Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Quick shoutout to Nick - he can actually paint with some skill. He does rush modesl frequently and used to be an extremely busy student/busy guy in general. Even when we were teenagers/early 20s he had a nicely painted Daemon Army / Tyranids that he put some effort into. His Tyranids were quite goofy - but fully painted.

However if the painting standards are not heavily enforced- no point in hotel stress painting models right before the event. They players knew it would be okay so just played with what they had.


I 100% agree with the ITC standards. I also have painted 50-60 armies as a painter for a studio/self for awhile so it's seems to be an easy task for me

 Byte wrote:
Players don't even bring their army lists and rules as required and nothing happens. If they actually enforce this as written it will be interesting at a minimum.

Is this happening at this sort of event? If you can't be... bothered to bring your rules and/or army list to an event, you really should be getting kicked out (or being made to buy new copies on the day)- and I don't care how much you've spent to travel to the event, or to stay locally.

 Byte wrote:
Players don't even bring their army lists and rules as required and nothing happens. If they actually enforce this as written it will be interesting at a minimum.

Got a specific example? Did it happen to you? I don't ask merely for the sake of conversation, but to see that the LVO judges get that feedback. It's important to them. And in case you didn't know, I play at the store they do and I've known them for years, SaltyJohn, Ruiz & Solis.

 Dysartes wrote:
Is this happening at this sort of event? If you can't be... bothered to bring your rules and/or army list to an event, you really should be getting kicked out (or being made to buy new copies on the day)- and I don't care how much you've spent to travel to the event, or to stay locally.

With lists uploaded on BCP, bringing a papered list is no longer required (I'm 99.9% sure). Though, many still do.

Rules? Oh, yes, you are required. I believe somewhere in the pile (looks through the guidelines) ... ah, here, from the ITC player conduct:
"A player must bring an official copy, digital or printed, of all requisite rules for his/her army. If a player cannot show a digital or printed confirmation of a rule, then he/she is considered wrong in any rules disputes involving a judge by default. 3rd party list building applications, or unofficial printouts of rules, are not considered official sources of information."

Dysartes, you can peruse:

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/frontline-gamings-independent-tournament-circuit/itc-2015-season-40k-tournament-format/

Even for players who aren't in ITC events, nor planning to come to the FLG big GTs, there are reasonably good guidelines one can follow and adopt into your local scene.

Guys not having lists for opponents and applicable rules has been clearly captured on video by players at the highest level over a long period of time. This is known Khalessi.

Again, this change is cute and all and I hope it is enforced. But the issues are far more fundamental.

Let's put rule to tournaments no rule with you to show you can't use rule. No stratagnm to use. Or if entire model's rule is missing no model for the game. Let's see who dares to not bring codex if it means you have no army to play with

I’m confused. If I ran 2 battalions from my stock of models, all painted uniformly, are they saying I need a way to distinguish the battalions even if they are all from the same army (eg, Salamanders)?

How does this apply to my Drukhari? I have 3 patrol detachments for example, Kabal, Wyches and Haemonculous. All are uniquely different models but painted uniformly in the same colours. All have their own Kabul, Cult and Coven. Are they saying I need to distinguish them further?

Shoulder pads?

Sumilidon wrote:
I’m confused. If I ran 2 battalions from my stock of models, all painted uniformly, are they saying I need a way to distinguish the battalions even if they are all from the same army (eg, Salamanders)?

No. If they are all Salamanders then they all need to be painted consistently. But if one battalion is Iron Hands and the second is White Scars, the models need to be painted differently so that your opponent can tell they are different.

How does this apply to my Drukhari? I have 3 patrol detachments for example, Kabal, Wyches and Haemonculous. All are uniquely different models but painted uniformly in the same colours. All have their own Kabul, Cult and Coven. Are they saying I need to distinguish them further?

A good question. I expect they would want some minor difference between the three so that again, your opponent can clearly tell if something is Kabul, Cult or Coven. Not super importantly for models that must be one of the three, but very relevant for those that can be any of the three (like Dedicated Transports).

This would not be an issue at all if more judges simply enforced the current ITC rules. Too often I've seen grey plastic at a tournament because "I just didn't have the time to paint it" and the judge allowed it. Too often I've asked my opponent to show me that rule and they can't because all they have is Battlescribe. And the judge allowed it.

Instead of some kind of public shamming feedback here, or Reddit, or some other online forum, I wish ITC had an online feedback system where you could score the tournament, lodge a complaint against a judge, or have a player's score adjusted when they break the ITC rules requirements. There is no training, no packet, no qualifications to be an ITC Judge and that needs to change. Judges need to be vetted, trained, and removed or replaced when they fall short in their duties.

I think the painting incident was the reverse case.

 Tamwulf wrote:
This would not be an issue at all if more judges simply enforced the current ITC rules. Too often I've seen grey plastic at a tournament because "I just didn't have the time to paint it" and the judge allowed it. Too often I've asked my opponent to show me that rule and they can't because all they have is Battlescribe. And the judge allowed it.

Instead of some kind of public shamming feedback here, or Reddit, or some other online forum, I wish ITC had an online feedback system where you could score the tournament, lodge a complaint against a judge, or have a player's score adjusted when they break the ITC rules requirements. There is no training, no packet, no qualifications to be an ITC Judge and that needs to change. Judges need to be vetted, trained, and removed or replaced when they fall short in their duties.

to me basically this, at least the first part, if you have rules enforce them, otherwise don't bother

leopard wrote:
to me basically this, at least the first part, if you have rules enforce them, otherwise don't bother

Enforcement of rules consistently yet fairly is the hardest thing for professional adjudicators to do, much less part time TOs.

Saying "Enforce the rules" is basically saying "git gud." It really ignores how difficult the thing you are asking is.

So I am not a 3 color minimum painter. I enjoy the painting part of the hobby but at the same time I am not about to repaint all my GSC because I move units from cult to cult when I tune my lists. That being said I think I already meet this new requirement "in spirt" at least. All my bases have black rims, because I may have up to three of the same unit I like to mark the black rims with colored dots for each different unit. This allows me to repaint the rims any time I want to change the unit without having to repaint parts of the models or change the flocked bases. I feel that maybe adding a colored square to the rim of the bases for the detachment may meet this new requirement. What do you think?

Did some tidying, please refrain from the political off-topic BS folks, it doesn't belong here.

Icon720 wrote:
So I am not a 3 color minimum painter. I enjoy the painting part of the hobby but at the same time I am not about to repaint all my GSC because I move units from cult to cult when I tune my lists. That being said I think I already meet this new requirement "in spirt" at least. All my bases have black rims, because I may have up to three of the same unit I like to mark the black rims with colored dots for each different unit. This allows me to repaint the rims any time I want to change the unit without having to repaint parts of the models or change the flocked bases. I feel that maybe adding a colored square to the rim of the bases for the detachment may meet this new requirement. What do you think?

I believe the intent of the rule is so that the units are clearly distinguishable from across the table at a glance. If the method you use to mark the bases follows that intent, I'm certain you'd be okay. However, as always, consult your TO and eliminate all doubt.

 Polonius wrote:

leopard wrote:
to me basically this, at least the first part, if you have rules enforce them, otherwise don't bother

Enforcement of rules consistently yet fairly is the hardest thing for professional adjudicators to do, much less part time TOs.

Saying "Enforce the rules" is basically saying "git gud." It really ignores how difficult the thing you are asking is.

Thing is, the two examples given by the poster leopard was quoting should be the simplest in the world - an unpainted army obviously fails to meet the minimum painting criteria (if the event has them), and a player who can't produce a unit's rules if asked is breaching the rule requiring them to have the rules with them. These shouldn't be cases where a judgement call is required, like a rules call or a measurement, or a he said/she said over something that's happened - those I can absolutely buy as being difficult to enforce "consistently yet fairly".

If the rules packet says you are expected to do A and bring B in order to participate in an event, and you fail to do A or bring B, you shouldn't expect to participate. In the case of rules, if there is a vendor at the event selling the appropriate book, then you might be able to escape being excluded from the event by buying the damned thing, as then you'll satisfy that requirement.

If these areas aren't being enforced, then it undercuts the faith in the judge system for when complex issues come up.

For Iron Hands all you need to do is play the IRN BRU chapter, who canonically cosplay as Ultramarines, all you lose is OP IronFather

In case you missed it elsewhere...
Las Vegas Open Attendees: It is looking like a LOT of you are bringing Chaplain Venerable Dreadnoughts. So here are a few things to be aware of. 1. Those models aren't widely available and while we received a lot of conversion approval requests for them, we did not receive them in the numbers we are seeing in the lists. So, if you didn't get one approved and you don't have the actual model you need to make sure what you're playing is a conversion, a counts as will be removed and a yellow card issued. 2. Chaplain Dreadnoughts got a lot better via the FAQ, however, they did not gain the <Chaplain> keyword. The deadline for getting your conversions approved has passed, the Google Form is closed and none of us will be approving them, it is up to you now. We will be keeping an eye out for these at LVO 2020.

Is there a reason for Chaplain Venerable Dreadnoughts to suddenly be so popular in ITChammer?

 Dysartes wrote:
Is there a reason for Chaplain Venerable Dreadnoughts to suddenly be so popular in ITChammer?

Because it's Character that can be screened by mooks (because that makes sense, right? The blingy angry dreadnought can't be shot at because Scouts are in front of it but the blingy dreadnought next to it can), gained Litanies and is actually an effective unit rather than overpriced Re-roll 1 babysitter captains, do-nothing Techmarines or nerfed to the ground Smash-Captains. It has a +1S aura and both a 5++ and 6+++ without needing to be Iron Hands.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
For Iron Hands all you need to do is play the IRN BRU chapter, who canonically cosplay as Ultramarines, all you lose is OP IronFather

Again, no one are 'official' colors discussed in this rule.
The LVO has no problem with blue Iron Hands. The problem is with 2 Blue units, 3 Red units and 6 Pink units all in the same army as Iron Hands.

Armies don't need to be 'official'. They need to be coherent.

Can we see some examples of rejected Chaplain Dreads? From anyone with knowledge

 Byte wrote:
Can we see some examples of rejected Chaplain Dreads? From anyone with knowledge

I don't think many have been rejected. It's more an issue that they have to be pre-approved and many people haven't bothered to do so, leading to them being rejected at the event.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Byte wrote:
Can we see some examples of rejected Chaplain Dreads? From anyone with knowledge

I don't think many have been rejected. It's more an issue that they have to be pre-approved and many people haven't bothered to do so, leading to them being rejected at the event.

Ah gotcha. My brain tricked me. Reading comprehension is a thing

I for one look forward to 40k tournaments to start looking better than Warmahordes at top tables.

It would be nice, but I wouldn't hold my breath in anticipation for the day.

Whilst I applaud having painting standards the rule in the OP doesn't seem particularly well though out. There are numerous reasons why a person might want to paint some models in their army differently. Both DA and BA canonically of course do this, but people might want to apply similar approach to other chapters, custom chapters specifically. For example, I've seen many people painting their Phobos armour marines in black, or grey or even in some sort of camo colours whilst their main colour scheme is more bright. Some people might want to paint their veterans or sergeants differently. Or even play as Greyshields which canonically combined different liveries.

Now, one can say, that this sort of thing is of course allowed (and it should!) but at this point the rule really doesn't do anything anymore, as it really devolves adjudicating whether people's made up fluff is good enough to justify their painting choices. Is that really something that the judges in a tournament should be deliberating?

Just have a rule that the models need to be painted at tabletop standard and enforce that.

 Crimson wrote:
Whilst I applaud having painting standards the rule in the OP doesn't seem particularly well though out. There are numerous reasons why a person might want to paint some models in their army differently. Both DA and BA canonically of course do this, but people might want to apply similar approach to other chapters, custom chapters specifically. For example, I've seen many people painting their Phobos armour marines in black, or grey or even in some sort of camo colours whilst their main colour scheme is more bright. Some people might want to paint their veterans or sergeants differently. Or even play as Greyshields which canonically combined different liveries.

But in all those cases, even models that are painted differently would still have similarities that tie them together - the greyshields would all have a grey pauldron (and if they're painted together, should have similar styles of paint, if they were done by the same painter). There would/should still be similar spot colours/Chapter colours/chapter sigils in Space Marine Chapters that have otherwise divergent colours (Deathwing, Ravenwing, and Greenwing are all noticeably Dark Angels, because of iconography, similar spot colours, and suchlike).
And, probably the biggest factor - basing. It's not hard to expect a uniformly based army, is it?

Basically, while I agree that there's cases of different colour schemes within an army, I don't think it would be hard to spot where one example is "this is a feature of my army's design" and another is "yeah, these are just the models I could rustle up so that I can make this list".

I think examples of "but what about adhoc regiments of Guardsmen, they might have different colour schemes!" should just be represented by different detachments - obviously that means I'm against the recommendation of a limit of detachments.

Now, one can say, that this sort of thing is of course allowed (and it should!) but at this point the rule really doesn't do anything anymore, as it really devolves adjudicating whether people's made up fluff is good enough to justify their painting choices. Is that really something that the judges in a tournament should be deliberating?

I think so - it's their tournament, and if it's not obvious enough that your stylistic choices are just that, and not picking out from a random collection (and, as I've said, I don't think it's hard to identify what's intentional and accidental, IMO), then that should have been made clearer.

Same as they can judge what is and isn't an acceptable conversion, I think it's just part and parcel of entering a tournament. If enough people find that the restrictions of that tournament are too much, they could just go to another, or run their own, and attract similarly minded people?

Just have a rule that the models need to be painted at tabletop standard and enforce that.

More than happy with that too.

The words "It looks like you bought those models to cobble your army together" is meritless complaining.

What has merit is the ability for the other player to look at your army and actually being able to tell who belongs to which unit without having to remember some arcane or baroque painting scheme.

I've got a twenty five year old Chaos Daemons collection, to the point where if I wanted I could put down models and say "Those first edition daemonettes are each in their own units, those 2nd generation daemonettes are their own units, those 3rd (Diaz) daemonettes are their own unit, and lastly those plastic daemonettes are their own unit." (Plague bearers and horrors are harder to tell apart, personally. There are probably people it'd be easy for.). But that's not really fair to the other player because the game isn't "Memorize twenty five years of sculpts to pick out visual cues."

If a person has properly marked their bases, the other player should be able to tell the units apart. Then it doesn't matter whether you're mixing twenty five year old soft pewter figures and plastic figures (because that unit needs an instrument and a standard bearer).

Save the arguing about artistic merit or cohesiveness for the painting competition.

 solkan wrote:
Save the arguing about artistic merit or cohesiveness for the painting competition.

Is it wrong to expect a degree of presentation in a primarily visual hobby?