131318
Post by: LeRufus
Hello everyone,
I am struggling a bit with painting my CSM army right now. You see... I really like the Emperors Children and everything and the colors for them are nice and all.
My problem is, that I really cant afford X armies with different color schemes, so if i want to play black legion or thousand sons some day i cant really use my army in all Pink, can I? 
At least that is what I see in tournament rules a lot, that if you dont fit the correct color code there might be VP deductions or something. (or you have to explain why that is etc.)
What is your take on this?
Is there maybe a possibility to come up with my own look (like Space Marine successor chapters) and just go "this is XY" whenever I want?
How would you feel about this, if you would have to fight against an army like that?
I hope I could get my problem across ^^
Thanks for helping me out!
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
Paint whatever you want and call it whatever army you want. They're your guys, anyone who cares shouldn't.
132024
Post by: Aecus Decimus
Event rules vary by event, there is no consistent standard. If you want to play in a specific event you'll need to ask them about their policies.
Outside of tournaments most people are happy to play against a non-standard paint scheme as long as it's a reasonable scheme that could plausibly exist in 40k (no MLP marines, etc) and if you have two different sub-factions in your list they each have a different paint scheme to clearly identify which is which. Very few people will insist that you match the canon scheme, most of us are just happy that you bothered to paint your models at all.
130394
Post by: EviscerationPlague
Im a firm believer that nobody should be punished because they chose the wrong color scheme. Paint them as whatever and then run them as whatever. They're all Marines, so you'll be fine.
121430
Post by: ccs
For others: I don't care what colors my opponents forces are painted.
For myself: I paint my stuff to please me. Sometimes that'll match something GWs done at some point, sometimes it might be close (likely by accident), other times.... not so much. If someone else/GW doesn't like that? {shrugs}
Outside of Historicals & any restrictions on the use of some iconography (Ex: Swastikas) I would not play in an environment where others get to dictate how I paint things.
Solutions? Play with reasonable people. Don't play with those/in events that dictate how you paint.
81438
Post by: Turnip Jedi
Whatever makes you happy
The only minor issue might be if all the marines in a given army are the same colour but are from different legions with different rules, not sure if thats a thing anymore with chaos, and even then that's only a concern for organised play (which usually have requirement stated before hand)
102719
Post by: Gert
Considering that CSM got screwed on not having custom subfactions despite being the one that should absolutely have them, do what you want.
You can't have your own rules to match Your Dudes so you have to use established Legion traits so paint Your Dudes however you see fit.
111831
Post by: Racerguy180
Well, I only play my EC as EC, but they're like a million different colours(on purpose) a veritable riot if you will.
But who cares, paint whatever whichever however you like and if they don't like it, you wouldn't want to play them anyway...
Like Shock G said..."do whatchya like"
14
Post by: Ghaz
Events at Warhammer World require you to play the army that matches your paint scheme (i.e., if your painted as Ultramarines, you must use the Ultramarines rules). As long as you don't plan on playing there, then it most likely won't be a problem...
77922
Post by: Overread
Once you leave Space Marines most people can't tell one official subfaction scheme from another at all. Heck some are nearly impossible - all the official schemes for Daugthers of Khaine are just different subtle shades of red cloth.
Most events don't care either as long as you don't rock up with a clearly Blood Angles Space Marine army and call them Ultramarines. Though even some of that was mostly when an edition let you mix and match subfactions so much that people were running multiple subfaction armies under the same paint scheme which could get confusing.
In general no one cares. A few events can be picky, but they tend to be rather elite events and honestly most clubs do not care one bit.
Personally I hate the idea that if you use an official scheme you are bound to that subfaction only, but if you used your own you could pick and choose (keeping in mind your own could be 1 colour change from an official scheme)
Again this only mostly rears its head with Marines because their subfactions have unique models, upgrade parts and are basically fully fledged armies in their own right (With their own internal sub-sub factions).
124786
Post by: tauist
If I am willing to play against an unpainted army, why would I refuse playing against an army painted in any colour?
Only thing which might be confusing would be if your army included a lot of faction specific units proxying as something else than what their WYSIWYG look is suggesting. That can become confusing real fast.
Being a nitpick about a coloursheme is silly behaviour. Might as well start bitching about someone not painting realistically enough, or using derpily proportioned miniatures or overly skull decorated terrain on the table "ruining muh immersion" LOL
109034
Post by: Slipspace
As long as nothing's confusing you'll be fine. A single unified colour scheme isn't going to confuse anyone. Tying army rules to paint was a stupid idea in the first place anyway.
52675
Post by: Deadnight
LeRufus wrote:
My problem is, that I really cant afford X armies with different color schemes, so if i want to play black legion or thousand sons some day i cant really use my army in all Pink, can I?
Why the hell not? 
Use whatever justification you want - 'oh yeah, the black armour is being washed, they're using their other suits and all that was left was the gaudy pink ones. It makes them even ANGRIER too....'
Or don't justify. Your models. Play them and paint them however the hell you want. And screw the haters. There's enough rubbish in the world without needing to bother yourself with what some nerd thinks of you :p
LeRufus wrote:
At least that is what I see in tournament rules a lot, that if you dont fit the correct color code there might be VP deductions or something. (or you have to explain why that is etc.)
Screw tournaments? Screw those elitists?
Not all red marines are blood angels after all. Successor chapters are a thing.
120227
Post by: Karol
if someone deployed a csm army, and on then informed me that he is rolling 1ksons powers, I would be mildly confused.
8900
Post by: Aelyn
Karol wrote: if someone deployed a csm army, and on then informed me that he is rolling 1ksons powers, I would be mildly confused.
Well, yes, those are different armies which (mainly) don't share units and where the models being used don't match the datasheet.
We're talking about different subfactions for the same army, where the basic datasheet is the same and the models are the same, but the subfaction / paint scheme gives different bonuses. It's a completely different situation.
That is a fair point for the OP though - 1KSons, Death Guard, and (soon) World Eaters are their own things and not core CSM. You can use CSM models as 1KSons if you want and if your opponent's happy with it, but that does cross the line into proxying IMO.
13740
Post by: Valkyrie
Karol wrote: if someone deployed a csm army, and on then informed me that he is rolling 1ksons powers, I would be mildly confused.
Well that's legit as they're two different books. If you wanted to run your Black Legion painted guys as Night Lords, Iron Warriors, or something else from the same book then by all means go for it. I would recommend however that you make it pretty clear beforehand.
103666
Post by: FrozenDwarf
Slipspace wrote: Tying army rules to paint was a stupid idea in the first place anyway.
Yes this was the primary bad move by GW on the topic of painting and it creates a conflict that will never go away: yes they are your models paint them how you want, but no you should not deviate from the army rules tied to the faction of your painting choise. That is where for sm/ csm successor chapters comes into play with more colour options.
131322
Post by: DeadliestIdiot
LeRufus 806621 11421835 wrote:
My problem is, that I really cant afford X armies with different color schemes, so if i want to play black legion or thousand sons some day i cant really use my army in all Pink, can I?
At least that is what I see in tournament rules a lot, that if you dont fit the correct color code there might be VP deductions or something. (or you have to explain why that is etc.)
Considering your forces feel at home in the warp, tell the TO that the warp does strange unexplainable things and they should be lucky it's pink and not some horror-invoking unimaginable color that would leach their soul out through their eyeballs.
105694
Post by: Lord Damocles
Why not just use your Pink Spikey Marines as Pink Spikey Marines if it's Pink Spikey Marines that you like, and not worry about maybe not being able to optimise them as Black Spikey Marines or Blue Spikey Marines?
131322
Post by: DeadliestIdiot
Slipspace wrote:As long as nothing's confusing you'll be fine. A single unified colour scheme isn't going to confuse anyone. Tying army rules to paint was a stupid idea in the first place anyway.
I'm reminded of the days when all the wargear options had to be modeled (including favored enemy). Granted, back in those days I played with paper circles lol (now I play with digital paper circles  )
99475
Post by: a_typical_hero
The official stance on it by GW changed over time, but not so long ago (hey, only 5th edition) they even wrote it into the Space Marine codex:
"This is Pedro Kantor, he is a Crimson Fists hero. If you don't play CF but still want to use the model, just come up with your own name and use his rules."
This is the only sensible approach imho. Use your colors, use your own background and possibly own model conversion, use the official rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Lord Damocles wrote:Why not just use your Pink Spikey Marines as Pink Spikey Marines if it's Pink Spikey Marines that you like, and not worry about maybe not being able to optimise them as Black Spikey Marines or Blue Spikey Marines?
It may not have anything to do with optimising at all. Am I supposed to believe that Blood Angels (and successors) are the only Marines in the whole galaxy that put their Scriptors into Dreadnoughts? Space Wolves the only chapter who uses beast cavalry?
The only logical conclusion to your approach is to collect the same army several times over because I'd like to play with a chapter specific unit every now and then. It is more clear with units, but the same applies to the different legions with their different Warlord traits, equipment, psychic powers and so on.
119949
Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn
Seconding the notion that painted mini's without clear difference could be construed as a possible "modeling for advantage". Just make sure to clearly distinguish "your toys" from each other. Don't make the mistake I made, of trying to kit bash a Company Commander with something else to make a primaris Psyker, and your opponent not being able to spot it at a glance as what it is.
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
Karol wrote: if someone deployed a csm army, and on then informed me that he is rolling 1ksons powers, I would be mildly confused.
is it really that confusing?
Legionnaires = rubrics
Terminators = scarab occults
Magic wielding HQ = exalted sorcerer & co.
DP = DP
14
Post by: Ghaz
a_typical_hero wrote:The official stance on it by GW changed over time, but not so long ago (hey, only 5th edition) they even wrote it into the Space Marine codex:
"This is Pedro Kantor, he is a Crimson Fists hero. If you don't play CF but still want to use the model, just come up with your own name and use his rules."
That last bit doesn't work nowadays. Pedro Kantor's rules define him as a Crimson Fist via Keywords and would be handicapping yourself unnecessarily. You would need to use him as a 'counts as' model for a unit that works with your chosen army.
109034
Post by: Slipspace
 Ghaz wrote:a_typical_hero wrote:The official stance on it by GW changed over time, but not so long ago (hey, only 5th edition) they even wrote it into the Space Marine codex:
"This is Pedro Kantor, he is a Crimson Fists hero. If you don't play CF but still want to use the model, just come up with your own name and use his rules."
That last bit doesn't work nowadays. Pedro Kantor's rules define him as a Crimson Fist via Keywords and would be handicapping yourself unnecessarily. You would need to use him as a 'counts as' model for a unit that works with your chosen army.
Or just do what what everyone else does and designate your homebrew chapter as Crimson Fists regardless of colour scheme.
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
Ghaz wrote:a_typical_hero wrote:The official stance on it by GW changed over time, but not so long ago (hey, only 5th edition) they even wrote it into the Space Marine codex:
"This is Pedro Kantor, he is a Crimson Fists hero. If you don't play CF but still want to use the model, just come up with your own name and use his rules."
That last bit doesn't work nowadays. Pedro Kantor's rules define him as a Crimson Fist via Keywords and would be handicapping yourself unnecessarily. You would need to use him as a 'counts as' model for a unit that works with your chosen army.
he's basically just a chapter master with powerfist and mastercrafted combibolter, right?
99475
Post by: a_typical_hero
Back then special characters for SM were the way how you customise your army.
Pedro for example unlocked Sternguard Veterans as troops iirc. So only CF could do it back then. Or you came up with your own character for your chapter and used the rules.
There is nothing preventing you from using your Marines of any color as count as and make use of that chapter's special units and rules. The keyword system does not block it in any way. You only can't 'count as' a character like Mephiston while using the rules for Ultramarines for example. At least not officially.
87004
Post by: warhead01
Just paint your models in a way that you like and that you think is cool. Pick alt. colors if you want to stay somewhat close to a specific faction, legion or chapter. It hardly matters.
I will say that picking a cool theme and colors will feel a lot more universal to me than a variant of a specific color set. But that's just me.
120227
Post by: Karol
 VladimirHerzog wrote:Karol wrote: if someone deployed a csm army, and on then informed me that he is rolling 1ksons powers, I would be mildly confused.
is it really that confusing?
Legionnaires = rubrics
Terminators = scarab occults
Magic wielding HQ = exalted sorcerer & co.
DP = DP
If they are pink, and I saw the person play the game before as csm ? Yes, I think I would be mildly confused.
102655
Post by: SemperMortis
I have a kustom paint scheme for my Orkz which heavily involves purple. If at anytime someone says I can't run them as a specific klan because their color scheme isn't exact i'll politely tell them to go fondle a grot
36848
Post by: Punisher Gatling Cannon
Paint them how you want, they are your models. I personally have purple deathguard, chrome thousand sons and I'm working on a judge dredd themed custodes army.
87012
Post by: Toofast
I prefer to play against armies painted in their "proper" color as it's better for immersion. I won't refuse a game against your neon pink space marines, but I would rather play against an army painted as an actual chapter if given the option.
121430
Post by: ccs
So you're painting them in the correct colors.
92298
Post by: Dolnikan
Toofast wrote:I prefer to play against armies painted in their "proper" color as it's better for immersion. I won't refuse a game against your neon pink space marines, but I would rather play against an army painted as an actual chapter if given the option.
When it comes to things like chapters and the like, there are supposed to be massive numbers of them so you would expect to see almost every possible colour scheme existing in the setting. That also is why I have no issues whatsoever with how someone paints their models (although I would prefer to not tie rules to colour schemes).
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Just do custom colors without specific iconography. For instance, if you just have blue space marines they could literally be any fighting style of chapter just don't toss the ultra marine symbol on everything.
The thousand sons example is going to depend on what setting you playing in as they are technically a different model range. Most casual people won't care as long as it's explained before the game... but in a tournament WYSIWYG you probably wanna talk to the tournament organizer to make sure that's ok
120227
Post by: Karol
I don't think the people won't care in a casual setting is true. If someone puts down a DG army, and then has to explain what every model actualy is, and then you have to remember if his not-apothecary is an exalted sorc on a disc or ahriman, it gets very tires some. One or two things, modeling a gigantic chain sword or ax to be a chain fist, is one thing. getting in to 1ksons flamer range, because you didn't notice that a guy in the DG unit carry heavy weapons is another.
And it gets even worse when next week the same dudes are EC and you have to relearn on the spot your opponents entier army.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Karol wrote:I don't think the people won't care in a casual setting is true. If someone puts down a DG army, and then has to explain what every model actualy is, and then you have to remember if his not-apothecary is an exalted sorc on a disc or ahriman, it gets very tires some. One or two things, modeling a gigantic chain sword or ax to be a chain fist, is one thing. getting in to 1ksons flamer range, because you didn't notice that a guy in the DG unit carry heavy weapons is another.
And it gets even worse when next week the same dudes are EC and you have to relearn on the spot your opponents entier army.
I actually agree and didn't explain my post well enough. I'm looking at it kind of like a proxy for trying armies. I'm not going to care if someone wants to test deathguard or a friend wants a change of pace for a game or 2 so he uses his CSM at thousand sons. But if every game im getting a 45 minute explanation of what everything is that's going to get very old very quick and it's never going to go over well with anyone that's not a friend and understands that he's just trying something out. But painting his guys yellow and using them for the various chapters shouldn't be an issue and is actually less of an issue than painting them like iron warriors but using them as emperor's children. Just use custom colors and symbols
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
There's a difference between models and paint.
"These pink-painted Marines are Black Legion," is simple and easy to remember.
"This squad of ordinary CSM is actually a Plague Marine squad, and this other identical squad is a squad of TSons, and this Helbrute is a Contemptor, but this Helbrute is a Helbrute..." is a much bigger deal. While I'm cool with proxies, I would expect to not use the same models for different types of units.
102537
Post by: Sgt. Cortez
I used to be in the camp: you built Salamanders, you painted Salamanders, why would you use any other rules than Salamanders?
Then my DG got Subfactions that don't even have an official paint scheme, let alone heraldry or anything to mark them. So now I'm a little more laid back. My Snakebites will always be played using Snakebites rules and my DG will never be Black Legion, but it would be unfair to say: SM, CSM, IG, Eldar and Orks need to be played with fixed subfactions because every player knows their subfactions, but all the other factions can do what they want because their subfactions have been made up during the last 4 years and not the last 30 years  . So the logical consequence is to say: yeah, if these Mephrit-guys can be Novokh and these Da'lyth can be Vi'orla, then these Salamanders can be rainbow Warriors as well. But I personally will stick to the rules my paint scheme got.
109034
Post by: Slipspace
Karol wrote:I don't think the people won't care in a casual setting is true. If someone puts down a DG army, and then has to explain what every model actualy is, and then you have to remember if his not-apothecary is an exalted sorc on a disc or ahriman, it gets very tires some. One or two things, modeling a gigantic chain sword or ax to be a chain fist, is one thing. getting in to 1ksons flamer range, because you didn't notice that a guy in the DG unit carry heavy weapons is another.
And it gets even worse when next week the same dudes are EC and you have to relearn on the spot your opponents entier army.
That would be more like proxying than what's being talked about here. I think people are talking more about a standard SM or CSM army, from those Codices, using a custom colour scheme but the rules for one of the "known" Legions/Chapters. In this case there's no confusion since a Tactical marine is the same in any Chapter.
131318
Post by: LeRufus
To clarify what i meant in my original post regarding 1000 sons:
CSM can run Rubric Marines as well as other special "Elite" Units.
I didnt mean the whole Kodex
But thanks for the feedback so far, i really appreicate it.
I think I will go with the following:
Special Elite Slots (Noise Marines, Rubrics etc.) will be painted as their color schemes (i.e. Emperors Children etc) as well as Abaddon in Black etc.
My standards like Terminator etc. will be a wide array of colors as I see fit and like ^^
Therefore I can swap between legions and the specialized Units (Noise etc) will keep their schemes
Thank you guys
63042
Post by: Table
A good way around this for CSM is to paint your own warband. Custom colors (the exact way you want), give them a warband name (whatever you like in reason) and maybe some background lore.
Then you are able to pick any legion and be pretty accurate. CSM are a rag tag band of off and on again ex-girlfriends. So a rag tag warband made up of many diverse elements is fluffy and the rules support it.
The advantages of doing things this way is obvious.
130394
Post by: EviscerationPlague
VladimirHerzog wrote: Ghaz wrote:a_typical_hero wrote:The official stance on it by GW changed over time, but not so long ago (hey, only 5th edition) they even wrote it into the Space Marine codex:
"This is Pedro Kantor, he is a Crimson Fists hero. If you don't play CF but still want to use the model, just come up with your own name and use his rules."
That last bit doesn't work nowadays. Pedro Kantor's rules define him as a Crimson Fist via Keywords and would be handicapping yourself unnecessarily. You would need to use him as a 'counts as' model for a unit that works with your chosen army.
he's basically just a chapter master with powerfist and mastercrafted combibolter, right?
You're not far off the mark. The Combi-Bolter would also have AP-1 and is Assault 4, which has SOME distinction. So basically the main draw to Kantor is the +1A aura which is pretty cool to be fair. Automatically Appended Next Post: a_typical_hero wrote:Back then special characters for SM were the way how you customise your army.
Pedro for example unlocked Sternguard Veterans as troops iirc. So only CF could do it back then. Or you came up with your own character for your chapter and used the rules.
There is nothing preventing you from using your Marines of any color as count as and make use of that chapter's special units and rules. The keyword system does not block it in any way. You only can't 'count as' a character like Mephiston while using the rules for Ultramarines for example. At least not officially.
He made them count as Troops for scoring, so definitely not the same. Automatically Appended Next Post: a_typical_hero wrote:The official stance on it by GW changed over time, but not so long ago (hey, only 5th edition) they even wrote it into the Space Marine codex:
"This is Pedro Kantor, he is a Crimson Fists hero. If you don't play CF but still want to use the model, just come up with your own name and use his rules."
This is the only sensible approach imho. Use your colors, use your own background and possibly own model conversion, use the official rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Damocles wrote:Why not just use your Pink Spikey Marines as Pink Spikey Marines if it's Pink Spikey Marines that you like, and not worry about maybe not being able to optimise them as Black Spikey Marines or Blue Spikey Marines?
It may not have anything to do with optimising at all. Am I supposed to believe that Blood Angels (and successors) are the only Marines in the whole galaxy that put their Scriptors into Dreadnoughts? Space Wolves the only chapter who uses beast cavalry?
The only logical conclusion to your approach is to collect the same army several times over because I'd like to play with a chapter specific unit every now and then. It is more clear with units, but the same applies to the different legions with their different Warlord traits, equipment, psychic powers and so on.
And this is why I'm for making many units generic entries. For example, Carcharodons are supposed to have dudes that fall into a rage fit that's not far off from what you'd think Death Company to be. Why not just have an entry for "Marine that needs mental help"?
320
Post by: Platuan4th
ccs wrote:
So you're painting them in the correct colors.
You're thinking Arbites.
110118
Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli
I hold myself to playing the subfaction I painted my models in pretty strictly. My Black Legion are always played as Black Legion. Even my custom Primaris chapter use Bolter Fusillades and Whirlwind of Rage and no chapter supplement rules as they are an Unknown successor. My only army (and kill teams from KT18 for that matter) I switch up subfaction rules is my Genestealer Cult, which are mostly closely painted to Rusted Claw (lots of orange). However, GSC subfactions (IMO) are way too tied to one element (unit, wargear, etc.). And I don't like bikers nearly enough to field Rusted Claw all the time.
I'd prefer my opponent do the same. But it's their army, and their choice. What I will say is that I find the excuse, "Other than space marines, no one knows subfaction colors." as backwards. The reason people know how various space marine chapters/legions play is due to exposure. The more players are exposed to non-space marine subfactions painted and played with correctly matched colors, the more they are going to learn them. I live in an area with well over 100 40k players that I can possibly encounter. Which I believe is probably a couple standard deviations from the average. And yet, it doesn't take long before I get to know my opponent's army and their favored subfaction. Especially if they are more like-minded when it comes to narrative/lore as myself. I have learned a fair amount about non-space marine subfaction from these games.
That already said, I am not going to hold my opponent to fielding their army in the color scheme they painted them in. Sometimes the subfaction rules are wildly incompatible with the particular army being played. Or they just don't match how the player believes they should work for their subfaction. Heck, some players have a limited collection of models and can't afford to get multiple factions, but they play almost every week; so boredom of playing the same old, same old gets to them. I get that and think it's perfectly fine to switch up subfactions to spice things back up. Though, I am less keen on players just picking the most optimal subfaction just to have the most optimal army list. However, this is hard to detect unless the player states it outright, as well as; being less of an issue now that army lists can't ally different subfaction detachments of the same faction to match best subfaction to best unit.
So I think painting your army how you want to paint them is the best way to go about. What I can offer as a suggestion to the OP is if you really only plan to ever play just Black Legion and Emperor's Children, you could paint your army as Black Legion, but paint one or both pauldrons in Emperor's Children colors. That way, your warband's lore could be that they are Black Legion, but they are recent converts from the Emperor's Children. So they haven't fully adopted the Warmaster's customs and ways of war and fall back on their Emperor's Children combat doctrines.
Because honestly, more so than most subfactions in 40k, the Black Legion is the mostly likely to play like one chapter/legion/warband but be painted in black and gold. It's a mongrel legion, likely made up of a few scions of every primarch at this point. I'd be shocked if more than 50% of the Black Legion is from the Sons of Horus at this point. The majority might still be descended from the Son of Horus, but given there are 20 (18 to cull from) space marine legions, I'd imagine that the Sons of Horus stock could be as low as 10% of the total legion in modern 40k. This leaves the gate wide open to paint an army in Black Legion colors, but play as any sort of CSM Legion and most loyalists' chapters and still be lore accurate.
121430
Post by: ccs
I could've sworn I'd read Arbites....
But Custodes? I hope they turn out better looking than what I'm imagining they will....
119380
Post by: Blndmage
I see no problem with MLP Marines.
People can paint their models in whatever scheme they want.
132024
Post by: Aecus Decimus
 Blndmage wrote:I see no problem with MLP Marines.
People can paint their models in whatever scheme they want.
You don't see why, in a game with an emphasis on the fluff and aesthetics, people would object to stupid meme armies that don't take either of those seriously?
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
Aecus Decimus wrote: Blndmage wrote:I see no problem with MLP Marines.
People can paint their models in whatever scheme they want.
You don't see why, in a game with an emphasis on the fluff and aesthetics, people would object to stupid meme armies that don't take either of those seriously?
If you don't like it, don't play them.
But if that's how they enjoy the hobby, let them enjoy it.
119380
Post by: Blndmage
Aecus Decimus wrote: Blndmage wrote:I see no problem with MLP Marines.
People can paint their models in whatever scheme they want.
You don't see why, in a game with an emphasis on the fluff and aesthetics, people would object to stupid meme armies that don't take either of those seriously?
I've got a kid that wants pride coloured Necrons, warriors are trans, Scarabs are rainbow, the warden is non binary. Should I tell them they can't do it because the lore says so, or should I let them paint the army they want?
120227
Post by: Karol
If the reason for there to be rules about painting is the lore. Then saying someone should ignore it would make no sense.
Why would the necron even do something like that, their transformation in to robots predates humanity. Painting them that way would be like finding a stone curving done by neanderthals and one have someone run around with a Switch.
132024
Post by: Aecus Decimus
Blndmage wrote:I've got a kid that wants pride coloured Necrons, warriors are trans, Scarabs are rainbow, the warden is non binary. Should I tell them they can't do it because the lore says so, or should I let them paint the army they want?
You're the parent, do what you want with your kid. But a lot of people are going to eyeroll at it and may or may not want to play with them, especially since it's a political statement.
6846
Post by: solkan
Aecus Decimus wrote: Blndmage wrote:I've got a kid that wants pride coloured Necrons, warriors are trans, Scarabs are rainbow, the warden is non binary. Should I tell them they can't do it because the lore says so, or should I let them paint the army they want?
You're the parent, do what you want with your kid. But a lot of people are going to eyeroll at it and may or may not want to play with them, especially since it's a political statement.
"especially since it's a political statement" means you get to be thrown in a dumpster. Just sayin'.
121430
Post by: ccs
Aecus Decimus wrote: Blndmage wrote:I see no problem with MLP Marines.
People can paint their models in whatever scheme they want.
You don't see why, in a game with an emphasis on the fluff and aesthetics, people would object to stupid meme armies that don't take either of those seriously?
Sure, I can see why.
But their opinions on how I paint my stuff isnt important to me. So if someday I'm inclined to paint a MLP force....
If they don't like it? They can pretend its painted differently. Or simply not play.
132024
Post by: Aecus Decimus
 solkan wrote:Aecus Decimus wrote: Blndmage wrote:I've got a kid that wants pride coloured Necrons, warriors are trans, Scarabs are rainbow, the warden is non binary. Should I tell them they can't do it because the lore says so, or should I let them paint the army they want?
You're the parent, do what you want with your kid. But a lot of people are going to eyeroll at it and may or may not want to play with them, especially since it's a political statement.
"especially since it's a political statement" means you get to be thrown in a dumpster. Just sayin'.
Do you dispute the fact that it is a political statement? Maybe you should look more into the history of pride, where its origin is in a riot against anti-gay laws and police brutality? And where pride flags of various colors have been used as rallying points in political debates? Amazon and Walmart putting up rainbow logos on social media once a year is not what pride is about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs wrote:Sure, I can see why.
But their opinions on how I paint my stuff isnt important to me. So if someday I'm inclined to paint a MLP force....
If they don't like it? They can pretend its painted differently. Or simply not play.
"People can't force me to paint the way they want me to" doesn't mean there isn't a problem with something.
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
“I support people loving who they love and living as their authentic selves,” shouldn’t be political.
132024
Post by: Aecus Decimus
 JNAProductions wrote:“I support people loving who they love and living as their authentic selves,” shouldn’t be political.
You're right, it shouldn't be. There should be no need for pride because that statement should be about as controversial as "water is wet". But unfortunately in the real world that isn't the case, and pride exists as a direct attack on anti-LGBT politics. It is very much a political statement and even if it's a political statement I agree with I'm not really interested in bringing it into 40k, especially in places where it doesn't even come close to aligning with the background fiction.
121430
Post by: ccs
Aecus Decimus wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs wrote:Sure, I can see why.
But their opinions on how I paint my stuff isnt important to me. So if someday I'm inclined to paint a MLP force....
If they don't like it? They can pretend its painted differently. Or simply not play.
"People can't force me to paint the way they want me to" doesn't mean there isn't a problem with something.
{Shrugs} it's not MY problem. And like I said, I don't care if it's yours.
105694
Post by: Lord Damocles
The barely sentient genocidal kill-bots saying gay rights matter as they slaughter everyone is pretty cringy to be honest.
4139
Post by: wuestenfux
Correct painting scheme is a must have unless you strive for a successor chapter.
Individual characters can be painted differently.
120227
Post by: Karol
ccs 806621 11424115 wrote:
Sure, I can see why.
But their opinions on how I paint my stuff isnt important to me. So if someday I'm inclined to paint a MLP force....
If they don't like it? They can pretend its painted differently. Or simply not play.
Nah that is not how it can work. Because then you have to decide on a case by case what kind of a wierd army is okey to be played. A much easier and safter for a store or club way of dealing with stuff, and for the people getting engaging in playing the game too, is to ban all the non lore stuff.
52675
Post by: Deadnight
Karol wrote:If the reason for there to be rules about painting is the lore. Then saying someone should ignore it would make no sense.
Why would the necron even do something like that, their transformation in to robots predates humanity. Painting them that way would be like finding a stone curving done by neanderthals and one have someone run around with a Switch.
You're basing your reasoning on the assumption that those colours mean the sane to the necrons as they do to us...
As to justifying any particular painting scheme.
*shrug*
Their binary code got corrupted and the painting scarabs subroutines went raj. Or the necron lord themselves is... colourful.
Oh look, and now you literally have non-binary necrons. The pun is obvious.
Or 'the warp did it'.
Would I face it? I play Minotaurs. I don't need much of an excuse to want to stomp on anyone.
Karol wrote:ccs 806621 11424115 wrote:
Sure, I can see why.
But their opinions on how I paint my stuff isnt important to me. So if someday I'm inclined to paint a MLP force....
If they don't like it? They can pretend its painted differently. Or simply not play.
Nah that is not how it can work. Because then you have to decide on a case by case what kind of a wierd army is okey to be played. A much easier and safter for a store or club way of dealing with stuff, and for the people getting engaging in playing the game too, is to ban all the non lore stuff.
Nah. Nothing wrong with deciding things on a case by case Karol. Inflexible 'one size fits all' rulings can be utterly catastrophic for a community. Remember, it's all canon and none of it is - and it's 'our' lore too. Snd if someone wants to have fun with a bit of a kooky project - yeah I'll cheer them on. Not everything needs to be serious all the time.
71547
Post by: Sgt_Smudge
Aecus Decimus wrote: Blndmage wrote:I've got a kid that wants pride coloured Necrons, warriors are trans, Scarabs are rainbow, the warden is non binary. Should I tell them they can't do it because the lore says so, or should I let them paint the army they want?
You're the parent, do what you want with your kid. But a lot of people are going to eyeroll at it and may or may not want to play with them, especially since it's a political statement.
Sounds like a you problem.
My existence as a non-binary individual, and choosing to express my existence, isn't political. Get over it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Karol wrote:Why would the necron even do something like that, their transformation in to robots predates humanity.
Because they're not actually an alien race predating humanity, they're plastic toys which exist in the real world, and are painted and enjoyed by real people.
If real people want to paint them a certain way, then they should.
If you have a problem with that, you can refuse to play them.
129860
Post by: TheBestBucketHead
He's not saying that your existence is political. I hate pride flags as a gay man, and my girlfriend hates trans flags. I don't want pride. I want it to not matter. Pride flags keep it not normal. And pride is political in the first place, as a way to go against people who dislike, to put it lightly, lgbt people.
I probably wouldn't play against pridecrons, but would play against nicecrons, who are painted with flower patterns. If the pride flags weren't ugly as sin, I'd probably play against pridecrons as well.
120227
Post by: Karol
Deadnight 806621 11424240 wrote:
You're basing your reasoning on the assumption that those colours mean the sane to the necrons as they do to us...
As to justifying any particular painting scheme.
*shrug*
Their binary code got corrupted and the painting scarabs subroutines went raj. Or the necron lord themselves is... colourful.
Oh look, and now you literally have non-binary necrons. The pun is obvious.
Or 'the warp did it'.
Would I face it? I play Minotaurs. I don't need much of an excuse to want to stomp on anyone.
You that sounds awefuly like some dudes explaining in courts here why they should be allowed to run around with "sun signs" because it was, and still regionaly is, used as a marking by the highland clans here.
Nah. Nothing wrong with deciding things on a case by case Karol. Inflexible 'one size fits all' rulings can be utterly catastrophic for a community. Remember, it's all canon and none of it is - and it's 'our' lore too. Snd if someone wants to have fun with a bit of a kooky project - yeah I'll cheer them on. Not everything needs to be serious all the time.
Case by case means favouritism steps in and personal bias. When the rule is no talking durning matches is the rule, it is clear and precise. No one has to worry what the talk is potentialy about, why there was talking, who started it etc. The olympic comitte says no. As soon as you say X is allowed there are going to be people asking for Y, Z and Q etc and in always ends in total chaos. And then that is a real catastrophy for a community, unless someone is lucky enough to be in places where 100+ people play and the groups can divide themselfs. And even then it is bad blood, because who takes the terrain or the venue etc I see it happen and it is never a good thing. Strickt clear rules and staying within them is the base way to function. And the less politics or personal life in games with strangers, the better. Although the last one is my own personal opinion.
99475
Post by: a_typical_hero
Super colorful armies can look great. There have been some examples shared by Warhammer community in the past, for example this here:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/04/23/feast-your-eyes-on-an-ork-army-unlike-anything-youve-seen-before/
Sexual orientation or gender identity of you or your models is irrelevant to me. Representing it on your models via paint scheme to make sure nobody misses the message just makes you a weirdo to me. I would still play you if you are pleasant to have a game with, but it remains weird. The example in question mentions LGBT painting, but I would think the same about a "super straight" scheme or other stuff.
71547
Post by: Sgt_Smudge
Yes, they are. Their comment implies that for me to express myself and not live invisibly is "political". I shouldn't have to be invisible for my life not to be considered "political". It shouldn't be political for me to *say what I am*. I hate pride flags as a gay man, and my girlfriend hates trans flags. I don't want pride.
Good for you. I do want to take Pride. And as a fellow human being, I would have expected you to have some empathy with people who want to enjoy the way they live their lives, instead of having to pretend it doesn't exist because it's "political". If the pride flags weren't ugly as sin, I'd probably play against pridecrons as well.
Just so we're clear, it's purely because you don't like certain schemes on an aesthetic level? So, if there was a canon colour scheme that I didn't like, you'd also entirely support me not wanting to play against it, because it's also "ugly as sin"? I'm also curious, which Pride flags? All of them? Some of them are very simple colour schemes, and are pretty much canon anyways - the ace flag is greyscale with purple as an accent colour. Agender and aro are both green and greyscale. What's the issue with those schemes? The ork jet in the linked article above uses colours predominantly from the pan flag. Would you refuse against that?
120227
Post by: Karol
Because they're not actually an alien race predating humanity, they're plastic toys which exist in the real world, and are painted and enjoyed by real people.
If real people want to paint them a certain way, then they should.
That is not how the rules work. If people, even those that don't like it, have to paint their armies. Then there is rules to it. And when the core argument for puting the rule in is "lack of immersion" if they are not painted, then same thing kick in here. A necron army painted like that is immersion breaking and there for should not be allowed the same way, someone can say that because their space marines fight in hives a lot and pre attack they use artilery barrage, they also paint themselfs all grey to use the ferrocrate dust as a form of additional camo.
Their comment implies that for me to express myself and not live invisibly is "political"
You know there was a time, when people in my part of the world had to be colour coded in what they wore. each time it was a thing, it was very bad for all people taking part of it. The very idea that people not only can, but have colour code themselfs for the entire world to show and know is a bad idea. And it doesn't even matter in what century it is done and by which group. People shouldn't interact with others as if they were humans, and not some random set of descriptives which aren't even precise enough to properly describe every member of the group. And thrusting such coding on other people is just an form of non physical aggresion.
71547
Post by: Sgt_Smudge
a_typical_hero wrote:Sexual orientation or gender identity of you or your models is irrelevant to me. Representing it on your models via paint scheme to make sure nobody misses the message just makes you a weirdo to me. I would still play you if you are pleasant to have a game with, but it remains weird. The example in question mentions LGBT painting, but I would think the same about a "super straight" scheme or other stuff.
The difference between LBGT+ and "super straight" is that one is a reactionary effort to invalidate the other. The two are not the same.
Ultimately, you can think it's weird to you, but I'd also say that there's a great many things that I'd consider "weird" which people tend to do more often (certain real world iconography on certain factions, for instance, which I'm sure you can pick up my inference). And again, it's not so much "so no-one misses the message", it's more of an exercise of self expression. In much the same way that someone might play a certain faction because it might hold significance to them (ie, an ex-soldier playing Imperial Guard because they have a specific resonance with the footslogging infantryman), someone may choose to paint colours that hold significance to them. I don't really see how that's weird, personally. Automatically Appended Next Post: Karol wrote:Because they're not actually an alien race predating humanity, they're plastic toys which exist in the real world, and are painted and enjoyed by real people.
If real people want to paint them a certain way, then they should.
That is not how the rules work. If people, even those that don't like it, have to paint their armies. Then there is rules to it.
What rules? What rule SAYS I *need* to paint my plastic models for my own plastic model faction in a certain way?
Necrons don't exist. Plastic toys do. I think people should paint their toys how they like. A necron army painted like that is immersion breaking
So would be a badly painted army. Are you going to mandate that armies MUST be painted to a certain ability? How about bases? If an army is mounted on lava bases and they're fighting on a city tabletop, that'll break immersion too.
Immersion can be good, but it's not FORCED.
120227
Post by: Karol
What rules? What rule SAYS I *need* to paint my plastic models for my own plastic model faction in a certain way?
Necrons don't exist. Plastic toys do. I think people should paint their toys how they like.
You just can't be serious here. There is thread like at least every 2-3 weeks, where people who like painting compare those who don't want or like painting to people who don't wash, aren't part of the hobby "for real" and grandstand that painting is not only part of the hobby, but actualy its core and main thing, and everyone who doesn't see it that way is not just wrong, but almost moraly wrong. And then , aside for social rules, there is also GW rules regarding playing of armies. Automatically Appended Next Post: So would be a badly painted army. Are you going to mandate that armies MUST be painted to a certain ability? How about bases? If an army is mounted on lava bases and they're fighting on a city tabletop, that'll break immersion too.
There is a difference between someone doing something bad or not perfect and someone doing something bad on purpose.
A church in Zakopany with the "sun sign" on the tile floor is not the same thing, as some dudes running around under green flags proclaiming the coming of the sons of Aryus.
71547
Post by: Sgt_Smudge
Karol wrote:What rules? What rule SAYS I *need* to paint my plastic models for my own plastic model faction in a certain way?
Necrons don't exist. Plastic toys do. I think people should paint their toys how they like.
You just can't be serious here. There is thread like at least every 2-3 weeks, where people who like painting compare those who don't want or like painting to people who don't wash, aren't part of the hobby "for real" and grandstand that painting is not only part of the hobby, but actualy its core and main thing, and everyone who doesn't see it that way is not just wrong, but almost moraly wrong.
That's not a rule. That's people sharing their opinions.
Show me where it is *against the rules* to paint my models in a certain way. And then , aside for social rules, there is also GW rules regarding playing of armies.
Show me those rules where GW have enforced that, in my own home games, I need to paint my models a certain way.
The only rule that exists, as far as I know, is that for GW events at WHW, if your faction is supposed to represent an existing faction, your paint scheme should reflect that. If you're explicitly playing Ultramarines, they should look like Ultramarines. But what if I'm playing my Pride of the Emperor homebrew faction? There's no enforced colour scheme there.
And, as helpfully linked above, the article featuring cross-hatched Orks in very vivid colours. GW have featured that, therefore that's fine, right? Automatically Appended Next Post: Karol wrote:So would be a badly painted army. Are you going to mandate that armies MUST be painted to a certain ability? How about bases? If an army is mounted on lava bases and they're fighting on a city tabletop, that'll break immersion too.
There is a difference between someone doing something bad or not perfect and someone doing something bad on purpose.
An army painted in a colours you don't approve of isn't "bad", for a start. And no, if you're going to use the "immersion" argument, no, they're the same thing.
A church in Zakopany with the "sun sign" on the tile floor is not the same thing, as some dudes running around under green flags proclaiming the coming of the sons of Aryus.
I genuinely have no clue what you're talking about.
99475
Post by: a_typical_hero
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:The difference between LBGT+ and "super straight" is that one is a reactionary effort to invalidate the other. The two are not the same.
Ultimately, you can think it's weird to you, but I'd also say that there's a great many things that I'd consider "weird" which people tend to do more often (certain real world iconography on certain factions, for instance, which I'm sure you can pick up my inference). And again, it's not so much "so no-one misses the message", it's more of an exercise of self expression. In much the same way that someone might play a certain faction because it might hold significance to them (ie, an ex-soldier playing Imperial Guard because they have a specific resonance with the footslogging infantryman), someone may choose to paint colours that hold significance to them. I don't really see how that's weird, personally.
Not a big fan of people who put problematic real world iconography on their models either, for that matter. I'm not in your shoes and don't have a fundamental problem with LGBT people either.
If you paint your models in rainbow colors, I understand it as you want to show me that either you are part of the community, or support it's ideals. It is weird to me in the same way somebody telling me "I'm straight and support the classical family picture" everytime we sit down to have a game. It is just not the right platform for me to express this.
71547
Post by: Sgt_Smudge
a_typical_hero wrote: Sgt_Smudge wrote:The difference between LBGT+ and "super straight" is that one is a reactionary effort to invalidate the other. The two are not the same.
Ultimately, you can think it's weird to you, but I'd also say that there's a great many things that I'd consider "weird" which people tend to do more often (certain real world iconography on certain factions, for instance, which I'm sure you can pick up my inference). And again, it's not so much "so no-one misses the message", it's more of an exercise of self expression. In much the same way that someone might play a certain faction because it might hold significance to them (ie, an ex-soldier playing Imperial Guard because they have a specific resonance with the footslogging infantryman), someone may choose to paint colours that hold significance to them. I don't really see how that's weird, personally.
Not a big fan of people who put problematic real world iconography on their models either, for that matter. I'm not in your shoes and don't have a fundamental problem with LGBT people either.
Just to clarify, I wasn't claiming that you did - only that it's vastly more common for people to do *that* than it is for people to have queer colour schemes, and yet that "weirdness" is much less often called out by folks (not you specifically).
If you paint your models in rainbow colors, I understand it as you want to show me that either you are part of the community, or support it's ideals. It is weird to me in the same way somebody telling me "I'm straight and support the classical family picture" everytime we sit down to have a game. It is just not the right platform for me to express this.
Alternatively, it's an artistic hobby. Why shouldn't it be the right platform? Every model is a canvas by which people can artistically express themselves. That could be in creating an awesome immersive and detailed army, a Blanchitsu gothic horror warband, or simply getting to paint bright and vivid colours. Explicitly saying "I'm straight and support the classical family" is very different to having a set of colours that signify something emotionally resonant to someone. They are both methods of communicating an idea, but one is done via art and implicit self-expression - the other has no self-expression beyond simply saying those words. There's a hell of a difference there.
You understand it as "you want to show me you're part of the community", but I don't think that's always the case - for me, if I were to do so, it wouldn't be to show "you", it would be self-expression for expression's sake. It's not trying to prove a point to someone, but just to express myself in my army. That's not trying to prove something, it's just expressing enjoyment, in much the same way that someone who likes a certain colour might feature that on their models.
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
Sgt_Smudge wrote:a_typical_hero wrote:Sexual orientation or gender identity of you or your models is irrelevant to me. Representing it on your models via paint scheme to make sure nobody misses the message just makes you a weirdo to me. I would still play you if you are pleasant to have a game with, but it remains weird. The example in question mentions LGBT painting, but I would think the same about a "super straight" scheme or other stuff.
The difference between LBGT+ and "super straight" is that one is a reactionary effort to invalidate the other. The two are not the same.
Ultimately, you can think it's weird to you, but I'd also say that there's a great many things that I'd consider "weird" which people tend to do more often (certain real world iconography on certain factions, for instance, which I'm sure you can pick up my inference). And again, it's not so much "so no-one misses the message", it's more of an exercise of self expression. In much the same way that someone might play a certain faction because it might hold significance to them (ie, an ex-soldier playing Imperial Guard because they have a specific resonance with the footslogging infantryman), someone may choose to paint colours that hold significance to them. I don't really see how that's weird, personally.
It's probably weird to him because to some people the concept of basing your identity as a person on your sexuality is weird.
71547
Post by: Sgt_Smudge
 Sim-Life wrote:It's probably weird to him because to some people the concept of basing your identity as a person on your sexuality is weird.
Basing, as if your entire identity revolves around sexuality and gender? Of course not. But embracing and accepting that your sexuality and gender makes up a part of your identity? I don't see why that's an issue.
That may be a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to "have pride". It's not that your entire personality is based off of that facet, in the same way that a football supporter wearing the colours of their team is "based" off of their love for a football team, or that someone wearing a band or fandom shirt has their identity "based" in that fandom or band. It is simply "this is part of who I am, and I want to express that, if only for myself".
People who model their Space Marines as Star Wars stormtroopers aren't basing their whole identity as Star Wars fans, and people who paint their models in queer colours aren't basing their whole identity off of their queerness.
105694
Post by: Lord Damocles
If it's not on my models, how will I signal my virtues to you though?
71547
Post by: Sgt_Smudge
Ah, yes. Of course the only reason someone has to express themselves is virtue signalling. /s Do you think that people who wear band merch are virtue signalling? People who wear sports team colours? Ooh, here's a big one - national flags, or things like poppies? I'd love to see you call most of the UK population virtue signallers on 11/11. 
40509
Post by: G00fySmiley
I paint my marines and CSM in the same blue to green color change colors with rosegold and gun metal trim. that way they can be a split off chapter of any legion or a splinter chaos marine warband who adopted new colors. The only time it actually matters is GW stores (manager dependent) or tournaments, and tournaments from my experience are always open to custom chapters of chaos, renegade, or loyalists, but less open to say a decaled iron hands army played as ultramarines.
99475
Post by: a_typical_hero
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Ah, yes. Of course the only reason someone has to express themselves is virtue signalling. /s
Do you think that people who wear band merch are virtue signalling? People who wear sports team colours? Ooh, here's a big one - national flags, or things like poppies?
I'd love to see you call most of the UK population virtue signallers on 11/11.
I understand Sgt. Smudge's reasoning, I just dont share it. No need to assume anything (and lowkey be disrespectful to others).
119380
Post by: Blndmage
You you say that to the child who's excitedly showing off their Necrons?
I was amazed (and happy) when I asked them if they'd thought about what colors they want to use, and, since they still adorably struggle with Rs, they confidently said "P ide Nec ons!".
71547
Post by: Sgt_Smudge
 G00fySmiley wrote:The only time it actually matters is GW stores (manager dependent) or tournaments, and tournaments from my experience are always open to custom chapters of chaos, renegade, or loyalists, but less open to say a decaled iron hands army played as ultramarines.
Aye, I think that's the only real time when GW stores might be like "hey, come on now, that's not quite in the spirit of how we do things".
In terms of any actual codified rules, as long as you're not passing off a very recognisable scheme as another, you're totally fine in GW's eyes.
129860
Post by: TheBestBucketHead
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Yes, they are. Their comment implies that for me to express myself and not live invisibly is "political". I shouldn't have to be invisible for my life not to be considered "political". It shouldn't be political for me to *say what I am*. I hate pride flags as a gay man, and my girlfriend hates trans flags. I don't want pride.
Good for you. I do want to take Pride. And as a fellow human being, I would have expected you to have some empathy with people who want to enjoy the way they live their lives, instead of having to pretend it doesn't exist because it's "political". If the pride flags weren't ugly as sin, I'd probably play against pridecrons as well.
Just so we're clear, it's purely because you don't like certain schemes on an aesthetic level? So, if there was a canon colour scheme that I didn't like, you'd also entirely support me not wanting to play against it, because it's also "ugly as sin"?
I'm also curious, which Pride flags? All of them? Some of them are very simple colour schemes, and are pretty much canon anyways - the ace flag is greyscale with purple as an accent colour. Agender and aro are both green and greyscale. What's the issue with those schemes?
The ork jet in the linked article above uses colours predominantly from the pan flag. Would you refuse against that?
Yeah, feel free to deny a game because color schemes are ugly. I think plenty of official color schemes turn me off from wanting to fight the army. I'm not a fan of the golden Custodes, but like the non golden variants. One or two minis might not be enough to turn me off from fighting an army, unless it's a big center piece. If there was a pan flag Magnus, I might not play against it.
However, saying that pride flags are political is not telling you that you cannot express yourself and should remain invisible. What kind of logic is that? It's not political to say that you're different. Also, I have empathy for people in rough spots due to being gay, trans, or whatever they're going through. I also am fine with people doing literally anything they want, as long as it doesn't harm someone else. If you enjoy going out and waving a pride flag around, or painting all of your minis as trans icons, or just doing things relating to the LGBT community all day, I probably wouldn't be your friend, because I find all of that boring, and counter intuitive to what I want, which is stuff being normal, rather than talking about how much pride I have that... I like men?
102537
Post by: Sgt. Cortez
It's actually pretty easy to find an explanation for most color schemes in 40K since the galaxy is just that big. Rainbow colored Necrons are no problem (metals on their tomb world; Lord gone mad and painted everything crazy; it's just an interesting reflection of the atmosphere of the planet, whatever).
It's a tougher sell if all the Necrons are actually meant to be queer of some kind, because why would 60 Mio. years old feudal murder robots from outer space share any connection to/ heraldry of the 21st century LGBT movement? (On the other hand, rule of cool explains Viking Space Marines, Vampire Space marines, Mongol Space Marines, Samurai Space Elves, Zombie Space Marines, so even that wouldn't be unfitting for 40K)
52675
Post by: Deadnight
Karol wrote:
You that sounds awefuly like some dudes explaining in courts here why they should be allowed to run around with "sun signs" because it was, and still regionaly is, used as a marking by the highland clans here.
It's almost like the context is different....
Karol wrote:
Case by case means favouritism steps in and personal bias. When the rule is no talking durning matches is the rule, it is clear and precise. No one has to worry what the talk is potentialy about, why there was talking, who started it etc. The olympic comitte says no.
What? And an absolute unbending set of rules doesn't also means favouritism, personal bias? You're being naive.
And Of course, rules shouldn't be followed 'just because'. the 'why' matters Karol.
Karol wrote:
As soon as you say X is allowed there are going to be people asking for Y, Z and Q etc and in always ends in total chaos. And then that is a real catastrophy for a community, unless someone is lucky enough to be in places where 100+ people play and the groups can divide themselfs.
Yes, and?
the alternative of forced conformity and limited expressiveness isn't destructive?
Karol wrote:
And even then it is bad blood, because who takes the terrain or the venue etc I see it happen and it is never a good thing.
That kind of catfighting is endemic in gaming communities. It has nothing to do with whether you want to paint your marines in rainbow colours.
Karol wrote:
Strickt clear rules and staying within them is the base way to function.
I mean, sure, but only to an extent. Most of our progress as a society is because of people giving the finger to 'strict clear rules and staying within them' - or do you want to return to the days of being a foredlock tugging serf with no rights, living a life of grinding poverty and back breaking work who existed at the whim of his 'betters'.
We are assuming 'the rules' are fit for purpose, otherwise we are heading for repression and a police state. What happens if the rules themselves are broken? There is a reaaon folk heroes who flouted unfair laws and rules (like Nottinghams other hero, Robin Hood) are celebrated.
Karol wrote:
And the less politics or personal life in games with strangers, the better. Although the last one is my own personal opinion.
Nah, I'd rather play a person, not an NPC. It's a social hobby after all.
129860
Post by: TheBestBucketHead
Thinking about it, I feel trans flag paint schemes probably would look better on Infinity models than 40k models. Knights Hospitaller could look pretty good.
71547
Post by: Sgt_Smudge
 TheBestBucketHead wrote: Sgt_Smudge wrote: Yes, they are. Their comment implies that for me to express myself and not live invisibly is "political". I shouldn't have to be invisible for my life not to be considered "political". It shouldn't be political for me to *say what I am*. I hate pride flags as a gay man, and my girlfriend hates trans flags. I don't want pride.
Good for you. I do want to take Pride. And as a fellow human being, I would have expected you to have some empathy with people who want to enjoy the way they live their lives, instead of having to pretend it doesn't exist because it's "political". If the pride flags weren't ugly as sin, I'd probably play against pridecrons as well.
Just so we're clear, it's purely because you don't like certain schemes on an aesthetic level? So, if there was a canon colour scheme that I didn't like, you'd also entirely support me not wanting to play against it, because it's also "ugly as sin"?
I'm also curious, which Pride flags? All of them? Some of them are very simple colour schemes, and are pretty much canon anyways - the ace flag is greyscale with purple as an accent colour. Agender and aro are both green and greyscale. What's the issue with those schemes?
The ork jet in the linked article above uses colours predominantly from the pan flag. Would you refuse against that?
Yeah, feel free to deny a game because color schemes are ugly. I think plenty of official color schemes turn me off from wanting to fight the army. I'm not a fan of the golden Custodes, but like the non golden variants. One or two minis might not be enough to turn me off from fighting an army, unless it's a big center piece. If there was a pan flag Magnus, I might not play against it.
So, just to clarify, would you turn down the game against those aforementioned Orks, because the jet uses pan colours?
You'd turn a game down against a Doom Legion army or 9th company Raven Guard because their colour scheme looks like either the aro or ace flags respectively?
However, saying that pride flags are political is not telling you that you cannot express yourself and should remain invisible. What kind of logic is that? It's not political to say that you're different.
Except allegedly it is, if I do so using specific colours. If I choose to express myself via a common mode of expression (flags, within semiotics, are almost perfect signifiers), that's "political" apparently, and shouldn't be done.
It's not even that I'm "different", it's that "I am". It's not about defining in opposition to someone else, it's simply stating that you ARE what you are.
Also, I have empathy for people in rough spots due to being gay, trans, or whatever they're going through. I also am fine with people doing literally anything they want, as long as it doesn't harm someone else.
So why shouldn't people be able to paint queer-inspired colour schemes on their minis? Why is that a bad thing you'd reject? You say you're fine with it, but also that you'd turn it down. Perhaps you meant to say "I'm fine with people doing it, so long as I don't have to see it"? If you enjoy going out and waving a pride flag around, or painting all of your minis as trans icons, or just doing things relating to the LGBT community all day, I probably wouldn't be your friend, because I find all of that boring, and counter intuitive to what I want, which is stuff being normal, rather than talking about how much pride I have that... I like men?
And you're well within your rights to do that - but you say "being normal", implying that taking pride shouldn't be normal. Why shouldn't that be normal? What's abnormal about showing your pride in something? People do it with the merch they buy, the team colours they wear, the factions they choose to paint their army as. Why is self-expression of gender or sexuality worse than one's self-expression of a favoured faction or pop culture media, or sports team, or nation?
Again, not here to force people to do anything, but I want to make it very clear that I expect the same level of "expression isn't allowed" on things beyond gender and sexuality, if you're going to be consistent.
52675
Post by: Deadnight
As an irishman, if I can celebrate Saint Patrick's day (And if you've ever even heard of Guinness, you can count yourself as Irish on the day and join the craic with us), or if my wife can wear her football teams maroon jersey* on any given game day, let alone a day they do well, its perfectly fair that my gay friends and family can celebrate pride. They're not the ones out there crushing people.
It is normal.
*I painted one bloodbowl team in her teams colours; and I painted the orks in teal, blaxk and white to be like my nfl team - jacksonville jags. So we have 'Tyne Castle Terrors' versus Axe Devil's jag-waaaaghs. Painting any variation of pride is ok in my book.
71547
Post by: Sgt_Smudge
Sgt. Cortez wrote:It's actually pretty easy to find an explanation for most color schemes in 40K since the galaxy is just that big. Rainbow colored Necrons are no problem (metals on their tomb world; Lord gone mad and painted everything crazy; it's just an interesting reflection of the atmosphere of the planet, whatever).
It's a tougher sell if all the Necrons are actually meant to be queer of some kind, because why would 60 Mio. years old feudal murder robots from outer space share any connection to/ heraldry of the 21st century LGBT movement? (On the other hand, rule of cool explains Viking Space Marines, Vampire Space marines, Mongol Space Marines, Samurai Space Elves, Zombie Space Marines, so even that wouldn't be unfitting for 40K)
I think it's potentially better to look at it as "why wouldn't they be"? We already know that the Necrontyr had plenty of (perhaps not the right word) humanity and spanned all across various gender and sexuality lines - and we also know that a not-insignificant amount of Necron nobility still maintain a good deal of their personality. Sure, they might still be robots and not, you know, ever act on their sexualities or genders, but they would still *be* that way.
Plus, I think it's important to also emphasise that being queer or LGBT isn't a "modern" phenomenon. People have been queer for as long as people have existed. I'd be more surprised if only humanity were, and the Necrontyr simply weren't. As for heraldry, I suppose it's in much a similar way that any heraldry in 40k exists - it looks cool to *us*, a player base. With how far humanity has developed in 40k, certain elements of iconography probably shouldn't exist as they have, but for us, as a modern audience, the contextual cues that said icons bring work for us specifically. Things like the Space Wolves having Viking symbology, or the Black Templars having Crusader sigils, are more for *us* than they are for any in-universe reason.
TheBestBucketHead wrote:Thinking about it, I feel trans flag paint schemes probably would look better on Infinity models than 40k models. Knights Hospitaller could look pretty good.
Harlequins too! Honestly, I'd love to see what could be done with queer-coded colour schemes within a Harlequin troupe.
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
Lord Damocles wrote:The barely sentient genocidal kill-bots saying gay rights matter as they slaughter everyone is pretty cringy to be honest.
do they have to be saying it? Can't we just have a tomb world that happens to use rainbow colors?
131322
Post by: DeadliestIdiot
"As always, you and your opponent can play using whichever rules you agree on...." - first paragraph of the content validity update. GW officially says it's alright to play by whatever rules you want so long as your opponent agrees...that extends to paint. If you and your opponent can't agree, a game doesn't take place. This is all a nonissue. Can it be confusing for those who have it ingrained in their head that certain rules are tied to certain paint schemes? Sure, but if there's a game taking place, you've already agreed it's okay. If you're not okay with it (and I can't stress this enough) politely decline to play against them. Tell them it's just so ingrained in your head that it would cause constant mistakes on your part. It's okay for that to be the case and it's really cool that your that close to the game that you've been able to develop that association.
102537
Post by: Sgt. Cortez
Sgt_Smudge wrote:Sgt. Cortez wrote:It's actually pretty easy to find an explanation for most color schemes in 40K since the galaxy is just that big. Rainbow colored Necrons are no problem (metals on their tomb world; Lord gone mad and painted everything crazy; it's just an interesting reflection of the atmosphere of the planet, whatever).
It's a tougher sell if all the Necrons are actually meant to be queer of some kind, because why would 60 Mio. years old feudal murder robots from outer space share any connection to/ heraldry of the 21st century LGBT movement? (On the other hand, rule of cool explains Viking Space Marines, Vampire Space marines, Mongol Space Marines, Samurai Space Elves, Zombie Space Marines, so even that wouldn't be unfitting for 40K)
I think it's potentially better to look at it as "why wouldn't they be"? We already know that the Necrontyr had plenty of (perhaps not the right word) humanity and spanned all across various gender and sexuality lines - and we also know that a not-insignificant amount of Necron nobility still maintain a good deal of their personality. Sure, they might still be robots and not, you know, ever act on their sexualities or genders, but they would still *be* that way.
Plus, I think it's important to also emphasise that being queer or LGBT isn't a "modern" phenomenon. People have been queer for as long as people have existed. I'd be more surprised if only humanity were, and the Necrontyr simply weren't. As for heraldry, I suppose it's in much a similar way that any heraldry in 40k exists - it looks cool to *us*, a player base. With how far humanity has developed in 40k, certain elements of iconography probably shouldn't exist as they have, but for us, as a modern audience, the contextual cues that said icons bring work for us specifically. Things like the Space Wolves having Viking symbology, or the Black Templars having Crusader sigils, are more for *us* than they are for any in-universe reason.
Overall I agree. But I'm hesitant by some underlying implications. So these guys are evil robots that enslaved their peasantry even when they were alive and not robots. Most of them are crazy and their kind of government is absolutism. Some of them also want to erase all live in the galaxy. Oh, and in case of my tomb world they're also all queer (as you can see).
I lack the language skills to go deeper into it and we're heading full on politics but it's similar to how I dislike a diverse cast in movies that want to be otherwize historically accurate. If you do a movie about european christian monarchies, don't pretend they got along fine with blacks and allowed homosexuality because they simply didn't and you're not doing any good by showing revisionist history.
What I'm saying is: Paint your Necrons in pride colors. Even do it because you want to express yourself. But I don't find it fitting to shoehorn a good cause on an evil fantasy faction, because it might make your good cause appear questionable. I'm guilty of writing too positive fan stories about my DG probably as well. There's simply little room in 40K for good causes.
129860
Post by: TheBestBucketHead
I think you're confusing my lack of want to fight an army painted in some of the ugliest color schemes imaginable as a belief that people shouldn't paint their armies the way they want. I paint a lot of my models black and red, and I know a lot of people think the color scheme is edgy, so they wouldn't like it. I don't care what they think, and they could refuse to play against my army if they thought it ugly.
People can do whatever they want. Just because I don't want to participate, suddenly I'm against them doing it at all? I don't care if football fans show pride in their team. I'm not fans with football fans, generally, and don't participate.
I'm also not saying that political things shouldn't be done. I'm not saying that you can't paint your minis or wave your flags in whatever political manner you want. I don't care. Just don't expect me to join.
And if you do it in public, guess what? I don't care. If I see minis with a trans color scheme, I might think "neat" and move on, because that's got to be hard to paint well. Why do I have to play against them, or suddenly I'm saying that you should paint your minis how I want, why would it mean that I'm saying that you can't be political, why would it mean I'm saying that "You can paint it, just don't show me"?
I am a person who believes that people can do whatever they want. I do not give a gak if your necrons are painted in the ugliest colors ever, or are painted as a rainbow. I probably wouldn't play against someone who used a paint scheme from my Highschool. Black and Teal just looks ugly. Remember, people can paint whatever they want. People can do whatever they want. I can refuse playing if I find it ugly.
Also, the reason I'm against pride is because being gay/trans/lgbt in general is not a culture or common collective thing to band together about. Me being gay shouldn't matter for anything besides who I want to date. Normal doesn't mean straight. It means that it's not special. I'm not special for being gay. If someone invited me to a gay pride event, or requested that I give advice for a "gay lifestyle", I would refuse the first, and be confused by the second.
And I'm not sure if I'd refuse playing against you for how your orks are painted. It depends on how good it looks. Automatically Appended Next Post: Sgt_Smudge wrote:Sgt. Cortez wrote:
TheBestBucketHead wrote:Thinking about it, I feel trans flag paint schemes probably would look better on Infinity models than 40k models. Knights Hospitaller could look pretty good.
Harlequins too! Honestly, I'd love to see what could be done with queer-coded colour schemes within a Harlequin troupe.
I could imagine Harlequins looking good with a variety of pride colors. I just think the pride colors try to stand out so much that they pick ugly colors a lot of the time. The only exceptions for me are the pride flag, before they started adding colors to the rainbow, and the trans flag. I just don\'t think the trans flag makes for a very good color scheme on its own on most minis.
130394
Post by: EviscerationPlague
Aecus Decimus wrote: Blndmage wrote:I've got a kid that wants pride coloured Necrons, warriors are trans, Scarabs are rainbow, the warden is non binary. Should I tell them they can't do it because the lore says so, or should I let them paint the army they want?
You're the parent, do what you want with your kid. But a lot of people are going to eyeroll at it and may or may not want to play with them, especially since it's a political statement.
Necrons would look stupid in those colors as would Marines, but I'm just gonna point out two things:
1. Anyone that denies a game with someone because of their paint scheme or lack thereof that's inoffensive is someone that shouldn't be in the hobby to begin with. If I saw someone paint their Necrons like that and they wanted a game, why should I care?
2. Basic human rights aren't a political statement. Arch telling you different is moronic.
71547
Post by: Sgt_Smudge
Sgt. Cortez wrote:Overall I agree. But I'm hesitant by some underlying implications. So these guys are evil robots that enslaved their peasantry even when they were alive and not robots. Most of them are crazy and their kind of government is absolutism. Some of them also want to erase all live in the galaxy. Oh, and in case of my tomb world they're also all queer (as you can see).
I don't follow. The Necrontyr were evil, but still had relationships. They still had identities. They lived, laughed, and loved. They weren't devoid of personality. They had partners, genders, and preferences. They weren't *good*, and most of their lords were probably despotic maniacs, but that doesn't preclude them from being queer. It's not even a case of "in my tomb world, they're queer", there's almost certainly queer Necrons in the same way there's queer Guardsmen, queer Eldar, queer Sororitas, etc - in that it's *normal*. Sautehk dynasty, Novohk, etc etc - definitely have nobility in their number who are. Someone painting their Necrons in a specific way isn't necessarily saying "HEY ALL MY NECRONS ARE QUEER", that is a personal choice of the painter to reflect whatever they want to reflect. I lack the language skills to go deeper into it and we're heading full on politics but it's similar to how I dislike a diverse cast in movies that want to be otherwize historically accurate. If you do a movie about european christian monarchies, don't pretend they got along fine with blacks and allowed homosexuality because they simply didn't and you're not doing any good by showing revisionist history.
But this doesn't make sense - the Necrons aren't real, and there's no indication that they *wouldn't* have queer members. As for historical revisionism, we can absolutely suggest that European Christian monarchies frowned on homosexuality (a subject I ought to educate myself on further, in case the reality is more nuanced than that), but that's not to say that people who we would now identify as LGBT+ did not exist. What I'm saying is: Paint your Necrons in pride colors. Even do it because you want to express yourself. But I don't find it fitting to shoehorn a good cause on an evil fantasy faction, because it might make your good cause appear questionable. I'm guilty of writing too positive fan stories about my DG probably as well. There's simply little room in 40K for good causes.
It's not a "good cause" though, it's existence. Simply being LGBT+ doesn't make you "good" or "bad" or "untouchable", it's just who someone is. Painting your Necrons in queer colours isn't saying "HEY MY NECRONS ARE GOOD BECAUSE THEY'RE INCLUSIVE, THEY'RE NOT THE BAD GUYS". It's not a "good cause", it's just artistic expression and player choice. Ultimately, we need to remember that these are plastic (or resin or metal) toy soldiers, and people might want to paint them in a certain way. TheBestBucketHead wrote:I think you're confusing my lack of want to fight an army painted in some of the ugliest color schemes imaginable as a belief that people shouldn't paint their armies the way they want. I paint a lot of my models black and red, and I know a lot of people think the color scheme is edgy, so they wouldn't like it. I don't care what they think, and they could refuse to play against my army if they thought it ugly.
Right, but what's that specifically got to do with Pride schemes? Are Pride schemes inherently ugly? There's no way that Pride colours could be arranged in an aesthetically pleasing way to you? Again, if you just wanted to say "if it's an ugly colour scheme, I won't play it", then that's fair, but you especially mentioned it in regards to this. This sounds like it's a case of mistaken intent, and if I have, I apologise, but it's just worth clarifying the point. People can do whatever they want. Just because I don't want to participate, suddenly I'm against them doing it at all? I don't care if football fans show pride in their team. I'm not fans with football fans, generally, and don't participate.
Cool, but someone else painting their models in a certain way doesn't force you into participating in that as well, any more so than someone playing Ultramarines forces you into being an Ultramarines player. I'm also not saying that political things shouldn't be done. I'm not saying that you can't paint your minis or wave your flags in whatever political manner you want. I don't care. Just don't expect me to join.
Yeah, no-one *expects* you to join in. Me painting my models in a certain way isn't expecting you to paint you models a different way. I don't really understand the objection you initially displayed. And if you do it in public, guess what? I don't care. If I see minis with a trans color scheme, I might think "neat" and move on, because that's got to be hard to paint well. Why do I have to play against them, or suddenly I'm saying that you should paint your minis how I want, why would it mean that I'm saying that you can't be political, why would it mean I'm saying that "You can paint it, just don't show me"?
You don't have to play them. No-one says you need to. The point I made about it being political is in reference to Aecus Decimus' comment that painting your models with LGBT+ colour schemes is "political" - showing LGBT+ visibility being "political". Aecus Decimus' comment implies that LGBT+ visibility should not be permitted on grounds that it is "political", not that they specifically just don't like seeing it. Remember, people can paint whatever they want. People can do whatever they want. I can refuse playing if I find it ugly.
Amazing - that's all totally fine and within your prerogative. However, the AFOREMENTIONED comment by Aecus Decimus did not imply that same belief. Also, the reason I'm against pride is because being gay/trans/lgbt in general is not a culture or common collective thing to band together about.
At the risk of being off topic, why not? And I'm sorry, but LGBT+ culture is very much a Thing, even if you specifically don't want to be a part of that culture, in much the same way I don't want to be considered part of the "culture" of the 40k hobby. Normal doesn't mean straight.
Unfortunately, there are many straight folks who would disagree with that, and the same applies for cisgender. If someone invited me to a gay pride event, or requested that I give advice for a "gay lifestyle", I would refuse the first, and be confused by the second.
And you are entirely justified to do so! But that doesn't mean that those things can't, shouldn't, or don't exist, and when we have people saying that simply having Pride is "political", that's an attack on the visibility of those aspects. And I'm not sure if I'd refuse playing against you for how your orks are painted. It depends on how good it looks.
There's literally a link in this thread to the orks I'm talking about. You can judge that for yourself - that's what I'm asking.
129860
Post by: TheBestBucketHead
I wrote a lot as a response, but I deleted it, and will give some quick responses.
Gay culture is something I'd rather define as pride culture. If you're like me, and don't fit into what is commonly defined as gay, it can lead to identity problems. I remember thinking that, maybe, I wasn't gay, just because I didn't act like how the 'culture' had defined.
I don't really care if someone paints what they want. When I was talking about participation, it was about playing. You kept questioning my want to refuse games because of paint schemes I'd dislike. I figure it's just a miscommunication issue, though.
I tried looking for your mini in question, and didn't see it, so I'm sorry. If you could post it again, I'll tell you what I think.
I won't respond anymore to anything in regards to the lgbt aspects of this discussion, as it is getting too personal, and I don't want to get too off topic.
130394
Post by: EviscerationPlague
TheBestBucketHead wrote:I paint a lot of my models black and red, and I know a lot of people think the color scheme is edgy,
Literally nobody thinks this unless they're a suburban mom
102537
Post by: Sgt. Cortez
Sgt_Smudge wrote:Sgt. Cortez wrote:Overall I agree. But I'm hesitant by some underlying implications. So these guys are evil robots that enslaved their peasantry even when they were alive and not robots. Most of them are crazy and their kind of government is absolutism. Some of them also want to erase all live in the galaxy. Oh, and in case of my tomb world they're also all queer (as you can see).
I don't follow. The Necrontyr were evil, but still had relationships. They still had identities. They lived, laughed, and loved. They weren't devoid of personality. They had partners, genders, and preferences. They weren't *good*, and most of their lords were probably despotic maniacs, but that doesn't preclude them from being queer.
It's not even a case of "in my tomb world, they're queer", there's almost certainly queer Necrons in the same way there's queer Guardsmen, queer Eldar, queer Sororitas, etc - in that it's *normal*. Sautehk dynasty, Novohk, etc etc - definitely have nobility in their number who are.
Someone painting their Necrons in a specific way isn't necessarily saying "HEY ALL MY NECRONS ARE QUEER", that is a personal choice of the painter to reflect whatever they want to reflect.
I lack the language skills to go deeper into it and we're heading full on politics but it's similar to how I dislike a diverse cast in movies that want to be otherwize historically accurate. If you do a movie about european christian monarchies, don't pretend they got along fine with blacks and allowed homosexuality because they simply didn't and you're not doing any good by showing revisionist history.
But this doesn't make sense - the Necrons aren't real, and there's no indication that they *wouldn't* have queer members.
As for historical revisionism, we can absolutely suggest that European Christian monarchies frowned on homosexuality (a subject I ought to educate myself on further, in case the reality is more nuanced than that), but that's not to say that people who we would now identify as LGBT+ did not exist.
What I'm saying is: Paint your Necrons in pride colors. Even do it because you want to express yourself. But I don't find it fitting to shoehorn a good cause on an evil fantasy faction, because it might make your good cause appear questionable. I'm guilty of writing too positive fan stories about my DG probably as well. There's simply little room in 40K for good causes.
It's not a "good cause" though, it's existence. Simply being LGBT+ doesn't make you "good" or "bad" or "untouchable", it's just who someone is. Painting your Necrons in queer colours isn't saying "HEY MY NECRONS ARE GOOD BECAUSE THEY'RE INCLUSIVE, THEY'RE NOT THE BAD GUYS". It's not a "good cause", it's just artistic expression and player choice.
Ultimately, we need to remember that these are plastic (or resin or metal) toy soldiers, and people might want to paint them in a certain way.
Well, in fact I like your way of thinking and there's a clear logic behind it. I'm just not convinced that it always works as we are still in times were sexuality is considered political - as we can see in this thread.
52675
Post by: Deadnight
TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I tried looking for your mini in question, and didn't see it, so I'm sorry. If you could post it again, I'll tell you what I think.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/04/23/feast-your-eyes-on-an-ork-army-unlike-anything-youve-seen-before/
I've seen her work before.its...exquisite.
As is Louise's sphinx.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/02/18/peer-into-the-mindstealer-of-the-expertsgw-homepage-post-4/
If a rainbow paint scheme looked anything like these, I'd happily play it once I'd ungooped myself from being a puddle on the floor.
Truthfully I'd be half tempted to forfeit on principle- no way I can roll against those exquisite models and take them off the board- and simply spend the game time gawking.
130394
Post by: EviscerationPlague
If those Orks are your definition of Rainbow, your definition is very skewed as that just means "anything with more than the three minimum colors". They're GOOD but they're not Rainbow.
132024
Post by: Aecus Decimus
Sgt_Smudge wrote:The difference between LBGT+ and "super straight" is that one is a reactionary effort to invalidate the other. The two are not the same.
And pride is a reactionary effort against bigotry and hate. Pride comes out of a literal riot against anti-gay laws and has, from day one, been about the political message that it's time for change, we're not tolerating any more oppression. It's a political message I happen to agree with but to pretend that pride is not political, that it's just Amazon and Walmart putting up rainbow flags on social media once a year, is simply not dealing with reality.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:I think it's potentially better to look at it as "why wouldn't they be"? We already know that the Necrontyr had plenty of (perhaps not the right word) humanity and spanned all across various gender and sexuality lines - and we also know that a not-insignificant amount of Necron nobility still maintain a good deal of their personality. Sure, they might still be robots and not, you know, ever act on their sexualities or genders, but they would still *be* that way.
Why wouldn't they? Because Necrons aren't human. Pride and LGBT identity exist in the very specific context of human culture, specifically a culture where LGBT people exist but are constrained by an oppressive system and adopt certain symbols as a refusal to be crushed by it. There might be Necrons that are attracted to the same gender (if Necrons even have gender in the way that humans do) but why would that be expressed in the same way that it is in humans? Is there any canon evidence that Necron culture is full of anti-gay bigotry and that a hypothetical gay Necron wouldn't be allowed to live their life as they please?
Sgt_Smudge wrote:It's not even a case of "in my tomb world, they're queer", there's almost certainly queer Necrons in the same way there's queer Guardsmen, queer Eldar, queer Sororitas, etc - in that it's *normal*. Sautehk dynasty, Novohk, etc etc - definitely have nobility in their number who are.
Why? You're falling into the common trope of assuming that aliens are just humans with pointy ears. Why would you assume that an alien species would have the same genetic or developmental glitch that causes homosexuality in humans? Hell, why are you assuming they even have the concept of attraction and relationships? Do they even have sexual reproduction? Maybe the old pre-robot Necrons reproduced by spreading pollen in the air and have no concept of selecting a mate. Maybe they reproduced by combining genetic material from groups of 10, with two representatives of each sex included in the group, and the concept of only being attracted to one of two genders (only two? WTF that's weird) would be as alien to them as the pollen-Necrons would be to us. Maybe they didn't have different sexes/genders at all!
Blndmage wrote:
You you say that to the child who's excitedly showing off their Necrons?
I was amazed (and happy) when I asked them if they'd thought about what colors they want to use, and, since they still adorably struggle with Rs, they confidently said "P ide Nec ons!".
No, because a child that young isn't going to understand virtue signaling. And they don't understand LGBT identities, the meaning of pride flags, etc either. I'd save any comments for the parents that are using their kids as a prop in their political statement.
(And oh god why would you introduce a child that young to 40k. This is not a kid-friendly setting!)
52675
Post by: Deadnight
EviscerationPlague wrote:
If those Orks are your definition of Rainbow, your definition is very skewed as that just means "anything with more than the three minimum colors". They're GOOD but they're not Rainbow.
Not skewed at all. Your usual snark aside, and while we are being pernickety, it would be what? Six, seven? But I'll settle for less too - pretty easy going guy here after all. 'If a pride scheme looked anything like these' - you know, Bright, vibrant, colourful palette? I guess you might need exhausting excruciating specificity on your statements but as a ballpark, it works well enough for me, so yeah I'll go with that.
But hey, you keep snarking. All the thumbs up.
And now back to stardew valley.
121131
Post by: Catulle
Aecus Decimus wrote: Sgt_Smudge wrote:The difference between LBGT+ and "super straight" is that one is a reactionary effort to invalidate the other. The two are not the same.
And pride is a reactionary effort against bigotry and hate.
That isn't what reactionary means within the context you've applied it, though (that of the two orientations, straight and "political"). You're coming off as operating more than a little in bad faith, so maybe you want to address that or rethink. Maybe not.
132024
Post by: Aecus Decimus
Catulle wrote:That isn't what reactionary means within the context you've applied it, though (that of the two orientations, straight and "political"). You're coming off as operating more than a little in bad faith, so maybe you want to address that or rethink. Maybe not.
Maybe this is a translation error then? Doesn't "reactionary" mean "in reaction to" in a general sense, not just a specific far-right political movement?
Regardless of the specific word the two concepts are very much equivalent:
"Super straight" exists purely as a political statement against LGBT rights. Certain political groups saw increasing expansion of LGBT rights, especially trans rights, and made up a new "identity" (which nobody actually has) to act as a rallying point for their political campaign. Take away that political context and you'd never hear about it.
LGBT pride exists purely as a political statement against anti-LGBT laws and culture. LGBT people got tired of being oppressed (remember, this is back when it was literally illegal to be gay in most countries), said "this is enough", and adopted pride flags as symbols of that defiance and their efforts to change the world. Take away the political context and you wouldn't have pride flags, there would be no more point to them than making up a pride flag for the fact that you mow your lawn once a week instead of once every two weeks.
The fact that I agree with one of those political statements and vehemently disagree with the other doesn't make them any less political.
130394
Post by: EviscerationPlague
Deadnight wrote:EviscerationPlague wrote:
If those Orks are your definition of Rainbow, your definition is very skewed as that just means "anything with more than the three minimum colors". They're GOOD but they're not Rainbow.
Not skewed at all. Your usual snark aside, and while we are being pernickety, it would be what? Six, seven? But I'll settle for less too - pretty easy going guy here after all. 'If a pride scheme looked anything like these' - you know, Bright, vibrant, colourful palette? I guess you might need exhausting excruciating specificity on your statements but as a ballpark, it works well enough for me, so yeah I'll go with that.
But hey, you keep snarking. All the thumbs up.
And now back to stardew valley.
How is that snarky? I'm just saying it's not very rainbow-y compared to the Sphinx you linked.
119380
Post by: Blndmage
Aecus Decimus wrote:
Blndmage wrote:
You you say that to the child who's excitedly showing off their Necrons?
I was amazed (and happy) when I asked them if they'd thought about what colors they want to use, and, since they still adorably struggle with Rs, they confidently said "P ide Nec ons!".
No, because a child that young isn't going to understand virtue signaling. And they don't understand LGBT identities, the meaning of pride flags, etc either. I'd save any comments for the parents that are using their kids as a prop in their political statement.
(And oh god why would you introduce a child that young to 40k. This is not a kid-friendly setting!)
1. I didn't say how old they are. They've been struggling with their R's for a very long time.
2. I'm trans, my spouse is non binary, and ace, our closest family is all over the place, we all rep as queer. My kids understand what that means.
3. As I've said before, I'm dying of blood cancer and am mostly stuck in bed. I play 40k with my family.
4. My Littles aren't props. Feth you.
Edit: you do know that there's a whole 40k for kids push right? Books, animated stuff, etc.
132024
Post by: Aecus Decimus
If a kid is young enough to referred to as a "little" then yeah, that's exactly what you're using them as, just like the people who show up with their small children at a protest and have the kids waving signs about tax policy or police reform or whatever. A small child does not have anywhere near enough of an understanding of LGBT identities and the social issues pride is a response to for a pride army to have any meaning beyond "my parents gave me this neat flag".
(And, again, a child that young should not be playing 40k at all, because JFC this is not a setting that is appropriate for young kids.)
129860
Post by: TheBestBucketHead
Thank you. They're definitely impressive, but I don't like them very much color wise. I hope not to come off as mean with this. It really does look good.
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
Aecus Decimus wrote:
(And, again, a child that young should not be playing 40k at all, because JFC this is not a setting that is appropriate for young kids.)
to be fair, you can play 40k with zero knowledge of the setting and still enjoy it
its glorified army men
121131
Post by: Catulle
Aecus Decimus wrote:
If a kid is young enough to referred to as a "little" then yeah, that's exactly what you're using them as, just like the people who show up with their small children at a protest and have the kids waving signs about tax policy or police reform or whatever. A small child does not have anywhere near enough of an understanding of LGBT identities and the social issues pride is a response to for a pride army to have any meaning beyond "my parents gave me this neat flag".
(And, again, a child that young should not be playing 40k at all, because JFC this is not a setting that is appropriate for young kids.)
At the risk of "translation issue, again" I have referred to my younger sister as my "little." She is forty.
99475
Post by: a_typical_hero
Definitely a translation thing. I would understand "littles" as someone way under 13. I'd imagine young enough to not be left alone at home.
Anyways, there is a school program from GW:
https://warhammer-alliance.com/uk/schools-programme/
It doesn't outright state what would be the target audience here, but it specifically mentions a program for 14+ year olds that sounds like the "advanced stuff".
I think you can teach a kid how to play 40k without mentioning the grimmer parts of the narrative.
121131
Post by: Catulle
I mean, we started with rogue trader on release at junior school.
119380
Post by: Blndmage
Warhammer Adventures
132024
Post by: Aecus Decimus
Catulle wrote:At the risk of "translation issue, again" I have referred to my younger sister as my "little." She is forty.
I suppose that's possible. I've only ever heard "little" used in two situations: adults with a parent/child fetish pretending to be small children for sexual reasons (which I desperately hope Blndmage is not referring to), and very rarely an actual small child, a 5 year old or younger. I don't think I've ever heard it used to describe a teenager, and certainly not an adult.
119380
Post by: Blndmage
Aecus Decimus wrote:Catulle wrote:At the risk of "translation issue, again" I have referred to my younger sister as my "little." She is forty.
I suppose that's possible. I've only ever heard "little" used in two situations: adults with a parent/child fetish pretending to be small children for sexual reasons (which I desperately hope Blndmage is not referring to), and very rarely an actual small child, a 5 year old or younger. I don't think I've ever heard it used to describe a teenager, and certainly not an adult.
Folks with Dissociative Identity Disorder also use the term "Littles" for younger headmates.
Probably many other uses. Don't assume you know everything.
132024
Post by: Aecus Decimus
Blndmage wrote:Folks with Dissociative Identity Disorder also use the term "Littles" for younger headmates.
Probably many other uses. Don't assume you know everything.
So to clarify then, the "littles" in question are not actual children?
119380
Post by: Blndmage
Aecus Decimus wrote: Blndmage wrote:Folks with Dissociative Identity Disorder also use the term "Littles" for younger headmates.
Probably many other uses. Don't assume you know everything.
So to clarify then, the "littles" in question are not actual children?
I'm not sure I understand, can you explain what you mean by "actual children"?
132024
Post by: Aecus Decimus
Blndmage wrote:I'm not sure I understand, can you explain what you mean by "actual children"?
A physical human less than 18 years old (and, in this context, less than 5-10 years old), not an alternate personality of an adult with a mental disorder.
130394
Post by: EviscerationPlague
Blndmage wrote:Aecus Decimus wrote:Catulle wrote:At the risk of "translation issue, again" I have referred to my younger sister as my "little." She is forty.
I suppose that's possible. I've only ever heard "little" used in two situations: adults with a parent/child fetish pretending to be small children for sexual reasons (which I desperately hope Blndmage is not referring to), and very rarely an actual small child, a 5 year old or younger. I don't think I've ever heard it used to describe a teenager, and certainly not an adult.
Folks with Dissociative Identity Disorder also use the term "Littles" for younger headmates.
Probably many other uses. Don't assume you know everything.
DID is so absurdly rare compared to what TikTokkers actually believe that it's not something people should really think about for the term Littles
119380
Post by: Blndmage
EviscerationPlague wrote: Blndmage wrote:Aecus Decimus wrote:Catulle wrote:At the risk of "translation issue, again" I have referred to my younger sister as my "little." She is forty.
I suppose that's possible. I've only ever heard "little" used in two situations: adults with a parent/child fetish pretending to be small children for sexual reasons (which I desperately hope Blndmage is not referring to), and very rarely an actual small child, a 5 year old or younger. I don't think I've ever heard it used to describe a teenager, and certainly not an adult.
Folks with Dissociative Identity Disorder also use the term "Littles" for younger headmates.
Probably many other uses. Don't assume you know everything.
DID is so absurdly rare compared to what TikTokkers actually believe that it's not something people should really think about for the term Littles
1.5-3% of the population, but that's assumed to be a low estimate.
If you respect transfolk's existence, respect folks suffering from DID, it's literally the result of intense, repeated trauma as a child.
71547
Post by: Sgt_Smudge
Aecus Decimus wrote: Sgt_Smudge wrote:The difference between LBGT+ and "super straight" is that one is a reactionary effort to invalidate the other. The two are not the same.
And pride is a reactionary effort against bigotry and hate. Pride comes out of a literal riot against anti-gay laws and has, from day one, been about the political message that it's time for change, we're not tolerating any more oppression. It's a political message I happen to agree with but to pretend that pride is not political, that it's just Amazon and Walmart putting up rainbow flags on social media once a year, is simply not dealing with reality.
I didn't refer to Pride. I referred to LGBT+ existence. As a user above mentioned, you can be LGBT+ without participating in Pride events, and that is a valid part of being LGBT+.
Simply being LGBT+ isn't political. Being explicitly "super straight" is.
Pride, as an event, is political - but that isn't what I was referring to.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:I think it's potentially better to look at it as "why wouldn't they be"? We already know that the Necrontyr had plenty of (perhaps not the right word) humanity and spanned all across various gender and sexuality lines - and we also know that a not-insignificant amount of Necron nobility still maintain a good deal of their personality. Sure, they might still be robots and not, you know, ever act on their sexualities or genders, but they would still *be* that way.
Why wouldn't they? Because Necrons aren't human. Pride and LGBT identity exist in the very specific context of human culture, specifically a culture where LGBT people exist but are constrained by an oppressive system and adopt certain symbols as a refusal to be crushed by it. There might be Necrons that are attracted to the same gender (if Necrons even have gender in the way that humans do) but why would that be expressed in the same way that it is in humans? Is there any canon evidence that Necron culture is full of anti-gay bigotry and that a hypothetical gay Necron wouldn't be allowed to live their life as they please?
Necrons aren't human, sure, but why wouldn't they have LGBT+ members and relationships and identities? We already know that queer behaviours exist outside of humanity (in many animal cases), so why *wouldn't* Necrons have those members.
If your grievance is "why would they use these specific colours!!", then I would also ask why does the Imperium use the same alphabet we do? Why do they have the same and similar cultural icons and motifs as we do? Why do they do half the stuff they do - because ultimately, they are a fictional product which we observe as 21st century viewers, and must make sense to *us*.
Plus, Necrons being IN queer-coded colours, as I said above, doesn't mean that they *are* queer. It is an input of the painter, not necessarily a reflection of the models.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:It's not even a case of "in my tomb world, they're queer", there's almost certainly queer Necrons in the same way there's queer Guardsmen, queer Eldar, queer Sororitas, etc - in that it's *normal*. Sautehk dynasty, Novohk, etc etc - definitely have nobility in their number who are.
Why? You're falling into the common trope of assuming that aliens are just humans with pointy ears. Why would you assume that an alien species would have the same genetic or developmental glitch that causes homosexuality in humans? Hell, why are you assuming they even have the concept of attraction and relationships? Do they even have sexual reproduction? Maybe the old pre-robot Necrons reproduced by spreading pollen in the air and have no concept of selecting a mate. Maybe they reproduced by combining genetic material from groups of 10, with two representatives of each sex included in the group, and the concept of only being attracted to one of two genders (only two? WTF that's weird) would be as alien to them as the pollen-Necrons would be to us. Maybe they didn't have different sexes/genders at all!
We know that the last section is demonstrably untrue, as we have evidence of Necrons using at least two (technically three) sets of pronouns (he, she, and they), and we have no evidence to believe that they *don't* feel that way. You say "genetic or developmental glitch" - who says it's a glitch? What if, in Necrontyr society, it's MORE widespread?
Fundamentally, we *don't* know, but at present, we can work with what we have, and that freedom to assume lets players do what they like. And, like you say, as we don't know, you can't say they're wrong to do so either.
[Kids] don't understand LGBT identities, the meaning of pride flags, etc either.
That's simply not true. As education, visibility, and awareness of queer identities becomes more acceptable (not to mention within communities where queer individuals are more prominent, like in BIndmage's case), this statement becomes outdated. Kids are aware of it, in the same way they're aware of racial identity, or national identity.
Aecus Decimus wrote:"Super straight" exists purely as a political statement against LGBT rights. Certain political groups saw increasing expansion of LGBT rights, especially trans rights, and made up a new "identity" (which nobody actually has) to act as a rallying point for their political campaign. Take away that political context and you'd never hear about it.
LGBT pride exists purely as a political statement against anti-LGBT laws and culture. LGBT people got tired of being oppressed (remember, this is back when it was literally illegal to be gay in most countries), said "this is enough", and adopted pride flags as symbols of that defiance and their efforts to change the world. Take away the political context and you wouldn't have pride flags, there would be no more point to them than making up a pride flag for the fact that you mow your lawn once a week instead of once every two weeks.
The fact that I agree with one of those political statements and vehemently disagree with the other doesn't make them any less political.
Again, I want to clarify that I didn't refer to Pride (the event) in my comment. I referred to LGBT+ existence. Pride, as an event, is political. Being LGBT+ is not. I compared being LGBT+ (an identity) with "super straight" (an identity). One identity is based on reactionary opposition to an idea or identity. The other is not.
Being LGBT+ is not political. Expressing it, likewise, is not a political act, any more so than expressing any part of oneself, from favourite colour to favourite period in history, is a political act.
130394
Post by: EviscerationPlague
Blndmage wrote:EviscerationPlague wrote: Blndmage wrote:Aecus Decimus wrote:Catulle wrote:At the risk of "translation issue, again" I have referred to my younger sister as my "little." She is forty.
I suppose that's possible. I've only ever heard "little" used in two situations: adults with a parent/child fetish pretending to be small children for sexual reasons (which I desperately hope Blndmage is not referring to), and very rarely an actual small child, a 5 year old or younger. I don't think I've ever heard it used to describe a teenager, and certainly not an adult.
Folks with Dissociative Identity Disorder also use the term "Littles" for younger headmates.
Probably many other uses. Don't assume you know everything.
DID is so absurdly rare compared to what TikTokkers actually believe that it's not something people should really think about for the term Littles
1.5-3% of the population, but that's assumed to be a low estimate.
If you respect transfolk's existence, respect folks suffering from DID, it's literally the result of intense, repeated trauma as a child.
That's entirely debated. Many sources site it to be much less than 1%.
Source: I literally work with a psychiatrist office
132024
Post by: Aecus Decimus
Sgt_Smudge wrote:Pride, as an event, is political - but that isn't what I was referring to.
But the context here is capital-P Pride, not merely LGBT existence. And pride flags, including the color combinations in non-flag form, are an overtly political thing.
Necrons aren't human, sure, but why wouldn't they have LGBT+ members and relationships and identities? We already know that queer behaviours exist outside of humanity (in many animal cases), so why *wouldn't* Necrons have those members.
Because we don't even know if Necrons have sexual dimorphism! The entire concept of "queer" doesn't exist if your species has only one sex and reproduces by indiscriminately spreading pollen clouds with no romantic or sexual relationships. Can real-world mushrooms be queer? Can a virus be queer? LGBT Necrons can only be assumed if you also assume the trope that aliens are humans with pointy ears, not alien beings where none of the assumptions about real-world biology and culture apply.
And, again, even if there are LGBT Necrons that doesn't mean there is capital-P Pride. That's a distinctly human product of a very specific cultural and historical context. Outside of that context of oppression and reaction against it there is no reason for Pride to be a thing. If nobody is trying to take your identity away why do you need to fight back to defend it? Defending Pride Necrons as fluffy requires making the assumption that not only do Necrons have the biology and culture for LGBT identities to exist at all, their culture is in the very specific period between fully effective oppression and successful dismantling of the oppressive system, where you can wave pride flags without immediately being arrested but there is still a need to do so. IOW, not only are the aliens merely humans with pointy ears they're stuck in a specific ~50-100 year period of US/ UK-centric human culture.
Plus, Necrons being IN queer-coded colours, as I said above, doesn't mean that they *are* queer. It is an input of the painter, not necessarily a reflection of the models.
Which is exactly the problem I have with it: it's using the army as a real-world political statement by the owner, not a representation of something that actually exists in the 40k setting.
That's simply not true. As education, visibility, and awareness of queer identities becomes more acceptable (not to mention within communities where queer individuals are more prominent, like in BIndmage's case), this statement becomes outdated. Kids are aware of it, in the same way they're aware of racial identity, or national identity.
Sorry, but no. A 3 year old doesn't understand national identity just because you can give them a flag and have them wave it around at your national holiday celebration. A 3 year old doesn't understand LGBT identity on any meaningful level, and they certainly don't understand the history of oppression that pride is a backlash against.
Expressing it, likewise, is not a political act, any more so than expressing any part of oneself, from favourite colour to favourite period in history, is a political act.
Those things are only non-political because there is no ongoing political debate involving them. That is clearly not the case with pride and LGBT rights.
119380
Post by: Blndmage
EviscerationPlague wrote: Blndmage wrote:EviscerationPlague wrote: Blndmage wrote:Aecus Decimus wrote:Catulle wrote:At the risk of "translation issue, again" I have referred to my younger sister as my "little." She is forty.
I suppose that's possible. I've only ever heard "little" used in two situations: adults with a parent/child fetish pretending to be small children for sexual reasons (which I desperately hope Blndmage is not referring to), and very rarely an actual small child, a 5 year old or younger. I don't think I've ever heard it used to describe a teenager, and certainly not an adult.
Folks with Dissociative Identity Disorder also use the term "Littles" for younger headmates.
Probably many other uses. Don't assume you know everything.
DID is so absurdly rare compared to what TikTokkers actually believe that it's not something people should really think about for the term Littles
1.5-3% of the population, but that's assumed to be a low estimate.
If you respect transfolk's existence, respect folks suffering from DID, it's literally the result of intense, repeated trauma as a child.
That's entirely debated. Many sources site it to be much less than 1%.
Source: I literally work with a psychiatrist office
*Has DID*
Trust me, I'm keeping up with the research. Also, google says 1.5%
121131
Post by: Catulle
Aecus Decimus wrote:Catulle wrote:At the risk of "translation issue, again" I have referred to my younger sister as my "little." She is forty.
I suppose that's possible. I've only ever heard "little" used in two situations: adults with a parent/child fetish pretending to be small children for sexual reasons (which I desperately hope Blndmage is not referring to), and very rarely an actual small child, a 5 year old or younger. I don't think I've ever heard it used to describe a teenager, and certainly not an adult.
It's just dropping the noun and I believe is on a par with such affectation as "yoof" or "olds". It perplexed me why you're making such a big deal of it, especially as a self-identified non-native speaker, and it makes me doubt your good faith.
130394
Post by: EviscerationPlague
Blndmage wrote:EviscerationPlague wrote: Blndmage wrote:EviscerationPlague wrote: Blndmage wrote:Aecus Decimus wrote:Catulle wrote:At the risk of "translation issue, again" I have referred to my younger sister as my "little." She is forty.
I suppose that's possible. I've only ever heard "little" used in two situations: adults with a parent/child fetish pretending to be small children for sexual reasons (which I desperately hope Blndmage is not referring to), and very rarely an actual small child, a 5 year old or younger. I don't think I've ever heard it used to describe a teenager, and certainly not an adult.
Folks with Dissociative Identity Disorder also use the term "Littles" for younger headmates.
Probably many other uses. Don't assume you know everything.
DID is so absurdly rare compared to what TikTokkers actually believe that it's not something people should really think about for the term Littles
1.5-3% of the population, but that's assumed to be a low estimate.
If you respect transfolk's existence, respect folks suffering from DID, it's literally the result of intense, repeated trauma as a child.
That's entirely debated. Many sources site it to be much less than 1%.
Source: I literally work with a psychiatrist office
*Has DID*
Trust me, I'm keeping up with the research. Also, google says 1.5%
That's a misrepresention as that statistic was collected:
1. In a specific area of the US (AKA they didn't look very far)
2. Also referring to 1.5% of the psychiatric patient population itself
You're keeping up with research doesn't matter to me to be honest when I work in the office with several licensed professionals. What's your occupation in relation?
71547
Post by: Sgt_Smudge
Aecus Decimus wrote: Sgt_Smudge wrote:Pride, as an event, is political - but that isn't what I was referring to.
But the context here is capital-P Pride, not merely LGBT existence.
That's not what I was talking about in the slightest. A person choosing to express their identity is not Pride. It is self-expression, and that is no more political than expressing your favourite colour. And pride flags, including the color combinations in non-flag form, are an overtly political thing.
They are also an expression of personal identity, which is not political. As I mentioned, flags are signifiers in semiotic theory - in that they can signify both beliefs and organisations, but also personal identities. Personal identities are not political. Necrons aren't human, sure, but why wouldn't they have LGBT+ members and relationships and identities? We already know that queer behaviours exist outside of humanity (in many animal cases), so why *wouldn't* Necrons have those members.
Because we don't even know if Necrons have sexual dimorphism! The entire concept of "queer" doesn't exist if your species has only one sex and reproduces by indiscriminately spreading pollen clouds with no romantic or sexual relationships. Can real-world mushrooms be queer? Can a virus be queer? LGBT Necrons can only be assumed if you also assume the trope that aliens are humans with pointy ears, not alien beings where none of the assumptions about real-world biology and culture apply.
We don't know about Necron dimorphism, but we *do* know that they have enough to distinction to have distinct *genders*. They might be one sex, or multiple sexes, but they can still be *queer*, because they have personalities, identities, and distinction within that culture. And again, for every time you say "BUT WHAT IF THEY DON'T HAVE THOSE THINGS", there's the counterpoint of "but what if they do"? You literally don't know. I think it should be down to the player to choose. And, again, even if there are LGBT Necrons that doesn't mean there is capital-P Pride.
For that last time, that's not what I'm talking about. Please, pick up some reading comprehension. IOW, not only are the aliens merely humans with pointy ears they're stuck in a specific ~50-100 year period of US/UK-centric human culture.
OR, they're fictional plastic minis that can be painted and repainted at the whim of real world humans who might choose certain colour schemes, and who can literally handwave any reason why their plastic war dollies can be painted in certain ways. Plus, Necrons being IN queer-coded colours, as I said above, doesn't mean that they *are* queer. It is an input of the painter, not necessarily a reflection of the models.
Which is exactly the problem I have with it: it's using the army as a real-world political statement by the owner, not a representation of something that actually exists in the 40k setting.
Except that self-expression *isn't political*, and EVERY paint choice is a real world decision on behalf of the owner, because they're just plastic models. If you want to talk about "representation of something that actually exists", then how do you justify bases being incongruous with the battlefield, or 'badly' painted/assembled minis, or the BOUNDLESS opportunity of things that *could* exist in 40k? I can make up whatever colour scheme I like as a homebrew. The setting's large enough to do so. My Necrons just happen to use a blue and gold scheme with pink accents that reflect the pan flag? Nope, that's because *insert fluff reason here*. They're plastic models. Everything to do with them is a choice from the owner - but choosing to reflect something about one's identity is no more political than choosing a faction because it has your favourite colour. That's simply not true. As education, visibility, and awareness of queer identities becomes more acceptable (not to mention within communities where queer individuals are more prominent, like in BIndmage's case), this statement becomes outdated. Kids are aware of it, in the same way they're aware of racial identity, or national identity.
Sorry, but no.
Sorry, but yes. A 3 year old doesn't understand national identity just because you can give them a flag and have them wave it around at your national holiday celebration. A 3 year old doesn't understand LGBT identity on any meaningful level, and they certainly don't understand the history of oppression that pride is a backlash against.
Are we talking about 3 year olds? We can specifically put an age on them? What happens when they're 5? 7? 9? You're the only one who's actually specified an age here - no-one else. And I'm pretty sure that anyone with a logical brain can understand that we're referring to kids a tad older than toddlers. Expressing it, likewise, is not a political act, any more so than expressing any part of oneself, from favourite colour to favourite period in history, is a political act.
Those things are only non-political because there is no ongoing political debate involving them. That is clearly not the case with pride and LGBT rights.
I don't care what some idiot says about *who I am and who I love* - my existence is not political, and I oppose anyone who suggests that. If you disagree with that, you can sincerely get in the bin.
132024
Post by: Aecus Decimus
Sgt_Smudge wrote:I don't care what some idiot says about *who I am and who I love* - my existence is not political, and I oppose anyone who suggests that. If you disagree with that, you can sincerely get in the bin.
Your existence is not political.
Your (possibly hypothetical) use of a political symbol that was created for the purpose of being a rallying point in political action is political. Maybe you should do some reading on the history of pride and pride flags and their origins as political symbols, not the current sanitized and corporate-friendly use?
And again, for every time you say "BUT WHAT IF THEY DON'T HAVE THOSE THINGS", there's the counterpoint of "but what if they do"?
Ok, let's use some common sense here. Which is more likely: that pride flag Necrons are a good-faith attempt at extrapolating from canon sources to decide the most likely interpretation of Necron culture, and that this effort concludes that their culture is a close mirror of an extremely specific era of real-world US/ UK-centric culture (one which does not align with even other real-world cultures and how they viewed LGBT identities/issues), or that the person with the army decided to make a political statement and any fluff justifications are nothing more than after the fact rationalizations of something they were going to do anyway.
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
So, just to be clear, you should only paint models that explicitly align with the fluff?
I'm not allowed to paint something because it rings true to me, or I think it looks cool, or anything like that?
Necrons aren't real. They're a fictional race of alien robot space mummies. Long time ago, when I was first getting into the hobby, I was gonna buy Necrons, paint them gold, give them sunglasses and other silly things, and even have a Tesserect Vault with a disco ball. Is that wrong?
119380
Post by: Blndmage
JNAProductions wrote:So, just to be clear, you should only paint models that explicitly align with the fluff?
I'm not allowed to paint something because it rings true to me, or I think it looks cool, or anything like that?
Necrons aren't real. They're a fictional race of alien robot space mummies. Long time ago, when I was first getting into the hobby, I was gonna buy Necrons, paint them gold, give them sunglasses and other silly things, and even have a Tesserect Vault with a disco ball. Is that wrong?
That sounds like a great themed force!
71547
Post by: Sgt_Smudge
Aecus Decimus wrote: Sgt_Smudge wrote:I don't care what some idiot says about *who I am and who I love* - my existence is not political, and I oppose anyone who suggests that. If you disagree with that, you can sincerely get in the bin.
Your existence is not political.
Really? Because you earlier claimed that expressing it was. Your (possibly hypothetical) use of a political symbol that was created for the purpose of being a rallying point in political action is political. Maybe you should do some reading on the history of pride and pride flags and their origins as political symbols, not the current sanitized and corporate-friendly use?
My person, I've done plenty of reading about *my own culture and history* thank you very much, and I know what the difference is. No matter the *origin* of said symbols, they are *currently* also in use as identifiers and as icons of personal identity. Maybe you should check who you're talking to before attempting to lecture me on this. And again, for every time you say "BUT WHAT IF THEY DON'T HAVE THOSE THINGS", there's the counterpoint of "but what if they do"?
Ok, let's use some common sense here.
Sure. They look humanoid, are created by humans, and otherwise show a human-like style of culture, or at the very least, one easily understood by us humans in the 21st century. They use language and pronouns and societal constructs which mirror those seen on our own cultures and histories. Our own cultures and histories feature queer individuals from across all times and places throughout said cultures and histories. I think it's quite likely that there are queer Necrons, and because we are a 21st century audience with our own specific cultural recognitions and icons, any designs and artistic choices are done with consideration to that. Why are Black Templars adorned with images that evoke Crusader Knights? Because that is visual shorthand for a 21st century audience. Why is Ferrus Manus called Ferrus Manus? Because it is a name with specific connotations and themes for a 21st century audience. Why do Necrons have a lot of Egyptian styling in their designs? Because it has specific aesthetic connotations for a 21st century audience. You go on to talk about "most likely interpretation of Necron culture" - why does their culture have them coloured in the way they currently are? Why do they have Egyptian styled names and designs? Why do they have scarabs and not some other weird alien bug? Why do they use scythes and not something entirely different? Because they do, because someone decided to, because they're plastic minis, and they ain't real. Which is more likely: that pride flag Necrons are a good-faith attempt at extrapolating from canon sources to decide the most likely interpretation of Necron culture, and that this effort concludes that their culture is a close mirror of an extremely specific era of real-world US/UK-centric culture (one which does not align with even other real-world cultures and how they viewed LGBT identities/issues), or that the person with the army decided to make a political statement and any fluff justifications are nothing more than after the fact rationalizations of something they were going to do anyway.
Don't care - they're plastic minis, and the owner of said minis can do whatever the hell they like, so long as it doesn't hurt or threaten someone else. It doesn't matter to me in the slightest what they do. And, at the risk of getting tired of repeating this to you, expressing yourself is not a political statement. Right now, my signature on this site is self-expression. Is me saying how I wish to be recognised a political statement to you? JNAProductions wrote:So, just to be clear, you should only paint models that explicitly align with the fluff? I'm not allowed to paint something because it rings true to me, or I think it looks cool, or anything like that?
Absolutely, this too! Should models NEED to be painted to reflect the fluff? Can models not be painted for artistic choice of the painter? Why do they need to be done to create a sense of verisimilitude? Hell, just look at the link to the warcom article with the amazing Ork paint jobs in it - I don't think you'd call that "fluff accurate", and yet, there's GW promoting it.
132024
Post by: Aecus Decimus
JNAProductions wrote:I'm not allowed to paint something because it rings true to me, or I think it looks cool, or anything like that?
You're allowed to do whatever you want. Whether or not I'll have any interest in playing against your army or think it looks good is an entirely different question.
Necrons aren't real. They're a fictional race of alien robot space mummies. Long time ago, when I was first getting into the hobby, I was gonna buy Necrons, paint them gold, give them sunglasses and other silly things, and even have a Tesserect Vault with a disco ball. Is that wrong?
It's wrong in that I think it would look terrible and I'd have very little interest in playing a game with you if that's the army you want to use. Whether or not you care about my opinion is up to you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Smudge wrote:Maybe you should check who you're talking to before attempting to lecture me on this.
Are you a historian with professional expertise in this field? If so I apologize for not recognizing your credentials.
Sure. They look humanoid, are created by humans, and otherwise show a human-like style of culture, or at the very least, one easily understood by us humans in the 21st century. They use language and pronouns and societal constructs which mirror those seen on our own cultures and histories. Our own cultures and histories feature queer individuals from across all times and places throughout said cultures and histories. I think it's quite likely that there are queer Necrons, and because we are a 21st century audience with our own specific cultural recognitions and icons, any designs and artistic choices are done with consideration to that.
Those aren't canon explanations, they're out of universe recognition of the "aliens are humans with pointy ears" trope and GW's limited writing talent.
Why are Black Templars adorned with images that evoke Crusader Knights? Because that is visual shorthand for a 21st century audience.
Why is Ferrus Manus called Ferrus Manus? Because it is a name with specific connotations and themes for a 21st century audience.
One huge difference here: those characters are part of a culture that is a direct descendant from real-world human culture. Black Templars use crusader iconography because they're human crusaders in service to a theocracy that takes a lot of its aesthetic cues from historical Christian churches. You might as well ask why real-world churches still use the cross iconography instead of inventing something new.
Right now, my signature on this site is self-expression. Is me saying how I wish to be recognised a political statement to you?
No, because your signature has a practical function: stating the pronouns required to have a conversation involving you. That is not at all equivalent to using a political symbol in a context where expressing that identity is not in any way relevant to the activity.
113969
Post by: TangoTwoBravo
I guess painting will join the list of forbidden subjects?
In the meantime, it might seem unfair but I can be happy playing against a fellow with an army (Marines or otherwise) painted in generic colours but claiming a subfaction. What I find jarring is an army clearly modelled and painted as a specific sub-faction but played as another.
Unfair, but there it is. I find, though, that most who have invested into modelling and painting a sub-faction will only play it as that one. Having said that, this only seems to apply to the 40K Marine sub-factions. I would never play my Dark Angels as something else, but my Stormcast Eternals can be any sub-faction even though they are painted as Hammers of Sigmar. Inconsistent, but there it is.
83210
Post by: Vankraken
Anything that attempts to tie paint schemes to rules is a bad thing for the hobby. GW changes their rules way too much and with very little consistency so having to run a certain rule set because you wanted to paint an army as a certain sub faction is idiotic. For example, Deathskullz didn't have a rule set in 7th edition but they went through two different versions of klan rules which way or may not align with how I want to run my Orks. Am I suppose to repaint my entire Ork army if maybe I like to play my Deathskull themed army more like how the rules for Bad Moons fit or maybe GW should go kick rocks with their idiotic rules. Same goes for the fully painted BS, you don't have to play against an unpainted army but core game rules that penalize you for not having a painted army (same goes for giving a benefit for a painted army) are garbage.
Also who cares if people want to be who they are and want to express their little plastic miniatures in such a way. As long as its not promoting hate speech then its not an issue.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
5 pages already? Guess there must be a lively discussion going on about rules vs aesthetics, and the need to stick to the... "Headmates!" "Pride Necrons!" What the gak???  Never before has this been more appropriate.
130394
Post by: EviscerationPlague
By the way, flamboyant Necrons were already done and they're glorious.
119380
Post by: Blndmage
We'd remembered the pink flower crons, they're super cute.
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
I love the riders. They're awesome.
130394
Post by: EviscerationPlague
Bingo. Who's to say Pride colors wouldn't work?
105694
Post by: Lord Damocles
Remember when painting a maybe-totenkopf on a Knight marked you as a fascist?
But they're just toy soldiers! They're not real! It's not political! People can paint their models however they like!
119380
Post by: Blndmage
Lord Damocles wrote:Remember when painting a maybe-totenkopf on a Knight marked you as a fascist?
But they're just toy soldiers! They're not real! It's not political! People can paint their models however they like!
Did you just compare Pride to Nazis?
105694
Post by: Lord Damocles
Blndmage wrote: Lord Damocles wrote:Remember when painting a maybe-totenkopf on a Knight marked you as a fascist?
But they're just toy soldiers! They're not real! It's not political! People can paint their models however they like!
Did you just compare Pride to Nazis?
No. I compared a 'They're not real. It's not political. It doesn't matter how you paint your toys' to 'It doesn't matter that they're not real. It's political. It matters greatly how you paint your toys'.
71547
Post by: Sgt_Smudge
Aecus Decimus wrote: JNAProductions wrote:I'm not allowed to paint something because it rings true to me, or I think it looks cool, or anything like that?
You're allowed to do whatever you want. Whether or not I'll have any interest in playing against your army or think it looks good is an entirely different question.
Amazing - so, like I said, sounds like a you problem. Necrons aren't real. They're a fictional race of alien robot space mummies. Long time ago, when I was first getting into the hobby, I was gonna buy Necrons, paint them gold, give them sunglasses and other silly things, and even have a Tesserect Vault with a disco ball. Is that wrong?
It's wrong in that I think it would look terrible and I'd have very little interest in playing a game with you if that's the army you want to use. Whether or not you care about my opinion is up to you.
Thankfully, in this circumstance, I really don't, especially if you're going to be saying that people "shouldn't" do what they want because it'll annoy you. You are capable of refusing a game and disagreeing with someone's paint scheme without looking down on them for it or implying that they're doing it "wrong" like you have been. Sgt_Smudge wrote:Maybe you should check who you're talking to before attempting to lecture me on this.
Are you a historian with professional expertise in this field? If so I apologize for not recognizing your credentials.
Even better - I'm a queer person with lived first hand experience of my own culture, as well as plenty of knowledge of my own history. Academia can get stuffed here, but thankfully, I've got that too. Sure. They look humanoid, are created by humans, and otherwise show a human-like style of culture, or at the very least, one easily understood by us humans in the 21st century. They use language and pronouns and societal constructs which mirror those seen on our own cultures and histories. Our own cultures and histories feature queer individuals from across all times and places throughout said cultures and histories. I think it's quite likely that there are queer Necrons, and because we are a 21st century audience with our own specific cultural recognitions and icons, any designs and artistic choices are done with consideration to that.
Those aren't canon explanations, they're out of universe recognition of the "aliens are humans with pointy ears" trope and GW's limited writing talent.
So, you're telling me that GW wrote them that way - and therefore, are canon? Sounds like you're the one here who isn't "aligning with the background fiction", and seems more bothered about what *you* want it to be. Until GW come forward and categorically say "NO YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THIS NO WAY AT ALL", I'm gonna keep doing it. You can do what you want with your plastic war dolls, but don't tell me I'm wrong for playing my plastic toys in a different way to yours. Why are Black Templars adorned with images that evoke Crusader Knights? Because that is visual shorthand for a 21st century audience.
Why is Ferrus Manus called Ferrus Manus? Because it is a name with specific connotations and themes for a 21st century audience.
One huge difference here: those characters are part of a culture that is a direct descendant from real-world human culture. Black Templars use crusader iconography because they're human crusaders in service to a theocracy that takes a lot of its aesthetic cues from historical Christian churches. You might as well ask why real-world churches still use the cross iconography instead of inventing something new.
My person, the Imperium is several MILLENIA distant from modern day Earth, spread out across countless planets and cultures, and has undergone *several* near complete fracturings on a civilizational scale. Why on earth (pun intended) would aesthetic cues from one particular point in time in one particular culture from one particular planet still endure and their meaning be so iconic and fundamental to the Black Templars that they are even recognisable to us in the 21st century? You're talking about " GW's limited writing talent", but then also claiming that a specific icon would still hold the same meaning, significance, and dominance over several dozen millenia and countless star systems - suspension of disbelief much. (Also, "direct descendant"? I don't think so - humanity was fractured and riven in civil wars and secession crises that many times, I think the only thing you can claim is the same is that they're human. In nearly every other way, humanity shouldn't even be close to be considered a "direct descendant") Alternatively, we can accept the more logical solution - that GW designed the Templars to look that way to appeal to the aesthetic familiarity and symbols that we, a 21st century audience, are familiar with, as with everything in 40k. 40k is a product of modern humans, for modern humans, and therefore uses design language and icons that mean things to modern humans. They're not *real*. Right now, my signature on this site is self-expression. Is me saying how I wish to be recognised a political statement to you?
No, because your signature has a practical function: stating the pronouns required to have a conversation involving you. That is not at all equivalent to using a political symbol in a context where expressing that identity is not in any way relevant to the activity.
But in order to have a conversation with me, I am engaging in self-expression. Self-expression isn't political, and the activity of painting models is art, the ultimate canvas of self-expression. I think it's *very* relevant to the activity at hand. Only if you believe that models aren't a canvas for artistic expression, and *shouldn't* be used for that would it not be relevant. Do you think that our little plastic models shouldn't exist for artistic expression? Vankraken wrote:Also who cares if people want to be who they are and want to express their little plastic miniatures in such a way. As long as its not promoting hate speech then its not an issue.
Literally the only correct answer on this matter - they're plastic toys. Who cares what you do, as long as you're not being hateful. Lord Damocles wrote:Remember when painting a maybe-totenkopf on a Knight marked you as a fascist?
But they're just toy soldiers! They're not real! It's not political! People can paint their models however they like!
Oh, so you're being intentionally obtuse then! Here's a quick explanation, in case you need a refresher: You can choose to paint your models how you like - they are plastic toys. Painting what you like on your models is not, by default, political, and is not a problem. If you choose to paint fascist hate symbols on your plastic toys, you're likely fascist-leaning, and definitely an utter tool, and that's definitely going to be a problem. My god, it's like saying "wow, I'm not allowed to feed guests any more these days" when all you're offering is rotten meat. If you paint a political symbol on your models, then *yeah*, you're being political. However, a self-expressing motif which isn't a hate symbol is not political. It's why someone could put a wing motif on their models if they had a particular fascination or interest in birds, or how someone who really likes the colour blue could use it as an accent colour, because it is significant to them, and a wing motif and the colour blue aren't hate symbols. Are we done with this false equivalence? Or are you going to compare hate symbols and queer flags? Because I can assure you, that won't go down very well.
115
Post by: Azazelx
TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I don't really care if someone paints what they want. When I was talking about participation, it was about playing. You kept questioning my want to refuse games because of paint schemes I'd dislike. I figure it's just a miscommunication issue, though.
If I might ask - the aesthetics of the scheme used by your opponent to paint their models seems an odd reason to avoid playing against them - I know some people are very regimented on the whole "I won't play against unpainted armies" thing, but assuming the person's models are actually painted wouldn't how personable the individual is be more important?
|
|
