotness will be. You want to chase the meta you should at least be prepared to put some effort into painting your stuff.
They've already pulled models for not adhering to painting rules in the past. This will be no different and people now have a couple of months' notice to get their armies sorted out. Should be plenty of time, even for the slowest painters. Maybe the first time they implement these rules there will be a bit more pain for some people and there might be a large number of models removed relative to previous years but perhaps that's what we need if we want to have tournaments that represent the hobby in the best way possible.
Personally I'm all for this, as it looks better visually and it makes it easier to tell different chapters, hive fleets, etc. from each other. I know Tyranids and Necrons frequently run multiple Hive Fleets/Dynasties, respectively, and so it would be nice to be able to easily tell the different ones apart since they get different buffs.
As someone who is starting a Sisters of Battle army and going with a homebrew color scheme, I hope it's okay to paint them all the same but just do different color base rims to differentiate different Orders. I'm probably not going to play at LVO anytime soon, but I might go to Adepticon in 2021, Lord willing, so it could come up for me.
As someone who is starting a Sisters of Battle army and going with a homebrew color scheme, I hope it's okay to paint them all the same but just do different color base rims to differentiate different Orders. I'm probably not going to play at LVO anytime soon, but I might go to Adepticon in 2021, Lord willing, so it could come up for me.
From the first post
You may have models painted in the same paint scheme count as different <Factions> so long as you clearly visually distinguish them. For example, if you have an army all painted in the same scheme using Cadian models (or whatever models) but distinguish them using something like Squad Marks (who will have a booth in the vendor area of the LVO) that IS acceptable. Something like colored rubber bands put on to models is NOT acceptable. The below picture illustrates what we mean. If all of the red based Cadian models were the same regiment of Astra Militarum, and all of the blue based Cadian models were a different regiment of Astra Militarum that is acceptable so long as you are consistent throughout your army. Models with no base such as Vehicles would require a similar, easily distinguishable and consistent visual indicator of which <Faction> they were. When in doubt, submit pictures to the form linked at the top of the article for judge approval.
Sounds like they've already thought of that and even suggest it. A rim base colour variation for different subchapters/groups within the army sounds like its a very reliable interpretation of the rule they've put forward.
I also agree that this rule sounds very sensible. It's about creating a clear exchange of information using the models without being too limiting. Note that they don't even stipulate anything about "official schemes" for armies and keep the language that's purely talking about the coherency within the players force. You Ultramarines can be bright pink, so long as they are all using that same colour scheme.
Sorry that I want to play a game and can’t afford to buy my own, but I have a friend willing to lend me the models... but shame on me for borrowing from a friend?
How’s the view from on top of that horse? Maybe a bit grumpy because the caviar wasn’t properly chilled? Or did your servants not provide you with adequate “sport” this afternoon?
Sorry that I want to play a game and can’t afford to buy my own, but I have a friend willing to lend me the models... but shame on me for borrowing from a friend?
How’s the view from on top of that horse? Maybe a bit grumpy because the caviar wasn’t properly chilled? Or did your servants not provide you with adequate “sport” this afternoon?
It is a "bad thing" within the context of:
1) Creating a visual atmosphere of random models on a table rather than a unified armed force.
2) Creating a potentially confusing situation on a table where model paint schemes might vary considerably and where the player might be using more than one army division; but where the variations in model painting and model division do not correspond to each other.
Remember point 2 is about clarity of information and whilst it might be really simple; at a competitive event you're going to play strangers against the clock and play multiple games. In such a situation hazy information can result in an unintended disadvantage to the opponent because now they might mistakenly mix up which models are in which division. At worst one could argue it would be done deliberately to engineer such a situation for the players advantage.
Of course no one minds if someone borrows models and the more the merrier is often the mantra most game groups and events work with. People are more than happy to have more people playing and there's no real stigma against borrowed models provided that the player is honest (eg if they come up for a "best painted" nomination) and that they fit within the painting coherency rules now noted above at the start of the thread.
Sorry that I want to play a game and can’t afford to buy my own, but I have a friend willing to lend me the models... but shame on me for borrowing from a friend?
How’s the view from on top of that horse? Maybe a bit grumpy because the caviar wasn’t properly chilled? Or did your servants not provide you with adequate “sport” this afternoon?
It's about clarity of information on the tabletop as well as trying to present the hobby in the best light possible. There's nothing stopping you borrowing your army from a friend either, but you won't be able to borrow a bit of it from one friend, another couple of units from someone else and another couple from somebody else unless they all happen to have coherent colour schemes. Like it or not, the hobby side of the game is something that many people find important and enforcing a bare minimum standard of hobby effort seems like a perfectly reasonable approach for a TO to take. Also, it's entirely possible to play a fully painted, coherent army without being lord of the manor. Equating the two is, frankly, ridiculous.
I’m not equating. I’m *implying* elitist snobbery through barbed exaggeration. Like, I would ask you to lend me your polo mallet, but I know how much you’re opposed to borrow hammer.
greatbigtree wrote: I’m not equating. I’m *implying* elitist snobbery through barbed exaggeration. Like, I would ask you to lend me your polo mallet, but I know how much you’re opposed to borrow hammer.
Borrowing the hammer is fine. It's when you borrow your friends team uniform and tack when its all in the colours of the opposing side and nor your own team.
That's basically all that is implied as wrong with borrow hammer up above.
So I’m allowed to play, as long as I can afford the horse, boarding, feed, tack, and uniform... in that case borrow-hammer is ok.
With no sense of irony, or willingness to acknowledge the clever wordplay. In light of the point of this exercise being to actively mock people’s lack of self-awareness in creating an elitist scenario in which if you can’t afford to play, and paint consistent models yada-yada-yada I’m-better-than-you.
Are you sure that’s going to be your strategy? It’s a bold move, Cotton.
greatbigtree wrote: So I’m allowed to play, as long as I can afford the horse, boarding, feed, tack, and uniform... in that case borrow-hammer is ok.
With no sense of irony, or willingness to acknowledge the clever wordplay. In light of the point of this exercise being to actively mock people’s lack of self-awareness in creating an elitist scenario in which if you can’t afford to play, and paint consistent models yada-yada-yada I’m-better-than-you.
Are you sure that’s going to be your strategy? It’s a bold move, Cotton.
So your overall tactic is to take a comparison and beat the horse to death with it? Whilst at the same time creating a total fabrication?
I never said anything about what you could or could not "borrow" within the context of the analogy save that the issue presented was when you borrowed the opposing teams colours to wear for the match. I didn't even mention the horse or anything else.
Though honestly I think you're just fishing to bait this into a "its a luxury product you're not entitled to play" angle at some stage.
Again no one was saying borrowing models was bad. It was borrowing models that have no single paint scheme for each different subfaction present within your army that was the issue. That being no different to if you'd bought the whole lot yourself and painted them into random groups of painted units.
Only if I can beat the horse to death with the loaned mallet. I’m trying to use humour to make a point but that doesn’t always translate in post form. Come on, loaned polo mallet (and the implication of wealth that comes from playing polo) juxtaposed with borrow hammer?
Loan-Mallet. Borrow-Hammer? Come on, a bit of credit for setting that up and then running with it is all I ask.
I also like seeing consistent paint schemes when it comes to models. Who doesn’t? But when money’s on the line (most tournaments have a prize structure) the pragmatics of using the best available models to win the game goes hand in hand. People aren’t after the best-painted if they’re doing that. They’re after the prize for winning. Thinking this will somehow alleviate meta-chasing and people using bare-minimum effort modeling just puts the meta-chasing one (financial) step further out of reach.
Put another way, does someone deserve a better chance to win a tournament because they are more financially capable of owning the bestest models, or should the best player win? If each person has an equal financial stake (tournament entry) in the outcome, should one player be penalized because their models aren’t all the same colour?
We can disagree. That’s different points of view and that’s ok. I think some kind of visual differentiation is useful for the game tokens the tournament is played with.
No hard feelings, no harm intended. Just being playful. *internet fist bump offered*
Sorry that I want to play a game and can’t afford to buy my own, but I have a friend willing to lend me the models... but shame on me for borrowing from a friend?
How’s the view from on top of that horse? Maybe a bit grumpy because the caviar wasn’t properly chilled? Or did your servants not provide you with adequate “sport” this afternoon?
A lot of the national view of 40k is down the nose unfortunately.
Maybe all the proponents of the change are right and it's not a big deal. Personally I think it's an over reach of a requirement and is going wreck a lot plans that weekend if this is actually enforced. I'm not going for this reason, my models would be fine but I dont want to deal with the drama of calling people out and I'm not programmed to over look stuff. I would he labeled TFG before dice are even rolled. But rules! If models indeed get pulled than it's fair. I seriously doubt models and units will actually get pulled. The requirement is to broad. Wait and see I guess
A lot of the national view of 40k is down the nose unfortunately.
Maybe all the proponents of the change are right and it's not a big deal. Personally I think it's an over reach of a requirement and is going wreck a lot plans that weekend if this is actually enforced. I'm not going for this reason, my models would be fine but I dont want to deal with the drama of calling people out and I'm not programmed to over look stuff. I would he labeled TFG before dice are even rolled. But rules! If models indeed get pulled than it's fair. I seriously doubt models and units will actually get pulled. The requirement is to broad. Wait and see I guess
This would have gone over a whole lot better had a significant set of model related rules changes not been announced after the event had sold out.
A lot of the national view of 40k is down the nose unfortunately.
Maybe all the proponents of the change are right and it's not a big deal. Personally I think it's an over reach of a requirement and is going wreck a lot plans that weekend if this is actually enforced. I'm not going for this reason, my models would be fine but I dont want to deal with the drama of calling people out and I'm not programmed to over look stuff. I would he labeled TFG before dice are even rolled. But rules! If models indeed get pulled than it's fair. I seriously doubt models and units will actually get pulled. The requirement is to broad. Wait and see I guess
This would have gone over a whole lot better had a significant set of model related rules changes not been announced after the event had sold out.
Absolutely! So right.
Players don't even bring their army lists and rules as required and nothing happens. If they actually enforce this as written it will be interesting at a minimum.
I don't think the change and repercussion of it has sunk in yet from what I'm seeing so far about the feedback here and other places.
During and after the event is gonna be must see information!
I think the whole thing is down to an issue of scale.
At a small tournament the TO can list out some simple guidelines and players can happily contact them and discuss the matter before hand, common sense will generally rule the day.
When you get up to the level of 1000 players at an event you have to have very clear, written down guidelines that apply to all. The problems will arise when some players are let off for certain models and other players are not, there will be some discretion given no doubt but I fear some feel bad situations will undoubtedly happen.
I'm not attending, if I was the painting and basing guide lines wouldn't be a problem but the base size rules certainly would.
I'm part way through re-basing my massive marine collection, a decent base extender costs £0.25 each model so that's not a huge issue and they are pretty quick to do. There are various issues where I have based some character models on larger bases to make them more stable and to look better, not sure what I'd do there.
My daemon army would face big issues, it quite old and may of the models are metal and attached through their bases. Having to re-base these to the newer slightly different sizes would be a big job, metal models and their paint jobs don't respond well to being forcibly removed from their bases. Many of the new base sizes for the medium to large chaos models are not easily obtainable and in some cases are supplied with different versions in different sets they are available in.
I think having a fixed base size requirement based on a what a company supplies them with when said company has no coherent policy for what size bases they use and who are constantly changing their bases sizes is pure folly.
Tournament guys will just adapt pretty rapidly. I think there should be 1 exception and this is to basically not kick borrow-hammer people in the face.
IF all detachments are from the same faction/chapter/cult/hive fleet/etc. Then so long as they are 3 colors and based it shouldn't matter.
While I get why it's being done why kick game store kid in the face? If he wants to waste $20 getting hosed by 35+ year old rules nerds with actual budgets so be it.
Some perspective from a guy who has seen the offending armies:
The night before LVO, a top guy brought his models (a couple years ago), primed white, and with 2 washes for 3 colors, primer white, a blue (I believe Nightshade) and green or purple. He was painting Thursday night. It looked like ass. And I mean I picked up the models and eyeballed them. It'd be funnier if I said they were still wet, but I can't remember if so. I know this was the army that, well maybe not started the resolve, but definitely got the ITC guys moving toward this goal.
Another:
A buddy of mine my pretty much always plays borrow hammer, and just-purchased-ebay hammer. At a BAO, me and the other buddies saw his really awful ebay purchases and put in 2 hours the night before to bring some coherency to its appearance ... maybe 3 years ago. He finally commissioned someone to paint an army, and hey! Looks good.
Both of these players are Top Table guys. GT level top competitors. They're being held to this higher standard fer sure.
As I understand Reece's intent, *these* guys need to step up and not have:
silver blue eldar jetbikes, 2x5 black DAs, and another unit of red Dire Avengers (1 is actually orange), a white/blue Crimson Hunter, another painted like USC's burgundy and yellow (one based, the other base is still back plastic), black primer farseer with blue trim and the other farseer green & white ... this is the stuff that this ruling is intended to eliminate. Easily seen as a hodgepodge of models with about 6 different themes.
@ the detractors:
If you're not going to LVO, why are you harping on this?
Are you worried about the fallout at your local scene? Okay, that makes sense.
However, if *your* local ITC scene is gonna go this route, then get your buddies together for a beer, discuss, plan, and take control of your local scene. If all 15 locals players tell the TO that you want a continued, relaxed paint requirement for events, and he balks, screw him. Organize your own tourney, the same day, spread the word and let the TO hold is empty BCP roster, while *you* hold your own event. "Oh, hey, man, since no one's playing in your RTT, I guess we can go ahead and use the tables and terrain?" Course, I don't think any TO would be so daft as to allow things to go so far.
I nearly did this to make sure a local TFG/WAAC unpleasant player got shut out for our RTT. The TO banned him before I need to pull the trigger.
This ITC thing is pretty much just gonna be LVO, BAO and SoCal Open. If other events are on your agenda, and you don't want this, call them up! Ask for concessions or even flat out Get-Out-of-Jail, that is, Get-Out-of-Paint-Jail and say you're gonna be in the kiddie pool and are there just for fun.
@Byte:
I didn't see any pix from the first post. Did I miss something?
@those complaining about announcing it "After the event Sold Out"
Quoting Reece, "You've got 2 months!" I agree with him. Here are a couple points:
a. the meta is likely to shift again, and some people are gonna be swapping out units anyway
b. Us die-hards who play the same mid-level to kiddie pool armies are (based on experience) gonna play armies that already match the standard. For those that don't, you've got 2 MONTHS!
Base sizes:
@ WisdomLS - $4 american for 10 bases going from 25 to 32 mm (those extender things). Is that really gonna break your bank? For 40k?! Really?
My 50+ bloodletters are half on 25s and half on 32s. I'll get to it, so I'm there with ya, but ... as Reece stated, fielding 30 BLs with 25mm bases is gonna afford me far more attacks because of the "1 inch within 1 inch" attack mechanic. It'll be a lot less with 32 bases.
40k has always been about playing an edition for a few yeas, and then a new edition comes out, and many of your models get shelved or altered. I've been playing since 4th. Lo! and behold, indexes were just rendered absolete. Give it 5 years. The army you're playing now won't be the same in 9th edition. And it'll have nothing to do with ITC. It's GW.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Throwing down a gauntlet of "Lookit what I did when I had to resize muh bases!"
Those are 1988 era, metal termies on 25 mm bases. And then I got the bigger ones and added trophies.
Rather than removing models, simply have the secondary "coherency" available to play -- but limited to 4 points.
If you pick it, you get 2 for coherency, 2 for the other guy not having it. So you can if you see someone playing cheesehammer with 40 different borrowed models smile, and start your game 4 points ahead, and have even greater flexibility in choosing your remaining 2 secondaries -- while your opponent is struggling to find 3 that are mission appropriate.
Brothererekose wrote: Some perspective from a guy who has seen the offending armies:
The night before LVO, a top guy brought his models (a couple years ago), primed white, and with 2 washes for 3 colors, primer white, a blue (I believe Nightshade) and green or purple. He was painting Thursday night. It looked like ass. And I mean I picked up the models and eyeballed them. It'd be funnier if I said they were still wet, but I can't remember if so. I know this was the army that, well maybe not started the resolve, but definitely got the ITC guys moving toward this goal.
Another:
A buddy of mine my pretty much always plays borrow hammer, and just-purchased-ebay hammer. At a BAO, me and the other buddies saw his really awful ebay purchases and put in 2 hours the night before to bring some coherency to its appearance ... maybe 3 years ago. He finally commissioned someone to paint an army, and hey! Looks good.
Both of these players are Top Table guys. GT level top competitors. They're being held to this higher standard fer sure.
As I understand Reece's intent, *these* guys need to step up and not have:
silver blue eldar jetbikes, 2x5 black DAs, and another unit of red Dire Avengers (1 is actually orange), a white/blue Crimson Hunter, another painted like USC's burgundy and yellow (one based, the other base is still back plastic), black primer farseer with blue trim and the other farseer green & white ... this is the stuff that this ruling is intended to eliminate. Easily seen as a hodgepodge of models with about 6 different themes.
@ the detractors:
If you're not going to LVO, why are you harping on this?
Are you worried about the fallout at your local scene? Okay, that makes sense.
However, if *your* local ITC scene is gonna go this route, then get your buddies together for a beer, discuss, plan, and take control of your local scene. If all 15 locals players tell the TO that you want a continued, relaxed paint requirement for events, and he balks, screw him. Organize your own tourney, the same day, spread the word and let the TO hold is empty BCP roster, while *you* hold your own event. "Oh, hey, man, since no one's playing in your RTT, I guess we can go ahead and use the tables and terrain?" Course, I don't think any TO would be so daft as to allow things to go so far.
I nearly did this to make sure a local TFG/WAAC unpleasant player got shut out for our RTT. The TO banned him before I need to pull the trigger.
This ITC thing is pretty much just gonna be LVO, BAO and SoCal Open. If other events are on your agenda, and you don't want this, call them up! Ask for concessions or even flat out Get-Out-of-Jail, that is, Get-Out-of-Paint-Jail and say you're gonna be in the kiddie pool and are there just for fun.
@Byte:
I didn't see any pix from the first post. Did I miss something?
@those complaining about announcing it "After the event Sold Out"
Quoting Reece, "You've got 2 months!" I agree with him. Here are a couple points:
a. the meta is likely to shift again, and some people are gonna be swapping out units anyway
b. Us die-hards who play the same mid-level to kiddie pool armies are (based on experience) gonna play armies that already match the standard. For those that don't, you've got 2 MONTHS!
Base sizes:
@ WisdomLS - $4 american for 10 bases going from 25 to 32 mm (those extender things). Is that really gonna break your bank? For 40k?! Really?
My 50+ bloodletters are half on 25s and half on 32s. I'll get to it, so I'm there with ya, but ... as Reece stated, fielding 30 BLs with 25mm bases is gonna afford me far more attacks because of the "1 inch within 1 inch" attack mechanic. It'll be a lot less with 32 bases.
40k has always been about playing an edition for a few yeas, and then a new edition comes out, and many of your models get shelved or altered. I've been playing since 4th. Lo! and behold, indexes were just rendered absolete. Give it 5 years. The army you're playing now won't be the same in 9th edition. And it'll have nothing to do with ITC. It's GW.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Throwing down a gauntlet of "Lookit what I did when I had to resize muh bases!"
Those are 1988 era, metal termies on 25 mm bases. And then I got the bigger ones and added trophies.
B**ches!
FN excellent post good sir! For real. Bravo!
Like I said. Somewhere here or elsewhere. Because its now a rule and I can't not follow rules. I would/will be the guy that called out my opponents jacked up looking armies. If the judge was like "no big deal". 1. Now Im the donkey cave. 2. The rest of the game is gonna suck either way! But rules dammit!
The concept is good but the actual implementation will be interesting to watch. Will players actually have units removed or complete armies disqualified? I think we really know the answer. Ive seen the answer so many times brfore over so many years.
The game is slowly getting over legislated. Stop! The current rules arent even enforced and they add more! Goodness! Lol
There was a pic. But because FB I couldnt post it here. I wrote in the first post a small description of the pic. It was just a hodgepodge of colored marines and a dreadnought
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dukeofstuff wrote: Rather than removing models, simply have the secondary "coherency" available to play -- but limited to 4 points.
If you pick it, you get 2 for coherency, 2 for the other guy not having it. So you can if you see someone playing cheesehammer with 40 different borrowed models smile, and start your game 4 points ahead, and have even greater flexibility in choosing your remaining 2 secondaries -- while your opponent is struggling to find 3 that are mission appropriate.
People would quickly learn not to borrowhammer!
Plausible.
However, here come the rules of exclusion from the rule. Precisely why I think this can't be enforceable. I know gamers and its like the ink blot test. They see what they want to see and always think they are the exception. Of course I speak with a broad brush but you all know what I mean if youve been in the game for anytime
Brothererekose wrote: Some perspective from a guy who has seen the offending armies:
The night before LVO, a top guy brought his models (a couple years ago), primed white, and with 2 washes for 3 colors, primer white, a blue (I believe Nightshade) and green or purple. He was painting Thursday night. It looked like ass. And I mean I picked up the models and eyeballed them. It'd be funnier if I said they were still wet, but I can't remember if so. I know this was the army that, well maybe not started the resolve, but definitely got the ITC guys moving toward this goal.
Another:
A buddy of mine my pretty much always plays borrow hammer, and just-purchased-ebay hammer. At a BAO, me and the other buddies saw his really awful ebay purchases and put in 2 hours the night before to bring some coherency to its appearance ... maybe 3 years ago. He finally commissioned someone to paint an army, and hey! Looks good.
Both of these players are Top Table guys. GT level top competitors. They're being held to this higher standard fer sure.
As I understand Reece's intent, *these* guys need to step up and not have:
silver blue eldar jetbikes, 2x5 black DAs, and another unit of red Dire Avengers (1 is actually orange), a white/blue Crimson Hunter, another painted like USC's burgundy and yellow (one based, the other base is still back plastic), black primer farseer with blue trim and the other farseer green & white ... this is the stuff that this ruling is intended to eliminate. Easily seen as a hodgepodge of models with about 6 different themes.
@ the detractors:
If you're not going to LVO, why are you harping on this?
Are you worried about the fallout at your local scene? Okay, that makes sense.
However, if *your* local ITC scene is gonna go this route, then get your buddies together for a beer, discuss, plan, and take control of your local scene. If all 15 locals players tell the TO that you want a continued, relaxed paint requirement for events, and he balks, screw him. Organize your own tourney, the same day, spread the word and let the TO hold is empty BCP roster, while *you* hold your own event. "Oh, hey, man, since no one's playing in your RTT, I guess we can go ahead and use the tables and terrain?" Course, I don't think any TO would be so daft as to allow things to go so far.
I nearly did this to make sure a local TFG/WAAC unpleasant player got shut out for our RTT. The TO banned him before I need to pull the trigger.
This ITC thing is pretty much just gonna be LVO, BAO and SoCal Open. If other events are on your agenda, and you don't want this, call them up! Ask for concessions or even flat out Get-Out-of-Jail, that is, Get-Out-of-Paint-Jail and say you're gonna be in the kiddie pool and are there just for fun.
@Byte:
I didn't see any pix from the first post. Did I miss something?
@those complaining about announcing it "After the event Sold Out"
Quoting Reece, "You've got 2 months!" I agree with him. Here are a couple points:
a. the meta is likely to shift again, and some people are gonna be swapping out units anyway
b. Us die-hards who play the same mid-level to kiddie pool armies are (based on experience) gonna play armies that already match the standard. For those that don't, you've got 2 MONTHS!
Base sizes:
@ WisdomLS - $4 american for 10 bases going from 25 to 32 mm (those extender things). Is that really gonna break your bank? For 40k?! Really?
My 50+ bloodletters are half on 25s and half on 32s. I'll get to it, so I'm there with ya, but ... as Reece stated, fielding 30 BLs with 25mm bases is gonna afford me far more attacks because of the "1 inch within 1 inch" attack mechanic. It'll be a lot less with 32 bases.
40k has always been about playing an edition for a few yeas, and then a new edition comes out, and many of your models get shelved or altered. I've been playing since 4th. Lo! and behold, indexes were just rendered absolete. Give it 5 years. The army you're playing now won't be the same in 9th edition. And it'll have nothing to do with ITC. It's GW.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Throwing down a gauntlet of "Lookit what I did when I had to resize muh bases!"
Those are 1988 era, metal termies on 25 mm bases. And then I got the bigger ones and added trophies.
B**ches!
FN excellent post good sir! For real. Bravo!
Like I said. Somewhere here or elsewhere. Because its now a rule and I can't not follow rules. I would/will be the guy that called out my opponents jacked up looking armies. If the judge was like "no big deal". 1. Now Im the donkey cave. 2. The rest of the game is gonna suck either way! But rules dammit!
The concept is good but the actual implementation will be interesting to watch. Will players actually have units removed or complete armies disqualified? I think we really know the answer. Ive seen the answer so many times brfore over so many years.
The game is slowly getting over legislated. Stop! The current rules arent even enforced and they add more! Goodness! Lol
There was a pic. But because FB I couldnt post it here. I wrote in the first post a small description of the pic. It was just a hodgepodge of colored marines and a dreadnought
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dukeofstuff wrote: Rather than removing models, simply have the secondary "coherency" available to play -- but limited to 4 points.
If you pick it, you get 2 for coherency, 2 for the other guy not having it. So you can if you see someone playing cheesehammer with 40 different borrowed models smile, and start your game 4 points ahead, and have even greater flexibility in choosing your remaining 2 secondaries -- while your opponent is struggling to find 3 that are mission appropriate.
People would quickly learn not to borrowhammer!
Plausible.
However, here come the rules of exclusion from the rule. Precisely why I think this can't be enforceable. I know gamers and its like the ink blot test. They see what they want to see and always think they are the exception. Of course I speak with a broad brush but you all know what I mean if youve been in the game for anytime
I think that says more about the current effectiveness of many judges and TOs in following their own rules than it does about the validity of this rule in particular. It's sad, but understandable, that people are doubting whether these rules will be properly implemented and I completely agree that if they aren't it's just one more thing that could cause potential friction between two players if one of them calls a judge over painting standards and nothing is done. That's why I hope they follow these rules pretty strictly at the next LVO. They've said they will and if they follow through on that and it results in some armies being completely removed from the biggest 40k tournament in the world it might benefit the hobby side of the game immensely as people realise they need to follow these guidelines or risk being ejected from tournaments. But this only works if the rules are enforced. Let's see if that happens before we complain about enforcement.
It's a nice attempt, but ultimately doing it Warhammer-World-style and having the painting by 50% of your score would be better IMO.
Instead of complicated regulations that people try to skirt as much as possible, make the painting be part of the competition that competitive people compete in. If people are too lazy to be competitive in all aspects of the hobby, they probably don't deserve to win a big event like that anyhow.
Base sizes:
@ WisdomLS - $4 american for 10 bases going from 25 to 32 mm (those extender things). Is that really gonna break your bank? For 40k?! Really?
My 50+ bloodletters are half on 25s and half on 32s. I'll get to it, so I'm there with ya, but ... as Reece stated, fielding 30 BLs with 25mm bases is gonna afford me far more attacks because of the "1 inch within 1 inch" attack mechanic. It'll be a lot less with 32 bases.
40k has always been about playing an edition for a few yeas, and then a new edition comes out, and many of your models get shelved or altered. I've been playing since 4th. Lo! and behold, indexes were just rendered absolete. Give it 5 years. The army you're playing now won't be the same in 9th edition. And it'll have nothing to do with ITC. It's GW.
Some great points made, just to point out that in my post I actually stated how cheap and easy the 25 -32mm extenders are to use. It is the other more esoteric rare bases sizes which GW are only recently bringing out, usually on medium to large models that are the issue.
It may be mainly a daemon issue, lots of changes going from bikes to rounds to ovals and having multiple types available at the same time in different places. If there was a consistent GW policy on basing then I could see where they are coming from but there isn't.
I've been playing since RT and have re-based many things including my entire daemon army once from squares to rounds, it wasn't expensive but neither was it particularly cheap, it certainly wasn't in any way fun and took a fair amount of time. Doing it all again because of an arbitary rule that relies on the fact GW has decided in their infinite wisdom that this year Bloodcrushers will come on ovals instead of rounds and that flesh hounds with come on slightly wider bike bases just seems like a whole lot of effort for no reason.
Sunny Side Up wrote: It's a nice attempt, but ultimately doing it Warhammer-World-style and having the painting by 50% of your score would be better IMO.
Instead of complicated regulations that people try to skirt as much as possible, make the painting be part of the competition that competitive people compete in. If people are too lazy to be competitive in all aspects of the hobby, they probably don't deserve to win a big event like that anyhow.
What about commissioned paintwork? Considering that many at these events might be very good players but very poor painters is it really fair to suddenly change the whole status to awarding 50% to the painting quality?
Don't get me wrong, a catch all event that includes painting, modelling and playing can work (just leave out sportsmanship!) its just that its not always good to take an event that focuses on one of the three and suddenly change it to include the others. It would be the same if Golden Demon suddenly required you to also win 5 matches in a row at the event in order to be awarded.
Having a well painted army at an event is its own reward. This is even more true when the event in no way requires it. You get a lot more people clearly enjoying your army and asking questions. Judging for score puts way more of a damper on why I paint than anything.
Sunny Side Up wrote: It's a nice attempt, but ultimately doing it Warhammer-World-style and having the painting by 50% of your score would be better IMO.
Instead of complicated regulations that people try to skirt as much as possible, make the painting be part of the competition that competitive people compete in. If people are too lazy to be competitive in all aspects of the hobby, they probably don't deserve to win a big event like that anyhow.
What about commissioned paintwork? Considering that many at these events might be very good players but very poor painters is it really fair to suddenly change the whole status to awarding 50% to the painting quality?
Don't get me wrong, a catch all event that includes painting, modelling and playing can work (just leave out sportsmanship!) its just that its not always good to take an event that focuses on one of the three and suddenly change it to include the others. It would be the same if Golden Demon suddenly required you to also win 5 matches in a row at the event in order to be awarded.
Rule as written. If they aren't coherent. Pull 'em!
LunarSol wrote: Having a well painted army at an event is its own reward. This is even more true when the event in no way requires it. You get a lot more people clearly enjoying your army and asking questions. Judging for score puts way more of a damper on why I paint than anything.
It also sucks to put years into your army only to draw some guy with busted in models he tosses into a shoe box between rounds. Win or lose it makes the game less enjoyable and breaks the social contract IMHO.
I don't care what the quality level is at the end, painting is subjective, but you can certainly tell when an effort has been made. Most people appreciate the effort and attempt and it starts the game on a bad note when you know the guy across from you could not care less about your enjoyment from an immersion standpoint. Again, it's about effort.
Polonius wrote: It's important to remember that top table 40k is often streamed. Having reasonably well painted armies makes for better content.
I was going to point this out, GW has not been able to stream a lot of the top table games late in the tourny over the years because of the lack of standard being enforced.
There's always been a tension between enforcing painting standards and trying to increase participation/attendance. It looks like there's finally enough of the latter to move ahead with the former.
Rule as written. If they aren't coherent. Pull 'em!
And this is my fear. TFG will use this rule to WAAC instead of playing with the intent of the rule and will put judges in a bad situation.
A couple of my SW units have gravel bases and not snow ones. My primaris units have a different armor color than my long fangs and blood claws. All of them have been painted by me over the last couple decades. I'm not the greatest painter and paint slowly while having a family and job. I don't have the 10-20 hours just laying around to re-paint those 20ish models (along with the time to fix the bases of my old models to the "proper" size) and work on adding things that I enjoy to my army (besides, I kind of am attached to those crappy old paint jobs).
I only play in ITC tournaments as I don't have a play group (my friends are into golf and guns not "nerdy dolls"). These rules as written are exploitable by TFGs all over the place and either there will be resentment because I know the local shop owner/TO that will most likely not remove my models or will because my models get removed. RAW I can see my models getting removed, RAI no way and that is a problem for me. I guess when in doubt I could just submit pics to the T.O. and get a pre-tourney ruling but it would still suck for TFG who tries to get them pulled (hahahahahahahaha).
My army as it stands now is fully painted and based (played a lot of them at the most recent BAO without issue), contrast paints weren't even a thought when I painted my blood angels (and the contrast ones look different than the og ones). Some of my scouts are black "armored" with red shoulders (metal models) and some are contrast red all over (plastic), you telling me you get to pull those from the board because I wanted to experiment with a new technique/product? Having to add extenders is one thing, having to completely repaint (or retire) dozens of models to force people to buy more models is a problem.
I hope this experiments crashes and burns. It is an inelegant solution to a problem that no players I know were having.
And this is my fear. TFG will use this rule to WAAC instead of playing with the intent of the rule and will put judges in a bad situation.
Thats the glaring issue with this particular implementation. It relies on TO exceptions and judgements. Those exceptions will, inevitably, be doled out in inequitable fashions (not attributing malice, simple human nature), alongside a possibility of weaponization by jackwagons.
I get wanting to avoid rainbow model syndrome. This aint the way.
Sunny Side Up wrote: It's a nice attempt, but ultimately doing it Warhammer-World-style and having the painting by 50% of your score would be better IMO.
Instead of complicated regulations that people try to skirt as much as possible, make the painting be part of the competition that competitive people compete in. If people are too lazy to be competitive in all aspects of the hobby, they probably don't deserve to win a big event like that anyhow.
You "get it". It's interested how others just can't fathom what the issue is. Amazing to me. I'll all about the change as long as its handled strict, fair and consistent.
"Get those models out of here!". Like a Strat card. lol
And this is my fear. TFG will use this rule to WAAC instead of playing with the intent of the rule and will put judges in a bad situation.
Thats the glaring issue with this particular implementation. It relies on TO exceptions and judgements. Those exceptions will, inevitably, be doled out in inequitable fashions (not attributing malice, simple human nature), alongside a possibility of weaponization by jackwagons.
I get wanting to avoid rainbow model syndrome. This aint the way.
Now the root issue is starting to be exposed now that the shininess is wearing off.
It will be used as a tactic. It has to be. Dudes aren't going to want to lose to a non complaint army. Its the rules! Right?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: You know that you can always email the TO with your army and get prechecked, right?
This isn't the issue. It will be the guys that just show up that get burned. Not all players geek out on this crap. Some will ignore and just assume they will be the exception.
Honestly, do people really do what there told in general? No. Everybody is special and the exception. Particularly in this hobby. Dudes don't even bring copies of their army lists and rules with them now. lol
I predict a hot mess if carried out RAW. But, I suspect everything will be the exception if history repeats itself. I've heard all the excuses before about protecting the attendees and all the money they spent. Same thing with this. Guess we'll see.
I can't base half of my detachment with snow and the other half with gravel, WTF?
Is ITC telling me that one of the shades of my space wolves would be removed from play if I wanted to run them in the same detachment alongside a blood angels?
What about my blood angel scouts which 2 units are done with old school GW paints but the newest one is done with GW contrast. My opponent gets to remove whatever one they want?
RAW do you get to pull my death wing termies (classic bone) from my DA army (dark green) since they are not uniform and coherent?
The only possible issue on this based on my reading of the rules would be different basing, and I think that if you had similar rim colors and somewhat tied the different bases together, snow and gravel would be fine.
As for your other examples, the rules do not require them to be uniform, but coherent. They specially point out librarians in blue armor as coherent, which bone colored Deathwing clearly would be.
But yes, the goal of this policy is clearly to have armies present with a more uniform look. They can afford to do this since they sell out so quickly.
Though I imagine someone with some recognition behind them will try and call you out if you had something like green wing and deathwing (or Eldar, Eldar color schemes often go by aspect and not faction) so they could score an easy win
Sunny Side Up wrote: It's a nice attempt, but ultimately doing it Warhammer-World-style and having the painting by 50% of your score would be better IMO.
Instead of complicated regulations that people try to skirt as much as possible, make the painting be part of the competition that competitive people compete in. If people are too lazy to be competitive in all aspects of the hobby, they probably don't deserve to win a big event like that anyhow.
What about commissioned paintwork? Considering that many at these events might be very good players but very poor painters is it really fair to suddenly change the whole status to awarding 50% to the painting quality?
Don't get me wrong, a catch all event that includes painting, modelling and playing can work (just leave out sportsmanship!) its just that its not always good to take an event that focuses on one of the three and suddenly change it to include the others. It would be the same if Golden Demon suddenly required you to also win 5 matches in a row at the event in order to be awarded.
What about paying for list-building and coaching?
Can't check that. If people pay for commission to be competitive, so what?
I did not realize that buying your models off ebay was a bad thing. I always thought that was GOOD for the game as it kept models fairly valuable since they can be re-used.
Terrible addition to the rules. I have 120 or so termagants I can't use in tournaments now because they are painted different colors (I ran them as all one hive fleet, but different colors made them much easier to differentiate on the table while playing). I'm not going to re-buy and/or re-paint 120 termagants for ITC.
It's a really bad rule that's affecting a lot more people negatively than helping the few people who abused this.
Very competitive gaming clubs will just starting painting all their models the same way so they can still borrow hammer. It will slow down the abuse for 1 year maybe.
Sunny Side Up wrote: It's a nice attempt, but ultimately doing it Warhammer-World-style and having the painting by 50% of your score would be better IMO.
Instead of complicated regulations that people try to skirt as much as possible, make the painting be part of the competition that competitive people compete in. If people are too lazy to be competitive in all aspects of the hobby, they probably don't deserve to win a big event like that anyhow.
What about commissioned paintwork? Considering that many at these events might be very good players but very poor painters is it really fair to suddenly change the whole status to awarding 50% to the painting quality?
Don't get me wrong, a catch all event that includes painting, modelling and playing can work (just leave out sportsmanship!) its just that its not always good to take an event that focuses on one of the three and suddenly change it to include the others. It would be the same if Golden Demon suddenly required you to also win 5 matches in a row at the event in order to be awarded.
What about paying for list-building and coaching?
Can't check that. If people pay for commission to be competitive, so what?
I'm not saying paying for commissions in a competitive setting is bad, just that a person should not win for the quality of painting if they have not used their own painting skills to achieve the result. It's all about context.
As for list building and coaching - well the former is honestly not something I've ever heard of happening anywhere. Lists are just lists like a paint scheme list. Meanwhile the latter is training; the actual person still has to be there to play the game.
stratigo wrote: Though I imagine someone with some recognition behind them will try and call you out if you had something like green wing and deathwing (or Eldar, Eldar color schemes often go by aspect and not faction) so they could score an easy win
I think this is an incredibly cynical view of both tournament players and tournament organizers. The rules literally carve out an exception for lore based variations.
stratigo wrote: Though I imagine someone with some recognition behind them will try and call you out if you had something like green wing and deathwing (or Eldar, Eldar color schemes often go by aspect and not faction) so they could score an easy win
I think this is an incredibly cynical view of both tournament players and tournament organizers. The rules literally carve out an exception for lore based variations.
Some tournament players, including really good one that can regularly hit the top tens, are just donkey-caves. I mean sometimes they are donkey-caves even on live stream. It is a thing. If you go to a tournament, be prepared to deal with an donkey-cave or two in your games.
As for TOs, they’re usually solid, but mistakes happen. I can imagine a round two of a tournament a new ref is called over by a dude with big name recognition In The competitive community and going “well I mean, I guess it is what it says in the rules”.
There is enough argument of inches that happens actually pretty regularly, that I can’t see some people not trying this
stratigo wrote: Though I imagine someone with some recognition behind them will try and call you out if you had something like green wing and deathwing (or Eldar, Eldar color schemes often go by aspect and not faction) so they could score an easy win
I think this is an incredibly cynical view of both tournament players and tournament organizers. The rules literally carve out an exception for lore based variations.
Any ruleset that isn’t grief proofed will be used to grief people. That’s a simple fact of human existence, exacerbated by the bleeding edge at which competitive 40k is played.
If there’s an opportunity to gain an advantage by weaponizing a ruleset, that will be done. We’ve seen it before, and will see it again.
[rant]
If I didn't play DA and was TFG I'd have a moment like "this guys terminators are different than the rest of his army. REMOVE THEM!!!!"
Which would be embarrassing but how the heck is a nid player supposed to know the ins and outs of every army they can face (black death company is another example I can think of). Having to explain my paint job on every table under the threat of losing the game is complete BS and shouldn't be codified into rules.
I'm sticking to my original point that this is a solution to a non-problem. Based, WYSIWYG, Painted = good to go.
Anything beyond that is nearly impossible to write a coherent blanket rule that can be applied without a lot of judge discretion that doesn't punish more people unfairly than it helps. Having to paint my entire army the same color/theme is a restriction that negatively impacts my hobby more than facing an army that has models that are different colors (as long as what is what is clear). What ever happened to my dudes are my dudes? It doesn't get more my dudes than the paint I chose to put on them.
Detachments being visibly clear, sure. WYSIWYG, sure. Having to use the same damned shade of green for all of my models is a bridge too far.
I don't want this to be a thing. I'm already pissed enough that all of my bike characters and auto-cannon dreads along with several of my mini-marine characters got squatted DURING THE EDITION I BOUGHT/PAINTED THEM WHERE THEY WERE PERFECTLY LEGAL. Telling me what colors I have to paint my army to play with them is fething dumb.
Take it all the way then. Any models not painted to exactly their lore colors down to the markings shall be removed from the table and destroyed in a fire with the ashes mixed into a natty ice the offending player then has to drink...
Sucks that I'm in Cali and can't get away from frontline events for any GTs (was hoping to go to BAO, LAO and Vegas next season). Hell if thunder wolf cavalry get competitive in the SWPA I'm extra screwed...
Since I can make my own lore for my own models and there's a lore exception I'm just going to come up with some warp shenanigans for why my armor looks a different color to you xeno scum and have it out with the T.O. right there. Table flips and all. Come at me bro!!
[/rant]
stratigo wrote:Some tournament players, including really good one that can regularly hit the top tens, are just donkey-caves. I mean sometimes they are donkey-caves even on live stream. It is a thing. If you go to a tournament, be prepared to deal with an donkey-cave or two in your games.
As for TOs, they’re usually solid, but mistakes happen. I can imagine a round two of a tournament a new ref is called over by a dude with big name recognition In The competitive community and going “well I mean, I guess it is what it says in the rules”.
There is enough argument of inches that happens actually pretty regularly, that I can’t see some people not trying this
so in this scenario, you have this big mean players that will claim nicely painted models are not coherent, judges that allow it, and a community that simply accepts that.
I just don't see any of that happening. The guys that are being targeted by this know what they need to do to avoid it. People with slightly different shades of red will be fine. to think otherwise assumes that TOs have terrible judgment, and players are 100% comfortable with building a reputation for ridiculous gamesmanship.
Sterling191 wrote:Any ruleset that isn’t grief proofed will be used to grief people. That’s a simple fact of human existence, exacerbated by the bleeding edge at which competitive 40k is played.
If there’s an opportunity to gain an advantage by weaponizing a ruleset, that will be done. We’ve seen it before, and will see it again.
Have we though? In my experience, rules that allow players to bully other players, or to anonymously chipmunk are abused, but this requires essentially that a player make an active complaint to a TO, and that a TO agree.
In a world with no social friction, maybe players try this. In a world where a player needs to look a TO in the eye, in front of their opponent, and argue that models are incoherent, is a lot less likely. If anything, I think many players would like wildly out of line models slide.
This isn't a cost free power play. Any player trying something as dumb as arguing death company or Deathwing are incoherent will end up on a watch list.
The reactions seem to be getting ever more hysterical here. If anyone had bothered to read the rules and listen to the podcast where this was discussed they'd know things like Deathwing, Librarians, Aspect Warriors etc don't have to be in the same colour scheme as the rest of your army since it is accepted they are different lore-wise, so you won't be DQ'd for that. The amount of cynicism and conspiracy theories from people thinking this will be weaponised by TFGs is also quite amusing. If anything, it's going to be TFG that are most impacted by this since they're often the ones, IME, who are most likely to be running the new hotness and therefore often borrowing a bunch of stuff to make said meta armies. It reminds me of the arguments about chess clocks, with people claiming they'd be used to game the system even harder but that didn't happen either.
If you don't have coherently painted models that's unfortunate, but if you're planning to go to LVO you have two months to correct that. If you're not planning to go there's not much problem for you...yet. I suspect more tournaments might start using the same guidelines but it's not like you haven't been warned now and you don't have time to prepare.
Slipspace wrote: The reactions seem to be getting ever more hysterical here. If anyone had bothered to read the rules and listen to the podcast where this was discussed they'd know things like Deathwing, Librarians, Aspect Warriors etc don't have to be in the same colour scheme as the rest of your army since it is accepted they are different lore-wise, so you won't be DQ'd for that. The amount of cynicism and conspiracy theories from people thinking this will be weaponised by TFGs is also quite amusing. If anything, it's going to be TFG that are most impacted by this since they're often the ones, IME, who are most likely to be running the new hotness and therefore often borrowing a bunch of stuff to make said meta armies. It reminds me of the arguments about chess clocks, with people claiming they'd be used to game the system even harder but that didn't happen either.
If you don't have coherently painted models that's unfortunate, but if you're planning to go to LVO you have two months to correct that. If you're not planning to go there's not much problem for you...yet. I suspect more tournaments might start using the same guidelines but it's not like you haven't been warned now and you don't have time to prepare.
The degree of entitlement in this post is off the fething charts, and a fantastic example of why multiple folks are concerned.
Slipspace wrote: The reactions seem to be getting ever more hysterical here. If anyone had bothered to read the rules and listen to the podcast where this was discussed they'd know things like Deathwing, Librarians, Aspect Warriors etc don't have to be in the same colour scheme as the rest of your army since it is accepted they are different lore-wise, so you won't be DQ'd for that. The amount of cynicism and conspiracy theories from people thinking this will be weaponised by TFGs is also quite amusing. If anything, it's going to be TFG that are most impacted by this since they're often the ones, IME, who are most likely to be running the new hotness and therefore often borrowing a bunch of stuff to make said meta armies. It reminds me of the arguments about chess clocks, with people claiming they'd be used to game the system even harder but that didn't happen either.
If you don't have coherently painted models that's unfortunate, but if you're planning to go to LVO you have two months to correct that. If you're not planning to go there's not much problem for you...yet. I suspect more tournaments might start using the same guidelines but it's not like you haven't been warned now and you don't have time to prepare.
The degree of entitlement in this post is off the fething charts, and a fantastic example of why multiple folks are concerned.
Perhaps instead of throwing out buzzwords you can explain where the entitlement is? This hobby involves painting and modelling. I don't think asking for a certain minimum level of effort in that area is going too far.
Perhaps instead of throwing out buzzwords you can explain where the entitlement is? This hobby involves painting and modelling. I don't think asking for a certain minimum level of effort in that area is going too far.
If thats what this particular ruleset were doing, you'd be correct. It isnt. And you know it. The fact that you're dismissing any concern about a highly subjective ruleset designed from the ground up to be based solely on exceptions, as opposed to a single uniform and clearly applicable set of standards, as hysterics is where your "buzzword" is.
But by all means, please continue to demonstrate that you're more interested in telling other people that they're doing their hobby wrong than actually arriving at a workable implementation.
Perhaps instead of throwing out buzzwords you can explain where the entitlement is? This hobby involves painting and modelling. I don't think asking for a certain minimum level of effort in that area is going too far.
If thats what this particular ruleset were doing, you'd be correct. It isnt. And you know it. The fact that you're dismissing any concern about a highly subjective ruleset designed from the ground up to be based solely on exceptions, as opposed to a single uniform and clearly applicable set of standards, as hysterics is where your "buzzword" is.
But by all means, please continue to demonstrate that you're more interested in telling other people that they're doing their hobby wrong than actually arriving at a workable implementation.
Honestly I think you're interpreting the rules far out of the spirit of them and also with a very specific angle which is twisting their intention. I think you'll have to go into detail and reference the parts of the original core rule that you're interpreting and how you're interpreting them. Because right now you sound like you're jumping at nothing
As for "telling people what to do with their hobby" that's kind of what rules at an event are about. They DO tell you what to do with your hobby if you wish to participate in their event and competition.
Perhaps instead of throwing out buzzwords you can explain where the entitlement is? This hobby involves painting and modelling. I don't think asking for a certain minimum level of effort in that area is going too far.
If thats what this particular ruleset were doing, you'd be correct. It isnt. And you know it. The fact that you're dismissing any concern about a highly subjective ruleset designed from the ground up to be based solely on exceptions, as opposed to a single uniform and clearly applicable set of standards, as hysterics is where your "buzzword" is.
But by all means, please continue to demonstrate that you're more interested in telling other people that they're doing their hobby wrong than actually arriving at a workable implementation.
You're talking purely about hypotheticals and inventing boogeymen to justify a completely unfounded opinion that the rules will somehow be so subjective they'll be useless. I don't think that's the case at all but since you seem to know my mind better than me you must already know that. I think the rules are pretty clear but I do recognise they're subjective. I just don't think they're subjective to the point of being weaponised as many people here seem to think.
As for me telling other people they're hobbying wrong, you're completely incorrect. I'm commenting on the rules for the event, not giving my opinion on the validity of those rules. In essence there's no difference in the purpose of these rules compared to the previous "3 colours minimum" rules. Both are enforcing some minimum level of effort in the hobby area of the game, the new ones are just more stringent.
But I've already put in that level once. Because of a few donkey caves I'm being asked to put that in again.
This also feels like someone telling me how I have to paint my army. What if my customer chapter is the new "rainbow warriors" and their chapter colors is in the ultra-violet spectrum so the colors that you see on the table top isn't what they judge themselves by? Or newbros get different army and it undergoes a color change once they've bloodied themselves by hunting an ancient Rhe'mera on Istalon IV? Units from different home worlds use different armor colors to blend in with their native world but have all be called to rally for this super important galaxy changing battle? It's cannon that chapters have worn different color armors for different crusades, warp f'ery and these heroes from the Dralthen Crusade where we wore our away jerseys just came back after a millennia spent in the warp and have now rejoined their battle brothers...Or a million other reasons I could come up with why not everyone in my army wears the same boring color armor that I don't want to have to paint 60-100 times over and over again.
Telling me how I have to paint my guys is beyond what a TO should be doing. Ensuring that models are painted/based sure.
Amend the rule that any models that look obviously/grossly/whatever out of place (no pink marines with your blue ones) models will be removed is a step in the right direction. Using vague language like "coherent" will lead to more issues than just enforcing a basic 3 color minimum and impinges on my hobbying (that's what this is about hobbying right, not the fact that people can't afford to buy the new hotness and are jealous that they got their head beat in with it so they have to lash out at the WAAC tryhards?).
IME TFGs don't run the new hotness because they are mid-table bullies. Brandon Grant isn't going to ask for any of my models to be removed because he doesn't need any advantage to beat a scrub like me (I know from first hand experience).
But the same guy who plays chess clock shenanigans (I've played in 2 games out of about a hundred where this has happened to me, stealth clock switches), accidental bumps their models, mis-remembers their rules will absolutely make this an issue somewhere and they will throw a fit when the judge uses common sense to allow the player to keep their models on the table (I have faith in the TOs).
The clock is important for speed of play so the potential for abuse has a counter-weight. I don't see what problem this rule is trying to fix. I've never played against someone (at a major or even GT) that had an army that only met the three color minimum (most of you guys/gals have amazingly painted armies that make me super jealous of my terrible painting skills and limited time).
How about we start with enforcing the three color minimum and see where that goes? This feels like too much, too soon, with too draconian of a consequence to address a problem that I've never seen or heard any of my 40k friends talk about. If this is going to be a thing I'd like it to be judged by the TOs/judges not left to the whims of your opponents. TOs take a walk down your line of tables and see if there are any egregious painting/composition issues and talk to the players to figure something out.
All of these are steps to commoditize the players. I can understand that TOs want armies that will look good on their stream. A better resolution is to just not stream the top tables and stream the best looking armies. I'm just hung up on "what problem are these draconian measures trying to fix" and I just can't come up with a compelling one.
They don't specify anywhere that they have to be painted to official colours. Only that whatever scheme you choose remains unified over the army.
You can paint your army as a rainbow army if you want! It's totally allowed, rainbow is the scheme.
What they say is that if the whole army is 1 division then that's fine; if you've got two different subfactions on the table then you have to be able to tell which one is which clearly on the model itself. This might be a marker; a colour on the base; or even two different colour schemes.
Slipspace wrote: The reactions seem to be getting ever more hysterical here. If anyone had bothered to read the rules and listen to the podcast where this was discussed they'd know things like Deathwing, Librarians, Aspect Warriors etc don't have to be in the same colour scheme as the rest of your army since it is accepted they are different lore-wise, so you won't be DQ'd for that. The amount of cynicism and conspiracy theories from people thinking this will be weaponised by TFGs is also quite amusing. If anything, it's going to be TFG that are most impacted by this since they're often the ones, IME, who are most likely to be running the new hotness and therefore often borrowing a bunch of stuff to make said meta armies. It reminds me of the arguments about chess clocks, with people claiming they'd be used to game the system even harder but that didn't happen either.
If you don't have coherently painted models that's unfortunate, but if you're planning to go to LVO you have two months to correct that. If you're not planning to go there's not much problem for you...yet. I suspect more tournaments might start using the same guidelines but it's not like you haven't been warned now and you don't have time to prepare.
If its not a big deal and units aren't going to be removed... why do it? Your point makes zero sense. None. If I can't call out a non compliant unit in a detachment that isn't in accordance with the written requirements it SHOULD be removed. Period.
Your implyi g a "not really" approach and saying its gonna take a TFG to actually say something. BS. Its the rules buddy. Comply like everyone else or pull your models. Its not a TFG move. Its the standard. I'm not looking the other way and I wouldn't expect others to either.
I was going to LVO this year but changed my mind after this ruling.
The reason. Because I know the exception will become the rule. Im not going to change my stuff up to comply and subsequently watch the exemption train roll by. Than be labeled "TFG" when I call out non-compliant armies. Its literally not fair. Your comment cements my concern. It takes TFG to say something? Thats ridiculous, but pretty much the way I see this going.
Slipspace wrote: The reactions seem to be getting ever more hysterical here. If anyone had bothered to read the rules and listen to the podcast where this was discussed they'd know things like Deathwing, Librarians, Aspect Warriors etc don't have to be in the same colour scheme as the rest of your army since it is accepted they are different lore-wise, so you won't be DQ'd for that. The amount of cynicism and conspiracy theories from people thinking this will be weaponised by TFGs is also quite amusing. If anything, it's going to be TFG that are most impacted by this since they're often the ones, IME, who are most likely to be running the new hotness and therefore often borrowing a bunch of stuff to make said meta armies. It reminds me of the arguments about chess clocks, with people claiming they'd be used to game the system even harder but that didn't happen either.
If you don't have coherently painted models that's unfortunate, but if you're planning to go to LVO you have two months to correct that. If you're not planning to go there's not much problem for you...yet. I suspect more tournaments might start using the same guidelines but it's not like you haven't been warned now and you don't have time to prepare.
If its not a big deal and units aren't going to be removed... why do it? Your point makes zero sense. None. If I can't call out a non compliant unit in a detachment that isn't in accordance with the written requirements it SHOULD be removed. Period.
Your implyi g a "not really" approach and saying its gonna take a TFG to actually say something. BS. Its the rules buddy. Comply like everyone else or pull your models. Its not a TFG move. Its the standard. I'm not looking the other way and I wouldn't expect others to either.
I was going to LVO this year but changed my mind after this ruling.
The reason. Because I know the exception will become the rule. Im not going to change my stuff up to comply and subsequently watch the exemption train roll by. Than be labeled "TFG" when I call out non-compliant armies. Its literally not fair. Your comment cements my concern. It takes TFG to say something? Thats ridiculous, but pretty much the way I see this going.
That's a complete misreading of what I'm saying. I'm not saying the rule won't be enforced, or that asking for it to be enforced makes you TFG. I'm saying I don't expect people to be able to abuse these guidelines to get an opponent's models removed without good reason, hence me calling some of the scenarios people are talking about here hysterical. So Space Wolves in two slightly different shades of grey would, I hope, be fine under these rules. As always with these things we'll have to wait and see how it works out in practice but I really don't think it's going to be anywhere near as bas as people are making out.
Aren't these rules to stop people using their Ultramarine painted army as Iron Hands, Salamanders and Imperial Fists in three different detachments rather than stopping someone who has some 90's models in Space Wolves Grey being in the same detachment as Primaris done in Fenrisian Grey or whatever the current paint colours are?
Surely once models are approved and have been played with once, TFG can't come along and moan that the snow scheme on your Long Fangs is different to the granite scheme on your Blood Claws?
I've not listened to the podcast, so may be wrong, but it sounds like people are worrying over a storm in a teacup here.
phillv85 wrote: Aren't these rules to stop people using their Ultramarine painted army as Iron Hands, Salamanders and Imperial Fists in three different detachments rather than stopping someone who has some 90's models in Space Wolves Grey being in the same detachment as Primaris done in Fenrisian Grey or whatever the current paint colours are?
Surely once models are approved and have been played with once, TFG can't come along and moan that the snow scheme on your Long Fangs is different to the granite scheme on your Blood Claws?
I've not listened to the podcast, so may be wrong, but it sounds like people are worrying over a storm in a teacup here.
phillv85 wrote: Aren't these rules to stop people using their Ultramarine painted army as Iron Hands, Salamanders and Imperial Fists in three different detachments rather than stopping someone who has some 90's models in Space Wolves Grey being in the same detachment as Primaris done in Fenrisian Grey or whatever the current paint colours are?
Surely once models are approved and have been played with once, TFG can't come along and moan that the snow scheme on your Long Fangs is different to the granite scheme on your Blood Claws?
I've not listened to the podcast, so may be wrong, but it sounds like people are worrying over a storm in a teacup here.
Can we just end the thread with this?
This sums it up perfectly.
It’s not about a slightly differing shade of model, it’s about making things clear in the army.
No one wants to play against an army that looks like 4 different chapters when it’s actually 3 different detachments of marines.
Tournaments are meant to run quickly and smooth, having to work out what actually goes where non stop just makes games unpleasant.
This isn’t entitled or elitist, it’s common courtesy.
Most tournament players have ran into the old “these 2 bolters are actually plasma, this ones a Melta” situation and this really is no different.
There’s a reason that so many tournaments dislike weapon proxies if they aren’t clear.
Having chapter proxies split across varying colour models with no coherency is just as bad.
Jackal90 wrote: Most tournament players have ran into the old “these 2 bolters are actually plasma, this ones a Melta” situation and this really is no different.
As it is the chapter rules are often waaaaaaay more important than is weapon plasma or melta.
Guess if there's no need for any clarity on what model counts as what trait no need for this bolter to be bolter. It can be melta gun as well.
phillv85 wrote: Aren't these rules to stop people using their Ultramarine painted army as Iron Hands, Salamanders and Imperial Fists in three different detachments rather than stopping someone who has some 90's models in Space Wolves Grey being in the same detachment as Primaris done in Fenrisian Grey or whatever the current paint colours are?
Surely once models are approved and have been played with once, TFG can't come along and moan that the snow scheme on your Long Fangs is different to the granite scheme on your Blood Claws?
I've not listened to the podcast, so may be wrong, but it sounds like people are worrying over a storm in a teacup here.
I wish this is what the text of the rule said. But it's not. So now you have people like Byte (or god forbid if BCB ever went to a tournament) who will feel empowered to try to stick to the RAW and will feel slighted when TOs go with the RAI vs their strict RAW.
No offense Slip, I understand your desire for a level playing field that complies with RAW, but making someone forfeit the game because their colors (we won the war, we get to decide how things are spelled ) don't match is a jerk move, regardless of your noble reasons.
To trial this at a huge event like LVO just seems bad form. Use LVO as a place to give players yellow cards if their army runs afoul of these regulations. Start the new painting recs for the new season with clearly worded rules that reflect this common sense interpretation vs the imprecise language Frontline chose to go with.
Putting the onus for enforcement on the players is another mistake. If Frontline wants to police the models then let Frontline do it. Asking the players to do it is just not fair. Most people will not feel empowered to call it out if they see it, some super small percentage of people will try to weaponize it and it will lead to feelz badz moments all over the place.
If this is to strictly stop people from using a unit of blood angels as iron hands (because if they were all red you could just call them red IH and that's fine by the rules) it is a dumb rule. GW broke the game with the SM release and this is Frontlines way of putting a band-aid on it? I've yet to see a compelling reason behind this change other than Frontline wants pretty armies on their stream and that is much easier to achieve by streaming armies that are pretty rather than telling people how they have to paint their armies.
A player may appeal a judges choice but typically once its made its made. So surely once an army is passed authentication (which in theory happens at the start/before start) then you can't just go "Oh judge those models aren't painted right" half way through the event.
Besides most events and most games have interpretive event rules to some degree. All those "be a good sport" and "behave yourself" rules can all be abused if you want or could be abused by the event officials if they want. In general abuses on both sides don't happen all that often at major long lasting events and its more likely someone tries it on than the judges start "power playing".
This is just one of those rules, if you're super worried about it you can surely take a photo and send it in showing your army before the event for confirmation.
Again I think a few people are overreacting and twisting things through very negative interpretations of the rule or looking for potential challenges that could be used in a negative way. However those challenges would likely be overruled and the negative interpretations rarer rather than common if they ever actually appear at the event at all.
This is no different to the "must be 3 colours minimum" rule. Yes its telling you what to do with your toys if you want to attend the event. Can you abuse it - sure you could paint your models all grey in shades of grey with exceptionally light colour tints and argue its fair. You can try and break things or take the micky if you want, but its unlikely to work.
Overread wrote: A player may appeal a judges choice but typically once its made its made. So surely once an army is passed authentication (which in theory happens at the start/before start) then you can't just go "Oh judge those models aren't painted right" half way through the event.
Besides most events and most games have interpretive event rules to some degree. All those "be a good sport" and "behave yourself" rules can all be abused if you want or could be abused by the event officials if they want. In general abuses on both sides don't happen all that often at major long lasting events and its more likely someone tries it on than the judges start "power playing".
This is just one of those rules, if you're super worried about it you can surely take a photo and send it in showing your army before the event for confirmation.
Again I think a few people are overreacting and twisting things through very negative interpretations of the rule or looking for potential challenges that could be used in a negative way. However those challenges would likely be overruled and the negative interpretations rarer rather than common if they ever actually appear at the event at all.
This is no different to the "must be 3 colours minimum" rule. Yes its telling you what to do with your toys if you want to attend the event. Can you abuse it - sure you could paint your models all grey in shades of grey with exceptionally light colour tints and argue its fair. You can try and break things or take the micky if you want, but its unlikely to work.
See, that's exactly the problem with this sort of thing though - you think you're describing someone trying to "abuse" the rule, they might think they've spent a long time executing an actually pretty technically difficult(if you want it to look decent) style of painting(greyscale with very light colour tints is exactly how you execute "monochrome/black & white" schemes). Being so strict over something so subjective is ludicrous.
Whether people are overreacting to it a bit is kinda besides the point, it is an overreach, only slightly less egregious than demanding you use accurate factional colours to use the associated factional rules. And it's not as if the other side of the argument aren't stretching the actualite a fair bit as well - nobody's presented any evidence that this is actually a major problem that needs fixing, the reality is the motivation was laid bare on the first page of discussions; it's about making things look pretty for streaming the top tables. Frankly, if you're entering a competition and paying to attend the event, it's not your responsibility to be a walking talking advert for the products being used to compete, and I think it's sad that some folk are evidently happy giving up more & more freedom over how they do their hobbying for the sake of providing GW with free advertising.
Just took a quick pic but the primaris model is a little more metalic than it looks here. Neither is quite done but you can see the different color armors.
Every time I try to link the image it shows up huge so here's the link until someone can tell me how to scale it down:
I think these would present a legit issue under the new rubric but are totally fine under a 3 color minimum (which I have problem with as it's more of a minimum effort to count as painted vs rules as to how I have to paint my army)
bananathug wrote: Just took a quick pic but the primaris model is a little more metalic than it looks here. Neither is quite done but you can see the different color armors.
Every time I try to link the image it shows up huge so here's the link until someone can tell me how to scale it down:
I think these would present a legit issue under the new rubric but are totally fine under a 3 color minimum (which I have problem with as it's more of a minimum effort to count as painted vs rules as to how I have to paint my army)
[edit to say I think Yodhrin hit it on the head]
I can’t imagine that’s going to cause an issue. They are both very obviously Space Wolves.
To me it looks like they’re trying to avoid people having blue marines and red marines in the same squads or detachments. It probably is a case of trying to make the top tables look pretty, but it’s at least partly being done to stop confusion and impede cheaters.
bananathug wrote: Just took a quick pic but the primaris model is a little more metalic than it looks here. Neither is quite done but you can see the different color armors.
Every time I try to link the image it shows up huge so here's the link until someone can tell me how to scale it down:
I think these would present a legit issue under the new rubric but are totally fine under a 3 color minimum (which I have problem with as it's more of a minimum effort to count as painted vs rules as to how I have to paint my army)
[edit to say I think Yodhrin hit it on the head]
My old marines I bought a decade ago and those I have painted this year look very different. But even without forcing this kind of rules I'm still slowly trying to make my old and new models look like a coherent force. Im doing it mainly by rebasing my old models one at a time when I feel like it and by very strict rules some TOs would perhaps not allow it since I happen to have different base sizes in some of my JP units. I do have my guys with THs etc on 32mm and some of the standard guys on 25mm so cant really abuse it like if it were the reverse. Some old characters are still on 25mm but will be 32mm soon, mostly because they balance better on larger base since BAJP characters are quite heavy when metal and also have a tall center of gravity for 25mm models.
Usually only takes a quick look on my army and it is quite obvious what I'm doing and not just borrowing/ebaying models. People are very accomodating when they see that you are actually trying to make your army look better on the tabletop and allow slight inconsistencies that wouldnt fly otherwise.
Everyone likes good looking armies and Im pretty sure they would allow yours as well. In worst case you can just spend a few hours and make the bases look more inline with each other or perhaps make the aquilias/trims/bolters or whatever same colors/style. Only an insane person would require a complete repainting.
Slipspace wrote: The reactions seem to be getting ever more hysterical here. If anyone had bothered to read the rules and listen to the podcast where this was discussed they'd know things like Deathwing, Librarians, Aspect Warriors etc don't have to be in the same colour scheme as the rest of your army since it is accepted they are different lore-wise, so you won't be DQ'd for that. The amount of cynicism and conspiracy theories from people thinking this will be weaponised by TFGs is also quite amusing. If anything, it's going to be TFG that are most impacted by this since they're often the ones, IME, who are most likely to be running the new hotness and therefore often borrowing a bunch of stuff to make said meta armies. It reminds me of the arguments about chess clocks, with people claiming they'd be used to game the system even harder but that didn't happen either.
If you don't have coherently painted models that's unfortunate, but if you're planning to go to LVO you have two months to correct that. If you're not planning to go there's not much problem for you...yet. I suspect more tournaments might start using the same guidelines but it's not like you haven't been warned now and you don't have time to prepare.
You do realize literally ever major tournament player is trying to chase the meta and regularly shifts armies to gain an advantage over what they see the meta as being. They're more keyed into the met than the rest of us, so the shifts they make don't always make sense to a guy in an armchair, but it is rare a tourney player shows up with a list they've been running since 8th dropped and pushes it to the top. List building, which includes knowledge of the meta, is step one, and likely the most important step, to winning a tournament. The painting requirement will hit literally all these guys in some fashion. But some just have that deep a collection, some have that much disposable cash to commission, some have the mad skills and the time to paint. And several will show up with gakky looking models that are just consistently gakky. It's a thing. Not everyone has the time, money, or passion to paint a quality army or to pay someone else to do it, and I don't think they should be ejected from the tourney scene because of that.
This ruling has very little to do with shaking up tournament players and their armies and very much to do with presentation and PR. The FLG guys want pretty armies they can showcase on their streams, in pictures, and on the floor. It helps them drive interest in the hobby, which helps drive sales, which attracts more attention from companies, et cetera, et cetera.
This is nothing to do with painting quality though? Unless there’s a full statement somewhere it doesn’t mention quality of paint jobs, just that they are coherent.
Detachment soup is one of the worst things to happen to warhammer 40k ever. Stuff like this is just an outgrowth of a terrible, and, as far as I can see, random game design decision.
I think soup armies look more 40k than anything codex pure, but the recent push away from multiple codexes towards one codex multiple chapters feels less fluffy to me.
Slipspace wrote: The reactions seem to be getting ever more hysterical here. If anyone had bothered to read the rules and listen to the podcast where this was discussed they'd know things like Deathwing, Librarians, Aspect Warriors etc don't have to be in the same colour scheme as the rest of your army since it is accepted they are different lore-wise, so you won't be DQ'd for that. The amount of cynicism and conspiracy theories from people thinking this will be weaponised by TFGs is also quite amusing. If anything, it's going to be TFG that are most impacted by this since they're often the ones, IME, who are most likely to be running the new hotness and therefore often borrowing a bunch of stuff to make said meta armies. It reminds me of the arguments about chess clocks, with people claiming they'd be used to game the system even harder but that didn't happen either.
If you don't have coherently painted models that's unfortunate, but if you're planning to go to LVO you have two months to correct that. If you're not planning to go there's not much problem for you...yet. I suspect more tournaments might start using the same guidelines but it's not like you haven't been warned now and you don't have time to prepare.
You do realize literally ever major tournament player is trying to chase the meta and regularly shifts armies to gain an advantage over what they see the meta as being. They're more keyed into the met than the rest of us, so the shifts they make don't always make sense to a guy in an armchair, but it is rare a tourney player shows up with a list they've been running since 8th dropped and pushes it to the top. List building, which includes knowledge of the meta, is step one, and likely the most important step, to winning a tournament. The painting requirement will hit literally all these guys in some fashion. But some just have that deep a collection, some have that much disposable cash to commission, some have the mad skills and the time to paint. And several will show up with gakky looking models that are just consistently gakky. It's a thing. Not everyone has the time, money, or passion to paint a quality army or to pay someone else to do it, and I don't think they should be ejected from the tourney scene because of that.
This ruling has very little to do with shaking up tournament players and their armies and very much to do with presentation and PR. The FLG guys want pretty armies they can showcase on their streams, in pictures, and on the floor. It helps them drive interest in the hobby, which helps drive sales, which attracts more attention from companies, et cetera, et cetera.
Yes, I realise that. The fact remains, these armies are not usually dreamt up the night before the tournament. Prepping for a tournament for these top players involves many reps with their army, which requires something approaching a finalised list with a decent amount of time to spare. Therefore painting the army is something they should have time for. And yes, of course I'm aware this is basically about presentation but I also don't think that's necessarily a bad thing at all. I was frankly pretty shocked and disappointed with some of the armies I saw at many of the tables in big tournaments over the last year or so. Anything that tries to improve that side of the hobby is worth investigating, IMO. Also, the minimum painting requirement here is pretty low. We're talking very basic tabletop standard, which is why I think people are making far too big a deal of this. The time investment to meet these requirements needn't be all that great.
I'd also say that there are still people blowing this way out of proportion with scare stories and endless whataboutisms that will likely never come to pass. If we start seeing exceptions being made for some people, or inconsistent application of the rules then I'll be among the first to admit the rules aren't working as intended. But it hasn't happened yet, and I don't think it will, so many of the more extreme reactions are, IMO, simply not worth considering.
Opener: I've been to every LVO. The last 8 or so BAOs. All the SoCal Opens. I'm not a judge, but I'm reasonably sure I'm on spot here.**
This first collection of doods is what is intended to be fixed. No more armies like these 3 jumpers. And I've seen them. The blue/red one is pretty piss-poor, but it's still 3 colors legal (pushing it). Yes, it was painted by a young child. Putting all the into the same detachment is what the ruling is intended for.
Now, to be compliant, I could field an all green detachment as Dark Angels, and ones that all match the black one as Raven Guard. Or all greens ones as Ultra marines, and all my black ones as Iron Fists. But none of these as the same detachment. Just not a green paint job with the black paint job in the same detachment.
If I was a Top Table guy, I'm pretty sure the red/blue would get pulled. I selected it for this post purposely. It's 3 color, yeah, but to bring this to a big GT, as a Top Table contender? The Naydens, Nanavatis, Harrisons, B. Grants, etc? That would not fly. It certainly does *not* meet the FLG middle jumper standard they posted in the guidelines.
But, wait, there's more!
After the 8e drop of the new Death Guard I grabbed some unloved tacticals, spiky bits, and got to painting. I tried a more yellowy scheme, with a really light silver for the guns, models on the left. And then a more greenish flavor on the right, with actual boltgun metal (that 4e paint pot's last gasp, iirc).
Was it poster bananathug that is sweating his SW, being slightly off from one gray to the next, not being legal? Well, here ya go. These are definitely different in color, like the ones you posted a link to, but *absolutely* the same factions, err, <FACTION>,
same basing, same codex - clearly being DG, and would be absolutely fine in the same detachment. Not one pulled. And with the slightly different hues, squad differentiation is clear.
I think these would present a legit issue under the new rubric but are totally fine under a 3 color minimum (which I have problem with as it's more of a minimum effort to count as painted vs rules as to how I have to paint my army)
... would just need matching basing, not a total repaint. Ought to be easy enough as the one on the right isn't based anyway.
I have rebased my army before. 30 wyches/succubi, 45 or so kabalites/Trueborn. It sucked, but my old basing scheme was sliced ass and I'm far happier with my more experienced approach that yielded better results.
Regarding rebasing:
The assault cannon DWT needs to have its basing scheme match the others, which is not a big deal. I can't remember which of you griped about not rebasing your models and I used to gripe about it, too. I resisted 40mm termies for years.
Repaint the bases? My newer Death Wing Terminators need to be rebased to match the rest of my Dark Angels. It'll take ... 10 minutes each? I think less.
Soak the base in shallow water,
scrape the grass. Dry.
Glue, sand, like my original bases. Dry.
Dry brush black, gray, white.
Not counting time to dry in between, 10 minutes a model? 2 squads a weekend? I can easily see doing 20 models a weekend.
**
If I'm wrong on any of these calls, and you find me, I'll buy you a beer. And, yes, I'm going to ask an LVO judge peruse my post, with full license to punk me as hard as he wants.
have to be honest, I have no issue with the ruling as is. I went to LVO last year and for the most part, the armies looked spectacular (I know all of my opponents had good looking armies). It definitely enhances the experience compared to the junk I've seen locally (half built models accepted etc).
Maybe Im naive to what the top tournament players do, but I dont think this would effect many (if any of them at all). The big time players usually have guys that paint stuff for them, or give them painted models for free as they want to be associated with said player or company. Other tournament players have become very adept at painting in general and there always seem to be competitive armies that require few models. Honestly, I think this affects the average joe more than the pure competitive guys. The guy that likes to compete but he paints all his stuff and can't keep up with the meta because he doesnt paint fast. It took me close to 10 years to fully paint a SW army (my only painted army at the time). Over that time, SW went from being good, to great, to awful. Now, Im not a tournament player but if I was, just because I dont have the cash to pay for a commission should I be hamstrung with an army that simply cant compete on the table top because GW can't write balanced rules across the board? I don't know, I guess I vote each to their own.
As long as non-compliant models, units, detachments get pulled I have zero issue with this. Just don't make me TFG for asking for a ruling. If exemptions become the general rule or "reasonable person theory" starts to trump RAW. Than all of this is a gross waste of time and consideration. Time will tell
Byte wrote: As long as non-compliant models, units, detachments get pulled I have zero issue with this. Just don't make me TFG for asking for a ruling. If exemptions become the general rule or "reasonable person theory" starts to trump RAW. Than all of this is a gross waste of time and consideration. Time will tell
I don't have a dog in this fight, as I am not going to LVO, but I would certainly hope that they employ some form of judgement to include being reasonable about what constitutes consistent basing and painting. Reasonable should trump blind adherence to RAW, especially when we are talking about a judgement of appearance. Now, I also think that in addition to being fair and reasonable, the judgement of admissibility should indeed be as consistent as possible.
Looking at my own collection, my Dark Angels and Astra Militarum collections have models ranging from 25 years to 25 hours old. My basing changed two years ago, so I guess I would have some tough decisions to make. I think a more reasonable standard would be to stipulate that squads have the same basing. Still, their house - their rules!
And yes, time will tell what effect this has on the LVO and the scene in general.
My first reaction was "10 years to paint one army is ridiculous."
Then, I thought about it.
I've taken since 5e to fully paint my 8k of eldar, but that's misleading, in that, in 5th edition, I had a fully painted eldar army. It might've been 1500 points (standard back then). I can't recall how long it took to paint, but it had to be fully done to be allowed on a GW store's table, so not too long. Most of those first eldar models were out of the indy store's used bin ($2 a model!). I disliked the scheme, and repainted the aspect warriors pretty much like codex pictures. 10 or 15 Dire Avengers, 5 Fire Dragons, 10 scorpions, Eldrad, 11 DRs, 8+ Swooping Hawks, a Wave S. From there, I was onto new stuff, war walkers, warlocks, guardians, more transports, getting painted within a month or so, as the local TO was a good hobby coach, encouraging us to feel good about playing fully painted armies, at Game Empire Pasadena. The RTTs had a painting prize, so there was some incentive there.
I have faith that you were acquiring models the whole time, but, really, they shouldn't be unpainted for more than a month after beginning to use them.
Over 15 years, I did a lot more than that: I have had 9 armies table ready, most of them since 5th edition. I still have 8 of them as the 'Nids went away at 6e's advent. And the whole time I have had a full career, wife, kids, yard, house. I don't think your assertion of FLG's ruling affecting the average guy applies, as most players I encounter don't take that long.
Sure there are the "ebay only" guys, spending less than full-new pricing, but their armies look meh, because of a red rhino, another black, 2 pink, etc. 5 different squad color schemes, etc. I know we agree on that.
The things is, it really isn't that hard or long to bring an ebay or used purchase, to your army's scheme. Recently, I bought an eldar flier off from ebay. It arrived on a weekday. By Sunday night I had:
1. reprimed black
2. Used the stipple technique on the hull, super easy and fast and usually receives compliments
3. the gems/spirit stones only took 10 minutes. Cockpit windows, 2 minutes?
4. Cleared the base of dirt, sand, flock. Reprime white. Brush paint again with White Scars base white to nail the snow basing scheme. Again with layer white. I prolly spent more time and care to flick red paint on the white snow of the base than the rest.
Between the two, which is the one I've had for a few years and which had a burgundy/yellow a la, University Southern Calif scheme ?
Point being: It does *not* take a long time to repaint a model, and bring it close to your army's existing scheme. It does take a weekend to say, do 10 dudes, and that's *repaint*, not assemble and repaint.
I mean, does painting a 10 model unit in a weekend constitute 'fast' ? is one tank/vehicle in a weekend 'fast'?
Edit:
For those who're still just going on hearsay, listen to Mr. Raspy himself:
Adding some shading to a few older models you havent used a wash on. Or add a quick drybrush/highlight on really dark models. Adding a bit of paint and perhaps some flock/grass to few older bases. Repaint base trims so they all have the same color.
Repaint a detail or 2 on older models that you perhaps skipped or did badly years ago and paint them in current standards. Like shoulder pads, aquilias, skulls/purity seals or maybe you changed from black to red bolters over the years.
You shouldnt need to do much more than the above to make your old models look coherent with your newer models and should be way way way faster than actually doing a full repainting. And its not like you need to do it for your whole collection at once. Its most likely only a few squads that would take a weekend or a few evenings at most to touch up.
I don’t watch tourney streams but anyone know of a recent one that included an army offensive enough to have GW take FLG aside for making them look bad, maybe FLG have a lot of overstocked paint and are looking to shift it or did one of there guys lose to a gak painted army
SeanDrake wrote: I don’t watch tourney streams but anyone know of a recent one that included an army offensive enough to have GW take FLG aside for making them look bad, maybe FLG have a lot of overstocked paint and are looking to shift it or did one of there guys lose to a gak painted army
I dunno as the video gets close enough, but see if you can get an eyeball on Nic N's edlar. There is some sliced ass paint. LVO 2018.
Listen to the latest FLG show. They explain their reasoning on the standards and I think it is pretty permissive. If the models in an army meet the minimum paint standards already in place all players need to do to match the new requirements is to paint the base rims to show coherency.
From what I gathered:
FLG is trying to raise the overall standards at ITC tournaments.
GW is investing money in FLG events to sponsor streams and they want FLG to enforce certain standard.
None of that is passive aggressive if you can ignore Reese's joke about deleting angry emails.
@Byte
The only way that a sport survives is if its participants agree to submit to the same standard. Typically, this means the highest standard. So if you're going to characterize rules as passive-aggressive (which ironically is in and of itself passive-aggressive whinging), then don't play competitive Warhammer at all. The organizers literally don't want you there. (Seriously, they will ask you to physically pick up your poorly painted models and not use them. Sounds pretty aggressive to me.)
And yes, it's true that competitive Warhammer is not particularly well-balanced or inclusive. That's fine. It's why more casual forms of play exist; the vast majority of people participate in those formats, and generally speaking, they have a more enjoyable time.
Suzuteo wrote: @Byte
The only way that a sport survives is if its participants agree to submit to the same standard. Typically, this means the highest standard. So if you're going to characterize rules as passive-aggressive (which ironically is in and of itself passive-aggressive whinging), then don't play competitive Warhammer at all. The organizers literally don't want you there. (Seriously, they will ask you to physically pick up your poorly painted models and not use them. Sounds pretty aggressive to me.)
And yes, it's true that competitive Warhammer is not particularly well-balanced or inclusive. That's fine. It's why more casual forms of play exist; the vast majority of people participate in those formats, and generally speaking, they have a more enjoyable time.
LOL! The only way its gonna to survive. LMFAO!
If you actually read my post and the context at which it was written(responding to a previous comment) youd get off the ledge. Or at least I think you could. Ive been playing this game for 25 years kiddo. Its never been this big and getting bigger. If you really believe competitive 40k will die without this change your choking on the kool aid dude. Get real. Your embarrassing yourself.
I like the rule and hope to use it as an advantage. I'll call for ruling. Damn right. Jack those models! Ill have issue if they dont!
I like the rule and hope to use it as an advantage. I'll call for ruling. Damn right. Jack those models! Ill have issue if they dont!
Somewhere on an earlier page, you stated worried about being called a WAAC, TFG if you do this ... and I typed a response, which I don't see; so that's likely when I had a computer crash ...
Byte, I'm sure you can call the judge over, when you're in the hunt, you know, 4-0 on Saturday, heading into game 5, or even further, closer to the top tables. Or when you yer likely to take Tops in your ITC faction? Sure! I'll help shout down anyone giving you grief.
But, you know, once you've had 2 losses, and you're in the kiddie pool ... and any other player there with us (where I'm usually to be found by game 3) will have lost such that a bit of a Painted Bird ** won't have made enough difference for him to win anyway.
**Lookit me dropping literary references! BTW, kids, don't read it. It's about as horrifyingly awful as Heart of Darkness.
I like the rule and hope to use it as an advantage. I'll call for ruling. Damn right. Jack those models! Ill have issue if they dont!
Somewhere on an earlier page, you stated worried about being called a WAAC, TFG if you do this ... and I typed a response, which I don't see; so that's likely when I had a computer crash ...
Byte, I'm sure you can call the judge over, when you're in the hunt, you know, 4-0 on Saturday, heading into game 5, or even further, closer to the top tables. Or when you yer likely to take Tops in your ITC faction? Sure! I'll help shout down anyone giving you grief.
But, you know, once you've had 2 losses, and you're in the kiddie pool ... and any other player there with us (where I'm usually to be found by game 3) will have lost such that a bit of a Painted Bird ** won't have made enough difference for him to win anyway.
**Lookit me dropping literary references! BTW, kids, don't read it. It's about as horrifyingly awful as Heart of Darkness.
I mean not knowing how all this is going to work its impossible to disagree with you. Maybe it is only a winner's bracket thing. Who fn knows. Everyone's having their own spin on this.
jeff white wrote: I do not play ITC and likely never will but follow the scene and am happy to hear that this is policy.
But it's not "ITC" its Socal open and LVO. That's still the biggest confusion among people that don't go to tournaments. Outside of those events, ITC is merely a scoring system and has absolutely nothing to do with the rules being used AT a tournament.
jeff white wrote: I do not play ITC and likely never will but follow the scene and am happy to hear that this is policy.
But it's not "ITC" its Socal open and LVO. That's still the biggest confusion among people that don't go to tournaments. Outside of those events, ITC is merely a scoring system and has absolutely nothing to do with the rules being used AT a tournament.
Yep. These are the house rules for one group of events run by one organiser. They largely make sense and the people worrying about edge cases are wilfully misunderstanding them. No other TO is bound to listen to FLG's opinions on how to run their events.
Byte wrote: LOL! The only way its gonna to survive. LMFAO!
If you actually read my post and the context at which it was written(responding to a previous comment) youd get off the ledge. Or at least I think you could. Ive been playing this game for 25 years kiddo. Its never been this big and getting bigger. If you really believe competitive 40k will die without this change your choking on the kool aid dude. Get real. Your embarrassing yourself.
I like the rule and hope to use it as an advantage. I'll call for ruling. Damn right. Jack those models! Ill have issue if they dont!
You quoted me.
Nobody cares how long you've been playing. It doesn't make your opinion any more or less valid.
And yes, this can all be temporary. Plenty of franchises have boom-busted before, and Games Workshop is a company that has repeatedly made terrible mistakes in its business model and PR in the past. I mean, 8E was mostly launched as an effort to rebrand after they discovered most of their IP was not enforceable in court. (The fact that "Tau" became "T'au" is a hilarious example of this.) Legends is a furtherance of that.
And no, I did not say that competitive 40k would die without the change. I was merely making an observation about how these things develop. Ironically, as competitive 40k grows, it will push more people away from it. We can already see that ITC is a much less permissive, inclusive, or friendly place than it used to be. (Even from 7E.)
Personally, the part of this change that makes me wary is how ITC is growing closer and closer to GW. ITC stands for "Independent Tournament Circuit," after all. I already have resigned myself to just forfeiting every GW-sponsored streaming match simply because of their ridiculous 100% GW rule. (Which apparently has included bases at some events.)
Byte wrote: LOL! The only way its gonna to survive. LMFAO!
If you actually read my post and the context at which it was written(responding to a previous comment) youd get off the ledge. Or at least I think you could. Ive been playing this game for 25 years kiddo. Its never been this big and getting bigger. If you really believe competitive 40k will die without this change your choking on the kool aid dude. Get real. Your embarrassing yourself.
I like the rule and hope to use it as an advantage. I'll call for ruling. Damn right. Jack those models! Ill have issue if they dont!
You quoted me.
Nobody cares how long you've been playing. It doesn't make your opinion any more or less valid.
And yes, this can all be temporary. Plenty of franchises have boom-busted before, and Games Workshop is a company that has repeatedly made terrible mistakes in its business model and PR in the past. I mean, 8E was mostly launched as an effort to rebrand after they discovered most of their IP was not enforceable in court. (The fact that "Tau" became "T'au" is a hilarious example of this.) Legends is a furtherance of that.
And no, I did not say that competitive 40k would die without the change. I was merely making an observation about how these things develop. Ironically, as competitive 40k grows, it will push more people away from it. We can already see that ITC is a much less permissive, inclusive, or friendly place than it used to be. (Even from 7E.)
Personally, the part of this change that makes me wary is how ITC is growing closer and closer to GW. ITC stands for "Independent Tournament Circuit," after all. I already have resigned myself to just forfeiting every GW-sponsored streaming match simply because of their ridiculous 100% GW rule. (Which apparently has included bases at some events.)
and
@Byte
The only way that a sport survives is if its participants agree to submit to the same standard. Typically, this means the highest standard.
Listen, you came at me and my opinion so pardon me if I point out the flaws in yours albeit "yours".
You DID say it would die. The opposite of "survive" is "die". Your welcome.
Again you write your posts with no context in them. You may want to work on that, its unbecoming. I mentioned how long I played because competitive play has been around that long and will always be. Its going to survive. It had nothing to do with an opinion, its fact based on 25 years of being involved with the game. But you couldn't help but snap to rudeness default. Classy. Do you really think the game has been bigger than right now? Because that is what your implying. Reading comprehension 101. See that?
I do agree excessive competitive requirements push the casual comp player away. Not everybody eats and sleeps this game or has the time and money to adapt all the time.
Suzuteo wrote: Nobody cares how long you've been playing. It doesn't make your opinion any more or less valid.
Wrong. So wrong.
If you've only been working as an auto-mechanic for a year, I'm definitely gonna favor the 15-20 year mechanic's opinion on what my struggling transmission needs. Do I want a high school quarter back calling the next critical play with my team losing 20 to 17, or do I want Tom Brady deciding what play to run? Do you want the 6 month ob-gyn delivering your baby or the 2 decade seasoned doctor at the catcher's plate? Would you listen to *me* for advice at a critical Turn 3 Movement phase and then target selection, or wouldn't it be better to listen to B.Grant or N. Nanavati? And that isn't a buncha StrawMan hooey. In every case, we'd all go with the veteran, successful source of advice.
The veteran's opinion is certainly more valid in authority than the non-attendee or the rookie attendee, in any situation, field, career, etc. Non-tourney goers, lacking the experience of what actually happens at tourneys can't really weigh in with validity on how players behave at top or mid-tables, Round 4's unpredictability (hangovers and drops), and how fun the kiddie pool gets ...
Suzuteo wrote: Ironically, as competitive 40k grows, it will push more people away from it.
The continuing increase of tourney events pretty much says 'no', that this is not now, nor will be, true. And your statement in orange is not pointing out something ironic, it's just contradictory, 'as it grows, it will push people away'. Just scroll through ITC's events record for the data on how many more folks are playing 40k than any time in the past.
Anecdotal, but still true: There were a few teen 'kids' I remember from 5e now returning to 40k, playing the league, only they're in their 20s, with bigger budgets.
Suzuteo wrote: We can already see that ITC is a much less permissive, inclusive, or friendly place than it used to be. (Even from 7E.)
Anecdotes? How is it less permissive? Paint standards, sure, yer correct there. However, when we scroll back through this thread, we find many chiming in that raising the standard for paint is a positive thing.
" ... less friendly" ? For 7+ years, GTs and RTTs continue to be fine and dandy for me and for those I perceive across the table.
Suzuteo wrote: Personally, the part of this change that makes me wary is how ITC is growing closer and closer to GW. ITC stands for "Independent Tournament Circuit," after all. I already have resigned myself to just forfeiting every GW-sponsored streaming match simply because of their ridiculous 100% GW rule. (Which apparently has included bases at some events.)
"Ridiculous 100%"? How about posting some of your non-GW? I'm not talking about China-forge as a good paint job hides the source material. Suzuteo, what do you own that is a cool proxy? Rule of Cool is in effect at the FLGGTs, so what is it you'd play, but wouldn't make GW's standard? Post some pictures, please.
jeff white wrote: I do not play ITC and likely never will but follow the scene and am happy to hear that this is policy.
But it's not "ITC" its Socal open and LVO. That's still the biggest confusion among people that don't go to tournaments. Outside of those events, ITC is merely a scoring system and has absolutely nothing to do with the rules being used AT a tournament.
If you've only been working as an auto-mechanic for a year, I'm definitely gonna favor the 15-20 year mechanic's opinion on what my struggling transmission needs. Do I want a high school quarter back calling the next critical play with my team losing 20 to 17, or do I want Tom Brady deciding what play to run? Do you want the 6 month ob-gyn delivering your baby or the 2 decade seasoned doctor at the catcher's plate? Would you listen to *me* for advice at a critical Turn 3 Movement phase and then target selection, or wouldn't it be better to listen to B.Grant or N. Nanavati? And that isn't a buncha StrawMan hooey. In every case, we'd all go with the veteran, successful source of advice.
The veteran's opinion is certainly more valid in authority than the non-attendee or the rookie attendee, in any situation, field, career, etc. Non-tourney goers, lacking the experience of what actually happens at tourneys can't really weigh in with validity on how players behave at top or mid-tables, Round 4's unpredictability (hangovers and drops), and how fun the kiddie pool gets ...
You sort of argue my point though. I think we would both agree that competence is key. And how long someone has been doing something does not necessarily equate competence. There is no guarantee whatsoever that simply because someone has been playing this game for 25 years that they know how to organize or design competitive games better than someone who is newer. Furthermore, nobody is obliged to adopt an attitude of deference, so someone throwing out their veterancy as a way to shut down debate is foolhardy.
Brothererekose wrote: The continuing increase of tourney events pretty much says 'no', that this is not now, nor will be, true. And your statement in orange is not pointing out something ironic, it's just contradictory, 'as it grows, it will push people away'. Just scroll through ITC's events record for the data on how many more folks are playing 40k than any time in the past.
Anecdotal, but still true: There were a few teen 'kids' I remember from 5e now returning to 40k, playing the league, only they're in their 20s, with bigger budgets.
How is it less permissive? Paint standards, sure, yer correct there. However, when we scroll back through this thread, we find many chiming in that raising the standard for paint is a positive thing.
I think you misunderstood my point. Competitive 40k is a minority of the community. As it grows and its requirements and standardization increase, it will become more exclusive. These new painting rules are an example of that. I only hope that a line will be drawn somewhere to prevent GW from eroding the independence of the ITC.
Brothererekose wrote: " ... less friendly" ? For 7+ years, GTs and RTTs continue to be fine and dandy for me and for those I perceive across the table.
Perhaps anecdotal, but the number of Those Guys seems to be increasing in competitive play. Or maybe I am simply viewing the past through rose-tinted glasses. Anyhow, it's a huge problem because this game is pretty much impossible to play without some level of trust between opponents.
Brothererekose wrote: "Ridiculous 100%"? How about posting some of your non-GW? I'm not talking about China-forge as a good paint job hides the source material. Suzuteo, what do you own that is a cool proxy? Rule of Cool is in effect at the FLGGTs, so what is it you'd play, but wouldn't make GW's standard? Post some pictures, please.
I actually am talking about conversions, which have always been around in the hobby and one of the reasons why I got into it.
For example, I just finished these Fulgurites:
Spoiler:
However, I do not believe they are allowed in any GW-sponsored streamed match because the heads and shoulders are not GW. Now, if this were a GW tournament, this policy would be fine; I would simply not attend. But this is ITC. It seems wrong for a model to be legal up until it gets in front of GW's camera.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Byte wrote: Listen, you came at me and my opinion so pardon me if I point out the flaws in yours albeit "yours".
You DID say it would die. The opposite of "survive" is "die". Your welcome.
Again you write your posts with no context in them. You may want to work on that, its unbecoming. I mentioned how long I played because competitive play has been around that long and will always be. Its going to survive. It had nothing to do with an opinion, its fact based on 25 years of being involved with the game. But you couldn't help but snap to rudeness default. Classy. Do you really think the game has been bigger than right now? Because that is what your implying. Reading comprehension 101. See that?
I do agree excessive competitive requirements push the casual comp player away. Not everybody eats and sleeps this game or has the time and money to adapt all the time.
You're right. I apologize for coming off as rude, and I think we got off on the wrong foot.
I think you are misreading some of what I am trying to say. To clarify, I am actually very pro-ITC and pro-tourney. I want this game and its competitive scene to grow. However, I am observing that a natural and paradoxical consequence of this is that more and more people will be excluded from participation. I think as a community, we need to be vocal and clear about what sort of competitive scene that we want and, if some people are to be excluded, who ought to be. I think that it is essential that we not sacrifice the hobby aspect of Warhammer in favor of making it some sterile sport. This means tabletop ready paint jobs, coherent and cinematic army palettes, conversions, and some consideration toward narrative.
EDIT: Oh, and we should really stop idolizing competitive players. The amount of cheating and unsportsman conduct, even amongst long and well-known names, is quite horrifying.
I didn't think I did, but on the reread, I think I get your point.
Suzuteo wrote: I think we would both agree that competence is key. And how long someone has been doing something does not necessarily equate competence.
Competence is key, in 40k? Yes.
Experience? Specific to 40k? Okay, yes, I get your point. I do get flabbergasted when someone picks up the game this edition, and whups me, since I've been playing since 4e. And after 15 years, and 18 months with a specific army, I'm still a 50/50 W/L player. Or less.
Suzuteo wrote: There is no guarantee whatsoever that simply because someone has been playing this game for 25 years that they know how to organize or design competitive games better than someone who is newer. Furthermore, nobody is obliged to adopt an attitude of deference, so someone throwing out their veterancy as a way to shut down debate is foolhardy.
I dunno as "Hey, I'm a veteran, shaddap!" is what was meant, so much as "I have seen & experienced these things. Have you?"
Often, though, the crux issue in dakka discusions is when players post negatives about tourneys & the ITC & FLG, and they don't attend them, and/or have not for years, like since 6e. That's not a matter of competence. That's definitely, "You haven't been there. I have. You don't attend these things. I do. Shaddap!"
Does that clarify?
I think you misunderstood my point. Competitive 40k is a minority of the community. As it grows and its requirements and standardization increase, it will become more exclusive. These new painting rules are an example of that. I only hope that a line will be drawn somewhere to prevent GW from eroding the independence of the ITC.
It was stated a couple posts up, these rules are for LVO, not the ITC. Reece has stated it often.
Of course, someone will counter that with "But, the ITC is quite likely to adopt what happens at SoCal Open and LVO". Fair enough, but both GW & FLG state that what you want to do with your own tourney and games is up to you, and it's encouraged. So, if you and yer buds don't like a ruling, get organized, make sure your TO is on board and play how you like.
Further, once the LVO is over, the ne ITC season starts. And *that* means players might be starting new armies, which in turn leads to our local RTTTO relaxing the paint standards because players start exploring new stuff.
Suzuteo wrote: Perhaps anecdotal, but the number of Those Guys seems to be increasing in competitive play. Or maybe I am simply viewing the past through rose-tinted glasses. Anyhow, it's a huge problem because this game is pretty much impossible to play without some level of trust between opponents.
Are you a tourney going regular? Where do ya play?
I sincerely don't see it as a problem at all. There's only one player in California who I don't trust, out of a pool of (chalking up some numbers of faces I see regularly), I dunno, 200 or so regulars? And this guy has been a tool since 4e. There are a couple others I can name or at least identify (Calif players), and they've been out of the scene for years.
TFGs in 'competitive play' (you've really got to define it. I define it as those players who are and expect to show in the Top 8 of GTs) are going away from the game, as best I observe. No scandals in 2019 that I can recall. You? It was 2018, I think when Carpondo was a little douchy (but still legal) in his Top 8 game versus Nayden (2018, right?). The American Team C. gaff with catachans riding turtles is deep in 2018 or 2017.
Those are nice! I'd allow and if no one was looking closely, I'd bet they'd pass.
What kinda is silly to me, is that on the stream, I can barely see what the models look like anyway, especially the infantry.
Suzuteo wrote: However, I do not believe they are allowed in any GW-sponsored streamed match because the heads and shoulders are not GW. Now, if this were a GW tournament, this policy would be fine; I would simply not attend. But this is ITC. It seems wrong for a model to be legal up until it gets in front of GW's camera.
Remember, not ITC, but LVO, subtle in difference, but there.
EDIT: Oh, and we should really stop idolizing competitive players. The amount of cheating and unsportsman conduct, even amongst long and well-known names, is quite horrifying.
Again, the things I know about (and I think I'm reasonably informed on the Big Stuff) are more than a year's time in the past. Can you name any 2019 scandals?
... an ETC player got tossed?
And I don't idolize any of those dudes. Sure, I'd like to play that well and go 5-1 or tuck a GT title under my belt. But idolize them?
At SoCal Open, I was helping a buddy glue his models that got broken. N.N. was standing there and I ordered him to get some water and drip it onto a jetbike's stand to get the super glue to set faster. IIRC, N.N. stated that he didn't know that water did that.
Lookit me, I taught Nanavati something! I guess he should pay *me*. If you ask him though, I don't know as he'd actually know my name, other than 'that little beer guy who hangs with Carlos.'
I didn't think I did, but on the reread, I think I get your point.
Suzuteo wrote: I think we would both agree that competence is key. And how long someone has been doing something does not necessarily equate competence.
Competence is key, in 40k? Yes.
Experience? Specific to 40k? Okay, yes, I get your point. I do get flabbergasted when someone picks up the game this edition, and whups me, since I've been playing since 4e. And after 15 years, and 18 months with a specific army, I'm still a 50/50 W/L player. Or less.
Suzuteo wrote: There is no guarantee whatsoever that simply because someone has been playing this game for 25 years that they know how to organize or design competitive games better than someone who is newer. Furthermore, nobody is obliged to adopt an attitude of deference, so someone throwing out their veterancy as a way to shut down debate is foolhardy.
I dunno as "Hey, I'm a veteran, shaddap!" is what was meant, so much as "I have seen & experienced these things. Have you?"
Often, though, the crux issue in dakka discusions is when players post negatives about tourneys & the ITC & FLG, and they don't attend them, and/or have not for years, like since 6e. That's not a matter of competence. That's definitely, "You haven't been there. I have. You don't attend these things. I do. Shaddap!"
Does that clarify?
I think you misunderstood my point. Competitive 40k is a minority of the community. As it grows and its requirements and standardization increase, it will become more exclusive. These new painting rules are an example of that. I only hope that a line will be drawn somewhere to prevent GW from eroding the independence of the ITC.
It was stated a couple posts up, these rules are for LVO, not the ITC. Reece has stated it often.
Of course, someone will counter that with "But, the ITC is quite likely to adopt what happens at SoCal Open and LVO". Fair enough, but both GW & FLG state that what you want to do with your own tourney and games is up to you, and it's encouraged. So, if you and yer buds don't like a ruling, get organized, make sure your TO is on board and play how you like.
Further, once the LVO is over, the ne ITC season starts. And *that* means players might be starting new armies, which in turn leads to our local RTTTO relaxing the paint standards because players start exploring new stuff.
Suzuteo wrote: Perhaps anecdotal, but the number of Those Guys seems to be increasing in competitive play. Or maybe I am simply viewing the past through rose-tinted glasses. Anyhow, it's a huge problem because this game is pretty much impossible to play without some level of trust between opponents.
Are you a tourney going regular? Where do ya play?
I sincerely don't see it as a problem at all. There's only one player in California who I don't trust, out of a pool of (chalking up some numbers of faces I see regularly), I dunno, 200 or so regulars? And this guy has been a tool since 4e. There are a couple others I can name or at least identify (Calif players), and they've been out of the scene for years.
TFGs in 'competitive play' (you've really got to define it. I define it as those players who are and expect to show in the Top 8 of GTs) are going away from the game, as best I observe. No scandals in 2019 that I can recall. You? It was 2018, I think when Carpondo was a little douchy (but still legal) in his Top 8 game versus Nayden (2018, right?). The American Team C. gaff with catachans riding turtles is deep in 2018 or 2017.
Those are nice! I'd allow and if no one was looking closely, I'd bet they'd pass.
What kinda is silly to me, is that on the stream, I can barely see what the models look like anyway, especially the infantry.
Suzuteo wrote: However, I do not believe they are allowed in any GW-sponsored streamed match because the heads and shoulders are not GW. Now, if this were a GW tournament, this policy would be fine; I would simply not attend. But this is ITC. It seems wrong for a model to be legal up until it gets in front of GW's camera.
Remember, not ITC, but LVO, subtle in difference, but there.
EDIT: Oh, and we should really stop idolizing competitive players. The amount of cheating and unsportsman conduct, even amongst long and well-known names, is quite horrifying.
Again, the things I know about (and I think I'm reasonably informed on the Big Stuff) are more than a year's time in the past. Can you name any 2019 scandals?
... an ETC player got tossed?
And I don't idolize any of those dudes. Sure, I'd like to play that well and go 5-1 or tuck a GT title under my belt. But idolize them?
At SoCal Open, I was helping a buddy glue his models that got broken. N.N. was standing there and I ordered him to get some water and drip it onto a jetbike's stand to get the super glue to set faster. IIRC, N.N. stated that he didn't know that water did that.
Lookit me, I taught Nanavati something! I guess he should pay *me*. If you ask him though, I don't know as he'd actually know my name, other than 'that little beer guy who hangs with Carlos.'
Just because it didn't hit the net doesn't mean there weren't any scandals, it just means they stayed local. For example, there was an event that had some shadiness involving possible bias in paint scoring that went almost entirely under the radar because it wasn't one of the big-big time events and no one could prove foul play.
ERJAK wrote: Just because it didn't hit the net doesn't mean there weren't any scandals, it just means they stayed local. For example, there was an event that had some shadiness involving possible bias in paint scoring that went almost entirely under the radar because it wasn't one of the big-big time events and no one could prove foul play.
Drop a name. State which event. Unless you say which event and who was involved, it *will* stay under the radar. I'm a big believer in dropping names (can you tell from previous posts?) and making sure everyone knows who everyone else is. And it makes the hobby better, the tourney scene better.
Why be so cagey about it? Outing bad players is what makes things better.
Saying, " there was an event that had some shadiness involving possible bias in paint scoring " ... yer giving us nothing.
Brothererekose wrote: I sincerely don't see it as a problem at all. There's only one player in California who I don't trust, out of a pool of (chalking up some numbers of faces I see regularly), I dunno, 200 or so regulars? And this guy has been a tool since 4e. There are a couple others I can name or at least identify (Calif players), and they've been out of the scene for years.
No scandals in 2019 that I can recall.
I'm based in California too, actually.
And yes, there were was a lot of drama in 2018. 2019 has been mild by comparison. That being said, anecdotally, this year's scene has not been very encouraging for me. Could just be that many tourneys feel like open air cheese markets. But that could just be the West Coast meta.
Brothererekose wrote: Those are nice! I'd allow and if no one was looking closely, I'd bet they'd pass.
What kinda is silly to me, is that on the stream, I can barely see what the models look like anyway, especially the infantry.
Thanks. Honestly, if GW doesn't want well-done (but not "pure") conversions on camera, then they should just get out of the live-streaming ITC events. Worst comes to worst, maybe players will have to start refusing to be streamed. (We are customers, not professionals, and we don't forfeit our publicity rights the instant we participate in a tourney.)
Quick shoutout to Nick - he can actually paint with some skill. He does rush modesl frequently and used to be an extremely busy student/busy guy in general. Even when we were teenagers/early 20s he had a nicely painted Daemon Army / Tyranids that he put some effort into. His Tyranids were quite goofy - but fully painted.
However if the painting standards are not heavily enforced- no point in hotel stress painting models right before the event. They players knew it would be okay so just played with what they had.
I 100% agree with the ITC standards. I also have painted 50-60 armies as a painter for a studio/self for awhile so it's seems to be an easy task for me
Byte wrote: Players don't even bring their army lists and rules as required and nothing happens. If they actually enforce this as written it will be interesting at a minimum.
Is this happening at this sort of event? If you can't be... bothered to bring your rules and/or army list to an event, you really should be getting kicked out (or being made to buy new copies on the day)- and I don't care how much you've spent to travel to the event, or to stay locally.
Byte wrote: Players don't even bring their army lists and rules as required and nothing happens. If they actually enforce this as written it will be interesting at a minimum.
Got a specific example? Did it happen to you? I don't ask merely for the sake of conversation, but to see that the LVO judges get that feedback. It's important to them. And in case you didn't know, I play at the store they do and I've known them for years, SaltyJohn, Ruiz & Solis.
Dysartes wrote: Is this happening at this sort of event? If you can't be... bothered to bring your rules and/or army list to an event, you really should be getting kicked out (or being made to buy new copies on the day)- and I don't care how much you've spent to travel to the event, or to stay locally.
With lists uploaded on BCP, bringing a papered list is no longer required (I'm 99.9% sure). Though, many still do.
Rules? Oh, yes, you are required. I believe somewhere in the pile (looks through the guidelines) ... ah, here, from the ITC player conduct:
"A player must bring an official copy, digital or printed, of all requisite rules for his/her army. If a player cannot show a digital or printed confirmation of a rule, then he/she is considered wrong in any rules disputes involving a judge by default. 3rd party list building applications, or unofficial printouts of rules, are not considered official sources of information."
Even for players who aren't in ITC events, nor planning to come to the FLG big GTs, there are reasonably good guidelines one can follow and adopt into your local scene.
Guys not having lists for opponents and applicable rules has been clearly captured on video by players at the highest level over a long period of time. This is known Khalessi.
Again, this change is cute and all and I hope it is enforced. But the issues are far more fundamental.
Let's put rule to tournaments no rule with you to show you can't use rule. No stratagnm to use. Or if entire model's rule is missing no model for the game. Let's see who dares to not bring codex if it means you have no army to play with
I’m confused. If I ran 2 battalions from my stock of models, all painted uniformly, are they saying I need a way to distinguish the battalions even if they are all from the same army (eg, Salamanders)?
How does this apply to my Drukhari? I have 3 patrol detachments for example, Kabal, Wyches and Haemonculous. All are uniquely different models but painted uniformly in the same colours. All have their own Kabul, Cult and Coven. Are they saying I need to distinguish them further?
Sumilidon wrote: I’m confused. If I ran 2 battalions from my stock of models, all painted uniformly, are they saying I need a way to distinguish the battalions even if they are all from the same army (eg, Salamanders)?
No. If they are all Salamanders then they all need to be painted consistently. But if one battalion is Iron Hands and the second is White Scars, the models need to be painted differently so that your opponent can tell they are different.
How does this apply to my Drukhari? I have 3 patrol detachments for example, Kabal, Wyches and Haemonculous. All are uniquely different models but painted uniformly in the same colours. All have their own Kabul, Cult and Coven. Are they saying I need to distinguish them further?
A good question. I expect they would want some minor difference between the three so that again, your opponent can clearly tell if something is Kabul, Cult or Coven. Not super importantly for models that must be one of the three, but very relevant for those that can be any of the three (like Dedicated Transports).
This would not be an issue at all if more judges simply enforced the current ITC rules. Too often I've seen grey plastic at a tournament because "I just didn't have the time to paint it" and the judge allowed it. Too often I've asked my opponent to show me that rule and they can't because all they have is Battlescribe. And the judge allowed it.
Instead of some kind of public shamming feedback here, or Reddit, or some other online forum, I wish ITC had an online feedback system where you could score the tournament, lodge a complaint against a judge, or have a player's score adjusted when they break the ITC rules requirements. There is no training, no packet, no qualifications to be an ITC Judge and that needs to change. Judges need to be vetted, trained, and removed or replaced when they fall short in their duties.
Tamwulf wrote: This would not be an issue at all if more judges simply enforced the current ITC rules. Too often I've seen grey plastic at a tournament because "I just didn't have the time to paint it" and the judge allowed it. Too often I've asked my opponent to show me that rule and they can't because all they have is Battlescribe. And the judge allowed it.
Instead of some kind of public shamming feedback here, or Reddit, or some other online forum, I wish ITC had an online feedback system where you could score the tournament, lodge a complaint against a judge, or have a player's score adjusted when they break the ITC rules requirements. There is no training, no packet, no qualifications to be an ITC Judge and that needs to change. Judges need to be vetted, trained, and removed or replaced when they fall short in their duties.
to me basically this, at least the first part, if you have rules enforce them, otherwise don't bother
So I am not a 3 color minimum painter. I enjoy the painting part of the hobby but at the same time I am not about to repaint all my GSC because I move units from cult to cult when I tune my lists. That being said I think I already meet this new requirement "in spirt" at least. All my bases have black rims, because I may have up to three of the same unit I like to mark the black rims with colored dots for each different unit. This allows me to repaint the rims any time I want to change the unit without having to repaint parts of the models or change the flocked bases. I feel that maybe adding a colored square to the rim of the bases for the detachment may meet this new requirement. What do you think?
Icon720 wrote: So I am not a 3 color minimum painter. I enjoy the painting part of the hobby but at the same time I am not about to repaint all my GSC because I move units from cult to cult when I tune my lists. That being said I think I already meet this new requirement "in spirt" at least. All my bases have black rims, because I may have up to three of the same unit I like to mark the black rims with colored dots for each different unit. This allows me to repaint the rims any time I want to change the unit without having to repaint parts of the models or change the flocked bases. I feel that maybe adding a colored square to the rim of the bases for the detachment may meet this new requirement. What do you think?
I believe the intent of the rule is so that the units are clearly distinguishable from across the table at a glance. If the method you use to mark the bases follows that intent, I'm certain you'd be okay. However, as always, consult your TO and eliminate all doubt.
leopard wrote: to me basically this, at least the first part, if you have rules enforce them, otherwise don't bother
Enforcement of rules consistently yet fairly is the hardest thing for professional adjudicators to do, much less part time TOs.
Saying "Enforce the rules" is basically saying "git gud." It really ignores how difficult the thing you are asking is.
Thing is, the two examples given by the poster leopard was quoting should be the simplest in the world - an unpainted army obviously fails to meet the minimum painting criteria (if the event has them), and a player who can't produce a unit's rules if asked is breaching the rule requiring them to have the rules with them. These shouldn't be cases where a judgement call is required, like a rules call or a measurement, or a he said/she said over something that's happened - those I can absolutely buy as being difficult to enforce "consistently yet fairly".
If the rules packet says you are expected to do A and bring B in order to participate in an event, and you fail to do A or bring B, you shouldn't expect to participate. In the case of rules, if there is a vendor at the event selling the appropriate book, then you might be able to escape being excluded from the event by buying the damned thing, as then you'll satisfy that requirement.
If these areas aren't being enforced, then it undercuts the faith in the judge system for when complex issues come up.
In case you missed it elsewhere...
Las Vegas Open Attendees: It is looking like a LOT of you are bringing Chaplain Venerable Dreadnoughts. So here are a few things to be aware of. 1. Those models aren't widely available and while we received a lot of conversion approval requests for them, we did not receive them in the numbers we are seeing in the lists. So, if you didn't get one approved and you don't have the actual model you need to make sure what you're playing is a conversion, a counts as will be removed and a yellow card issued. 2. Chaplain Dreadnoughts got a lot better via the FAQ, however, they did not gain the <Chaplain> keyword. The deadline for getting your conversions approved has passed, the Google Form is closed and none of us will be approving them, it is up to you now. We will be keeping an eye out for these at LVO 2020.
Dysartes wrote: Is there a reason for Chaplain Venerable Dreadnoughts to suddenly be so popular in ITChammer?
Because it's Character that can be screened by mooks (because that makes sense, right? The blingy angry dreadnought can't be shot at because Scouts are in front of it but the blingy dreadnought next to it can), gained Litanies and is actually an effective unit rather than overpriced Re-roll 1 babysitter captains, do-nothing Techmarines or nerfed to the ground Smash-Captains. It has a +1S aura and both a 5++ and 6+++ without needing to be Iron Hands.
BaconCatBug wrote: For Iron Hands all you need to do is play the IRN BRU chapter, who canonically cosplay as Ultramarines, all you lose is OP IronFather
Again, no one are 'official' colors discussed in this rule.
The LVO has no problem with blue Iron Hands. The problem is with 2 Blue units, 3 Red units and 6 Pink units all in the same army as Iron Hands.
Armies don't need to be 'official'. They need to be coherent.
Byte wrote: Can we see some examples of rejected Chaplain Dreads? From anyone with knowledge
I don't think many have been rejected. It's more an issue that they have to be pre-approved and many people haven't bothered to do so, leading to them being rejected at the event.
Byte wrote: Can we see some examples of rejected Chaplain Dreads? From anyone with knowledge
I don't think many have been rejected. It's more an issue that they have to be pre-approved and many people haven't bothered to do so, leading to them being rejected at the event.
Ah gotcha. My brain tricked me. Reading comprehension is a thing
Whilst I applaud having painting standards the rule in the OP doesn't seem particularly well though out. There are numerous reasons why a person might want to paint some models in their army differently. Both DA and BA canonically of course do this, but people might want to apply similar approach to other chapters, custom chapters specifically. For example, I've seen many people painting their Phobos armour marines in black, or grey or even in some sort of camo colours whilst their main colour scheme is more bright. Some people might want to paint their veterans or sergeants differently. Or even play as Greyshields which canonically combined different liveries.
Now, one can say, that this sort of thing is of course allowed (and it should!) but at this point the rule really doesn't do anything anymore, as it really devolves adjudicating whether people's made up fluff is good enough to justify their painting choices. Is that really something that the judges in a tournament should be deliberating?
Just have a rule that the models need to be painted at tabletop standard and enforce that.
Crimson wrote: Whilst I applaud having painting standards the rule in the OP doesn't seem particularly well though out. There are numerous reasons why a person might want to paint some models in their army differently. Both DA and BA canonically of course do this, but people might want to apply similar approach to other chapters, custom chapters specifically. For example, I've seen many people painting their Phobos armour marines in black, or grey or even in some sort of camo colours whilst their main colour scheme is more bright. Some people might want to paint their veterans or sergeants differently. Or even play as Greyshields which canonically combined different liveries.
But in all those cases, even models that are painted differently would still have similarities that tie them together - the greyshields would all have a grey pauldron (and if they're painted together, should have similar styles of paint, if they were done by the same painter). There would/should still be similar spot colours/Chapter colours/chapter sigils in Space Marine Chapters that have otherwise divergent colours (Deathwing, Ravenwing, and Greenwing are all noticeably Dark Angels, because of iconography, similar spot colours, and suchlike).
And, probably the biggest factor - basing. It's not hard to expect a uniformly based army, is it?
Basically, while I agree that there's cases of different colour schemes within an army, I don't think it would be hard to spot where one example is "this is a feature of my army's design" and another is "yeah, these are just the models I could rustle up so that I can make this list".
I think examples of "but what about adhoc regiments of Guardsmen, they might have different colour schemes!" should just be represented by different detachments - obviously that means I'm against the recommendation of a limit of detachments.
Now, one can say, that this sort of thing is of course allowed (and it should!) but at this point the rule really doesn't do anything anymore, as it really devolves adjudicating whether people's made up fluff is good enough to justify their painting choices. Is that really something that the judges in a tournament should be deliberating?
I think so - it's their tournament, and if it's not obvious enough that your stylistic choices are just that, and not picking out from a random collection (and, as I've said, I don't think it's hard to identify what's intentional and accidental, IMO), then that should have been made clearer.
Same as they can judge what is and isn't an acceptable conversion, I think it's just part and parcel of entering a tournament. If enough people find that the restrictions of that tournament are too much, they could just go to another, or run their own, and attract similarly minded people?
Just have a rule that the models need to be painted at tabletop standard and enforce that.
The words "It looks like you bought those models to cobble your army together" is meritless complaining.
What has merit is the ability for the other player to look at your army and actually being able to tell who belongs to which unit without having to remember some arcane or baroque painting scheme.
I've got a twenty five year old Chaos Daemons collection, to the point where if I wanted I could put down models and say "Those first edition daemonettes are each in their own units, those 2nd generation daemonettes are their own units, those 3rd (Diaz) daemonettes are their own unit, and lastly those plastic daemonettes are their own unit." (Plague bearers and horrors are harder to tell apart, personally. There are probably people it'd be easy for.). But that's not really fair to the other player because the game isn't "Memorize twenty five years of sculpts to pick out visual cues."
If a person has properly marked their bases, the other player should be able to tell the units apart. Then it doesn't matter whether you're mixing twenty five year old soft pewter figures and plastic figures (because that unit needs an instrument and a standard bearer).
Save the arguing about artistic merit or cohesiveness for the painting competition.
"Degree of presentation in a primarily visual hobby" is such a subjective statement that trying to write a rule around it is a bridge too far for me. Sure, as a requirement for a painting competition a cohesion score of 1-5 could be useful but for application in anything but the most egregious cases is weird.
Again, if it is an issue of I can't tell what models are in what units/detachments sure, I can get on board. But if I field mono space wolves and have black, grey, powder blue and metallic blue models (because I enjoy experimenting with other colors, or want to represent my long fangs with a 30k aesthetic and primaris with new shiny armor and termies with traditional powder blue) that should be my choice and not subject to some nebulous "cohesive" army standard. Same with basing, my wolves can be running across snow fields while my termies are standing on teleportation pads while my long fangs have a more urban base.
All of that can look good together but since "make sure your army looks good" was too vague to codify in a rule we end up with this weird "coherent" which is just as subjective and hard to write a concrete rule around.
Better verbiage about the degree to which the models must be non-coherent would ease many of the issues that I have with the potential of the ruling. Words like reasonable, obviously, extreme, patently, do not belong with the other models in the detachment would have been helpful in the initial impression of the rule (IMHO).
I didn't think anyone would complain about this until reading how Byte felt about it and they seem like they would honestly take umbrage with my decisions.
TOs are free to do what they want but I still have yet to see an example of what this is curbing at any tournament I've gone to in 8th (at least 20) while I personally have models that could be impacted by this rule.
The moment of judgement is almost upon us though so we'll see if this rule was worth all of the fretting. I honestly doubt anyone will have anything to say about this at all. I'm more curious to see if Frontline goes through with the draconian threat to pull any of the non-approved "converted" models. But after some of the "fire raptors" at the first LVO I watched and other modeling/painting embarrassments I'm more in support of this rule than the "coherent" paint job rule.
Well, this kinda sucks.
I poured lots of work into making it 150% intuitive for my opponent to visually distinguish my army;
I play Infantry Spam Webway Drop Aeldari.
I have a Detach of Craftworlds, a Detach of Drukhari and a Detach of Ynnari, for example, at the last Alliance Open in Bremen.
Inside the Craftworld Detachment, every Unit is painted to a high standard - but each in a unique Scheme. 20 Guardians are painted Iyanden; 20 Guardians are painted Biel Tan. 10 Rangers are painted Alaitoc, 10 Rangers are painted Biel Tan;
Inside the Drukhari Detachment, every unit is painted to a high standard - each in a unique Scheme; 20 Warriors in red with Lions Cloaks fully converted, with special weapons marked out with Yellow Highlights and Heavies with Whites;
20 Warriors in dark Blue all with blank white Helmets. 10 Warriors in greenish blue with Dragonskincloaks converted from Dark Elves Corsairs.
Inside the Ynnari Detachment, I have all Reborn Drukhari modelled as Corsairs with the correct weaponry. But one squad is all the Colours of the Rainbow; one Suad is proper Voiddragon scheme, and one squad is skyblue with yellow wings.
All the Models are 150% distinguishable, and all the squads are 150% distinguishable,
I have done this over the course of years, for the sake of my opponent and me being able to look at the table and tell units apart trivially, without any chance of confusion ever.
If I drop in a 9" perimeter 4 squads of 20 Infantry each, and all would be painted in the same paint scheme, neatly lined up, even with squadmarkings, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to tell at a glance where one unit ends and another begins!
I'm really sad right now :-( I always did enjoy running for best painted :-(
Stevefamine wrote: I for one look forward to 40k tournaments to start looking better than Warmahordes at top tables.
That's not a high bar (or even a low one). As warmachine went on, it became littered with 'terrain' consisting of small felt squares and empty bases as placeholders for model position, as various miniatures had too many overhanging protrusions to be placed base to base.
And that was at official events!
The flat/2d terrain kind of worked in WarmaHordes though, because the rules for them were so clearly defined. Don't get me wrong, I prefer 3d terrain, but having an area of 'hill' that was flat just so you didn't have to worry about the falling over problem for models was nice.
The placeholder bases though was a problem, but it's not like everything was played that way (empty bases for everything).
I agree though it's not a high bar to bet better than the tournament focussed setup where all you had to be was built and have enough markings on a base to denote facing. At least visually speaking.
Sure, if you mean 'worked' as in 'fulfilled the minimum utility function of the rules.'
If you mean 'worked' as in 'made for a visually impressive and fun game,' not so much.
Personally I consider it a rules problem if actual terrain and models are a barrier to rules working correctly.
Even before the flop of Mk3, WM lost me when a Press Ganger turned up and converted the local scene into felt, lots of technical rules 'gotchas' and timed games to practice for tournaments that no one had previously cared about.
There really wasn't a game left under all the precision and rote memorization of obscure tricks.
I think long War said it best. ITC used to be filled with people who used popsickle sticks and glue for riprides, or in the case of team happy, dollar store crocodiles for rough riders. Which was crap and we can do better. If we want to continue the trend of being successful and becomming less of a nische hobby but more main stream, this is a good rule.
archont wrote: Well, this kinda sucks.
I poured lots of work into making it 150% intuitive for my opponent to visually distinguish my army;
I play Infantry Spam Webway Drop Aeldari.
Spoiler:
I have a Detach of Craftworlds, a Detach of Drukhari and a Detach of Ynnari, for example, at the last Alliance Open in Bremen.
Inside the Craftworld Detachment, every Unit is painted to a high standard - but each in a unique Scheme. 20 Guardians are painted Iyanden; 20 Guardians are painted Biel Tan. 10 Rangers are painted Alaitoc, 10 Rangers are painted Biel Tan;
Inside the Drukhari Detachment, every unit is painted to a high standard - each in a unique Scheme; 20 Warriors in red with Lions Cloaks fully converted, with special weapons marked out with Yellow Highlights and Heavies with Whites;
20 Warriors in dark Blue all with blank white Helmets. 10 Warriors in greenish blue with Dragonskincloaks converted from Dark Elves Corsairs.
Inside the Ynnari Detachment, I have all Reborn Drukhari modelled as Corsairs with the correct weaponry. But one squad is all the Colours of the Rainbow; one Suad is proper Voiddragon scheme, and one squad is skyblue with yellow wings.
All the Models are 150% distinguishable, and all the squads are 150% distinguishable,
I have done this over the course of years, for the sake of my opponent and me being able to look at the table and tell units apart trivially, without any chance of confusion ever.
If I drop in a 9" perimeter 4 squads of 20 Infantry each, and all would be painted in the same paint scheme, neatly lined up, even with squadmarkings, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to tell at a glance where one unit ends and another begins!
I'm really sad right now :-( I always did enjoy running for best painted :-(
I'm not a judge, but if everything is as you described, then I think you'd be fine. Given that none of the aspect warriors have cohesive scheme, DRs are black, FDs are orange and yellow, HBs bone with bad pharmacy bottle hair dye, SS are all green ....
Just DAs and guardians maybe being cohesive.
Post some pix! Here on the thread. Let's see. If nothing else, you get to show off nice models.
Remember, rule of cool applies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Byte wrote: I haven't seen any buzz about units getting pulled. Seems everybody was in order
Reece stated on the stream that models were pulled.
Post some pix! Here on the thread. Let's see. If nothing else, you get to show off nice models.
Remember, rule of cool applies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Byte wrote: I haven't seen any buzz about units getting pulled. Seems everybody was in order
Reece stated on the stream that models were pulled.
I don't wanna derail the thread, I stopped taking photos of my stuff some ten years ago, but if you click into my dakka gallery, you'll get the gist of the idea of the standard to which my Infantry ( more than 200 today ) are painted;
there's some more stuff in my gallery - though I do plan on taking some pics eventually ( I keep postponing it for a more professional session with a photographer, and for that purpose I want custom display boards for each unit, which I have gotten some work done on, but am not finished with ... :-D )
I would hope that the spirit of my Army and Eldar would make it okay to field such an Army,
but as it is written; I had a very deep panging sting in my chest, knowing that my Army fits ad verbatim the words of what is NOT permissible. :-( :-S
Dysartes wrote: Any chance of a reputable - or, at least, independent - source, Brothererekose?
I'd think the guy running the largest 40k event in the world would be considered reputable but for independent support I noted more than few "t-fires" being pulled as well as other not up to snuff conversions that weren't pre approved. Painting wise I think most people got kinda anal because it because they made it such an issue. I didn't see a single army that didn't meet the requirements and I probably randomly looked at at least 50% of the field. Which last year with 200 less players would not have been the case.
archont wrote: I would hope that the spirit of my Army and Eldar would make it okay to field such an Army,
but as it is written; I had a very deep panging sting in my chest, knowing that my Army fits ad verbatim the words of what is NOT permissible. :-( :-S
Holy, potatoes! Your stuff is so good. My wraithknight looks ... well, yours is better. And I paid $125 to have mine done by a guy who won a BAO best painted. I love your Baron Sathonyx.
Addressing your concerns. I think you'd be fine. Your green white Dire Avengers & guardians would be one battlalion, say Alaitoc. Your aspect warriors, the FDs, Striking S, DRs, all those, with the red & black scheme, simply another battalion.
Then given the multicolor themes on your vehicles, there'd certianly be no "borrow hammer" to say at all. Rool of AMAZINGLY cool.
Any judge that would pull any of your stuff would run the risk of getting put in a dumpster. I'm only 125 pounds, but I'd find the motivation (and bigger nerds) to help me do it.
Seriously, the green & white dudes in one detachment and the black and reds in the other. The vehicles likelier, with the B&R.
Any of you nerds *not* checking out his gallery need to do so. The WK, the elvish dioramas ....
It’s a bold move, Cotton.
I’m trying to use humour to make a point but that doesn’t always translate in post form. Come on, loaned polo mallet (and the implication of wealth that comes from playing polo) juxtaposed with borrow hammer?
) don't match is a jerk move, regardless of your noble reasons.
